Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Systemic failure to enforce UCoC on Wikidata - bureaucrat intimidation
| Parties | Notifications |
|---|---|
| Johnnytelles (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC) | Filer (no diff required) |
| Ymblanter (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) | |
| Bovlb (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) | |
U4C member alert: @U4C: Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. Johnnytelles (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Description of the problem - (Johnnytelles)
This case was referred to the U4C by WMF Trust & Safety (ticket #154174, Kevin Peterson, 2026-07-22), who indicated this committee as the appropriate channel for UCoC violations where local administrators are unable or unwilling to act. It is not a re-filing of a previously resolved matter.
Ymblanter is a bureaucrat on Wikidata — holding authority to grant and remove administrator flags. UCoC §3.1 explicitly prohibits using one's position and reputation to intimidate others, and establishes a higher standard for users in positions of authority.
Two verified instances of intimidation in formal processes:
Instance 1 — BulkPatrolBot 1 (2026-07-17, 11:40 UTC)
During a formal bot approval process, Ymblanter wrote:
"the filing user is on a crusade which has nothing to do with the mission of Wikisata [sic]. In fact, I will not be surprised if this activity will result is a swift indefinite block."
This text was written by a bureaucrat in a formal evaluative role. It combines delegitimization of the proposer's motivation ("crusade") with signaling a severe punitive consequence ("swift indefinite block"). 1 hour 40 minutes later, Bovlb closed the same process (diff=2518642189).
Instance 2 — Rollbacker request (2026-07-22, 12:25 UTC)
During evaluation of a rights request, Ymblanter wrote:
"The point is not whether the criterion applies or not, the point is that you can not be trusted with this flag."
No criterion cited. No evidence presented. A personal statement of distrust substituted for policy-based evaluation — by a bureaucrat with direct power over administrative flags.
Logical structure of the evidence
On Instance 1: If Ymblanter's statement "I will not be surprised if this activity will result is a swift indefinite block" were a neutral procedural observation, it would not be directed at the proposer personally, and would not appear in an evaluative role during a formal approval process. It was directed personally. It appeared in a formal evaluative role. Therefore it is not a neutral procedural observation.
On Instance 2: If "you can not be trusted with this flag" were a policy-based evaluation, the applicable policy criterion would be cited. No criterion is cited. Therefore it is not a policy-based evaluation. A statement of personal distrust issued by a bureaucrat in a formal process, without policy basis, is the use of position and reputation to determine an outcome — which is what UCoC §3.1 prohibits.
Previous attempts at a solution - (Johnnytelles)
This case was submitted to WMF Trust & Safety (ticket #154174). The response from Kevin Peterson (2026-07-22) explicitly indicated the U4C as the appropriate channel for UCoC violations where local project administrators are unable or unwilling to act.
Applicable precedent: Turkish Wikipedia (2025) — the U4C investigated "dispute over admin and CU abuse" — use of a privileged position to intimidate and suppress editor participation in formal processes. Cases/2025/Dispute_over_admin_and_CU_abuse_on_Turkish_Wikipedia
Suggested solutions - (Johnnytelles)
Investigation of Ymblanter for violation of UCoC §3.1 in the two documented instances.
Diffs and links:
- diff=2518606305 — intimidating statement in BulkPatrolBot 1 approval process
- diff=2518642189 — Bovlb closes same process 1h40min later
- Rollbacker thread 2026-07-22 — "you can not be trusted"
— Johnnytelles (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Previous attempts at a solution - Ymblanter
Suggested solutions - Ymblanter
Not sure what I should say here but IMO U4C demonstrated a good level of understanding of the matter.—Ymblanter (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Previous attempts at a solution - Bovlb
My involvement in this matter has been peripheral. Although this was framed as a request for bot approval, I determined that it formed part of the same pattern of raising essentially the same underlying dispute across multiple venues, despite earlier requests to keep the matter to a single venue, and closed the discussion as a duplicate. Bovlb (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
Suggested solutions - Bovlb
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.
U4C decision
Only U4C members may edit in this section.
U4C member discussion
Accept votes
Decline votes
- There is no evidence of intimidation. This complaint appears to consist of two admins warning the filer against continuing disputes on unrelated venues (i.e. a bot proposal). At the rollback request, several editors provided a variety of reasons for declining. "are generally trusted members of the community" is, in fact, a requirement for rollback listed in the guideline Wikidata:Rollbackers. Toadspike [Talk] 02:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is utterly without merit. I am surprised the filer has not been blocked on Wikidata by now. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see a UCoC violation here. The alleged intimidation is not even an admin warning, but more a speculation about the future and the consequences of your actions. And trust is a prerequisite for having a bot at wikidata. --Ghilt (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is just retaliatory. Drop the stick, please. EPIC (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- This is the fourth case request submitted by the same filer. And it’s still not a UCoC violation. No. Borschts Talk 07:28, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have read all four requests. I agree with Toadspike on the substance of this case. Four separate requests with some overlap becomes disruptive. Barkeep49 (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- Per Toadspike. --Civvì (talk) 11:00, 25 July 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.
- U4C member has seen the page. Superzerocool (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
- With 7 members voting to decline the case and 2 inactive members, the case is declined. EPIC (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)