Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/User conduct and block review where Commons admins are too involved

This case is currently pending acceptance. The U4C will decide whether the case is accepted in 2 weeks since the case has been opened.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
GPSLeo (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Adamant1 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]
Multiple Commons admins	[2] [3]

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 GPSLeo (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPSLeo

Description of the problem - (GPSLeo)

There where many disputes and complaints on the conduct of User:Adamant1. See the long list of reports on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. Because of this long list of discussions and complaints on decisions many admins on Commons are involved parties in this case and can not make block decisions. See especially the most recent discussion [4].

I added "multiple Commons admins" as an party as it is not really possible to make a complete list of all involved users.

I see huge problems with moderation on Commons in general. We do not have enough active admins for complex cases (like this one) they have to be handled along with the massive amount spam, vandalism and copyright violations.

Previous attempts at a solution - (GPSLeo)

See problem description. Multiple admins (including me) suggested an infinite block of Adamant1 would be justified but can not decide as being involved.

Adamant1

I was given a final warning by @GreenMeansGo: which I plan to abide by once the week block is over. They weren't involved in the issue and I've barely dealt with them outside of it. So I don't really see what the problem is here or why the U4C needs to be involved. You guys should investigate the administrator @Yann: for involved editing but that's a separate issue and apparently there's a bunch of hoops that have to be jumped through on Commons to for administrators to be reported here. Even though apparently the bar is essentially non-exiting for users to be. Regardless, this is a non-issue since a non-involved administrator already dealt with it.

BTW, GPSLeo claims that multiple administrators suggested an infinite block. I don't really see that from the ANU discussion. Two admins said an indef wasn't necessary. Two administrators suggested it but the admin who made the final judgement, @GreenMeansGo:, just gave me a final warning. There was no consensus for an indef though.

As a side note, a good percentage of the blocks and warnings that I've received on Commons were given to be by Yann as part of disputes that he was involved in at the time. I reported him for it several times but was just mocked and/or blocked every time. Anyway, I really doubt I'd be facing a final warning at this point if the admins on Commons took involved editing (or blocking people for that matter) seriously.

--Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have made the comment but just for context it was in response to Prototyperspective repeatedly and falsely accusing me of harassment across multiple projects. I actually reported him to ANU a few weeks before that for similar behavior but was topic banned. That whole back and forth wouldn't have happened if the report was dealt with instead of people (really just Dronebogus) retaliating against me though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC) moved from a reply to thiscomment[reply]

Just a note in regards to @Yann:'s comment, but I've asked him several times over the years to stop messaging me on my talk page due to him targeting me and applying punitive blocks or warnings as part of involved editing on his part. The discussion on his talk page was in relation to that. It didn't have to do with Abzeronow per se and I told Yann that. Its my prerogative if I want to discuss an on going issue with another user on their talk page. Also, I reverted his edit where he removed one of my comments, which Alachuckthebuck said he shouldn't have done.

It's not edit waring for me to restore my own comment or do to it in a single edit. Know one, including the admin who reapplied the week block, thought I was harassing or threating @Yann: except for Chris.sherlock2. But the administrator who reapplied the block removed "harassment and intimidation" from the block reason because it was wrong. Although I would think Yann repeatedly targeting me and misusing the admin tools to sanction or threaten me as part of involved actions on his part would qualify. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Josve05a: There wasn't a consensus to block me in the ANU complaint and I'm not even sure what the reason for it would have been since GreenMeansGo gave me the final warning. Unless administrators can just overrule each other for no reason. A large part of the problem with administrators on Commons is that they will block someone when there's no consensus for it or the issue has already been resolved by another admin. Either that or the reverse happens and they don't block someone even though everyone wants them to be blocked. The whole thing is really lose-lose. There's absolutely no consistency what-so-ever with how they do things and know one benefits from it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I have to point out that @Yann:'s the only administrator on Commons that I've ever really gotten in any meaningful conflict with. There's really only two or three admins that I ever talk to or otherwise interact with besides him. Really just Jmabel. I don't think I've ever had a conversation with @GPSLeo: about anything. I've only interacted with @Josve05a: once in my life a few weeks go. So the idea that know administrator wants to act because they are all involved with me somehow is totally false. Probably know one wants to act on ANU complaints because users (Yann included) file a bunch of false ANU reports that aren't worth blocking me over. No administrator on Commons outside of Yann blocks people based on false reports and/or when there's zero consensus for it. Nor should they. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Adamant1

