Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Chilling effect on Metawiki

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
Clovermoss (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)	Filer (no diff required)
User:SHB2000	Special:Diff/30914356
User:XXBlackburnXx	Special:Diff/30914357
User:A09	Special:Diff/30914358
User:EPIC	Special:Diff/30914359

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. Clovermoss (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Clovermoss

Description of the problem - (Clovermoss)

After signing 2026 recognize Wiki Workers United petition, noticing what was going on for days after at User talk:BMeehan-WMF#On unionization and misleading the movement, and the board's inaction, I felt the need to speak up and say something. So I left an individual message to everyone with a listed account on Wikimedia Foundation/Board of Trustees. This message read in full:

Surely the Wikimedia Foundation keeps track of these things, especially because a fundraising campaign mentioned that donations were down after the dissolution of CommTech. [1] How much money has the foundation lost from regular donations the past few months? I'm betting it's a substantial amount of money in its own right. I'm also going to remind you of what duties a board has during a crisis since it seems like you're forgetting. [2] I'll quote a particularly important part: "How would this look in the paper? Could we explain it? Could we defend it?" The answer to both those questions is an obvious no. These are questions that could apply to valid and perfectly legal strategies that could nevertheless give rise to political, regulatory or reputational risk. Management should be prepared to answer these questions when asked by the board. In an organization with a strong culture of integrity, consideration of headline risk should be automatic. Have you done that? Clearly not. You've also failed to listen to desperate attempts of people warning the board about this, like me. Do something before it's too late.

This was a very direct message, but it was not incivil. I'm direct in a general sense, but I find it especially important not to mince words when situations are urgent. I also see it as the responsibility of people in high level positions to be accountable. I left that information there with no follow-up and as far as I'm aware, no one from the board has complained about it, beyond Jimmy sending me an email that I was making him sad, but that took place before all this and is a separate issue entirely.

What I was not expecting was for this to cause me to get a warning for harrassment from SHB2000. [3] This message included speculation about my health (unhealthy level of upset) and a serious accusation that I was failing to remember they're still human and deserve to be treated with the basic expectation of not being harassed. When I disputed this characterization and mentioned my concerns about this having a w:chilling effect on anyone trying to bring up concerns with the board, I was told that I was spamming people and not showing respect for others. (User talk:Clovermoss#Harassment) It was very disheartening to be told that I was lacking respect when there was a lack of respect shown to me.

When I tried to bring this up in another forum (which was moved to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Disputing a user warning), this behaviour was repeated. I only brought up the English Wikipedia after Ajraddatz falsely claimed that if I done this on enwiki, I would've been sanctioned for it as well. I'm a sysop there and understand our norms. Disputing this characterization does not mean I don't respect that other projects have their own autonomy. But I do have great concerns that there is this unwritten rule (no one has pointed me to any policy or informational page clearly stating that leaving a single message for every member of the board is something that is inherently problematic, regardless of the content) is something that multiple admins seem to think is completely fine. Another admin, EPIC (I'll ask they recuse from this given that they're also on the U4C), also said that I am concerned that you're hitting your head on this wall too much. Please, stay away and take a wikibreak when needed, for your own good, [4] which again, were comments that were not respectful in the least.

After this discussion was closed today, SHB200 left me another message that stated: I apologise if "very much a blockable offence" was seen as a threat of a block; my underlying meaning was that this kind of behaviour on Meta can indeed get you blocked on Meta – if another admin blocked Clover for this, the blocking admin wouldn't be in the wrong and that I'm trying to lash your frustration onto Meta-Wiki admins for upholding general Meta-Wiki practice. A later comment on my talk page also stated: When 6 other Meta admins agree, it's overwhelmingly clear where the Meta community stands on this issue.

These responses are not just a quirk of the project, this is incredibly unwelcoming and arbitrary behaviour. I'll also note that the norm of communicating with people via their talk page is not something that is unique to the English Wikipedia. This behaviour is even more egregious when one considers the cross-wiki nature of Meta and the fact that many editors active on multiple projects have a global talk page. The thought of anyone getting in trouble because they happen to contact someone directly is genuinely distressing.

I'm not lashing out. My entirely reasonable concerns have been blatantly dismissed on multiple occasions and I do not feel like the spirit of the Universal Code of Conduct have been upheld. It's disheartening standing up to multiple established editors with advanced permissions, but I feel the need to do so because it must be so much more intimidating for someone who isn't like me. Most people in my place would give up or self-censor out of fear going forward. Their trust in whether Meta is a safe place to contribute would be broken. Even I don't entirely have that trust right now that I won't be arbitrarily blocked in the future. That all of this is happening on Meta is particuarly worrisome because I value my crossproject participation, understanding other perspectives, and participating in board reform. Even this very case report involves me editing Meta, which puts me in a really awkward position.

I'll note that the above table asks for diffs that relevant parties be notified. I'm not entirely comfortable doing that for obvious reasons. Clovermoss (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Which is why usually one should begin with a cooperative or a compromising approach and use competitive as a fallback strategy. I guess your conflict is now beyond a cooperation I always prefer being direct. That does not mean I'm "competitive" or am not cooperative. It's a difference in communication styles, but it doesn't make me any less worthy of respect. This is an especially important issue to me considering that many Wikimedians are not neurotypical and should not be perceived as a problem for simply being true to themselves. I think there's incredible value in being willing to address an elephant in the room. Something else that's been really disheartening about this situation is people keep speculating on my motives or that I must be unwell to have the opinions that I do. Clovermoss (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that while I shouldn't have to have extensive cross-wiki experience for my opinion to matter, it's not like I exclusively edit the English Wikipedia, even if it's my main home project. I have 70,000 global edits, only about a third of which are to enwiki. I know I'm not as active on the governance side when it comes to these other projects, but that doesn't mean I don't care. ~70 of these global edits are on the English Wikivoyage, where I directly interacted with the admin warning me for harrassment to ask questions about local norms on multiple occasions. See my talk page there. I'll also note my committment to trying to track differences between projects here. It feels like people are assuming bad faith on my part simply because of my home project and are acting as if the only reason I could disagree with this outcome is because I don't respect other communities. That's not true. Clovermoss (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

