Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Georgian Wikipedia Admins

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

U4C member alert: @U4C: Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. Lado85 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Lado85

Description of the problem - (Lado85)

Hi, admin (Mehman) on Georgian Wiki blocked me for adding correct information on two pages:

1. Georgian Super Cup Article - another user changed information about Current champions andMost championships winner. I reverted it to correct information (Current champions - Torpedo Kutaisi and Most Championships winner - Dinamo Tbilisi). There are multiple sources for this information. He removes my edits, because "he do not trust me". He said this himself.
2. On Commonwealth of Independent States article I added information about Ukraine newer was a member of CIS, because never ratified the CIS Charter, so never became a member state.

He banned me for a year without any reason. I opened block removing request on my talk page 10 days ago, but admins are ignoring it. I can't wrote any admin directly.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Lado85)

1, 2, 3

Suggested solutions - (Lado85)

Block must be removed, because there was no reason to block me. Administrator privileges for Mehman must be removed.

Mehman

Previous attempts at a solution - Mehman

Hello. Although I don't believe this case falls under the UCoC or that there was a violation, I will briefly outline the issue and explain why the user was blocked.

First, we don't have a specific policy regarding block durations, so each admin decides on the duration at their discretion; however, we are currently working on drafting such a policy.

As for the specific block, it was not imposed spontaneously or without warning. The block resulted from the user failing to follow Wikipedia's rules and engaging in an edit war. If we look at the two points on which the user is complaining about me, the situation is as follows:

• Georgian Super Cup Article: the user reverted an edit without providing a reason, altered the article text, and cited a non-functional source. Because the source was not working, I couldn't verify the authenticity of the text. So, I would place more trust in a user with "autopatrolled" status and a working source than in a user lacking such privileges and a valid source. I also reverted Lado85's edit without stating a reason, as Georgian Wikipedia rules don't require one for such actions. Furthermore, the edit I made was to undo what I considered to be vandalism.
• As for the CIS: the language used in the text was unnatural for Georgian, and it appears the user does not have full command of the language; their contribution history suggests a better grasp of Russian than Georgian. I replaced the text with more natural Georgian, formatted it according to Georgian WP guidelines, and aligned the layout with that of the English Wikipedia. I provided specific information noting that Ukraine is not a member of the organization in a footnote. However, the user evidently took issue with this and initiated an edit war, despite my warnings against doing so and my pointing out their lack of language proficiency and failure to grasp the meaning of the word "member" in this context.

In my view, the user doesn't have a full command of the language, which hinders their ability to contribute to the Georgian Wikipedia—yet they refuse to acknowledge this; instead, they lash out at other users and engage in edit wars. I believe that blocking the user for a year is an appropriate measure.

Suggested solutions - Mehman

The user has posted a request for unblocking on their talk page. Other admins must review this request and decide. If they decide to unblock the user, they will do so; otherwise, the user must wait for the block to expire, just like anyone else.

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 (TheJoyfulTentmaker)

I don't have direct information about the case or the parties beyond what is written on this page, but as a global community member I am concerned and felt the need to share my thoughts. I believe the admin conduct we see here, in general, might not be compliant with UCoC section 2.2 (i.e. the principles about mutual support, good citizenship, mentorship and coaching), and this is even more concerning when the admin is a very senior member of the Wikimedia movement. I also believe that disproportionate sanctions violate the Enforcement Guidelines, which says "outcomes shall be proportional to the severity of the violation", if we consider this sanction as a local UCoC enforcement, and the block duration, even after it was revised, still appears to be too long for what seems to be a simple content dispute. I also find it concerning that an obvious typo in the URL was used to disqualify a reference as a non-working link, that somewhat non-constructive comments were made about the filer's language proficiency, and that the lack of the autopatrol privilege appears to have been used against the user during a content dispute, even though it seems unrelated to the dispute itself. This is all based on my initial, quick reading of the case, and I acknowledge that I might be missing some context. However, I felt the need to express how the situation looks at first glance from the outside. I hope this feedback will be considered constructive. Best regards, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

