Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Hiwiki community disruption by a non local administrator

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
2402:3A80:46D3:F800:8ADD:15FA:89A5:9DC2 15:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Svartava (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 2402:3A80:46D3:F800:8ADD:15FA:89A5:9DC2 15:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2402:3A80:46D3:F800:8ADD:15FA:89A5:9DC2

Description of the problem - (2402:3A80:46D3:F800:8ADD:15FA:89A5:9DC2)

Svartava (talk · contribs) is not a local sysops on hindi wikipedia, but he has been removing article and user namespace pages en masse from hi.wiki without warning or engaging in conversation with the page authors, since a month from now. This may make the users feel insulted, due to which they become prone to stop editing wikipedia further. It is notable that the active user count of hi.wiki has decreased significantly during the last few months to a current number of 566 with most of them having less than 10 edits in the last 30 days. His actions are proving to be detrimental to community building on hi.wiki.

I couldn't report on the local (hindi) wiki as my current IP address has been blocked by none other than Svartava himself citing sockpuppetry.

Update (03-06-2025)

In page deletion policy, section सहायक कड़ियाँ, it is mentioned that:

शीघ्र हटाना
पृष्ठ हटाने की नीति • {{शीह-मूल}} • {{शीह सूचना-मूल}}

meaning

Speedy deletion
Page deletion policy  • {{ Shia-original }}  • {{ Shia information-original }}

^[a]

In hi:template:शीह-मूल^[b], it is mentioned that:

कृपया पृष्ठ निर्माता के वार्ता पृष्ठ पर यथा-उपयुक्त निम्न साँचा लगा दें :-
{{subst:शीह सूचना|साँचा:शीह-मूल}}~~~~

meaning

Please place the following template on the page creator's talk page, as appropriate:-
{{subst:शीह सूचना|साँचा:शीह-मूल}}~~~~

But he didn't follow this procedure in his actions thereby giving rise to policy violation too.

Notes

↑ This text on deletion policy page of hi.wiki is visible in the browser, but not in the android app.
↑ Svartava weakened the wording of this policy template without any discussion/consensus in the community, probably to make it appear suiting his actions after the issue was flagged to him. This might be categorised as Vandalism.

Previous attempts at a solution - (2402:3A80:46D3:F800:8ADD:15FA:89A5:9DC2)

I(Riteze (talk · contribs)) tried to talk to him through his talk page, but he didn't reply to it and the section (named Please don't delete pages without informing/warning the page creators) was then removed from his talk page by another user.

After he continued with the same actions, I talked to him about this through my meta wiki talk page (as I didn't have write access on hi.wiki), but SHB2000 (talk · contribs) suddenly took away my editing privilege of my talk page (of his own will without any complaint or request from any user). However Svartava continued with his actions unrestrictively on hi.wiki.

Svartava

(See hi:Special:Log/delete/Svartava for pages I have deleted.)

Firstly I would like to mention for the record, that this matter regarding "notifying page creator on page deletion" has been brought up multiple times by Riteze on hiwiki and after they got blocked there - on metawiki. They continued spamming users about this and got blocked on both projects but then kept spamming users through their talk page which led to removal of talk page access.

Now to address the accusation. I don't believe it is a policy to compulsorily notify a page creator on deleting a page. This is sometimes adviced to do so when appropriate - I agree that when deleting a content page, notifying the creator and informing them about the reason as well as what to avoid in the future is good practice. I wouldn't say the same for one-off test, spam, nonsense, etc. pages. Notifying the creator in those cases is often meaningless and time-wasting.

The vast majority of pages I deleted were userspace pages which I considered as spam or NOTWEBHOST violations - the reason for each was included in the deletion summary. A local admin also expressed that he agreed with my deletions at hi:सदस्य वार्ता:संजीव कुमार#शीह नामांकन संबंधित प्रश्न.

Additionary, a large number of them were in fact quite old user pages - mostly single instances of an user comming only to create a self-promotional/webhost-like page or spam page. As such there is very little point to send a message about this to their talk page.

Previous attempts at a solution - Svartava

Discussion with them about this and related matters (by me as well as others) at their talk pages on Meta (User talk:Riteze) and hiwiki (hi:सदस्य_वार्ता:Riteze). Despite this, it appears that they never made any attempt to realize their own flaws or mistakes or to understand the other perspective.

