Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Administrator abuse on Portuguese Wikipedia

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
The Blue Rider 22:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Chronus (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Special:Diff/28605018
79a (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Special:Diff/28605015
Eta Carinae (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	Special:Diff/28605014

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 The Blue Rider 22:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Rider

Description of the problem - (The Blue Rider)

After the creation of this page was known to them, a user mass-pinged multiple well-known members on the Portuguese Wikipedia's circle of power and implied that there would be consequences of such action. Spiralling down to multiple other users, including administrators, pursuing an indefinite block with this as the sole basis, which came to effect on 28th March. Further, multiple users suggested that I am a sockpuppet and said they will ask for my account to be globally banned.

This serves to showcase the urgency of the review of this case and, more importantly, how corrupt the Portuguese Wikipedia is.

The issue centers around the misuse of administrative authority by Chronus, 79a, and Eta Carinae, which has resulted in escalating blocks, reverts, and the unilateral deletion of dispute resolution processes. This series of actions appears to be disproportionate and punitive, particularly given the minor nature of the editorial disagreements involved.

Key facts:

On 22 April 2025, Chronus imposed a 24-hour block on me, citing:
- The removal of two references from an article’s introduction, which is permissible by the Manual of Style.
- The “excessive editing” of another article, involving 10 edits within a 2 hour period.
On 24 April 2025, I filed a administrative action review (XRV) to challenge Chronus administrative actions, but 79a imposed me a partial block on Chronus' XRV discussion page for responding to her vote in an administrator-only section.
Subsequently, Eta Carinae closed 79a's XRV discussion (since deleted so no diff available) and closed Chronus' XRV discussion, citing an incorrect use of the venue and despite being clearly biased as shown by her wishes to block me again for an even longer period.

I postulate that these actions constitute a misuse of administrative power, violating the Universal Code of Conduct under the following principle:

Abuse of power, privilege, or influence, specifically, an abuse of office by functionaries.

Administrators are expected to act with impartiality and to use their tools to support fair, transparent resolution of disputes—not to escalate personal disagreements into punitive actions. In this case, the administrative measures taken by Chronus, later supported by 79a and Eta Carinae, appear to have stemmed not from genuine violations of policy, but from a prior editorial conflict between Chronus and myself. Specifically, we had disagreed on content related to a particular article, and shortly thereafter, Chronus used a recently issued template warning (regarding so-called "excessive editing") as a justification for imposing a 24-hour block—despite the fact that the editing behavior in question fell within policy norms.

The pattern that followed—swift reversions of my attempts to explain the situation, the dismissal of my block discussion under vague allegations, a partial block imposed by 79a for replying in an administrator-only section—suggests an effort not to uphold standards, but to prevent legitimate scrutiny. Chronus’ mention of legal threats, followed by Eta Carinae’s closure of both XRV on "procedural grounds", only strengthened the perception that administrative authority was being used to shut down accountability and consolidate control over the outcome. Most concerningly, Chronus later proposed a new block of two weeks, no longer on the basis of the original edits, but now citing my defense of myself as justification—specifically, for allegedly casting aspersions and misusing public spaces to challenge the block.

What should have remained a manageable editorial disagreement instead turned into a series of escalating punitive actions. This trajectory, driven by those with administrative privilege, suggests a coordinated use of authority to silence dissent and shield each other from challenge. Such behavior constitutes a clear violation of the Universal Code of Conduct, section 3.2.

Previous attempts at a solution - (The Blue Rider)

Several attempts have been made to address the issue through standard dispute resolution processes:

After receiving the first block, I attempted to explain my situation on my user talk, but my comments were reverted twice, with accusations of personal attacks and casting aspersions.
After said block was expired, I opened a block discussion. However, I was accused of "abuse of public space" for questioning the validity of the block ("on the wrong venue"), and the discussion was swiftly dismissed.
Some hours after, I post a notice on the administrators' noticeboard to raise the issue. It was immediately reverted, and I was advised to file an XRV instead.
I filed the XRV to contest both Chronus, and later 79a's administrative actions, but Eta Carinae closes both XRV on the grounds of using the wrong venue (supposedly I should have used the block discussion).

Despite these efforts, each attempt to resolve the matter through proper channels was either dismissed or blocked by administrators whose actions I was trying to challenge.

P.S. Here are the translation alongside with the original texts posted on the above forums.