To respond to Nemo, I didn't reply to your comment because I felt like what I wanted was fairly clear and didn't want to be too repetitive. I don't want other people to be treated the way I am in the future and I want Meta admins to recognize that this behaviour is harmful. I don't have much confidence in those outcomes. The now archived discussion clearly wasn't going anywhere and I got the impression that there was nothing to be done (but I believe that no further administrative action is possible at this time), so I don't think this U4C case is by any means premature. Fram's concerns on the admin's talk page were also archived the same day they raised them. Clovermoss (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the U4C members seems to be taking the stance that the apology is valid (it's an ifpology and literally repeats the same behaviour that made the original apology nessecary). As for civility, I am quite literally one of the nicest, most conciliatory people in these discussions. I strongly encourage people to read Bernadette's talk page and consider the double standard in which I am being treated. I can also explain literally each sentence of my message to board members if people find it nessecary. I went for concise directness over really long walls of text. If the U4C endorses the warning I'm worried that that in itself will lead to an even worse chilling effect. I urge members to reconsider if they really want to promote that sort of environment. Civility is more than pretty words, it's treating people with respect through their actions. Anyone challenging the status quo could be perceived as confrontational when they're not being listened to and disincentiving people from having a voice can lead to really dangerous places (see tone policing, a concept that disproportionately affects people from certain backgrounds). I'll also note Pine's comment about the specific parts of the Universal Code of Conduct that are relevant here. Clovermoss (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borschts: You're suggesting an alternative course of action that describes what I already did. I literally only raised the issue once. And as both I and other people have pointed out, these weren't true apologies. I didn't repeatedly pressure any board members. I left a single message and didn't even reply to it after it was ignored. And now I've been having to deal with several incivil comments from multiple admins for daring to raise concerns. I don't think this is sorted out. I'm not asking for anyone to be desysopped here, but this behaviour from multiple admins is really problematic. What else am I supposed to do when there's been a systemic failure other than come here? And yes, I do think admins should be cautious not to overstep to the point where a U4C case is nessecary. I think the fact that whether or not I was even incivil very clearly being a matter of perception depending on who you ask makes this behaviour even more egregious. Clovermoss (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borschts: I'm not debating that SHB20 struck unhealthy levels of upset, but their apology on my talk page is not an apology and basically said sorry for implying I could have blocked you but I would've been right to block you. SHB200 has not striked that, or an earlier comment that described me as lashing out, describing it as clear where the Meta community stands on the issue etc. That does not give me confidence that I, or other people, would not be randomly blocked for this behaviour in the future. It's true that there's a handful of comments from Meta admins disputing what happened to me, but other admins in that thread do not seem to care and I would like reassurance that they do recognize this behaviour is harmful. In regards to the multiple messages thing, don't you at least see it as a problem that this very page requires people filing a case to do that if that can get someone blocked? Or that blocking outsiders for violating unwritten rules that are normal across various projects when global talk pages exist and Meta-Wiki is a place for cross-wiki coordination is incredibly unwelcoming? If this had actually been resolved earlier, I wouldn't have come here, but it wasn't. Hence what I said about systemic failure. On the English Wikipedia, if an admin did something this like this, other people wouldn't stand for it and they'd likely be recalled. I'm not saying that things have to go that far here because I'd rather things just be better, but the underlying premise of other people will step in when nessecary applies. I don't feel that here. Hence why Superpes15 comments did not "de-escalate". I appreciated what they were trying to do, but it rang hollow when other admins were continuing to repeat the behaviour. It seemed like a personal assurance that they wouldn't block me as an individual, but wouldn't stop anyone else or unblock me if it came to that. Clovermoss (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borschts: I only pinged people because I didn't want to get blocked. But if you look at striken through text on this very page (and the diffs in the table), it's clear I was expected to leave talk page messages. Someone else did it for me because I was not comfortable with that. [5] That this is an expectation is not me contradicting myself. As for the rest, I do not see the recognition that you claim has happened here. Sanctions don't have to happen for the systemic failure to be rebuked, or for this very body to change their minds that this isn't a "both sides" thing. I did not do anything wrong and I should not be under a cloud. The U4C has responsibilities, like the Board of Trustees does, and I find myself incredibly disheartened by the responses I've been receiving here. It's not a good feeling for one's last resort to be useless and that no one will step in when nessecary. My only consolation is thinking about the next U4C elections, because I hope that different people would react differently and take what happened to me here more seriously. Clovermoss (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Borschts: Telling four people they stand accused is not the same act as messaging the members of a governance body one by one about a grievance. It is the same act, though. It's just two more messages to the relevant parties. I genuinely don't understand how you can see it as different. I'll provide further input on the talk page. I won't retract how I feel like this U4C isn't taking this seriously because that's not for you to decide. Telling me that you care is not showing me that you care. Clovermoss (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I've been staying out of this since it became clear that it's impossible to expect U4C members to constructively engage with the substance of my comments, but to Fram, I think A09's concerns about off-wiki commentary likely have to do with the site that naming is like saying the word Voldemort. I'd rather not be indirectly implying things but I know some places view links or being too specific as an actual violation of their harrassment policies so I'd rather not risk it. Regardless, my understanding is that canvassing as the enwiki policy exists isn't really applicable to Meta (if this is a misunderstanding, I'd appreciate it if one of the many Meta regulars here pointed that out). I was a little less cautious about saying I'm frustrated elsewhere because of this (e.g. Jimmy's talk page when linking to my user talk page), but at best I think only one person here might have been influenced by that, and they indicated that they consider me a friend. I definitely don't think any of that should make it okay to dismiss what has happened to me here. Clovermoss (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a small smidge of hope again, EggRoll97. The issue is that there hasn't been enough recognition of what the actual problems are. I tried to do that by offering a suggestion on how the declines could be rewritten to provide assurances that the committee is serious about their roles here, but the kneejerk response to that was pretty brutal and incvil. But essentially, read what SBH2000 has not apologized for: [6][7] My issue is not that some people disagree on whether or not my comment was "rude". That's not sanctionable behaviour, that's just people being annoyed I don't align with their worldview on what's appropriate and what's not (a distinction my suggested rewrites preserved). But abusing one's position to intimidate someone, failing to mention that one's behaviour was disputed by other Meta admins, and refusing to acknowledge that enforcing unwritten rules leaves a considerable chilling effect is a very serious problem. There's an obvious power imbalance and it's not okay. Striking one comment and then later making the choice to say I'm lashing out is just repeating the same behaviour. It's not an apology. I'm concerned about how the U4C declines this because I've already heard from people about how this shakes their faith that the U4C is willing to deal with problematic behaviour and the message it sends by tolerating this. Clovermoss (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Previous attempts at a solution - (Clovermoss)

See above description of the problem. As far as I'm aware, I've escalated as much as possible with the exception of bringing it here. Clovermoss (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - (Clovermoss)

Recognition of the problem, apologies, and commitment to not treat other people this way going forward from the relevant Meta admins. At the very least, there should be an informational page somewhere about why leaving talk messages might get you in trouble. Clovermoss (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

SHB2000

Description of the problem - (SHB2000)

Meta-Wiki is a multilingual central coordination wiki. It is, for the most part, a transient community; despite this, it still has many norms and practices, many of which differ from content projects where policies and practices are more formally written. As many of these practices and norms depend on the individual circumstances (and what’s being communicated), there has never particularly been a strong need to codify them into policy.

On 3 August, Clover sent one message to each BoT member’s talk page. Since this practice is rather frowned upon on Meta-Wiki and considered less-than-civil, I reached out on Clover’s talk page, intending to inform Clover of Meta’s norms.

There were two particular points of contention in my message. The first was "an unhealthy level of upset", a comment which I later retracted, apologised and took responsibility for. It wasn’t intended as a comment on Clover’s health (which I did not factor in at all), but once again, I apologise for it. The other point of contention was “which is very much a blockable offence”. No blocks were issued, however (nor was there any other use of admin tools).

A few hours later, Clover filed a global RfC disputing my message, which was later converted into an RfH discussion. As of 6 August, the overwhelming consensus among Meta editors in that RfH discussion (which I abstained from participating in) affirmed the validity of my message.