• Gamar jobat User:Lado85, while you should have a possibility for appeal, you should not claim that you were blocked "without any reason". The blocking reason was given: "Destructive action: edit war, unethical action towards a user" (in original: დესტრუქციული მოქმედება: რედაქტირების ომი, მომხმარებლის მიმართ არაეთიკური მოქმედება). I do not like misrepresentations like this at all. Now we will see what Mehman replies. Gamar jobat Mehman, when reverting Lado85's edit, why was no specific reason given? And why was Lado blocked for a year, and not a few days or weeks? --Ghilt (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There was not edit war or destructive actionsfrom my side, information I added is correct and can be proved by multiply sources. His only reason was "he do not trust my edit". But I have provided source too. Lado85 (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

After all, on CIS page he added same information for which he blocked me. Lado85 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ghilt, as I mentioned above, there is no rule requiring us to state the reason for our edits every time, although the specific user did subsequently receive an explanation as to why I reverted the edit. Regarding the block, there is no specific policy on the duration, so each admin makes their own decision. In this instance, I was guided by the user's blocking history and their behavior on the Georgian Wikipedia. – Mehman 09:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Super Cup: the information added by "autopatrolled" user had nothing in common with real situation. Before revert you must check information. If you don't know how to use google or any sport page, the same information is added on same Super Cup page in infobox and in Performance part of article.The link was right, there was only one extra "h" in http, left from old link, why didn't you simply fix this?
• CIS - For first, I have full command of Georgian Language, for second you must explain a block, but you can't, because there was no reason to block me. And now your text says that Ukraine was member of CIS, but the footnote says it wasn't. Lado85 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mehman: If I am reading your comment right, the fact that Lado does not have autopatrolled is a factor in your decision to revert their edit? Additionally, while I acknowledge there is no formal policy on block duration, the user's last block was 3 days, and it was 6 years ago. How did you get to a year for the block duration? EggRoll97 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I also noted that the source provided by the user wasn't working. As for the duration of the block, I made that decision based on the user's responses and actions, something no policy prohibits me from doing. And frankly, I still don't understand how any of this violates the UCoC or why we are even discussing it. – Mehman 19:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A problem with link was extra "H" - hhttps://www.transfermarkt.com/georgian-super-cup/startseite/pokalwettbewerb/GESC

Link itself works well - https://www.transfermarkt.com/georgian-super-cup/startseite/pokalwettbewerb/GESC. Why it was problem for you to simply remove that extra "H" letter? Anyway, there was nothing to get blocked for. And again this information already was in article - in infobox and in Performance. Why did you ignore it. Or why did you ignore link povided by your ""autopatrolled" user, that wasn't changed after 2023 season. Lado85 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

"Other admins must review this request and decide." - I posted a request 11 days ago, and there's still no response. And this is one biggest problem on georgian wiki - admin response takes a very long time,and in most cases there is no response at all. Lado85 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Another admin (MIKHEIL) says he agree with block (of course without any explanation why), only thing he does, was reducing block time to 6 month, what is nonsense, because i did nothing to get blocked at all. People like this two can't be admins. Lado85 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Good morning Mehman, I'm still trying to completely understand the situation before i decide to accept or decline: what was the "unethical action against a user"? Ghilt (talk) 08:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mehman courtesy ping, Ghilt (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The concern in this case arises from the manner in which the discussion was conducted, particularly the failure to listen to or meaningfully consider the views of others. The user appeared to disregard the other person’s perspective on the content and continued to insist on their own preferred version. Despite receiving specific explanations and warnings not to initiate an edit war, they persisted with the same conduct. Even above in the discussion, personal attacks are visible against another, uninvolved Georgian Wikipedia admin, which confirms that the user has not grasped how Wikipedia works and that we should listen to the opinions of others. This also falls under the No Personal attacks policy (which we have). Therefore, I decided to give the user time to reflect on their actions. – Mehman 18:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mehman it seems that in both pages the user's "preferred version" are correct, maybe the form was not perfect but normally we do not block people because formatting is not perfect, do we? Can you please show us exactly where the personal attacks are in this page because I can't find them, thank you. --Civvì (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Civvì. No, the block was not imposed because of imperfect formatting, and I agree that formatting problems alone would not justify a block. The concern was the user’s conduct during the dispute, including continuing the edit war after explanations and warnings had been given.

