Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Wikimedia Eesti

This case is currently under investigation. The U4C is reviewing the submitted evidence and exploring possible solutions. Evidence can be submitted before 9 April 2026.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
U4C on mandate of Affcom	Refer (no diff required)
Robert Treufeldt - Chair of the Board of Wikimedia Estonia User:Robert Treufeldt	local notif.
Darja Lavõgina - Member of the Board of Wikimedia Estonia User:Darja.Lavogina	local notif.
Ivo Kruusamägi - Executive Director of Wikimedia Estonia User:Kruusamägi	local notif.

Local Village Pump notification: diff

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. 17:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C

Description of the problem

Based on:

a private request the U4C received several months ago, which was directed to AffCom as the appropriate High Level Decision Making Body
a referral from AffCom and private evidence submitted to the U4C by them
an article published on the estonian media channel Levila.ee (https://www.levila.ee/raadio/nohikute-tulipesa-pilk-vikipeedia-tagatuppa)

We kindly request that the chapter provide detailed information regarding the following issues:

How the Universal Code of Conduct is incorporated into the organization’s governance framework and internal regulations.
What mechanisms are currently in place within the organization to receive, assess, and address reports of violations or inappropriate behavior.
How the organization ensures that such reports are reviewed in an impartial and independent manner, in line with movement standards and best practices.
What steps have been taken to ensure that all individuals involved in the organization, including members, staff, and volunteers, are adequately informed of the above mentioned procedures and reporting pathways.

Should the organization not yet have fully implemented one or more of the above elements, we would appreciate receiving information on the measures planned or underway to ensure compliance with these requirements, including an indicative timeline where possible. To send private information to the U4C, please email us at u4cwikimedia.org. Please post all non-private information in a section below.

Previous attempts at a solution

We are aware of repeated requests from members and former members regarding the above points, and we believe it is in everyone's interest to clarify these issues.

Robert Treufeldt - Chair of the Board of Wikimedia Estonia User:Robert Treufeldt

Description of the problem

How the Universal Code of Conduct is incorporated into the organization’s governance framework and internal regulations. - WMEE has been involved in the processing of the UCoC since last spring, when its processing, translation and commenting by the community were announced at the general meeting in June 2025. In Estonia, a legally binding text must be translated into Estonian, which is why we have spent so much time and effort communicating with the community and introducing a legal language. All suggestions from community members have been welcome. The currently translated and edited version is scheduled to be discussed until March 12th and be on the agenda of the general meeting on March 28th, 2026. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What mechanisms are currently in place within the organization to receive, assess, and address reports of violations or inappropriate behavior. - In the chapter, you can first address a problem directly to the board, but you can also address it directly to the general meeting, which is higher than the board. An institution, named "cood-will chancellor" is currently being developed that would allow emerging issues to be addressed anonymously if the person raising the issue feels that it cannot be addressed publicly at first. The description of the institution's activities has been submitted for discussion and approval at the general meeting, which will be held on March 28, 2026. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How the organization ensures that such reports are reviewed in an impartial and independent manner, in line with movement standards and best practices. - There are currently four different levels in the chapter, and it is hoped that the general meeting on March 28 will approve a fifth one, which will supervise each other's activities. If there is any suspicion of a biased approach to problems at any level, it is guaranteed to ask for help from other levels. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What steps have been taken to ensure that all individuals involved in the organization, including members, staff, and volunteers, are adequately informed of the above mentioned procedures and reporting pathways. - All discussions to reflect these problems and discussions to resolve them are sent in written form to all members. Solutions requiring a decision by the general meeting are sent to all members for discussion, additions and approval by voting according to the bylaws. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution

We are aware of repeated requests from members and former members regarding the above points, and we believe it is in everyone's interest to clarify these issues. - Can you specify what are "these issues"?

Since spring 2023, when I have been a board member, there has only been one case where a member has expelled of the chapter for inappropriate behavior (vandalism on Wikipedia). Robert Treufeldt (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Darja Lavõgina - Member of the Board of Wikimedia Estonia User:Darja.Lavogina

Description of the problem

I became a member of Wikimedia Eesti in March 2025 and joined the organization’s Board in June 2025. During my time as a member and board member, I have not personally witnessed any inappropriate, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour within the organization. Furthermore, in my capacity as a member of the Board, I have not received any formal complaints, documented evidence, or official requests asking the Board to address such situations.