It’s been told by both myself and Superpes that Clover will not be blocked, and since the discussion, she has been told to use the Board Noticeboard in the future. I’ve already apologised on Clover’s talk page if my initial message was seen as a warning, and I’ll apologise for that again. (The current U4C case was filed after my apology.)

Throughout the entire course of this incident, I was trying to respond to Clover’s less-than-civil behaviour. My initial comment was not ideally worded in parts, and I once again apologise for that. But that does not itself rise to a UCoC violation; there has been no use of admin tools, status or influence that would constitute that either. Even if one of those had occurred, with five uninvolved admins participating in the RfH discussion, local appeal processes are clearly working; as such, there is no need for the U4C to be involved here. //shb (t • c) 13:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Previous attempts at a solution - (SHB2000)

The RfH discussion. //shb (t • c) 13:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - (SHB2000)

Given the lack of UCoC violations, this case should be declined. //shb (t • c) 13:01, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

A09

Description of the problem - (A09)

Case seems premature to me in its first revision. Wikimedia Foundation/Board of Trustees contains a clear link to the noticeboard, so trying to argue talkpages are more appropriate point of contact is false. Furthermore, legalese language also creates a chilling effect on BoTs. They are a part of the same community so the civility policy applies to communication towards the body and its respective members as well. I feel like I've gotten partied to this case because of her disagreement. I'll not restate what others did, but one thing is certain: even the community was split on the RFH, so singling out users with whom Clover didn't agree with and make a case about is exactly the chilling effect she's so eager to get declared. Recent case development is rude and wouldn't be acceptable anywhere. For other commenters trying to present themselves as uninvolved I have off-wiki proof that I sent to the U4C, not mentioning they have/had user conduct problems as well.

Previous attempts at a solution - (A09)

There was RFH, which didn't give satisfactory results. Local Meta options weren't exhausted yet, there's still Meta:RFC.

Suggested solutions - (A09)

Declining the case.

EPIC

Description of the problem - (EPIC)

I left my comment on the RfH thread because I had been concerned for a longer time that Clover was digging herself too deep into the issue, and that knowing Clover, it was putting a strain on her. My comment was simply a civil attempt at trying to calm the issue down. There were some comments bringing up a "gendered remark" issue, but I personally could not see how my comment could have anything to do with gender.

That my attempt did not get through the way it should have was unfortunate, but thinking about it afterwards, not unexpected. I think it's reasonable that Clover did not take my comment the way it should have been taken, but please also keep in mind that English is not my native language and I'm certainly not perfect at formulating myself.

What I can say is that I'm sorry the situation had to go this way and that Clover did not feel well treated by the Meta admins. But this wiki also has its own community and its own policies that people have to follow, and although I think parts of the warning might have been a bit harsh, I think the intent was the same as mine - a good-faith attempt at trying to avoid future issues. EPIC (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Previous attempts at a solution - (EPIC)

I and others have done what we can to try and calm the situation down, even if it unfortunately did not work, and even if I do agree some things weren't handled too well in the heat of the moment. I leave it up to the U4C to determine whether the matter should have their attention. EPIC (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - (EPIC)

I believe the best solution here would be to simply let the issue lapse and have things resolved "on its own". The heated discussions were a main reason for why this U4C case was created, so I suggest to simply let it be for now. I like Clover and have nothing against her personally or on Wikimedia, and I really appreciate her enthusiasm. But it's clear this isn't leading the right way. EPIC (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This said, I'd also like to ask people who come to this wiki to be respectful of the way we operate. I was quite disappointed to see ad hominem comments like "admins with only 2 years of experience and 20 supports each" and "meanwhile enwiki elected their admins with 200 supports". For comparison, if you, for example, go to another country, you have to expect to respect their culture. If you for example went to a country like Japan where this is highly valued and didn't follow their rules, you would be called out pretty quickly. If users went to a project like Commons or Wikidata and said "you're just an image library, you have no real self-governance", local communities would not react positively. Meta is a coordination wiki, but we very much have our own content, community and policies. I'd like to ask that going forward, people respect this in the same way that I would respect, for example, enwiki policies when editing there. EPIC (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

• Comments/replies may not be longer than 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 (Ajraddatz)

I want to clarify that in my comment on the RfC-turned-RfH post, I was trying to communicate that leaving a talk page message to all members of a decision-making body, when they are already discussing a case in a central location, would generally not be received well, and could eventually result in sanctions if it happened repeatedly. It was meant as a hypothetical comparison and I could certainly be wrong about how other projects view that. The intent was to reinforce that on Meta it is generally preferred to keep discussions in one place and ping people in rather than leave messages to a whole group of users. Particularly when those messages are so "direct".

But I think how Clovermoss characterizes that comment (as me falsely claiming) demonstrates what I have observed as a trend in their recent communications: while the comment is not incivil, it is also not conducive to a friendly conversation. Other similar types of comments include accusing the board/WMF of lying and the messages left on the board members' talk pages themselves ("reminder about fiduciary duty" being used as the edit summary, "since it seems like you're forgetting" in the message). The UCoC not only calls out unacceptable behaviour but reminds us that we should be striving to reach more than the minimum standard. Practice empathy, assume good faith, and strive towards collegiality - to take a few of the key relevant parts of the section on expected behaviour. Those expectations should not change just because the recipient of a "direct" message is in a position of power, arbitrarily defined. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

To add a bit here: I agree that the initial message by SHB was too confrontational and contributed to escalating the situation. A better approach would have been to drop references to spam and harassment and focus on the core issue: leaving multiple people confrontational messages is not great, and a tone-adjusted message should be left as part of the relevant discussion or noticeboard. Meta admins can and should learn from this in addressing poor behaviour in the future, particularly when the subject matter is so contentious.

But I do think it is worth highlighting that the messages left by Clovermoss were also overly confrontational and that Meta admins pushing back and counselling a different approach are not wrong to do so. There is a certain amount of irony to Clovermoss describing her own confrontational messages as "direct" and justifying them as coming from "a difference in communication styles", while escalating a relatively minor disagreement to the U4C when a confrontational message is directed against her. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Fram)