As I stated, I've been issued a final warning by a non-involved administrator. That was the solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Username)

Description of the problem - (Username)

Previous attempts at a solution (Username)

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 (1989)

I don’t think it’s accurate to state that majority of active admins are “involved” and can’t take action. It’s more of the fact that they do not feel comfortable enough to make that decision, given two other editors this year were blocked indefinitely for similar reasons to Adamant1 then had their blocks overturned. Also, the “Multiple Commons admins” party should either be removed or be changed to Yann (talk · contribs) given he has blocked Adamant1 multiple times and his most recent block fits the description of an involved action. I agree with Barkeep49 that the two cases regarding Commons are too different and should not be merged. 1989 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Consigned)

Adamant1's appearances in COM:AN/U show that the community spends a lot of time dealing with them. Clicking into a random one from August 2023, Adamant1's reply starts with I probably could have been a little less heavy handed with the last reply, nearly identical to the beginning of their reply in the most recent AN/U: I said on my talk page that I could have been a little nicer about it. Adamant1 has long acted outside the community's expectations of civility. Commons doesn't seem to be able to handle long-term civility problems very well, possibly due to the issues in the other Commons case, that the active admin corps is relatively small, not cohesive, and has trouble arriving at consensus to deal with tough problems (to 1989's point above). On ENWP a random admin would apply a firm warning or escalating block, but for whatever reason that structure or culture doesn't exist or isn't effective in Commons. I agree that the two cases should not be merged - to be a little glib, in the other one Commons needs an ArbCom, in this one it just needs an ANI. Consigned (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (The Squirrel Conspiracy)

I remember seeing this problem on English Wikipedia a decade ago. It’s a tough nut to crack.

The way I see the situation is as follows:

Adamant1 does a huge amount of good work, and has done so for a long time
Adamant1 consistently gets into spats with other users, demonstrates an inability to disengage, and shows a lack of self-awareness as to how their comments escalate ongoing conflicts
Nothing Adamant1 has done has been “beyond the pale” – everything I’ve seen is what I’d call middle-school level insults. Not vicious, just petulant.
Point 1 makes admins reluctant to block Adamant1 for points 2 and 3.
People that don’t like Adamant1 come out of the woodworks whenever Adamant1’s conduct is brought up, to air all their previous grievances, which (especially when combined with point 2) means that discussions about Adamant1’s conducts quickly spiral out of control, and become gigantic, exasperating messes.
Because there’s no consensus among admins on how to handle Adamant1, and because so few admins are willing to get involved (put aside activity – there are highly active admins that aren’t interested in these kinds of discussions, and I don’t blame them at all), when blocks are placed, they get overturned, which then makes admins even less interested in getting involved.

I was involved in the most recent Adamant1 conversation, coming to their defense, until they started sniping at other folks in their replies and I just threw up my hands and bailed. I don't want to see him banned, but I don't see any value in putting my neck out to defend him, and I have enough other sources of stress in my life that staying in that discussion seemed like a poor use of my available bandwidth.

All that said, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the UCoC-CC as a concept to begin with, and I certainly don't want them becoming a pseudo-ArbCom for Commons. This is an issue that Commons needs to figure out themselves, as English Wikipedia eventually did (with those repeat offenders eventually wearing out their welcome, IIRC). I urge the committee to reject this case.