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 (EDITOR NAME)

Other feedback (Hide on Rosé)

Let's take a look at Riteze, who opened this case. Riteze was first blocked for a month for अर्थहीन संपादन करना (Making meaningless edits). The behavior that led to the block was tagging pages en masse with CSD, merge and other maintenance tags "like-a-bot", as seen here and here. On 19 April 2025, they got indef blocked by SM7 for वि:NOTHERE - विघटनकारी संपादन, दूसरों के इनपुट की उपेक्षा करना एवं दूसरे सदस्यों को परेशान करना। (WP:NOTHERE – Disruptive editing, ignoring others’ input, and harassing other members), as a result of mass spamming other user talk pages with CSD notification, even the target is a (b)locked user. After being blocked, they requested unblock for following reason: ना किसी को परेशान किया है, न कोई विघटनकारी संपादन किया है। जिन संदेशों के आधार पर अवरोधित किया गया है, एक बार उन संदेशों को कृपया पढ़ लीजिए, वे ज्ञानकोष की अभिवृद्धि के लिए ही थे।। (I have neither disturbed anyone nor made any disruptive edits. Please read the messages on which the block was based once again; they were solely intended for the enrichment of the encyclopedia) and got declined by संजीव कुमार for विभिन्न प्रबन्धकों द्वारा समझाने के बाद भी सदस्य द्वारा गलती को स्वीकार भी नहीं करना। (Despite being advised by multiple administrators, the user has not acknowledged any mistakes). On 22 April 2025 they requested second unblock and got declined again by the same administrator. After couple of unblock requests got declined, they used their talk page to complain about every admin actions, from 6404852 to 6405325. As a result, they got their talk page access removed, and after that, they went to Meta and repated the same action from 23 April to 1 May, when they are first blocked on Meta. See some example at: User talk:संजीव कुमार, User talk:SM7, User talk:Svartava. After being blocked for a week on Meta, the same actions were done on their talk page from 28660191 to 28678376 despite all advice. They got indeffed and their Meta TPA removed on 8 May. But no, it didn’t stop there; similar actions took place on w:en:User talk:Riteze § User SHB2000 as well.

To be honest, this user has caused significant disruption to the community, resulting in a considerable waste of time for both themselves and other contributors. Furthermore, their actions can be interpreted as an attempt to evade active blocks. I trust that the U4C will reach a fair and appropriate resolution in this case. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 05:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

(As an involved party, I'll write my reply to the newest additions here so that discussion can be better facilitated and newer additions are more clearly visible. If writing here is undesirable, please feel free to move this wherever appropriate.)

Firstly, for clarification, you (Riteze) are citing the text written on the CSD (शीह) nomination template of hiwiki (rather than a "policy"). Before my edit to it, it said:

Please place the following template on the page creator's talk page:-
{{subst:शीह सूचना|साँचा:शीह-मूल}}~~~~

which I had modified to

Please place the following template on the page creator's talk page, as appropriate:-
{{subst:शीह सूचना|साँचा:शीह-मूल}}~~~~

I think this was just a clarificatory and uncontroversial change based on current practices of the community - I don't think you can argue that apart from this change of mine hiwiki has a hard-line "notify creator on speedy deletion" policy. I am quite sure that this doesn't go against the local community consensus, or that anyone would have objection to "as appropriate" - and I viewed it as a minor change which didn't require prior discussion. A quick look at the deletion log can tell you that "notifying creator on speedy deleiton" is not blanketly followed every time - for example, it is avoided when it makes sense to avoid it; and on hiwiki, IPs are usually not given notifications / warnings so I don't see that being commonly followed when the creator is an IP as well.

Additionally what Riteze has been doing in this case and on other discussions I have seen them in - they seem to be doing classic wikilawyering. They are accusing others of "vandalism" and "policy violation" based on their literal and binding interpretation of things - rather than analysing and understanding the motive behind them. They seem completely uninterested in being cooperative or understanding the other person's intent and reasoning behind the actions. – Svārtava (t ɕ) 20:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

There is no obligation to notify users of the speedy deletion of pages in their user namespace that fulfill the criteria of speedy deletion (see Hiwiki page deletion policy). --Ghilt (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Stewards are the high-level decision making body who oversee Global Sysops. The difference here and our recent case involving Global Sysops, is that the wiki in question was not a global sysop one. There's probably some version of Global Sysop abuse that would be in U4C scope but this isn't it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any abuse by User:Svartava. --Civvì (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see UCoC violations here. dbeef (talk) 16:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see neither abuse by Svartava nor a violation of the UCoC here. Luke 081515 20:45, 6 June 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, --Ghilt (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the case can't be accepted by five U4C-members, closing the case as declined. On behalf of the U4C, Luke 081515 20:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This text on deletion policy page of hi.wiki is visible in the browser, but not in the android app.

[2] Svartava weakened the wording of this policy template without any discussion/consensus in the community, probably to make it appear suiting his actions after the issue was flagged to him. This might be categorised as Vandalism.

[a]

[b]