Previous attempts at a solution

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and its Enforcement Guidelines have been translated into Estonian. These documents will be presented to Wikimedia Eesti members for discussion prior to the General Meeting scheduled for March 2026. This timeline is consistent with the schedule discussed in December 2025 in connection with the organization’s funding decisions.

Ivo Kruusamägi - Executive Director of Wikimedia Estonia User:Kruusamägi

Description of the problem

In short. UCoC applies to all chapter activities and serves as the minimum behavioral standard for members, staff, and volunteers. I understand that the question is not how we support expected behaviours (where we had many procedures already in place a decade ago), but how we deal with problems. So, as of now and within the chapter, there are a board and an audit committee, both independent bodies that can handle investigations. In the near future, we are adding a third option (Goodwill Chancellor) to expand the range of conflict resolution means. There are multiple ways of reporting, and contact details are public. Matters are considered by more than one responsible person where feasible, and there are multiple layers (the highest being the General Assembly), which also provides options for appeal.

If there was a request months ago, then it should have looked into months ago. Why that kind of delay? The phrasing of the request also remains questionable, at least for me. Does "former member" refer to one of the main actors in this Levila story, M. P.? The only person in the 15+ years of existence of this chapter who has been thrown out for unacceptable behaviour? (that we have well documented, but who is pointed to as a victim in this Levila story) If the question is about the current state of UCoC implementation, those kinds of references seem totally unnecessary and only create confusion.

I should also point out that Levila is not exactly a media channel, rather a blog. Therefore, this is not expected to adhere to journalistic standards, which makes it a suitable venue for this slander campaign, which we have already had to endure. So if the question is "why have we not done anything on our leadership", then well, there is not much to be done if one is under false allegations.

It should also be clear that the standards for acceptable and unacceptable behavior are not something Wikimedia has invented. In essence, that has been around for as long as humanity has existed. Chapters have also operated before anyone even began drafting the UCoC, and managed their daily activities as well as they could. For instance, WMEE adopted Estonian Civil Society Code of Ethics a while back. We do not tolerate unacceptable behavior, and UCoC applies to us anyway.

We have indeed not "officially adopted" UCoC in the sense that we have not voted on it in the General Assembly, as we have considered it applies as default. But at the beginning of the current year, we finished translating all the related documentation (the main part was translated around the time UCoC was made), and we would also set this up for GA for general adoption (however UCoC itself has been introduced in the past GAs multiple times).

Previous attempts at a solution

We have had problems in the past: a board member who turned out not to be so nice and caused a lot of havoc in the organization. If the abuser sits in a body that is supposed to deal with abusers, then that gets complicated fast. But he still got relieved from his board member duties, and the next board kicked him out of the chapter. He did apply to the GA, which is the only thing above the board, but the GA confirmed the board's decision. That itself says a lot, as average chapter members were not aware of the full nature of the abuse.

We still have a problem: several former board members who served on the board with him no longer want to be on the board again, as this experience was quite unpleasant for them. That resulted in the significant reduction of potential board members, which has taken us years of recruiting to start recovering, as so many people resigned at once.

That unpleasant experience is the direct reason we have wondered about the scope of the UCoC implementation, as we have seen firsthand that standard procedures fail if the person is sufficiently malicious. That does not mean we don't comply with UCoC. The question concerns the finer details of implementation and may also cover more complex cases. For that reason, at the end of last year the board came up with creating the position of Goodwill Chancellor. The job description has been drafted already and potential candidates have been identified. This will be also one agenda item for this year's first GA at the end of March.

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 (User:~2026-16026-96)

Except that the supposedly pro-Russian editor has been community-banned from English Wikipedia when the English Wikipedia community decided that he was involved in tendentious editing and harassment of several editors? The editor publicly stated that he was there to promote a Russian POV because of what he alleged to be "demonization of Russia" on English Wikipedia. As a third-party observer, I do not agree that Treufeldt was wrong for calling out bad actors who were disrupting Wikipedia for political agendas. Rather, I agree with Ivo that the question does not appear to be impartial or appropriate in the context of the case request. ~2026-16026-96 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 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.