@Yann: I feel the need to push back on I think that Adamant1 gets purposely into disagreement with everybody, so that nobody feels sufficiently uninvolved to block him. That would imply tactical, malicious behavior. I don't see that here. I just see someone that frequently takes disputes too personally / too far and can't disengage. Also, I don't think it would even work if it were a deliberate strategy. The reason Adamant1 hasn't been blocked isn't a lack of uninvolved admins, it's that a lot of uninvolved admins feel that their contributions still outweigh the aggravation they cause. Though if Josve05a's comment in this page is any indication, that might be shifting. I, at least, am done defending Adamant1, even though I appreciate their work more than most because of how often I see it when closing DRs. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Alachucktheubuck)

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] The most recent Diffs and log entries that are relevant. Yann and adamant1 have a history of not getting along, And I'm unclear as to why GPSleo didn't add Yann as a individual party, as there are several admin conduct issues related to his talk page. diff from april (started by Yann),

I'm not saying adamant1 is blameless here, here's a list of every ANU thread that's been filed in the last year or so:

[11] (started by Jeff G)
[12] started by Dronebogus
[13] started by Trougnouf
[14] started by an IP.

Some additional context Commons doesn't use Interaction Bans (or IBans) as a possible sanction for local dispute resolution, the only active IBan on commons is between NoonIcarus and WMrapids as a result of this discussion here, but this is based on a Enwiki ArbCom sanction from this ArbCom case. Neither user is blameless, but if adamant1 is a party, Yann should be too.

Regarding comments about Commons ArbCom: Commons has a very small community compared to the amount of content, and the amount of people who do drive-by uploads, and don't help with the actual management of the project. furthermore, Commons is facing a shortage of Admins and License reviewers to help clear critical backlogs (we have over 100 thousand files from flickr alone that need to be manually reviewed) and help manage various processes. This has 2 major effects: a decreased appitite for policy discussions, as anything that makes a process take longer will have massive consequences due to the sheer scale of commons, and a large amount of admin discretion and limited oversight of admin actions. To illustrate this point, It took someone from the Vietnamese wikipedia making a report on commons for us to know about a vandal who had caused 5000 files to be falsely deleted as "no permission", when they were actually freely licensed. Another major issue with a possible Arbcom is the lack of qualified users who could get consensus to be on the committee, as they would need to be admins, and meet the requirements to see functionary data due to the amount of technical/nonpublic data that gets involved with these issues. I don't want the U4C to be the commons ArbCom, but it's clear that the community can't handle this issue, and we don't have the community size of enwiki, so we're running out of admins who are active on ANU who can handle this situation.

I'm also interested on the committee's thoughts on if INVOLVED actions are UCOC violations, and if it's in their scope to say that involved actions are against the UCOC. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 01:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re @Chris.sherlock2, this is about Commons, not Wikipedia, I don't see the relevance of your complaints about the ArbCom of the oldest and largest project, with more admins than Commons has active users. I can understand your frustration about BHG, but pinning that on just one person is... disingenuous at best. I urge the Committee to look at the actual issue at hand: why is commons unable to handle these issues, and go from there, rather than debating if a Commons Arb Com should/should not exist. I'm happy to have that conversation, but after this gets resolved, and possibly as a part of the other commons U4C case that's currently on hold. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 15:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris.sherlock2, I do plan on responding to that, but I'm already over the word limit.

I'm requesting a formal extension to my word limit to 1000 words to answer questions, as I'm already over the word limit. All the best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback Trade

Told another user to "cry harder" in an deletion request for an AI-generated image [15]. AI in general seems to be a general source of conflict on Commons as of lately — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trade (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the core the issue is simply there are way too few active participants on Commons relative to the huge size of the project. This makes it difficult to block long-term experienced users as they might be hard to replace Trade (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Moved from U4C member section in reply to this comment[reply]

moved from reply to this comment by Consigned You just stated that the "active admin corps is relatively small, not cohesive, and has trouble arriving at consensus to deal with tough problems" Do you really think having an ArbCom on Commons would be suitable given the before-mentioned circumstances?