The supposed offense of what Clovermoss did (posting once to every BoT member) was infinitely less problematic than the reaction by User:SHB2000, and the subsequent closing the ranks by Meta admins is worrying. I gave my opinion about this at User talk:SHB2000#Completely out of line[8], but the replies there showed an attitude completely at odds with the message of "respect" they supposedly want to convey. It's clear that they consider "passers-by" as a nuisance on their turf, without realising that their turf is intended for passers-by as a place where people from local cmmmunities bring supra-local issues. All that was needed, and all a half-decent admin would have posted, was a gentle reminder that instead of such individual posts, ne posts with pings at the BoT noticeboard was better would have been better. Instead, we get instant accusations of harassment, claims that Clovermoss was lucky not to be insta-blocked, things like "you have to ultimately remember that Meta doesn't do warnings" (wow, what a welcoming, respectful, heartwarming community this must be with such an attitude), and a complete lack of understanding of what Meta is used for and what the role of admins should be. Like Ajraddatz said right above: "Practice empathy, assume good faith, and strive towards collegiality". None of this was demonstrated by SHB2000 or the other admins here. Fram (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that I had replies here to posts by EPIC, Superpes, and SHB2000. Despite the page instructions saying "Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section." (emphasis mine), these were removed to the talk page anyway because "the "Other feedback" section is not a discussion space." according to the admin who moved it. How we are supposed to point out errors, incomplete statements, incorrect claims, ... is not clear, but apparently the UCOC members don't need these? One wonders why we even need to make statements in that case, but oh well. Anyway, I invite everyone to check out these (and perhaps further) replies on the talk page then. Fram (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt: how convenient that you donkt want to argue with the IP because they aren´t logged in, and ignore my similar message even though I am logged in. Your words ring extremely hollow. I was dubious about the UCOC before this, but I no longer have any doubts. Toothless, worthless institution, keeping alive the power imbalance and abuse. If people on the UCOC can´t even see the difference between an apology and a non-apology, then what are they doing on a board about User Conduct? Fram (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@AO9. *'''''All''''' accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links.'' Your comment gives the impression that I and all other commenters came here because of offwiki canvassing. While I obviously can´t speak for others, this is not the case for me. Please clarify in your comment who was canvassed in this way instead of poisoning the well by implying that everyone came here after offwiki canvassing. Fram (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Yngvadottir)

I see I'm a tad late, Fram has already posted and there will be overlap. Metawiki exists as a nexus for members of all the projects in addition to WMF staff. This contretemps has revealed that its policies and norms are unclear and are not being explained to those who come here only rarely. That's a problem for inter-project communication. Fram has noted above—and earlier at User talk:SHB2000, see Fram's link—that instead of multiple talk page messages to the members of the Board, Clovermoss should have posted to the Board noticeboard, which she may not even have known existed. May I recommend that Meta admins first point out specific things like that, instead of chastising people for not already knowing the conventions on that wiki? And maybe develop a FAQ? Or perhaps given the venue, I should propose that the Committee make those recommendations to Meta admins? Yngvadottir (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Superpes15)

I'm only intervening because I read between the lines that these behaviors are associated with systemic behavior in violation of the UCoC on metawiki. I've also read that these alleged behaviors have been considered serious because if they're directed at users who don't complain, maybe because they're inexperienced, they're not reported at all. Personally, I think metawiki is one of the healthiest places on web, despite being the project that collects issues from all projects. However, as part of this community, I'm slightly touched by these words, and I think it's completely exaggerated and inappropriate to link a single issue to the general behavior of metawiki community. I tried to de-escalate the issue, and I had to close the RFH, because no further actions were required by sysops and a new discussion without a proposed solution was starting again. On the matter, I have nothing more to add beyond what was said in the whole RFH. I personally hoped for a peaceful resolution, but at this point it's best to hear the opinion of the competent body. I'm still sorry for the feelings experienced by Clovermoss, I was hoping that serenity in editing on meta would return, but at this point I don't think it's a problem caused by the entire metawiki community, or by a systemic failure to follow UCoC on metawiki. --Superpes15 (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Gdarin)

The best place to contact the Board members on Meta is the Wikimedia Foundation Board noticeboard. Even if not all members check it regularly, the Community and Affiliate Liaisons – Nadzik and Victoria – definitely do. By the way, it would be worth adding this information to the Meta main page, as it is currently missing. In any case, administrator SHB2000 did not provide this information, though in my view he should have, given that he wanted communication to be handled this way rather than through posts on individual Board members' talk pages. His comment could give the impression of an attempt to silence Clovermoss – and while that wasn't his intention, that is unfortunately how it came across. He shouldn't have used terms like "spam" and "harassment", as they were completely out of place here. On the other hand, it's hard to deny that Clovermoss's messages to the Board members were written in a confrontational rather than friendly tone, which may justify the Meta admins' decision to uphold the warning. Gdarin | talk 14:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Giuliotf)

I see a fundamental conflict in SHB2000's statement that I think gets to the crux of matter:

1. Meta-wiki is a largely transient community
2. it has many norms and practices
3. there has never particularly been a strong need to codify them into policy

These three points are in conflict with each other, the expectation is that most wikimedian's would only rarely need to use meta-wiki, yet they are expected to keep themselves up to date with "many norms and practices" that are not codified anywhere. While it is reasonable to expect users to respect meta-wiki's norms and practices, those who are in a position of authority should also keep in mind that the average user of meta-wiki likely won't know these "many norms and practices", assume good faith, and politely point the user in the right direction; if they persist in doing the wrong thing, that's when escalation would be justified. The immediate escalation that happened in this case doesn't help anyone, and this sort of action will only discourage people from taking part in anything on meta-wiki for fear of being immediately sanctioned for a minor transgression of an obscure or unwritten rule. Giuliotf (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (asilvering)

I am alarmed that EPIC is a named party to this case and has a) "abstained", not recused, and b) continued to comment in the U4C-party section of this page as a U4C member anyway. This is highly inappropriate. asilvering (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It is up to EPIC's fellow U4C members, of course, to determine whether or not his comment in that section is appropriate as a party to the case. For my part, since it is completely indistinguishable from what a U4C member might say and is not a direct response from a party to a question by a U4C member, but is in fact a party speaking to a non-party's opinion, I think it would be a huge mistake for the U4C to allow it (and similar potential future comments by anyone in a similar situation).

I also note that his response defends his comment, but fails entirely to address the call for his recusal. asilvering (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Levivich)

I am concerned that the named parties, in the prior discussions elsewhere on meta, and again in their statements here, continue to claim consensus at Meta is formed by Meta admins, "Meta regulars," "Meta editors," and that Meta is a separate community from the rest of Wikimedia. All Wikimedians, from every project, have an equal say at Meta: everyone who is part of the Wikimedia community is part of the Meta community. It's concerning to see some Meta admins not recognize this. As I pointed out at Clover's talk page, as to the question of whether it's appropriate or inappropriate to leave separate user talk page messages to Trustees rather than a single message with pings at the Trustee noticeboard, 16 (by my count) editors said that was OK, and 6 editors said it was not OK. That should be a clear enough indication of consensus, but the particular Meta admins named as parties here continue to seem to think that it's only the consensus of the 6 editors who count, because those 6 happen to be Meta admins. This is the creation of a "walled garden," as we've seen at many other projects before, particularly the smaller ones like Meta. I hope the Committee can address this, and prevent yet another walled garden from growing. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd also ask the Committee to take note that the consensus-of-16-editors, that the individual user talk page messages Clover sent to trustees were appropriate, is supported by the fact that that the Trustees' noticeboard is filled with unanswered questions. SHB telling Clover to post her message at a place that is clearly not watched or responded-to, is kind of like the sarcastic saying "put it in the suggestion box." Since the trustees aren't answering questions at the noticeboard, the community has good reason for its consensus that individual user talk page messages are appropriate. Levivich (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I remain concerned that three major areas are going unaddressed, or in some cases even being exacerbated, by the U4C:

1. Arguing that Meta is a separate community, that it's only "meta regulars" or "meta admins" whose voices matter:
   • What SHB has said:
     • "non-Meta regulars" [9]
     • "it's overwhelmingly clear where the Meta community stands on this issue" [10]
     • "the overwhelming consensus among Meta editors in that RfH discussion (which I abstained from participating in) affirmed the validity of my message" [11]
   • EPIC:
     • "this wiki also has its own community" [12]
     • "if you, for example, go to another country, you have to expect to respect their culture" ... "Meta is a coordination wiki, but we very much have our own content, community and policies" [13]
   • A09:
     • "Meta has its own community, policies, and practices, so norms such as ADMINACCT are not applicable here" [14]
   • Ghilt:
     • "meta is a very international project where they often get conflicts imported, which the meta community doesn't want" [15]
   • This is directly contradicted by what META:ABOUT says: "It has often been discussed whether Meta has a community. What's sure is that it doesn't have a community of its own, separate from the communities of the Wikimedia projects: as someone said, 'a meta-project—existing for and about the other Wikimedia wikis, not as a content project to itself—a community of communities, rather than its own little island community'." cited to a 15-year-old comment, which shows how long this has been the norm on meta
2. Arguing that leaving individual talk pages messages for all Trustees is against some meta rule
   • SHB:
     • "leaving a message on all user talk pages of a user group, whether it be the Board, U4C, whatever it might be, is not considered acceptable on Meta-Wiki" ... "this kind of behaviour on Meta can indeed get you blocked on Meta" ... "if another admin blocked Clover for this, the blocking admin wouldn't be in the wrong" ... "upholding general Meta-Wiki practice is what blew this entire discussion out of proportion" ... " if you don't particularly like the current practice, there are always venues of discussion where you can propose to change it" ... "next time, please use BN for these types of messages" [16]
     • "this practice is rather frowned upon on Meta-Wiki and considered less-than-civil" ... "she has been told to use the Board Noticeboard in the future" ... [17]
     • "the specific behaviour of reaching out to the talk page is something that can get you blocked on Meta" [18]
   • Ajraddatz
     • "leaving a message on each board member's talk page is, shall we say, poor etiquette - imagine how quickly sanctions would come to someone who did that on enwiki to get the attention of arbcom, for example. I would suggest limiting future messages to either a single message on a relevant talk page or noticeboard (pings are acceptable)" [19]
     • "leaving a talk page message to all members of a decision-making body, when they are already discussing a case in a central location, would generally not be received well, and could eventually result in sanctions if it happened repeatedly" ... "on Meta it is generally preferred to keep discussions in one place and ping people in rather than leave messages to a whole group of users" [20]
     • "the core issue: leaving multiple people confrontational messages is not great" [21]
   • EPIC:
     • "the warning is correct here, and at some point this serves to bludgeon the discussion" [22]
   • Superpes15:
     • "on Metawiki, we generally pay more attention to those who post the same thing in multiple places, for example those who report something in the talk pages of all sysops (or stewards and so on)." [23]
   • Borschts:
     • "Messaging every single board member individually ... reads as uncivil to me, no matter how measured the wording was." [24]
     • "My objection is to six separate user talk pages at once instead of one message in one watched place." [25]
   • A09:
     • "Your recent messages have not been consistent with the standards of conduct that Meta expects, particularly compared to previous heated discussions. I think a warning is an appropriate response at this stage" ... "I would not rule out stronger measures if the same pattern continues" [26]
     • "I still stand by my message. While BoTN is an appropriate place to notify all BoTs there is no need to solicit each member's talkpage." [27]
     • "sending the same message to multiple people is not really an acceptable way of contacting an official group here on Meta and yes, a noticeboard is more appropriate place. You've been severely misguided by stating their talk pages are an appropriate place for the community to raise concerns" [28]
     • "trying to argue talkpages are more appropriate point of contact is false" [29]
     • The claim that this is an unwritten rule is contradicted by A09 admission that the community was "split" on this issue: "even the community was split on the RFH" [30]
   • This supposed practice is not documented anywhere, and, AFAICT, has never before been enforced anywhere. It is contradicted by the fact that individual talk page notices are not only permitted, but sometimes required, such as in this case, where the first thing that was raised was the posting of individual talk page messages to the parties. It is further contradicted by the fact that something like 20 members of the community who opined said that this was not a problem.
   • To further demonstrate that this is not a rule, I will post individual talk page messages to all the trustees soon complaining about their lack of response to questions at the Board's noticeboard. Nobody will block me for it, nobody will warn me about it, nobody will say anything, because it's not against any rule, written or unwritten.
3. Claiming both that admin status is relevant, and is not relevant
   • SHB:
     • "When 6 other Meta admins agree" [31]
     • "as confirmed by 6 other admins in that discussion" ... "this kind of behaviour on Meta can indeed get you blocked on Meta" ... "if another admin blocked Clover for this, the blocking admin wouldn't be in the wrong" ... "Trying to lash your frustration onto Meta-Wiki admins" [32]
     • "if another admin blocked Clover for this, the blocking admin wouldn't be in the wrong" [33]
     • The above messages show that this message is untruthful: "there has been no use of admin tools, status or influence" [34]
     • Not that U4C needs this reminder, but still: UCOC 3.2 is called "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence" and includes "use of authority, knowledge, or resources at the disposal of designated functionaries ... to intimidate or threaten others.", "Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others ... People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them."

I hope U4C will address the above. Levivich (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Abzeronow)

I am also concerned about the behavior of Meta admins in this case. Clover said nothing that was incivil, was trying to constructively engage with Board Trustees, and not knowing an unwritten Meta rule does not even come close to harassment. As Clover says, some Meta admins were being rather patronizing to her by appearing to make insinuations about her health when Clover is obviously the best judge of that. Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Going to expand a little. Like Pine, I am also a friend of Clovermoss. I think it is important to respect her autonomy and her agency, and thus when people don't respect that by using unconsciously gendered language about Clover in a way that suggest she is unwell, I feel angry for her to experience a kind of systemic gender bias. Pine raised some good points about how the UCoC would be applicable in this case. I'm less interested in blaming individual admins, and more interested in preventing future issues in which a cadre of metawiki insiders unknowingly make things unfriendly for those who are not familiar with the unwritten rules of metawiki. As an autistic person, I can struggle with unwritten rules and unfamilar norms, so if I can help improve the metawiki experience for neurodivergent people, I'd want to do so. I will also state that I am concerned that metawiki is sending a message that even mild criticism of the Board of Trustees or WMF's C-suite will not be tolerated (I don't believe this is intended, but it might be what comes out of this.) Abzeronow (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (User:Isderion)

Clovermoss' edits on the board members talk pages were not helpful (mildly speaking). In my view it was certainly not "constructively engaging". That being said I don't think some of the most powerful people in the wiki-world (board members) need some white knights in the form of admins to defend them. If some critical questions on your talk page are too much, the job of a board member isn't for you. So in that regard the involved admins overdid it a bit and it would be cool if they acknowledge it, but I don't think it's enough for a U4C case.

Ideal outcome here: Clovermoss admits that the messages were not helpful, SHB2000 admits that the warning was a bit too far. If that doesn't happen I suggest that the U4C declines the case. According to foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines#3.1.1_Providing_resources_for_processing_cases the U4C is only responsible in wikis where there is a "Systemic failure to follow the UCoC". That has not been demonstrated. --Isderion (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback BilledMammal

As part of this, the UCoC Committee should look into MetaWiki operating under with an "ingroup", consisting of "Meta regulars and admins", and an "outgroup", consisting of everyone else, as can be clearly seen with SHB2000 saying the overwhelming consensus among Meta editors.