Af for the “personal attack”, the language of user is uncivil and part of an escalating pattern of interaction (see this). In addition, in all his statements he accused me of spreading disinformation (see this and this), when he didn't even try to get into the essence of what I was writing to him, so this also can be characterized as a personal attack.

Also, the statement on this page that I regarded as a personal attack is: “People like this two can't be admins,” referring to another admin and me. Even here he continues to attack not only me, but also the uninvolved admin. – Mehman 11:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There was no warnings or explanations, you blocked me immediately. And another admin does the same. During this long discussion you didn't explain why did you block me, literally because you can't explain this and you did this without any reason. And it's fact that an information I have added is correct. And in link you provided, I wrote only truth, there is nothing like personal attack. Lado85 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

While i can see the edit-warring, i have difficulties in finding the personal attacks in the links you provided. The quote "this two can't be admins" i would see as a criticising personal opinion that users with extended rights should tolerate. I personally have read much worse without blocking the user who wrote it. Ghilt (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

EggRoll97, a admin, who reviewed a request isn't neutral. Information I added is correct. Admin, who blocked me added same information later on CIS page. Supercup page problem was only extra H in http, left from old link. There was nothing for blocking. Lado85 (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Lado85, could you explain why you believe the admin who reviewed the block, @MIKHEIL, is not neutral? Thanks --ToprakM ^✉ 13:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Because he didn't reviewed the block as it must be reviewed. He changed unblocking request status as accepted, when it was literally declined. He didn't even try to figure out the situation before he made a decision. Lado85 (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• Just to formalize some things I've stated privately, the block length here seems fairly long in general, especially given the last block was 3 days long, 6 years ago. The unblock request itself doesn't seem to have taken that long (10 days isn't terribly long for a wiki with 5 admins), but ka:მომხმარებლის_განხილვა:RiadS99 has also been open for 134 days, which is definitely far too long for an appeal to be waiting. I would like to see kawiki resolve these matters without a case, but because of these popping up, I think a case may be the practical way to resolve this, possibly via an expedited proceeding per 4.2.2.2 of the charter. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• I am leaning to accept because I see some possible improper/excessive use of admin tools and some processes have margin of improvement (mainly block policy and appeal process) where I think we can give some useful advice. --Civvì (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Accept votes

• I'm leaning towards accepting, even if somewhat weakly. Even if I don't think there are any clear-cut UCoC violations, having looked through the case and some other circumstances, I do see a pattern of unclearly justified blocks and unattended unblock requests. Regardless of whether or not the blocks are correct, one should in principle have a right to appeal, and I think we are at a point where locally blocked users don't seem to properly have that. The response above, as already noted by EggRoll, was also somewhat unconvincing to me and did not really explain the issues in the way I would have desired. EPIC (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, though not without hesitation. I don’t think the block itself is a clear-cut UCoC violation, and if this were only about whether Lado85’s edits merited a year off, I’d say decline and let kawiki sort it out. What tips me over is the appeals situation. An unblock request sitting unanswered for 11 days is tolerable on a wiki with five admins; one sitting for over 130 days is not. Add to that a block that jumped from three days (in 2018) straight to a year, with no duration policy behind it, and a reduction logged with no new rationale, and I’m left doubting that blocked users on kawiki have a meaningful right of appeal at all. Borschts ^Talk 20:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, the reasons why the user was blocked are not completely clear to me. The lack of a blocking policy defining block durations, the absence of previous warnings (at least I don't find any on the user's talk page), some issues with the appeal process and red links in the specific blocking reasons (and in the dropdown list) lead me to believe that further analysis is necessary to determine how we can help to make sure that the EG requirements are met. --Civvì (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• I would like to look closer into the blocking reasons, the kawiki personal attack policy and the appeal process as well as a potential conflict of interest. --Ghilt (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, weakly - I am not quite convinced by the reasons given for blocking and the appeals process appears to need some review. --Ferien (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, extremely weakly. I do not think we should focus on the specific block of Lado, and frankly I think we should remove Lado as a party, other than as the technical filer who brought this case. What we should focus on is that there are unblock requests waiting over 130 days for a response. The appeals process is not ideal, and a blocked user should not need to bring their block to the U4C to get a review faster than 130 days. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Accept, after reviewing some blocking history and other issues, I will change to accept. Superzerocool (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Accept. I'm concerned that there's no clear policy on block duration, and no prior warning history is evident either. I'd like to see the block rationale and the appeals process reviewed together. --𝓰𝓲𝓷𝓪𝓪𝓷기나ㅏㄴ(T/C) 08:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Initially I was more inclined not to accept, but accepting it because the block appeal process does not seem to be working as it should. It might be worth looking into. --ToprakM ^✉ 14:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Decline votes