Also when you say that "has trouble arriving at consensus to deal with tough problems" do you mean dealing with user civilty problems specifically? Or just tough problems in general? Trade (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Chris.sherlock2)

I would like to point out a number of things:

First, Adamant1 was posting to Yann's wall and at one point seemed to give an ultimatum that, frankly, seemed someone intimidatory. Yann was being harassed, there can be no doubt. Yann's mistake was blocking Adamant1. When others pointed out this was problematic, Yann reversed his block. So although the block was unwise, Yann absolutely backed out when it was pointed out someone else should have done this. Note that nobody other than Adamant1 thinks the block was incorrect, it was just whoever did it was the problem.
Then there is the argument that Commons doesn't have enough admins and so problematic users can't be banned for a long time. Don't make me laugh. There are a many, many admins on the English Wikipedia. BrownHairedGirl was able to insult and harass other editors for years before she got blocked indefinitely. She caused a great deal of damage to the project, and yet there are some people here (I note from the English Wikipedia) who think that the number of admins will be all it takes to deal with badly behaving contributors.
Commons is a much more civil place to work. Brigading and pile-ons just don't happen. People don't always work in harmony, but overall admins try to mediate and address conflict rather than take punitive measures against others. Adamant1 is a good example - most of us see that he does a lot of good work, but can be problematic some times. Whilst there are a number of people who want him indefinitely blocked, there are many of us who don't (myself included). We on Commons are not the brutal bunch of editors who hang out on the admin's noticeboard just to enjoy the drama - a group of people I might add who on other projects make little to no substantial contributions around content creation. Certainly the Admin's noticeboard on the English Wikipedia is one of my greatest regrets. When I started it, I wanted it to be a place to coordinate admin actions, instead it became a toxic social area where everyone gets to have a dig at anyone else, and far from resolving problems it just escalates them.
Barkeep49 I am an active contributor to commons. You want feedback? Commons has no ArbCom, but so what? ArbCom on the English Wikipedia is slow to act, often declines cases it should actually take, and is now more and more bypassed on WP:AN/I anyway. They certainly couldn't deal with some of the most infamous users like BrownHairedGirl in a timely fashion.
I'm genuinely curious as to the make up of the Coordinating Committee. How many active Commons users are on the committee, and how would they know what Commons culture is like? I'm assuming they are all from Wikipedia language projects. If I'm wrong, then I apologise in advance. If not, then how can we expect them to rule on things like this that happen on Commons?

So, I don't think Yann should be involved in this user conduct review. In fact, I don't actually know if I think Adamant1 should be involved either. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another reason why these things don’t work - communication is super unclear. It’s hard to know where to respond to committee members, and discussions are fragmented. This is the sort of bureaucratic being espoused to handle conflict? LOL! This is the sort of unclear and woolly headed decision making that was done on the English Wikipedia, and look how that’s turning out.

Anyway, to respond to Barkeep49 So I think this is a non-issue. I watched ArbCom for years (and was in the receiving end of their non-action) so why anyone would think a bunch of Wikipedians, especially ones who couldn’t adequately handle controversial members who bullied others into submission, think they can understand the issues in Commons is beyond me.

Sister projects that aren’t Wikipedia get no look in on Wikimedia business. The committee seems slanted to deal with the daily crap that you and other arbs tolerated on a nearly daily basis for years - why anyone thinks you can handle conduct cases on Commons is beyond me.

I suggest this one request for help with a user is a. not necessarily needed, and b. something Commons can handle themselves. If the WMF felt that there aren’t enough participants on Commons, one would think they could promote it better, but I know that I’ve been banned from WMF Australia and they do virtually nothing when it comes to Commons, despite my extensive work on the project, so it’s pretty clear that sister projects don’t get any look in. How would this unrepresentative committee make things any better for sites like Commons and Wiktionary?

As for having an ArbCom - after the way you let me get bullied by BrownHairedGirl - despite me asking for a number of decisions to be reviewed which you and the rest of ArbCom refused to look into, why would I have any faith that an ArbCom in your image would be effective on Commons? I mean, it’s not like the English Wikipedia is covered with glory in terms of bullying and abuse of editors now, is it?