As others have pointed out, MetaWiki is where matters related to the movement as a whole are discussed, and as such the notion that editors who, while they may be very active on content Wikipedia's, are not regulars at Meta should have their !votes ignored or discounted is a disenfranchising one.

I would also suggest, contrary to Isderion's comment, that this has been demonstrated to by a systematic problem; this appears to be a widely accepted and even unquestioned practice among Meta regulars and admins, and it would be appropriate under the UCoC for the committee to step in to end it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Pine)

I am a friend of Clovermoss and my comments here should be viewed not as from a neutral observer.

While I would agree with this statement that "there is a point where the pestering becomes harassment (which is very much a blockable offence)", I would view posting comments on someone's talk page regarding a matter which is within a scope of a role which they volunteered to take as it appears Clovermoss did as more consistent with what I'd expect of petitioning than of pestering, let alone harassment. Unless there is a written and ratified rule on Meta (so far it seems that no such policy actually exists in writing) that specifically describes posting on talk pages in this manner as "pestering" or "harassment", I view the statement from SHB2000 as being baseless in policy, in addition to simply being a bad idea given I believe special protections should apply to petitioning regarding official conduct.

If local admins believe that there is a gap in local policy then they can request the creation of such a policy, but people should not get to decide among themselves the conduct that they dislike and then take enforcement action with no actual policy basis.

There were enhanced offenses from SHB2000 and XXBlackburnXx making statements with the effect, intended or not, of chilling comments regarding alleged official problems, which enhances the misconduct from incompetence into more serious and clearer section 3.2 offenses. Section 3.2 applies regardless of any supposed local consensus. Quoting section 3.2: "Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one's position and reputation to intimidate others. We expect people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments from them may carry an unintended backlash. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them." Clovermoss posting messages in a manner with which SHB2000 and any other admins disagree, even if there is consensus among them, does not excuse engaging in policy-free intimidating behavior against someone who disagrees with them and in the process committing section 3.2 offenses, especially against petitioning behavor which there are reasons to take specical care to protect instead of chill.

A separate question is that of the content of Clovermoss' messages, as mentioned by Ajraddatz above. Reviewing the content of Clovermoss' messages for civility or other concerns would be fine, and perhaps the U4C would also like to do that in the scope of this case. But the content question should not be confused with section 3.2 offenses, such as from SHB2000 and XXBlackburnXx who should take care to guard petitioning behavior instead of doing the opposite and chilling such petitioning with no basis in policy, and in the process violating section 3.2.

I have not thoroughly reviewed conduct beyond the above, although I might find additional causes for U4C action if I reviewed further. ↠Pine (✉) 07:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Other feedback (Nemo)

First of all, I want to say that I'm happy to see Clovermoss and many others are getting more active on Meta-Wiki in recent months. I cannot speak for the Meta community, but as one of those infamous Meta oldtimers I thought I would say it explicitly.

I must say it's a bit hard to reconcile the current goings on with the idea of a "chilling effect" in Meta. The very pages linked at the beginning show that users have hardly been holding back on their critique of WMF leadership and participation in the discussions remains very high. However, if someone as respected as Clovermoss has such a perception, and goes around proclaiming it, others may believe it, so we do have a problem, and we need to address it. Let's have this discussion then, since we did not have it yet.

From a more procedural standpoint, I note that I asked before what the expectations were for the WM:RFH discussion, and I did not get an answer from Clovermoss. Before being archived by a bot, the closed discussion carried a note that "This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment". The opening statement for this case can be considered an answer to my question, so I was a bit surprised to find it here (entirely by accident) rather than on WM:RFH, especially as it was posted before that notice was archived. I understand that Clovermoss might have been unsure where to continue the discussion, but I don't understand why they didn't ask for advice, e.g. on the closing administrator's or their own talk page, and instead jumped to the conclusion that no recourse was available. In any case, recourse is available on Meta-Wiki and I encourage everyone who commented above to pursue a solution.

In short, this case is much too premature and should be dismissed (or better yet withdrawn), in order to give the Meta-Wiki community a chance to discuss the underlying matter. Besides, the named parties appear to have acted out of a sense of urgency that might not even be there any more in a couple weeks. Nemo 16:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

P.s.: Can we please change "Metawiki" into "Meta-Wiki" in the page title? It bothers me immensely. ;-)

Other feedback (Egezort)

In a case I had communicated in private to the U4C, for much much harsher words used against me, I was told: But not every unwanted behavior leads to a sanction. There is a threshold for incivility to be sanctioned.

Not only did the U4C not sanction the user, but the user wasn't even warned.

This shows me that significant members of the U4C treat Hannah's comparatively very mild words against BoT members in a more "sanctionable" light, than much much harsher words against a non-BoT member. I believe that this situation very clearly shows a double standard.

Since I don't want to publicly relitigate the issue, I will not share more details, but the U4C members (at least some?) have access to my e-mails. I would urge them to read what they wrote the above quoted message to, and compare it with Hannah's words, to see which one is more incivil. (I believe Hannah's words are not incivil at all.)

I agree with many other users here that, the incivility is flowing from the Meta admins towards Hannah. And procedurally, any admin that is "involved" should be automatically recused from this case. Egezort (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

• @Clovermoss: I of course understand if you may not feel comfortable notifying others, though I will note that you have not listed any other parties to this in the request. If you feel comfortable with listing parties (those involved in this case), I think it would be fine if a U4C member sent notifications. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• @EggRoll97: Done. I've included everyone whose comments suggested either implicitly or explictly that they are okay with this. Clovermoss (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Filer is not blocked on the relevant project so there is no need of us to take over notification. @User:Clovermoss, please proceed with notifications to involved parties, thank you. --Civvì (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Never mind, already done.--Civvì (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Hi Clovermoss, just a general thought: your communication with the BoT members uses two different conflict approaches (aka conflict styles) at the same time: cooperative and competitive. Now, a cooperative approach is generally impeded by a competitive approach (see en:Conflict (process)#Styles). Which is why usually one should begin with a cooperative or a compromising approach and use competitive as a fallback strategy. I guess your conflict is now beyond a cooperation. That limits your options to achieve your goals. --Ghilt (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
  And personally i have a similar impression as you that persistence and multiple distribution can be seen as harassment on meta. We have been discussing this in the U4C internally for a while. The background for this view is that meta is a very international project where they often get conflicts imported, which the meta community doesn't want. It's a bit of a catch 22, because meta is also a place to reach out to all board members and discuss movement-wide issues. Regarding your other requests, you haven't been blocked on meta, and you will not get an honest apology with a competitive approach. This all is only my personal opinion, not the U4C's opinion. --Ghilt (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Hello @Clovermoss:, regarding your request to the U4C: Why do you consider the suggestion to take a "wikibreak" or a break from the discussion (made by EPIC) to be an issue that should be evaluated by the U4C, rather than advice or a simple difference in communication style? Superzerocool (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC) (PS: apologies if I misunderstood something in the previous case/discussion; I'm not a native English speaker, so I could miss some context on my side)

  It's a difference between expressing concern/actually being there for someone in a supportive sense vs implying that someone is being irrational and need to stop editing. EPIC's comment qualifies as the latter. I brought this up at the other venue, but there's the gendered associations as well.

