Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Systemic failure to provide UCoC protection by ENWP admins

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
Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Tamzin (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) Special:Diff/29912576

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Faster than Thunder (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than Thunder

Description of the problem - (Faster than Thunder)

This case is prone to changes in circumstances. Please consider evidence carefully.

Cross-wiki UCoC violation/Systemic failure to enforce the UCoC

It's hard to find a good title for this case, but let me get to the point.

Due to my history of unsatisfactory behavior towards Asamboi (including obvious harassment of him on English Wikipedia in July which led to the first block), Tamzin's response to it, and my accusations against Asamboi, Tamzin has demonstrated a pattern of behavior towards me, such as deterring me from dealing with and not doing anything about personal attacks from Asamboi and misapplying HOUND to invalidate my concerns (I cannot be the one directly invalidating Tamzin's concerns because I listen to her concerns that I find reasonable, but my side was hardly considered). Now that the matter involves multiple projects, no single wiki can handle this locally.

It's also concerning that this pattern has been going on since the first block:

  1. August 6 (User talk:Faster than Thunder):
    • "Faster than Thunder, I generally don't discuss unblocks by email unless there's some private information involved. I will, however, say that you escalating this petty dispute to a third wiki does not at all count as a point in your favor, as you seem to expect it to. If you want to show maturity here, just walk away and leave Asamboi alone—here, on Wikivoyage, on Meta, everywhere. You will be doing yourself a favor, as the Meta RfC has only two possible outcomes: nothing, and further sanctions for you."
  2. November 24 (User talk:Faster than Thunder):
  3. In response to #2, I emailed Tamzin about the hostile comments made by Asamboi back in July via ENWP, but she quickly disregarded the email.
  4. December 19 ([1])
    • In response to emailing Tamzin about the first two personal attacks and a third one by Asamboi made the previous month (in [2]) via Meta, Tamzin made the linked reply, indicating that she will not engage meaningfully with my concerns or adapt to new comments, and these events show that it's likely that I would face backlash for raising them. Civility concerns, even about veteran users, should be taken seriously.

This pattern shows that I am effectively unable to raise my concerns. What's more, I don't see anybody watching Asamboi's or Tamzin's comments for uncivility on their part (i.e. nobody responds to Asamboi with, "Let's refrain from the uncivil language and get to the point."). While I see nothing wrong with either of the individual blocks per se, at this point, it's very likely that were I to respond to further uncivil comments towards me from Asamboi (or any other user I come into conflict with) by telling them not to be uncivil or by raising concerns, I would face backlash from Tamzin. Especially if Asamboi is involved, this obviously goes for any wiki where the matter would extend, not just English Wikipedia and Meta.

Unblock Ticket Request System

During the first block, after implementing a Wikibreak enforcer globally, I sent two appeals to UTRS:

  1. On August 22, I sent an appeal clarifying what I was objecting to, explaining that only certain comments from Asamboi offended me, but Pppery invalidated my concerns per NOTTHEM.
  2. The appeal on September 7 included, "I thought this would be a good idea because after he responded to me telling him not to be uncivil on Wikivoyage in a way that offended me even more, I felt helpless in telling him not to be uncivil." Yamla perceived the inclusion of this part as blaming others for my actions, asking me why as well, even though it was providing context.

Emailing ArbCom

On January 3, I sent this email to ENWP's ArbCom using my personal email because I am blocked from using the on-wiki email feature:

Dear ArbCom,
I am requesting a case concerning how incivility towards blocked users is handled, and how they should be able to address such comments without risks.
In November, I was blocked for unsatisfactory behavior towards two users. Later that month, one of them made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faster_than_Thunder#c-Asamboi-20251122100700-Faster_than_Thunder-20251120225100, which uses a tone and language that feel accusatory.
Comments from the original blocking admin suggest that it could be considered hounding to attempt to defend myself from the indicated comment, leaving me uncertain as to whether to do anything about it.
My concern is not the original block, but the broader issue that blocked users have fewer opportunities to report perceived incivility targeted at them.
I am hereby requesting an arbitration case.
Sincerely,
Faster than Thunder

Four days later, I sent an email asking ArbCom why they did not respond. Izno declined to hear my case with this message:

