Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Snævar

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

Parties
Parties	Notifications
A09\|(pogovor) 10:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Snævar (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	diff (local notification)

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 A09|(pogovor) 10:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A09

Description of the problem - (A09)

Snævar is a contributor to the Icelandic Wikipedia, where he is currently serving as an admin and a bureaucrat. He had created his account in 2010 and received functionary rights a year later in 2011. I made my account back in 2020 and since 2021 I am an active cross-wiki contributor dealing with anti-abuse measurements. I have created a local account on the Icelandic Wikipedia in April 2022. Together with some dedicated editors we have a Discord server where we are keeping track of some long term abusers and maintain an active community of cross-wiki anti-vandalism editors.

On April 17th 2025 we noticed incursions of sock accounts of Risto hot sir, a known cross-wiki long term abuser. After some further investigations, I found out that the sock received bot rights on iswiki. I have raised this matter on Snæevar's talkpage ([1]) where I was declared as to You have no say in what goes around here and threatened with a block Show some respect or I will block your ass (both same reply at [2]). Before I even replied, I got a one day block with hypocrite as a reason ([3]). I got unblocked by @Bjarki S: on April 18th.

This block is not something I expected from a long-term contributor. Snæevar failed to assume good faith upon being informed of the misplaced bot rights and later made an abusive block against all project policies. I am also noting this is not the first time iswiki community was acting abusively: a day before (on April 16th), @Aqurs1: was also blocked by @Berserkur: while reverting Risto for a day with a reason Að fjarlægt sé efni af síðum (translation: Removing content from pages) and was not properly informed of his block. They later refused to lift the abusive block as Aqurs1 was deemed “a non essential moderator here” w:is:Notandaspjall:Aqurs1#c-Berserkur-20250416201300-A09-20250416201000. Block was later lifted by the blocking admin.

The final nail in the coffin was when Snæevar blocked SHB2000, Superpes15 and Sakura for 3 days with no TPA and no email access with the reason, “harassment” (see w:is:Special:Redirect/logid/242274, w:is:Special:Redirect/logid/242275 and w:is:Special:Redirect/logid/242276). Worse yet, Snæevar re-blocked me for 1 month using the same conditions. They also left a message on Bjarki S' talkpage comparing me to a long-term abuser and recruiter (translation 'When I've had enough of a certain individual, don't take a ban back again. Last time, A09 got people to join him in continuing the behavior he was criticized for, and the same applies now. Long-term offenders are banned for getting people to do things for them, and the same goes for A09's helpers.', [4]).

Snæevar failure to assume good faith is not a new trait, where one of the most notable failures is his message on Icelandic Wikisource, where he threatened to press charges and monetary compensation of 3 million krons due to copyright infringement (Þér ber lögum samkvæmt að borga mér 3 milljónir króna í skaðabætur auk þess að hætta alfarið þessum heimskuskap að fjarlægja eyðingarsnið af síðunni, [5]). This message resurfaced at Stewards/Confirm/2025/Melos where @SHB2000: noticed it and commented upon ([6]).

Previous attempts at a solution - (A09)

My bot-rights related inquiry is accessible here: [7] No possible further resolution could be made since blocks were made fully, without access to emails or talkpages.

Snævar

Statement

The plaintiff is picking only the negitive aspects of the case. He did not ask another local sysop or beurocrat to mitigate said situation, like he is required to do as per rule 3.1.2 of foundation:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines and the local behavior rules. I am therefore requesting dismissal of the case. Since the actions and edits by A09 and SB2000 are allready cross-wiki, I am also in that case asking for a split, so A09 accusations get handled locally and my countersuit continues being handled here.

TL;DR: There is no abuse from me to A09. He is trying to get people to fight vandals his way, and I am not having it. Communication wise, he should just mention an vandal to an admin at leave it at that. There has been no statement from me claiming any restriction whether he can do vandal fighting on is.wikipedia. Any argument on that does not exist. He does have to, like everyone else, to follow local and global rules. His critism of the botflag has no point because the botflag was removed at 15:56 and A09 made his critism on my chatpage at 16:12.

Superpes15 is excused in the case for letting an deletion request which was filed on meta for is.wikisource stay unresolved for over one year, which he or other global sysops could have handled on multiple occasions. I am however not going further into that case.

I reject the proposed conclusion of this case to be deadminship, because I belive A09 does not have a case, and if he does, then he has done enough violations and agression himself that that claim would just lower my counter claim, more on that later. The claim on changing policies really is a community claim and they have the right to respond to that, but have not been notified of that.