  Women tend to be dismissed as irrational. I'm not saying this is EPIC's intent (hence why I framed things the way I did during that discussion), but they didn't seem to get why I would object to their comment at all. This journal article explains that underlying background context more clearly if you wish to learn.

  I don't tell other people what their emotions are, imply that they're being irrational, or tell them to stop editing. Yet this is something that gets directed towards me more often than I'd like and I don't think it's okay. Clovermoss (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• @SHB2000: You stated in your statement that you and Superpes communicated that a block was not going to be handed out. If that is the case, though, what was the purpose of including which is very much a blockable offence in your warning/reminder/advice? This largely is why I would tend to consider it closer to an admin action (warning with the status of adminship behind it) as opposed to a regular editor interaction, so my question is more a question of what made that necessary, to you, to include in the message to Clovermoss. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, EggRoll. The purpose of that specific phrase was to more or less convey that the specific behaviour of reaching out to the talk page is something that can get you blocked on Meta, but the point was to largely emphasise that what Clover was doing was not great. Once again, it wasn't intended to be that blunt, which I apologise for again. The bit about a block not being handed out is because Clover hasn't engaged in that behaviour since this whole saga happened, so there is no preventative need for such a block. //shb (t • c) 03:44, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  @SHB2000: As a question, and frankly as what I would prefer to see happen here: Do you plan to be more mindful with the wording of reminders left to contributors in the future? I obviously can't require you to commit to that, but I would like to ask if you will commit to it regardless. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it's a lesson I've learned and something I will try to commit to in the future. //shb (t • c) 04:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• I have generally interacted with the parties involved in this case off-wiki before the series of events described here took place. I have also been offline for a while and have only recently returned. If any involved party or U4C member believes that I should abstain from this case, or at any point during the proceedings believes that I should not be involved, they can raise it here. If so, I will respect that and will not participate further.--BRP ^ever 10:20, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• I will be abstaining from this case due to my relationship with Clovermoss. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Publicly noting that I will not involve myself in this case on the U4C back-end, but will leave a public comment in my capacity as a Meta admin on this page. – Ajraddatz (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Being both a party in this case and involved in the discussions I will obviously abstain/recuse from the case. EPIC (talk) 07:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline votes

• There is a considerable amount of questionable wording in the messages and pages preceding the opening of this request. I consider the message in the board members' talk page to be rude and think that some form of warning is entirely justified. What is described in Section 2 - Expected behaviour of the UCoC and in Meta:Civility applies to everyone and should not be adapted depending on who is sending or receiving messages. The warning was confrontational and worded very poorly. Also, I didn't like some of the annoying patronizing comments in the RFH, we should try to keep discussions constructive and objective. Each participant brings to Meta-Wiki their own cultural background and different sensibilities that influence the way they communicate and interpret messages and also how administrator discretion is understood and exercised. Sharing a common space requires us to make an effort to understand and accommodate those differences, being more thoughtful about how we communicate is an important part of this.
  

The word respect is used quite extensively on this page and on the pages and messages that led to this request. It comes from the Latin verb respicere, which means "to look back" or "look again". We are all very focused on rapidly moving forward with our opinions and our causes. Respect is that moment of doubt that makes us pause for a second and "look back" to reflect about the possible consequences of our actions/edits and their impact on the people we are writing to.

Beyond offering some suggestions such as those above and reminding involved parties and participants to the discussions to exercise greater "respect", care, civility, and collegiality in future similar situations, I do not think there is anything else for us to do here. --Civvì (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• After the apologies of SHB2000, there is currently nothing much to do beyond reminding everyone to be civil, avoid intimidation, and stick to the written rules. The escalation level is currently not very high and the discussion on the subject of unionisation at WMF is still ongoing. I would like to see that discussion continue in a civil manner. If it escalates further, please come back and i will probably accept. --Ghilt (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)
• I am honestly not seeing the message that Clover left to the board members as simply being direct. That's downright rude and unkind. SHB's message and the follow-up that happened didn't really help the whole situation either. Honestly, if a message of that nature was left on a bunch of talk pages on my homewiki, I would at least leave the person messaging a note to not be unkind or rude.

Another thing I would like to note is I've escalated as much as possible with the exception of bringing it here. This doesn't really seem like an attempt towards finding a solution. It basically just tangles the issue even further, and the speed at which things escalated shows that. I would expect better from both parties in how they approach understanding this whole situation, rather than pointing dust at each other's shoulders. Especially considering the level of experience they both possess. I don't think there is anything to investigate or do in this situation at this point. I do not see any UCoC violation for which all local resolution methods have been exhausted as Nemo points out.--BRP ^ever 15:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• I want to start by saying I respect Clovermoss's advocacy work and get the frustration here, but that's not really what this case is about.

If this were only about whether SHB's initial wording ("an unhealthy level of upset") crossed a line, I could see leaning toward some form of acceptance, just to put a marker down that this isn't language to reach for casually. But I don't think SHB is some kind of problem admin here, and he's already retracted the health comment, apologized more than once, and committed on this page to more careful wording going forward. That's enough for me.

What tips me further toward decline is that I don't think Clovermoss's own conduct here was blameless either. Messaging every single board member individually, then continuing to push once the response wasn't the one she wanted, reads as uncivil to me, no matter how measured the wording was. If the Board isn't doing its job, there are more civil ways to make that case: raise it publicly once, push for accountability through the community-selected seats at the next election, write an open letter. Repeatedly pressing individuals until you get the answer you're after isn't one of them.

Both sides already sorted this out on their own. The RfH ran with wide, largely uninvolved participation and closed without needing further admin action. I don't see a systemic UCoC failure here, just two people who each overstepped a bit in a situation that's already settled itself.

If anything, I think the chilling effect worth worrying about runs the other way. Admins are going to get more hesitant to give even a fair reminder if doing so risks landing them in front of this committee. Borschts ^Talk 06:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Taking your points in order.

First, you're right on one thing and I'll correct myself. "Continuing to push" was not an accurate description of your conduct toward board members, and I withdraw it.

What I meant, and should have written more clearly, was venue rather than count. My objection is to six separate user talk pages at once instead of one message in one watched place. The message should have been directed to the Board as a body rather than to its members individually. Whether Meta should treat that as a problem at all is a fair argument, and it is one I would rather see settled at Meta:Babel than here.

On the apologies. The "blockable offence" one was conditional and I'll grant you the "ifpology" label for that sentence. But "an unhealthy level of upset" was not conditionally apologized for. It was struck from your talk page (Special:Diff/30888442) days before this case was filed, and on this page SHB called it "a comment which I later retracted, apologised and took responsibility for", alongside "My initial comment was not ideally worded in parts, and I once again apologise for that". That is not conditional. When EggRoll asked for a forward-looking commitment, SHB gave one.

Your suggested solutions asked for recognition, apologies, a commitment going forward, and an informational page. Most of that has now happened on this page. The one thing outstanding is the informational page, and writing a norm down is a Meta task, not a U4C sanction.