Chronus

Previous attempts at a solution - Chronus

79a

Previous attempts at a solution - 79a

Eta Carinae

Previous attempts at a solution - Eta Carinae

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 (EDITOR NAME)

Other feedback (Eduardo Gottert)

I wasn't going to give any feedback here, but as I got mentioned, I decided to. I'll refer to them as "TBR" here.

This case started when TBR started mass-editing an article ([1]), even after being warned ([2]), breaking a rule that is widely known and enforced at ptwiki. In this edits, they erroneously removed refs at the article intro ([3], [4]), compromising the article verifiability. After that, they received a one day block, and proceeded to attack Chronus and the community in their talk page ([5]), calling the community elitist and other things.

After that, TBRhad a great altercation with BlackShadoww, regarding their mistrust spreading, destabilizing behaviour and most importantly, "abuse of public space", a rule that I reckon is similar to w:en:WP:BLUDGEONING. TBR then proceeded to open a block discussion, the formal process for appealing blocks in ptwiki, but instead of defending himself, they did not only attack Chronus but called the community a "power circle". They then proceeded to open two RAA (administrative action review), similar to XRV, even though in ptwiki that page is only to be used in review of administrative actions not related to blocks, as it should be discussed in the block discussion.

BlackShadoww and I commented in the block discussion regarding this U4C for two reasons: Making sure the community was aware of this case at U4C, and making sure the people taking part in the discussion knew that their mistrust spreading and destabilization wasn't only restrict to ptwiki and had found its way in meta too. The users that BlackShadoww "mass-pinged" were only the users that had already commented in the block discussion, and even in this U4C, TBR continued the mistrust calling the participants of the discussion a "power circle" again.

And finally, about the suggested solutions:

Chronus did not threat nor pursue legal action;
Both blocks would have expired by the time this complaint is accepted (two weeks);
The actions of Chronus are already being reviewed in the appropriate channel, the block discussion, and the community agrees with the block;
The "show preview" rule is widely known and used for years now, and should not be taken down because a single user doesn't agrees with it. WP:Esplanada/Propostas (WP:VP/P) exists for this exact reason: Suggesting changes for the project.

And if you want any proof of the mass-editing, just see this case history: Tens, if not hundreds of saves only some bytes long, making the history horrendous, instead of using the preview button. Eduardo G ✉ 01:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 good riddance taking all the credibility away from this new comittee by just the opening of a case leading to an indef block and none of the U4C members doing something about it...The Blue Rider 23:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blue Rider, i do think you were over-escalating in several instances, e.g. ignoring the excessive editing warning and blanket calling all pt.admins elitist and more - don't you think there is a more differentiated reality than what you describe? Maybe your escalation is part of the reasons for this situation and maybe cooperation would have helped to prevent it? --Ghilt (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you had edited the Portuguese Wikipedia, you would have realized that it is indeed elitist and more. Multiple other users have said so in the past—this is not the opinion of one person. I dare you to look into the context about users who were blocked on the basis of "excessive editing." Besides, are you seriously telling me that the Wikimedia Foundation would get behind something like an editor "editing too much"?

Whatever, I quit Wikipedia. Bye. The Blue Rider

23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm deeply disturbed by the complainant's behavior. You should respect the committee. If you want to withdraw that's your business, but you shouldn't get angry and question the committee in this way, or empty the pageز just because you didn't like the decision. This is unacceptable behavior.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I admit to some discomfort about the filing of a case being used to justify an indefinite block though I do understand why some ptwiki editors see it as a continuation of the actions that got them blocked on enwiki. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

I don't completely understand if it is just the lack of knowledge of local policies that led to the first block and now to the indef block. However, I cannot find abusive behavior on the part of the local admins. --Civvì (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like abuse of power to me. Additionally, this is a bit over the top for a 24 h block. --Ghilt (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Civvi. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing evidence of a UCoC violation here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I thought everything is clear, that didn't stop me from revisiting the case again, and I became certain that there was no point we miss. Indeed, I found no evidence of Abuse of power or a violation of UCoC. Being dissatisfied with an admins decision doesn't necessarily mean it was. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that the block discussion later led to the block becoming an indefinite one, but please consider giving the events some thought and try to appeal locally. Decline as there are not UCoC violations to review here. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For temporary blocks that are not that long (like this 24h block) local processes should be used. U4C needs time to take a look into issues, so most temporary blocks are already expired then. In this case I don't see a UCoC violation here. Luke 081515 09:01, 3 May 2025 (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.

Acknowledging that this request has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The case can't get accepted by the U4C since the majority of it's members declined it. Hence closing this case as declined. On behalf of the U4C, Luke 081515 19:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]