Conflating a request for a conduct investigation with the English Wikipedia ArbCom is, frankly, a joke. If you want to discredit this process, then suggest that Commons set up an ArbCom. I don’t think anyone wants that. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alachuckthebuck your argument has at its premise that Commons haven't "handled" the situation with Adamant1. Well, that's not true. In fact, it's being handled fine. There are a number of admins who want him indefinitely banned, but many of us are opposed to this as, whilst he can be difficult, he does a lot of good work. I mentioned the absolute stupidity of needing to create an ArbCom for a pretty much non-issue that is being handled fine on Commons currently because Barkeep49 seems to think this has been handled badly. And yet, it hasn't. If you aren't careful, you'll get people from the English Wikipedia who will try to take over the ability of admins to handle conduct matters in-house. We don't want or need a bunch of people who live in an almost permanent state of conflict to make decisions for Commons.

I raise that fact that at least some of the people here aren't exactly competent at dealing with problematic users, so why are we asking for their feedback? I'm not pinning it solely on him, incidentally, but he was an active ArbCom member and he was partly responsible for one of the messiest and meanest episodes in the history of the English Wikipedia, and ArbCom's collective inability to take action on BHG shows that as he was part of this team, he isn't really qualified to give any advise to Commons about conduct matters. I've got an indefinite ban caused by an unjust one-way interaction ban that his team refused to review. So whilst I was being abused by another editor, they felt it was fine that I couldn't even have a right of reply. You think that's a good judgement call? You want us to make the same mistakes they have and turn Commons into an almost permanent battleground? I think not.

In fact, I make the point that if this current committee had their way, we'd be at risk of chasing away valuable contributors. You might not like Adamant1's actions all the time, but as has been pointed out on Commons, he does a lot of work. On the English Wikipedia, no weight is ever given to what sort of contributions are made by contributors. My fear is that we'll get a situation where a bunch of people all furiously agree with each other and take punitive measures against users without any real due process.

So Barkeep49, yes - my point is - stay away from Commons and let us handle this without your input. We don't need you, and we are doing fine. We're not giving horrendous editors like BHG a pass, but at the same time we're not trying to stop people who do a lot of good work from not contributing forever. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more ridiculous processes. What's with this word limit? You think this is how a reasonable process works? Yet more stupidity from the English Wikipedia ArbCom imported into a project that holds sway over all Wikimedia projects. All the more reason for us to not have anything to do with this group if we can avoid it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consigned when you say that Commons needs an ANI, then I can absolutely say that it does not need such a cesspool. It has one for user reports already. You need to take your English Wikipedia sensibilities and apply them to the English Wikipedia, and not Commons. We don't need the feedback from anyone involved in such a vicious noticeboard. We never want Commons to get to this level. So you are absolutely being glib, and perhaps you should think through the way you communicate with other projects. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback GMG

I have no interest in engaging with this. I have conducted myself in a way I feel is defensible. Best of luck to all involved. Please don't ping me here. GMG ^talk 11:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Josve05a)

As a Commons administrator, I want to note that while individual incidents involving this user may not rise to the level of a block on their own, the cumulative pattern of incivility and recurring confrontational behavior has had a negative impact on the community. The user has been the subject of multiple discussions at Commons:AN and AN/U (see diff links already linked above and below by other users), but these have generally focused on isolated events rather than presenting a documented overview of the broader pattern. This has made it difficult to establish consensus for community action or to evaluate the full extent of the problem in any one thread.

Personally, I do not feel confident taking unilateral administrative action in the absence of a clearly blockable diff. However, I believe the overall conduct falls short of what the Commons community should reasonably expect or tolerate. My preference is that this case be resolved locally. If a structured overview were created, summarizing the incidents, with diffs and links to noticeboard discussions, it would allow the community to assess the pattern and discuss possible outcomes in a more coherent manner.

At this stage, I am not requesting U4C intervention, but I acknowledge that the lack of a formalized local process to handle long-term conduct patterns like this one has left some administrators uncertain about how to proceed. If local resolution continues to be ineffective due to fragmentation of the evidence or lack of engagement, then further input may become necessary. Josve05a (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: As an involved Commons administrator, I want to clarify my position in the recent AN/U thread. I chose not to take administrative action at that point—specifically, to block the user—because I had just posted a comment detailing a direct interaction I had with them during that same discussion. While my engagement was limited and context-specific, I felt that on Commons, where the admin and contributor base is relatively small and overlapping, even a single exchange can easily give the appearance of being “involved.”