On systemic failure, that term has a defined meaning here. The Enforcement Guidelines list the examples: lack of local capacity to enforce the UCoC, consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC, refusal to enforce the UCoC, and lack of resources or will to address issues. None of those describe this. Your complaint got a wide, well-attended discussion and was closed by an uninvolved admin. Meta admins also did not line up against you. Leaderboard, a Meta admin, said outright that they would have struck the warning. Pppery said that they are a Meta admin and see nothing wrong with what you did. Superpes15 spent that thread de-escalating and apologizing for how it landed. That is a community disagreeing with itself, which is ordinary, not a local structure that has failed. I see no reason for this to be escalated to us.

Which brings me to your last point. You say whether you were even incivil is clearly a matter of perception depending on who you ask. I agree with you. That is exactly why I am declining. If reasonable people genuinely land on both sides of a judgment call, an admin who lands on one side of it in good faith has not violated the UCoC. A norm being debatable is a reason to write it down, not a reason to sanction the person who applied it. Borschts ^Talk 08:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: You are contradicting yourself.

The case template asks a filer to notify the named parties, which was 4 people here. For the U4C itself, 17 people (including NVMs), you used a single ping in one place rather than 17 talk page messages. That is exactly the distinction I have been drawing, and you applied it yourself without anyone asking you to. Notifying four named parties to a proceeding is targeted and procedurally required. Messaging a governance body member by member is the part Meta treats as a problem.

I would also push back on "other admins do not seem to care." Four of us who have voted on this case, myself included, have said in writing that the warning was too confrontational, too aggressive, or poorly worded. Ferien went further and criticized how the RfH was closed. That is the recognition your suggested solutions asked for. It arrived, just not in the form of a sanction.

On systemic failure, the test is not whether the local resolution was ideal. The test is whether the local structure failed, and Ferien's point is that the capacity is still there. If you thought an admin's conduct here warranted review, Meta does have a removal process at Meta:Requests for adminship. You have said you are not seeking that, which to me confirms this is not that kind of case.

I don't think either of us gains much from another round on this. Borschts ^Talk 02:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

@Clovermoss:

The seventeen-name alert at the top of this page is from the case preload template, and I did get pinged by you and got an email notification. That is the whole point. When the U4C or whoever built a process for contacting a multi-members body it did not tell filers to leave seventeen talk page messages. It gave them one ping to the body in one central place, which is what Meta admins asked you to do with the Board. I have already explained this as clearly as I can and I don't have anything further to add on it, so this will be my last comment on this particular point.

The party notifications are a different thing and always have been. Those are notices to named respondents that a proceeding has been opened against them personally. Every project I know of requires that, Meta included, and nobody has suggested it is a problem. Telling four people they stand accused is not the same act as messaging the members of a governance body one by one about a grievance. So no, I don't accept that our process contradicts what you were told. Our process is an example of the thing you were asked to do.

I think this is starting to get a bit into conflation of two separate things, and we are going in circles as a result. Please also note that declining is not the same as not taking this seriously. Six of us have written out substantive reasoning rather than one line votes. Several have said that the warning was badly worded. EggRoll asked SHB directly for a commitment and got one. Ferien criticized how the RfH was closed. The members who were too close to this recused themselves. To me this is already what taking a case seriously looks like, even when the answer is no. Therefore I would also ask you not to treat an outcome you disagree with as evidence that it was not taken seriously. That framing is unfair to all the people who did the work here. A future committee may weigh it differently and that is their right that I would defend for, but please don't read disagreement as indifference. Borschts ^Talk 10:15, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• I am a decline on this case. I think there are very much two sides of a coin here. On one hand, I do very much agree that SHB's warning was somewhat aggressive, and I think a message to the effect of something like I noticed you sent messages to each board member individually. I would like to encourage you in the future to instead place these at the Board noticeboard instead, as that is the area where board members are more directly contactable. Please feel free to reply or post to Babel if you require assistance with doing so. would have been fair enough to send to Clovermoss. This does not contain a threat of a block, and would have been a far friendlier message to send to Clovermoss than what was sent, which relied heavily on SHB's status as an admin. This, however, does not excuse the fairly impolite wording found in Clovermoss' message, and I share the concerns of my colleagues that the message was past what is simply holding board members accountable, and into the realm of (albeit minor) incivility. I find it prescient to note that this is a multilingual project, and that when interacting, it is important to consider that there are people of various backgrounds, meaning the intent of messages can be different between speakers. This is normal, and recognizing that is a necessary part of interacting on multilingual projects.

With the above said, we have now received an assurance from SHB that he will work on the wording of warnings, and I think that is sufficient here to resolve the issue. I acknowledge that declining this case does not resolve the concerns of some here, but I also do not see a refusal to enforce the UCoC, either. It has been discussed, at length, in the RfH discussion, on Clovermoss' talk page, and now here, as well. If there's a rule change that someone here thinks is appropriate, a local RFC or other form of discussion would be the place to go, but the Committee does not make local policy by motion. EggRoll97 (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I will say, Clovermoss, that no part of my decline was meant to dismiss what has happened to [you]. While I did say I took issue with the phrasing you used in your message to the board members, you may notice I also did not tacitly endorse SHB's conduct here. In your proposed solution, you note that what you asked from us is Recognition of the problem, apologies, and commitment to not treat other people this way going forward from the relevant Meta admins. I can only speak for myself, but I did recognize there was a problem (not necessarily in the sense of a systemic failure, as some have claimed above). I note SHB has apologized above for the bluntness of the apology in a non-ifpology manner (stating explicitly Once again, it wasn't intended to be that blunt, which I apologise for again), and has committed to trying to be more mindful with regards to their wording. So I'll ask you point-blank, what else would you like us to do here? I'm open to the aspect that I may have missed something in my decline, but it seems like your proposed resolution has been met, even if that wasn't through the accepting of the case. EggRoll97 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

• There is not a lot that the U4C can do here but there are a few things that could still be (now or for future cases) achieved locally going forward. As a (fairly inactive) meta sysop, I would not view Clover as under a cloud as such as a consequence of this. That isn't clear to others though, given the direction and closure of the discussion at RfH did very little to address the crux of the problem. I agree with my colleagues that neither party comes out great from this - both Clover and SHB's messages were unnecessarily confrontational - but I will deviate from my colleagues slightly in advising some metawiki sysops involved in this case to work more actively towards resolving the case or cases like these in future. Given the length of the discussion and the number of people participating, I do not think Superpes' closure saying that no actions were taken by the involved users with no mention of the users involved, or EPIC suggesting that the user wasn't dropping the stick when several others got involved, was helpful in seeking to resolve the matter - even if it technically bought, or helped bring, the discussion at RfH to an "easy" close, all of that has simply now been imported here. Despite the local resolution being far from ideal, I believe that 1) no UCoC violations occurred and 2) there is still the capacity and ability to determine whether Clovermoss should be under a cloud and how far SHB is at fault, if needed, so my response is, also, decline. --Ferien (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2026 (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.

• We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, Borschts ^Talk 04:06, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• With 0 votes to accept, 6 votes to decline, 2 members recused/abstained, and 2 inactive members, with 12 active members, the case is declined. Superzerocool (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2026 (UTC)