• While it's slightly disturbing conduct overall, and certainly not admin behavior (blocking over basically a content dispute) that I would endorse, I also do not see a UCoC violation here. An appeal resulted in another admin shifting the block to 6 months from a year. I am thus convinced that a neutral admin has reviewed the situation and come to the same conclusions here. 6 months is still a bit much, but I don't see it as a UCoC violation at this time. EggRoll97 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC) Move to extremely weak accept. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing a UCoC violation in this case. Superzerocool (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

✅ Passed Motion — Date: 19 Aug 2026

---

Findings of fact

• On 17 July, 2026, Lado85 was blocked for one year on kawiki. The reason for the block is "Destructive action: edit war, unethical action towards a user" (deepL translation), and the block reason "Destructive action" links to a non existing page.
• The edits before the block were done on two pages:
  • Commonwealth of Independent States (history), the user undid a revert of the edit of a TA providing an explanation for their action and added some content to the page. The changes do not appear to be disruptive.
  • Georgian Super Cup (history) the user undid a previous edit and updated the content. The changes, even if they contain formatting errors, do not appear to be disruptive. The changes were reverted and Lado85 undid the revert.
• The comments and explanations provided by the user do not appear to be unpolite or uncivil.
• The user requested a review of the block on the same day, on 29 July the block was reduced to six months.

Motion

• The U4C requests that local admins reconsider the duration of the block.
• Red links should be resolved in ka:Mediawiki:Ipbreason-dropdown to provide clear reasons for blocks.
• We recommend Lado85 discuss edits in advance, especially if they involve undoing changes made by others. Edits reverted by another editor should be discussed on the talk page to generate consensus.
• We request that admins adhere to the local blocking policy, especially the section on block durations and proportionality to rule violations.

