Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Curiosus007

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
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
~2026-43622-21 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply Filer (no diff required)

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. ~2026-43622-21 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply

~2026-43622-21

Description of the problem - (~2026-43622-21)

I am Curiosus007, the editor affected by the indefinite block and the subsequent Wikitanács decision. I am bringing this case because I believe the way my block was imposed and reviewed points to a broader problem in the handling of permanent bans and appeals on the Hungarian Wikipedia under the Universal Code of Conduct and its Enforcement Guidelines.

I am not asking the U4C to simply overturn the Wikitanács decision. The issue I am raising is how the process worked: what kind of decision the original ban actually was, how the community discussion was interpreted, whether the people who imposed and reviewed the sanction were sufficiently independent, how the CheckUser allegation was handled, and whether an indefinite block was properly assessed against less severe alternatives.

My local appeal and the final Wikitanács decision are here:

hu:Wikipédia:Wikitanácsi indítványok/Curiosus007 kitiltása elleni fellebbezés

The discussion that led to the block is preserved here:

hu:Special:PermanentLink/29255586#Szavazást_kérek_a_saját_kitiltásomról

The first difficulty is that the record never clearly establishes what procedure produced my indefinite block.

Hungarian Wikipedia policy distinguishes between a sanction imposed by the community and an indefinite block imposed by an administrator. That distinction matters because the rules governing the decision and the route of appeal are not the same.

My block was described in different ways at different stages.

The original discussion was treated as a community decision. The administrator who imposed the block relied on the number of editors supporting a ban. When my appeal was decided, the Wikitanács referred to the minimum of ten supporting votes found in the Hungarian voting policy. In the same decision, however, it described the block as an action taken by the administrator under his own authority.

A formal vote, an informal community consensus, and an administrator-imposed block are not the same procedure.

If this was a formal vote, the rules for formal voting should have applied. If it was an informal consensus discussion, someone had to determine what the community had actually agreed to, including the length and scope of the sanction. If it was an administrator’s own indefinite block, then the administrator’s exercise of discretion was the decision that had to be reviewed.

The Wikitanács decision does not make clear which of these happened.

That uncertainty also affects the right of appeal. Under the Hungarian banning policy, community sanctions and indefinite administrator blocks are treated differently. The Wikitanács accepted my appeal under the procedure available for an administrator-imposed indefinite block, while at the same time relying on the supposed result of a community vote to uphold it.

The use of the Hungarian voting policy raises a similar problem.

The Wikitanács referred to the rule requiring at least ten supporting votes. As I read the Hungarian voting policy, that threshold applies to votes conducted through the formal WP:SZ process. Such votes have their own procedure. The proposal is prepared in advance, the question and its consequences are defined, the voting method is settled, and the process is formally opened and closed.

That did not happen here. The discussion took place at the Village Pump. It moved from an open-ended request for opinions to an indefinite block without going through the WP:SZ procedure.

If the Village Pump discussion was being treated as a formal vote, I do not understand why the formal voting rules were not followed. If it was an informal consensus discussion, I do not understand why the numerical threshold from the formal voting policy became a central reason for upholding the block.

There is also a more basic problem with the votes themselves. The question did not define the sanction in advance. It did not say whether the proposed ban would be temporary or permanent. It did not specify whether it would cover the whole project or only certain namespaces. It did not state any conditions for return.

The responses therefore did not all support the same outcome.

Some editors expressly supported a permanent ban. Others proposed temporary measures. One suggested a one-week suspension that could be repeated if necessary. Another supported a monthly restriction. Hungarikusz Firkász, who later imposed the indefinite block, expressly said that he did not support a permanent ban. He suggested possibilities such as one month, six months, one year, or exclusion from the main namespace. Several editors supported “a ban” without saying how long it should last or how broad it should be.

That does not show ten unambiguous votes for the sanction I actually received: a full indefinite block.

There is an obvious difference between agreeing that an editor should face some restriction and agreeing that the editor should be excluded indefinitely from the entire project. The Wikitanács decision counted support for a ban, but it did not explain how the different proposals became a consensus for the most severe version of that ban.

The role of the blocking administrator also deserves review.