Thank you for your email. The Arbitration Committee primarily looks after serious user conduct issues and are therefore unable to help you in this instance. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration)
We specifically decline to hear a case.
We advise that you take some time away from English Wikipedia and the disputes that caused your blocks from multiple appeals forums and wikis.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Izno

Why lower bodies cannot handle the situation appropriately

  • English Wikipedia's ArbCom: Lower methods of resolution have not been tried. I was shy to resolve the problem when I did have my talk page access. They cannot help me sort the part of the problem that involves other wikis such as Meta. Importantly, I cannot think of anything that is obviously wrong with my block.
  • Other English Wikipedia Admins: Seeking help is bound to hurt my chances of getting unblocked per NOTTHEM, which discourages discussing others' behavior. Moreover, they are focused on my behavior more than that of other involved users. I cannot handle this on ENWP because I don't have TPA, email access, or UTRS access (until the end of the year).

Post statement

Together, what happened on UTRS and the list of interactions between Tamzin and me show a limitation of being blocked: The blocked user should focus only on their own conduct, effectively making it feel risky to raise UCoC concerns about comments toward them while they are blocked.

To be clear, I was really hoping not to bring up what Asamboi did in the previous dispute, but here we are again. I'm even beginning to suspect that this bias is happening simply because Asamboi has a high edit count on Wikipedia and/or is an administrator on Wikivoyage. Because blocking is one of the most serious actions an administrator can perform, the target should be allowed to disagree non-disruptively without being censored.

To clarify, I'm not in any way wanting sanctions against Asamboi; he is otherwise a productive contributor.

Applying the UCoC

2.1 – Mutual respect
  • Practice empathy. Listen and try to understand what Wikimedians of different backgrounds want to tell you. Be ready to challenge and adapt your own understanding, expectations and behaviour as a Wikimedian.
  • Assume good faith, and engage in constructive edits: your contributions should improve the quality of the project or work. Provide and receive feedback kindly and in good faith. Criticism should be delivered in a sensitive and constructive manner. All Wikimedians should assume unless evidence otherwise exists that others are here to collaboratively improve the projects, but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact.
    • "... but this should not be used to justify statements with a harmful impact." - From her not dealing with uncivil comments from Asamboi and the pattern described above, it's highly likely for this kind of behavior to continue were more comments to come.
2.2 – Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship

This includes but is not limited to:

  • Looking out for fellow contributors: Lend them a hand when they need support, and speak up for them when they are treated in a way that falls short of expected behaviour as per the Universal Code of Conduct.
    • Not providing insight into my concerns, even because I unsatisfactorily treated Asamboi as well, flagrantly falls short of this point.
    • Yes, I am aware of STICK, but civility concerns, whoever they are about, should be taken seriously.
3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence
  • 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.
    • As long as it doesn't mean being disruptive or violating any policy, I should be allowed to express disagreements with others without being censored. At this point, I fear that were I to defend myself from uncivility from Asamboi (or any other user I come into conflict with), Tamzin would likely sanction/pursue sanctions against (depending on the wiki) me.
  • Psychological manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.
    • Regarding Tamzin's interactions as listed above, it is evident that she adamantly wants me to act in Asamboi's favor, even when doing so were to conflict with actual policy in any form and when me disagreeing with them would not be disruptive. I should be allowed to express concerns about Asamboi's (or any other user's) uncivility without facing backlash, especially if I do so in a non-disruptive manner. My unsatisfactory behavior towards another user should not automatically excuse similar behavior towards me.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Faster than Thunder)

  1. Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Suspected abuse of power by Asamboi (directly involving Asamboi)
  2. User talk:Tamzin#Sorry (I asked Tamzin why she insistently dismissed me)
  3. Emailing ArbCom about what happened on ENWP

Suggested solutions - (Faster than Thunder)

  • Warning to Tamzin

Tamzin

Previous attempts at a solution - Tamzin

In line with enwiki's expectations under en:WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE and en:WP:ADMINACCT, I have discussed this matter with FTT at:

While not obliged to discuss further (and not, for that matter, currently an enwiki admin), I have still attempted to explain enwiki harassment policy to FTT at User talk:Tamzin § Sorry. I was not involved in the subsequent decision to block him for misuse of Meta.