@Darja.Lavogina: thank you for your reply. The BoT of WMF approved the UCoC in December 2020, the first et translation was published in May 2021. Why did it take you so long to take it into consideration? --Civvì (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As far as I know from the members of WMEE who were there long before me, while UCoC text is quite concise, the enforcement guideline text is by far more lengthy. So the challenge was to make sure that the whole set did not contradict with the local Estonian rules regarding MTÜ-type of organizations. I cannot have personal memories of this matter as I joined in 2026. Darja.Lavogina (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 2026 should read as 2025 in my case :) Darja.Lavogina (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The existing system seemed to cover everything anyway. So the question has been on finer details (i.e. is there anything that we are not already doing that should be done; or any problems with it), what else could be done (as this is not sufficient), and the questions regarding how far the implementation goes (like if a person is banned from the chapter, should that extend to Wikipedia). In short: everything seems like done, but we could always add stuff to it or specify some details. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruusamägi: for sure the existing conflict resolution pathways and the "multiple ways of reporting" are described in a document available to all members, maybe on a page of your wiki? Can you please point that to us? Can you also point to us in which agenda of these General Assemblies the UCoC was introduced, I understand it was done multiple times, I assume there was a lot of discussion. Maybe you can send us (or affcom) privately the minutes? Many thanks. --Civvì (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have not assembled documentation on "conflict resolution pathways" because anything even remotely useful would be insanely complicated and would need to cover different ways, configurations, intensities, etc. Describing "multiple ways of reporting" seems like overkill, as documenting how people could write or talk to others (who they know!) seems unnecessary. For an organisation with hundreds of employees, some specialised regulation would make a lot of sense. Similar instances could recur often enough, and it might sometimes be difficult to find the right people. Not so for a small organisation with 2.0 FTE staff and where everyone knows almost everyone else. Regarding the GA protocols, I would need to read them all first, which would take time.

I am not sure what you are really looking for here. Is it if we actually follow UCoC and aim to support good behaviours and clamp down on bad ones, or just that we leave an impression that we are following UCoC, by having a massive amount of documentation that no one needs on actual conflict resolution work? Kruusamägi (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kruusamägi: in the first section of your reply you mention "multiple ways of reporting", in this reply you state that "practical enforcement often comes from shared community norms", this is why I am asking you how those are shared or where those are described and how members and stakeholders are informed about them. The organization is not only made up of employees and members; looking at the impressive metrics in your activity reports there is really a lot of people involved in your projects and activities, this is why "some specialised regulation would make a lot of sense". As for the GA minutes, please send us those from 2025 (u4c

wikimedia.org), thanks. --Civvì (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With a "lot of people involved", it may be necessary to point out that WMEE has no jurisdiction over (Estonian) Wikipedia, and we often work with partners (much) bigger than us (as WMEE is still a small chapter, as are most Wikimedia affiliates). So, for example, if we hold a physical event with a university, the university would set the rules. So, in reality, we would be talking only about a small subset of activities and the chapter's internal functioning, where we could only rely on the UCoC. And even there, that would mostly come down to a relatively small set of people who also mostly stay the same over the years and should know pretty well how the stuff works. I'm not saying rules aren't necessary or anything like that, but in context, we are talking about a relatively small number of activities where we could realistically rely solely on UCoC. If people need to read a manual first just to contact someone, then that is not a well-designed system at all (and it would be extremely unlikely that people could not figure out where to file complaints).

Our Bylaws state that we should have a board and an audit committee, and that both should be composed of at least two persons. That, in itself, sets up two bodies that could both handle complaints (and if the issue is with one of them, then, naturally, the other could be the one conducting the investigation). And then there is the General Assembly, which we usually hold twice a year, where issues can be raised or decisions appealed. Naturally, that applies to instances that require closer inspection; in most cases, just notifying someone that "please do not do that" should be sufficient.