Had this taken place on a larger project like English Wikipedia, where admin decisions are less likely to be questioned over brief participation in a thread, I would have felt comfortable issuing a block based on the user’s continued failure to acknowledge or reflect on the pattern of community concern. That kind of blanket non-engagement in the face of repeated feedback would, in my view, meet the threshold for action there. On Commons, however, the norms around uninvolvedness are more sensitive, which led me to refrain.

That said, if I had not made that one comment, I likely would have proceeded with a block before Yann did. I believe the user’s overall conduct, including in that thread, reflects a disregard for the cumulative feedback from multiple editors over time. As I stated earlier, this is not about a single diff but about an ongoing pattern that undermines the collaborative environment. Josve05a (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TO clarify "at that point": I menat at the time when Yann blocked the user, not when I first made my comment on AN/U. The pattern of "not being here" to be civil became more clear during the discussion. Josve05a (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedbak (Yann)

Hi, I think Chris.sherlock2 has explained the case quite well. I want to add the following:

Adamant1 used bad language against Abzeronow while contesting the closure of c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Maximum cards of India, i.e. [16], so I sent a warning to Adamant1. But instead of backing off and apologize, he continued on my talk page. After a week, he finally harassed me, and was edit-warring with me on my talk page. So I blocked Adamant1 for a week. I should have let someone else taking care of this, but I expected Adamant1 to be blocked long before.
As several users and admins have mentioned, I feel that, while doing some useful work, Adamant1 is not able to interact peaceful with other contributors, he gets into heated disputes every time there is a content disagreement, and then resort to attacking and insulting others. This has been going for quite some time, and creates a bad atmosphere on Commons. If no Commons admin is willing to fix this issue, then someone else should do it.
I think that Adamant1 gets purposely into disagreement with everybody, so that nobody feels sufficiently uninvolved to block him. Yann (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Well, may be I am wrong, but that's what I feel about Adamant1's behavior. Also may be it is not totally deliberate, but the end result is there: nobody wants to act because everybody thinks they are involved. Yann (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Liuxinyu970226)

Your honour, just wonder that what means, and who are the #Multiple Commons admins section above? Only under the "Requesting Adamant1 dispute handed to the U4C" section of first link? (Bedivere, Pi.1415926535, Taivo and Abzeronow). Or include those under the huge "Adamant1 (again)" section of second (Yann, Jmabel, Josve05a, The Squirrel Conspiracy, GreenMeansGo and A.Savin), and should I feel free to move the 3 sysops' (marked bold here) comments sections to that above? Anyway for later one, Jeff G. has translation administrator permission, is this also counted as involved adminships or restrict only to sysops? To avoid creating more matters, I won't ping any of them here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 and Ghilt: Sir. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:09, 7 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.