Hungarikusz Firkász participated in the discussion and stated his own view about the appropriate sanction. He proposed measures less severe than an indefinite block. He later interpreted the result of the same discussion and imposed an indefinite block himself.

I am not suggesting that he necessarily acted out of personal hostility or retaliation. My concern is simpler: the same person took part in the discussion over what should happen to me and then used administrator authority to determine what that discussion meant and to impose the final sanction.

The Hungarian blocking policy itself cautions administrators against blocking users in disputes in which they are directly involved. That rule exists because direct involvement can affect, or appear to affect, impartial judgment even where nobody is acting in bad faith.

For that reason, the independence of the appeal mattered a great deal.

Under the Hungarian Wikitanács rules, cases are decided by a five-member panel and members who are personally involved are not supposed to take part. The published decision in my case says that the result was unanimous, but it does not identify the five members who decided it.

I do not know who those five members were, and that is the problem. The public record does not allow me to check whether the local conflict-of-interest rule was followed.

This is particularly relevant because at least one sitting Wikitanács member had already taken a substantive position in the underlying discussion. Without the names of the deciding members, there is no way to verify whether that person recused.

The disclosure practice also appears inconsistent. In some earlier Wikitanács cases, including GhostDestroyer100, the names of the deciding members were published. In other ban appeals, including Hebefil and my own case, they were not.

Where a final appeal depends on a five-member panel free from prior involvement, the identity of the deciding members should not be impossible to verify.

I also have concerns about proportionality.

The UCoC Enforcement Guidelines require context and the seriousness of the conduct to be taken into account when sanctions are imposed. The Hungarian Wikitanács rules also allow several alternatives to indefinite exclusion. These include probation, namespace restrictions, restrictions on particular activities, modification of sanctions, and lifting a ban.

The Wikitanács has used narrower measures in earlier cases. In GhostDestroyer100, for example, a request for an indefinite block was rejected and a more limited solution was chosen.

Similar alternatives were discussed in my own case. Editors suggested temporary blocks and namespace restrictions. Hungarikusz Firkász himself proposed such measures before later imposing the indefinite block.

The final decision does not explain why those alternatives were considered insufficient or why an indefinite block was necessary.

I am not asking the U4C to choose a particular local sanction. What I am asking is whether an appeal against the most severe available sanction should show that proportionality was actually considered, especially where several narrower measures were already part of the original discussion.

The CheckUser issue is another part of the appeal that I believe requires closer examination.

The Wikitanács said that it took into account a CheckUser or IP-check conclusion concerning alleged block evasion. I dispute the attribution. The public record does not establish to me that the activity in question was mine.

I understand that CheckUser data cannot simply be published, and I am not asking for private technical data to be disclosed. But the public case file contains only the conclusion. I have not seen the evidence behind it and had no practical way to challenge the attribution.

If that allegation was important to the rejection of my appeal, someone independent of the original dispute should have been able to examine the underlying evidence with the necessary CheckUser access.

The U4C dealt with a closely related issue in its 2026 Turkish Wikipedia case concerning CheckUser blocks and the lack of meaningful appeal. In that case, the U4C examined differences between the written appeal rules and actual practice and addressed the need for review by an uninvolved functionary who could examine the relevant technical information.

I believe the same question arises here. An appeal is of limited value if a significant allegation rests on nonpublic evidence and there is no clear way to know whether an independent reviewer actually examined that evidence.

There is also a separate question of timing. The CheckUser allegation arose after the original block. Whatever relevance later conduct may have to whether a sanction should remain in force, it cannot answer whether the original indefinite block was imposed through the correct procedure in the first place.

For me, this is where the individual problems begin to form a wider pattern.

I was indefinitely blocked after a Village Pump discussion in which different editors supported different kinds of sanctions. The result was treated as a community decision, but the Wikitanács also relied on a numerical rule taken from the formal voting policy and at the same time described the block as an administrator’s own action. The administrator who imposed the block had participated in the discussion and had himself proposed a different sanction. The published appeal decision does not identify the members of the five-person panel, so the application of the conflict-of-interest rule cannot be checked. The decision also relied on a CheckUser conclusion that I could not test and whose independent review is not apparent from the public record. Nor does the decision explain why an indefinite block was necessary when narrower options were available and had already been proposed.