GA minutes have been sent. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question @Kruusamägi. For me there are two goals. Goal 1: make sure Wikimedia Eesti has effective ways of enforcing the UCoC. I personally do not need lots of documentation. Evidence about linking to the UCoC at live events or descriptions of how the chapter handles complaints could be helpful. Goal 2: investigate reports of UCoC violations. I care much more about Goal 1, because I want the affiliate to do its own UCoC work. However, if there is a lot of evidence of UCoC violations that haven't been handled, that will tell me something about what kind of help Wikimedia Eesti needs. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Treufeldt: i would recommend you to fill out your section. You have been editing since you were notified six days ago, just not here on this page. And you are currently waiting for a grant approval for the second half of 2026. I guess it is in your best interest to make a good impression, especially after the not so good interview on January 7 where you gave sufficient information about a supposedly pro-russian editor on estonian national TV to identify the user account. This can be seen as a public invitation to hounding. What is your view on this? The next questions are: do you think the UCoC applies to WMEE members and WMEE employees and since when? --Ghilt (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That comment does not leave an impression of an impartial person handling the case. What kind of investigation is this? Kruusamägi (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ivo, our job is to have a look at possible UCoC violations. I can understand the impression, because the questions are direct and uncomfortable. They have a reason though and i would like to have Robert's view on this. Ghilt (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to User:~2026-16026-96, understanding the motivation really depends on Robert's reply. Ghilt (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert Treufeldt: Thank you for your statement. You are describing two levels (board and general meeting) and then you state that a “fifth” level will be introduced; assuming that the third level is the audit committee, I am missing one level. I have repeatedly asked where these procedures are described, how is a person expected to know how to report and how will those levels deal with a report? How do you plan to ensure that this new position, which I presume is voluntary, will be filled and operational in an organisation that already struggles to fill other roles?

According to Levila.ee, there was an incident during a WMEE meeting in which User:Kruusamägi addressed a participant by calling them an “autistic, mentally ill person”. I imagine a complaint was filed, how and by whom was it handled?

About the outing you carried out during this interview against an enwiki user. The Wikimedia system has mechanisms in place to handle reports regarding suspected misinformation—why weren’t they used, and why was it decided instead to go through the media?

@Kruusamägi: could you please explain how your statement, (you apparently said this to the author of that podcast) "insulting someone is a human right," applies to your work with volunteers (which I assume is part of your job in WMEE)?

Thank you for your replies. --Civvì (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of misleading claims here. I start with the interview Robert gave. There seems to be an assumption that this is somehow the first depiction of this. It is not. That issue was already well documented in the media, and journalists could figure out how to view page histories or read talk pages. So Robert was asked to the television to comment on that issue and explain the Wikipedia side. The question was also largely about whether it is just this one actor or multiple people are involved in this campaign.

Those issues were also reported to the WMF, but both we and the WMF were expecting the community to sort this out and were trying to avoid active involvement. It turned out the community was not very good at sorting this out and was easily misled by multiple targeted comments that shifted the blame. Hardly anyone bothered to look a bit closer. That is what dragged this on. But that same complexity was there for the WMF as well: how to distinguish between a rogue actor and a manipulated system. Not an easy task. Especially if concrete proofs are needed to sanction people.

On that autistic question, no complaint was ever filed. And, considering the claim and the person, that was a factual statement that holds true. Pointing out a fact is no slander. People can get insulted by anything (like, there doesn't even need to be an insult or any intention for it). And even if there is an insult, then getting insulted is an active decision made by the person. What laws protect against is the smearing of someone's name (false accusations and such); they do not and cannot protect against what people feel. What I meant in there is that freedom of speech also includes the right to insult people. When you take that away, you take away freedom of speech. What is not allowed is slander, but that is an entirely different thing. And that is also what I commented to that author.

I understand that you are hinting that I keep going around and insulting people without a reason. To illustrate the issue, we could look at it in the following way. I could also consider that an insult, a rather serious one, coming from an official of higher power. Does that mean we should start an official investigation into your conduct? Is that like a Soviet Union style of policing (saying the wrong word means that one person disappears forever)? If there is no free speech, there is no safe space. When working with volunteers, it is important to understand them and help them get satisfaction from the work they do, not about word policing.