Suggested solutions - Tamzin

I'm really sad to see this wind up here. Faster Than Thunder is an enthusiastic contributor who could be a valuable part of this movement if he could comply with our policies. en:WP:HOUND is a simple policy and one that the vast majority of enwiki users have no trouble following. You can see from the various threads linked above that I and many others have tried to explain to him at length that it is not okay to follow other people's edits around when you are in a dispute with them. He has zeroed in on HOUND's limited allowance for following a user to "fix[ ] unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy", neglecting that his edits following Asamboi and The Banner have not just been to fix unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, and neglecting the adjacent admonishment in policy that following others' edits "should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress". By the time of FTT's second block, there was no room for confusion on this: I said on 16 October: "The fact that you're talking about 'continu[ing] following Asamboi, even constructively' bodes very, very poorly here. Again: Pretend he doesn't exist."

Instead of learning from his mistakes, FTT has become fixated on the idea that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice because either I did not take action against Asamboi for a comment he made on a different wiki prior to FTT's initial harassment of him on enwiki, or because he is worried about the possibility of Asamboi being rude to him in the future (see the thread on my talkpage here). This is similar to his focus on enwiki on potential legitimate reasons he might have to follow Asamboi, and, whether he intends it or not, is a continuation of this cross-wiki harassment. And to be clear, the comments he takes issue with are not blockable incivility by enwiki standards, nor I gather by enwikivoyage standards—in contrast with FTT's response to those comments, which was to manufacture an unrelated content dispute on enwiki and try to get Asamboi blocked, something it seems he still doesn't fully understand the magnitude of given the statement "I also understand that it is a bad idea to manufacture multiple disputes with another user in a short period of time".

There are a few remedies the U4C could impose here to address this campaign of cross-wiki harassment. An IBAN from Asamboi comes to mind, and I think would be within the U4C's powers given that this has occurred across three wikis and not been adequately addressed by existing global enforcement mechanisms. That said, I wonder if what would help FTT the most here is just a clear message from the U4C that he is not the victim here and that his best path forward is actually listening to admins when they tell him what the rules are. He hasn't listened to that when it's come from anyone else, but maybe it would do something for that to come from someone on the U4C. -- Tamzin[​cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback

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

  • Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
  • Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
  • Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
  • All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Harry Mitchell)

As is obvious to anyone other than FTT, the provide links and diffs do not demonstrate any incivility or harassment towards FTT. Blocked editors are expected to recognise the problems with their own conduct in order to be unblocked. By design, they have limited dispute resolution mechanisms at their disposal, which are intended for appealing the block, not continuing the dispute which led to it. There is no "systemic failure" here, just processes working as they are supposed to. Exhausting all methods of appeal is not evidence of failure of those mechanisms.

It is important to remember that appeal procedures are not a legal system, and strict wording of policies is less important than community norms. Put simply: people who cause disharmony in the community are removed from it until they can convince us that they can participate harmoniously. Not only is this request evidence that FTT would continue to cause disharmony on enwiki if unblocked, but it is evidence that FTT is causing disharmony on Meta, and I suggest that removal of FTT from this community is necessary. Harry Mitchell (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I took the time to go through the user’s talk pages on Meta-Wiki and English Wikipedia, and it appears that multiple editors and administrators have made good-faith efforts to help address the issues raised. Based on what I see, this does not demonstrate a failure at UCoC enforcement. My view is that it would be more constructive for Faster than Thunder to take a step back and return while heeding the advice offered by well-meaning users.--BRP ever 12:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking the provided links i cannot see any personal attacks against you that would merit an intervention. If you fail to make your point clear in so many places, it is not a systemic failure. Please just accept the fact that you could not convince others of your opinion. --Ghilt (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any failure of the system. What I do see are several users on different projects who have shown incredible patience by repeatedly trying to give you useful advice. I strongly recommend that you start following the advice you have been given. --Civvì (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTT needs to listen to what others tell him whether it's advice or it's to be left alone - as Tamzin did on the talk page. At this point the use of processes strikes me itself as abusive. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, and with my thanks (and apologies) to Tamzin for their patient participation in this process. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

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

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2026/Systemic_failure_to_provide_UCoC_protection_by_ENWP_admins&oldid=29919853"