DeepL translation of the motion

ფაქტების დასკვნები 2026 წლის 17 ივლისს, Lado85 kawiki-ზე ერთი წლით დაბლოკეს (link). დაბლოკვის მიზეზია "დესტრუქციული ქმედება: სარედაქციო ომი, მომხმარებლის მიმართ არაეთიკური ქმედება" (deepL-ის თარგმანი), ხოლო დაბლოკვის მიზეზის "დესტრუქციული ქმედება" ბმული არარსებულ გვერდზე მიუთითებს. დაბლოკვამდე ცვლილებები განხორციელდა ორ გვერდზე: ka:დამოუკიდებელ სახელმწიფოთა თანამეგობრობა - (ისტორია) მომხმარებელმა გააუქმა დროებითი ანგარიშის რედაქტირების უკან დაბრუნება, დაასაბუთა თავისი ქმედება და გვერდზე დაამატა კონტენტი. ცვლილებები დესტრუქციულად არ გამოიყურება. ka:საქართველოს საფეხბურთო სუპერთასი - (ისტორია) მომხმარებელმა გააუქმა წინა რედაქტირება და განაახლა შინაარსი. ცვლილებები, თუნდაც მათში ფორმატირების შეცდომები იყოს, არ ჩანს, რომ დესტრუქციულია. ცვლილებები გაუქმდა და Lado85-მა გააუქმა ეს გაუქმება. მომხმარებლის მიერ მოწოდებული კომენტარები და განმარტებები უხეშ ან არასამოქალაქოებრივად არ გამოიყურება. მომხმარებელმა იმავე დღეს მოითხოვა ბლოკის გადახედვა, 29 ივლისს კი ბლოკი ექვს თვემდე შემცირდა. მოძრაობა U4C ითხოვს, რომ ადგილობრივმა ადმინისტრატორებმა გადახედონ დაბლოკვის ხანგრძლივობას. წითელი ბმულები ka:Mediawiki:Ipbreason-dropdown-ში უნდა მოგვარდეს, რათა დაბლოკვებისთვის მკაფიო მიზეზები იქნას მითითებული. ვურჩევთ Lado85-ს, წინასწარ განიხილოს ცვლილებები, განსაკუთრებით მაშინ, თუ ისინი სხვების მიერ შეტანილი ცვლილებების გაუქმებას მოიცავს. სხვა რედაქტორის მიერ გაუქმებული ცვლილებები უნდა განხილულ იქნას განხილვის გვერდზე კონსენსუსის მისაღწევად. ვთხოვთ ადმინისტრატორებს, დაიცვან ადგილობრივი ბლოკირების პოლიტიკა, განსაკუთრებით მისი ნაწილი ბლოკირების ხანგრძლივობისა და წესების დარღვევებთან პროპორციულობის შესახებ.

Support

•  Support I understand Lado85's frustration: their edits weren't perfect, but they don't seem wrong. For this reason, I would really encourage kawiki administrators to reconsider the length of the block; even after the first review, it still seems like a very harsh measure to me. On the other side, Lado85, in future please do not use "undo" without leaving a short note on the talk page, even if you are right it's worth spending some minute to do the things 100% by the book. --Civvì (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support The edit war part of the block is correct, in that Lado did engage in a minor edit war on the page. However, I don't think a year, or even six months, is a reasonable time to block someone for, when their last offense was back in 2018, and was their only other block. It is not proportional to the violation, which is against 3.1 of the Enforcement Guidelines. The block was, in my opinion, warranted, but the length is far too much. EggRoll97 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support I support the motion. This is a motion that address a proportional measures. Blocking an user must be the last resort after some guidance to correct their behavior. Superzerocool (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support The block duration, even after it was reduced to 6 months, was disproportionately long. Admins should act based on policy and refer to it properly in their block reasons. This motion addresses those points. Aside from the specific points of this case, I hope the Georgian Wikipedia admins will remember that showing leniency for small mistakes and warning instead of blocking whenever possible are vital to forming a healthy editing community. Toad's Pike [alt] [Talk] 01:27, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Reading policy, it seems clear from a machine translation that this block should have only lasted a few days. There was a previous block in 2018, but as is also addressed by policy, there had been no serious rule breaking since then, and I am not particularly convinced the block was necessary in the first place. I would strongly encourage admins to decrease the length of the block to a few days or remove the block given that a month has already passed. --Ferien (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support The block length was disproportionate in relation to the severity of the edit-war and the block log. --Ghilt (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Like Toad's Pike, I also think the length of the block is still disproportionate and would suggest reducing it even further, or removing it at this point.--BRP ^ever 13:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with all of the advice Ghilt offers. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

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.

• The U4C has seen the case. Regards, EPIC (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• With 9 accept votes and 3 inactive, this has reached a majority for acceptance. On behalf the U4C, Superzerocool (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• The motion has been communicated locally here --Civvì (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
• As the motion has now been passed, this case is closed. For the U4C, Superzerocool (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)