Keeping a safe space also requires using force when needed, and words are essential part of that toolbox. Naturally, at whatever use of force, there is a question of whether that is justified (i.e., where is the line of excessive use of force that should not be crossed). You can't possibly know what the exact situation is, as you could only use some indirect evidence, which in themself could easily be cherry-picked. But what holds true for Estonia is that we have proven to be rather extraordinary at finding and keeping volunteers (our per capita numbers beat others by a large margin). People occasionally get into disagreements, but it is all about managing them, not avoiding them. One could not avoid the inevitable, but one could prepare to deal with it. And I have never seen any evidence that we are any worse at this than other countries. Especially since we have managed to gather such a diverse set of volunteers in such large numbers.

As for this new voluntary position, we have found a volunteer (and we did talk to multiple people on this). That is the only way we could even open that; if we could not find everyone, we would not have that position, no matter what the General Assembly would decide. A role that requires a human could not exist without one. But only time could tell how that specific solution would work, and even the details surrounding it were still up for debate, and waiting for the GA. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are describing two levels (board and general meeting) and then you state that a “fifth” level will be introduced; assuming that the third level is the audit committee, I am missing one level.

The highest level of governance in Wikimedia Eesti is the general meeting. At various lower levels a board, a staff and an audit committee. After the general meeting on March 28, a fifth level will hopefully be added, the so-called good-will chancellor. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Levila.ee, there was an incident during a WMEE meeting in which User:Kruusamägi addressed a participant by calling them an “autistic, mentally ill person”. I imagine a complaint was filed, how and by whom was it handled?

I have been a board member since April 22, 2023 and attended this meeting. No such incident has occurred during my time. There has also been no written notice or complaint. This has been a smear campaign by one user. He also approached me to join the campaign against Ivo, and when I asked where the evidence of inappropriate behavior was, he did not contact me again. He was later expelled of Wikimedia Eesti for vandalism in Wikipedia. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to Levila.ee

For orientation in the field of Estonian media - Levila isn't a newspaper. It is fourth-rate private-owned "media-channel", owned by Daniel Vaarik, who is mentioned in probably every Levila story, including this one. The owner's insistence that he should always be mentioned, even though the story is not about him. The author of the story, Lennart Ruuda, is a public relations manager who once worked for one of the top Estonian newspapers, Postimees. Now he is also trying to do "investigative journalism", but it doesn't work out. He only talks to sources that fit his story. This bias runs through his entire story. He didn't talk to the board members when he was creating his story - not to me, who was actually involved in the stories he described, or to another board member, Jaan Meriniit, who had been on the board longer than me and knew the history of the chapter better. This Levila story is just a smear campaign. Robert Treufeldt (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About the outing you carried out during this interview against an enwiki user.

As mentioned above, the investigative journalism raised the problem earlier. We do not monitor enwiki, we were invited to the media to comment on the situation. I commented as a historian on the Russian/Soviet empire's soft power attempt to recolonize us and our history (also the history of other Baltic countries, but also the territories that were once part of the Russian Empire).

This pro-Russian user's data was completely public, so there was nothing there to make public. At the current moment, he is banned in enwiki.

Such recolonization of former colonies using soft power would be unthinkable in, for example, in North America, East Africa, or Australia - why is it allowed when the descendants of the former Russian and Soviet empires want to recolonize our history? Robert Treufeldt (talk) 11:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Given the referal to AffCom I was basically always going to accept this case and the discussion so far indicates that more information gathering will be useful. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have been asked to look into this, and will assess possible violations. --Ghilt (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see merit in discussing the issues and finding a possible means for effective enforcement within affiliates.--BRP^ever 14:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
per BRPever --Civvì (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

We have filed this on request of the Affiliations Committee. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Wikimedia Eesti

U4C

Description of the problem

Previous attempts at a solution

Suggested solutions

Robert Treufeldt - Chair of the Board of Wikimedia Estonia User:Robert Treufeldt

Description of the problem

Previous attempts at a solution

Suggested solutions

Darja Lavõgina - Member of the Board of Wikimedia Estonia User:Darja.Lavogina

Description of the problem

Previous attempts at a solution

Suggested solutions

Ivo Kruusamägi - Executive Director of Wikimedia Estonia User:Kruusamägi

Description of the problem

Previous attempts at a solution

Suggested solutions

Other feedback

Other feedback (User:~2026-16026-96)

Other feedback (EDITOR NAME)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

U4C decision

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

Updates