@GPSLeo: When unsure about the degree of being involved and thus potentially having a conflict of interest, has the 4 eye or 6 eye principle (i.e. 2 admins or 3 admins decide together) been used to solidify a decision and increase the barrier for overruling by single admin colleagues? --Ghilt (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the long discussions on the ANU we have this in some not formalized way and also think that making formalized 4 or 6 eye decisions would be good in many cases. But I do not think that this would make a difference in this special case. If the decision on Commons would be to block and also the unblock request would be declined we would end up here anyway. GPSLeo (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if the reasons both for blocking and for not unblocking are reasonable, there is a lower probability that we accept the request as a case. Ghilt (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to propose a motion along what Josve05a suggests, "If a structured overview were created, summarizing the incidents, with diffs and links to noticeboard discussions, it would allow the community to assess the pattern and discuss possible outcomes in a more coherent manner." My question is whether the U4C should attempt to do this structure overview or whether we should leave it to the community. I'd ideally like to leave it to the community, but 1) it's real work 2) it being done right is important to the discussion being successful (and by successful I don't mean sanctions, I mean the community fully considering the issue). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Take a look at #Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Elşad_İman_uşağı_ilə.jpg and the DR related to it. That's the second time in the last couple of weeks that @Yann: has been chided by other admins for doing involved editing. What's more likely here, that know one could block me except for Yann because every other admin was to involved or that he just keeps doing involved editing because they give him a pass on it with things like this and @GPSLeo: not including him in the case? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibrahim.ID: I assume you mean "insulting" not "assaulting." --Adamant1 (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anyway, I will remove the entire phrase so as not to create any misunderstanding during the case. Ibrahim.ID (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I see this as related, but distinct from the other Commons case. That case is really about UCoC enforcement when an administrator violates it. Since Adamant1 is not an administrator I see this as different. I am also incredibly interested in hearing ideas from commons members about structural ideas for issues like this because I would like the U4C to not be the Commons ArbCom, but I can also appreciate given the size of the community why it isn't as easy as saying "local admins should do this". Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: I think we're in at least partial agreement about the ArbCom piece? Commons has no ArbCom and I don't want the U4C to become the defacto Commons ArbCom. I want Commons to deal with the problems itself, but I do take seriously the comments from multiple commons members who say that the community struggles with an issue like this (and also seriously those of you who suggest something else). As for membership, you can see the membership of the U4C here. You are correct I don't think any of the 8 of us are active on the project side of commons ; it's actually election time now, hopefully someone from commons will run and get elected. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chris: I'm having trouble understanding your comments. You seem to be saying "Commons doesn't need to be like English Wikipedia, doesn't need an ArbCom, and doesn't need outsiders doing things." I am saying, "I don't want the U4C to become Commons ArbCom and I want Commons to solve things for itself." Do I misunderstand your points or am I not getting where we disagree because your criticisms are coming through clearly I just don't understand what I'm to take away that would change what I'm thinking. Also as a small point but none of your pings of me have gone through. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had a conflict with the defendant two months ago, and and filed a complaint against him on the English Wikipedia, I don't think my position will be neutral, so I will recuse myself from this case.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C has started working with the foundation to get some survey data about how contributors feel on Commons. Long term I think that's going to be helpful. In terms of this case, I think my preferred solution is for the U4C to setup a discussion on Commons about Adamant and Yann (2 different discussions) and to let the the Commons community do what it will there, rather than us directly intervening. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of when the survey is starting or how long will it take. But I think we should accept, decline or give a timeframe on probable 3rd option here. Needless to say, these cases put a significant strain on involved users, and just leaving it in a limbo doesn't feel right to me.--BRP^ever 14:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

So i see UCoC violations, and our jurisdiction, but i would still like to help install procedures to have civility issues handled at commons, so that this and future similar cases can be treated locally by the people who know their community best (i'm only a sporadic commons editor). --Ghilt (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the UCoC violations, I agree with Ghilt. I support the approach of a local soluation for this and similar cases as well. Where local resolution is possible, or might be possible in the future, that should be the prefered solution, which applies in this case. Luke 081515 20:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The U4C is responsible in cases where there is lack of local self-governance capacity to enforce the UCoC, furthermore since Commons does not have an ArbCom we have jurisdiction to enforce the UCoC. There are some credible claims here that merit an investigation, and my personal bar for opening a case is not high. dbeef (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see UCoC violations based on my read of this page (and some of the links provided), so this case is at least worth investigating. Even if it's only to create a structured overview or to reinforce the final warning. Best case would be Commons building its own structure to handle these cases, but since there isn't one, I think it falls as part of our responsibility.-BRP^ever 14:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline votes

I've reviewed the evidence presented, and while it seems that Adamant has not been on their best behaviour, I am not seeing a lack of local administrative capacity to deal with this. A final warning has been given, there seems to be adequate local discussion, and this is a relatively tough case of a user who does a lot of good work also not getting along well with others. I really do think that the community should not tolerate poor behaviour just because someone does some good work - we can all do better than that. But nor do I see a clear need for the U4C to be involved here. We are a small committee with a large mandate, and I don't think our time is well spent serving as Commons' arbcom, particularly where it is not evident that they need us to do so. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:52, 8 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) 14:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]