Any one of these issues might be treated as a local disagreement over policy. Taken as a whole, however, I believe they raise a real question about how permanent bans and appeals operate on the Hungarian Wikipedia.

That is the question I am asking the U4C to examine.

Previous attempts at a solution - (~2026-43622-21)

After the indefinite block was imposed, I used the local appeal procedure available to me.

I appealed to the Hungarian Wikitanács:

hu:Wikipédia:Wikitanácsi indítványok/Curiosus007 kitiltása elleni fellebbezés

The Wikitanács accepted the appeal and rejected it unanimously on August 6, 2026.

That was the highest local review available to me for an indefinite administrator block.

I am therefore bringing this case after using the local process, not instead of using it. The reason for approaching the U4C is that the completed local process itself leaves unresolved questions about the procedure used to impose and review the sanction.

I am not asking the U4C to decide the underlying article disputes, disagreements over editing methods, questions about the use of particular tools, or interpersonal conflicts on the Hungarian Wikipedia. Those matters form the background of the case, but this request concerns the enforcement and appeal process.

Suggested solutions - (~2026-43622-21)

I ask the U4C to examine whether the procedure used in my case is consistent with the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines, particularly the principles concerning fair process, conflicts of interest, independent review, proportionality, and the review of sanctions that rely on nonpublic technical evidence.

A basic question is what procedure governed the original ban. I would like the record to be clear on whether I was banned by a formal community vote, by an informal finding of community consensus, or by an administrator acting under his own authority. Where those procedures have different requirements and different appeal rules, an editor facing an indefinite ban should be able to know which one was used.

I also ask the U4C to examine the use of the ten-support threshold from the Hungarian voting policy. The underlying discussion was not conducted through the formal WP:SZ procedure, and the editors who supported restrictions did not all support the same duration or scope. I believe it should be determined whether the discussion actually established consensus for an indefinite project-wide block rather than for some form of restriction in general.

The role of the blocking administrator should also be considered. He participated in the discussion, stated his own preference for a different sanction, and then imposed the indefinite block. I would like the U4C to consider whether that was consistent with the conflict-of-interest principles that apply to enforcement decisions.

The same issue applies to the appeal. I would like to know who served on the five-member Wikitanács panel and whether anyone who had previously participated in the dispute took part in deciding my appeal.

If the CheckUser allegation continues to be relied upon, I ask for it to be reviewed by an uninvolved functionary who has access to the information needed to assess the attribution. I do not ask for any private CheckUser data to be made public.

For my own case, I believe the appropriate remedy is a new review of the indefinite block by people who did not participate in the original dispute, did not select or impose the sanction, and did not decide the previous appeal.

That review should first determine what procedure actually produced the ban and whether that procedure was followed. It should then consider whether the specific sanction imposed was supported by the applicable local policy, whether any CheckUser evidence relied on can be independently sustained, and whether an indefinite project-wide block is proportionate.

If the present block cannot be sustained after that kind of review, I ask that it be lifted or replaced with a narrower measure supported by the applicable rules and evidence.

I also ask the U4C to consider whether the Hungarian Wikipedia needs clearer practice for future cases. Community sanctions and administrator sanctions should be clearly distinguished. The procedure being used should be identifiable. Conflict-of-interest rules should operate in a way that can be checked. Where CheckUser evidence has a significant effect on a final appeal, there should be a real mechanism for independent review.

I am asking for relief because I am the editor directly affected by this case. I also believe, however, that the procedural questions raised by my case go beyond my own block and fall within the U4C’s role in addressing systemic problems in UCoC enforcement.

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 (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Unfortunately, I am currently unable to log in to my Curiosus007 account. For the same reason, I also submitted my original appeal to the Hungarian Wikipedia Arbitration Committee (Wikitanács) while logged out.
I can confirm that I am the person behind the Curiosus007 account and that I submitted this U4C request. ~2026-43622-21 (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Without your login, we have no possibility to verify you are connected to this account. Please login. Ghilt (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I echo what Ghilt said. Please log into the account. This is the only acceptable method of verification. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

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.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2026/Curiosus007&oldid=30934239"