If the UCoC plans to take this on, then I have the following aditional statement. The story started at Notandaspjall:Aqurs1 where A09 commented. That discussion started when Berserkur banned Aqurs1 for starting an edit war. In that Berserkur made it clear that 'No , me demon ?', an acused sockpuppet of Risto hot sir by Aqurs1 and A09, is not considered an vandal, by saying "These were additions mentioning the year each photo was taken, so that is informative and no need to remove them.". In that A09 said "those are Risto hot sir edit patterns". At Risto hot sir´s contributions there are mainly additions of pictures, not additions of dates to image captions like 'No , me demon ?' did. A09 also said that Risto hot sir did "abuse of machine translation tools, insertion of falsified data, and linguistic skill issues", none of which are a issue with 'No , me demon ?'. A lot of those dates are years, which do not need any translation. In one of the few cases that needed to be fixed, I simply fixed it myself at is:Special:Diff/1912112. With the aditional actions by Berserkur, I consider the actions toward 'No , me demon ?' sufficent.

Now for some pre-history. At is:Wikipediaspjall:Vélmenni/Safn_1#Allt of mikið af vélmennum there where objections to the number of bots on the wiki and the effect on recent changes. This was later mitigated with a patch in pywikipediabot, a stricter bot policy and was not considered acceptable until Wikidata arrived. However, even with the situation being acceptable, the users of iswiki are not going to accept excessive edits.

At Aqurs1 user talk page, A09 said "The key is reverting such unconstructive and b/lock evasion edits should not getting any block", clearly indicating an forthcoming edit war with 'No , me demon ?'. The local policy Wikipedia:Breytingadeilur bans edit wars and in light with the communities resentment of aditional edits, which would have been produced through reverts, I can not ignore it. Among the wikis A09 has edited, his highest edit count is at English wikipedia. Under English Wikipedia rules, edit wars, especially big ones, are only allowed if the edit is vandalism. Since his statement of the edits being vandalism was rejected at the user talk page of Aqurs1, he should have been aware that he would get blocked. I also disagree with A09 methods, an long therm vandal would be blocked first, which again mitigates local conserns. A09 also said "We can agree to stop reverting Risto here locally but beware of his dangerous actions and lift this block."

In line with this resentment of aditional edits, I tried to botflag 'No , me demon ?'. Following that, A09 posted on my talk page to "Please stop giving bot permissions to accounts of long term abusers. Uljas kai is a sockpuppet of Risto hot sir, so it should be blocked on sight AND NOT given flood permissions.". It was clear at this point A09 was not going to allow 'No , me demon ?' to be handled locally, breaking his promise. I would also like to point out that Rotlink and Werddemer where both botflagged, despite not being bots. Me botflagging is in line with these former actions. As such, A09 was not just critizising my action, but actions that had happened before. It also became clear at this point A09 expected the case of 'No , me demon ?' to be handled exactly as he wanted, which is not going to happen. I also resent A09 for using uppercase letters to shout at me.

I responded with "Until someone asks for an CheckUser check on him, he will not be blocked, and I will never take orders from you." Prior to posting this, I searched for 'No , me demon ?' name on meta, since is.wikipedia does not have checkusers, and did not find a checkuser request. A09 did not give a link to a checkuser check, which would have ended the case right there. At this point A09 had allready passed the baseball rule of "three strikes and you are out", hence the ban. Bjarki S unban reason translates as "I think he learned his lesson", which does not indicate the ban being wrong in the first place.

At is.wikipedia there is the rule "Ef þú átt í deilum, taktu þér hlé", requesting an timeout for participating parties, at the local behavior rules, which I do not think other participants have followed, given what, 9 notifications in two days. Those comments should have been stretched out to more days, and I would have kept my composure instead.

After this, several non regulars of is.wikipedia commented, they most likely did not arrive there on their own accord. Adding an ping to an user talk page is also overkill. Adding both a notice to meta and is.wikipedia about this is also overkill.

foundation:Policy:Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines accepts local rules under rule 4.5 with the following: "awareness of the application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects"

Me denying to do the request is not autharitarian, what I actually mean is that he needs a consensus. So, that is power to the people. On two accounts I find that pointing towards the village pump would not actually change the outcome. Firstly, the request to make this a local matter has not been done by A09, so it is unlikely he would have turned it into an village pump discussion. Secondly, I was pushed multiple times to change the local bot policy and did in those cases right away point to the village pump. That only agrevated the discussion. It may be more clearer that the requestee is wrong, but that does not account for much.

Also I do not do anti-vandalism actions, so, I refuse requests to handle them.

I do not like the fact that the notice with the picture of a swamped person at the top of my is.wp user talk page was ignored. Next to the picture says: "Do not worry, Snævar is busy right now with their daily lives and may not answer yet."

While I do not like how I handled this case on my is.wp user talk page, I do not owe A09 or SHB2000 anything after their agression and violations. Since I do not do anti-vandalism generally, I will just leave this category alone for other sysops for the time being. The chance of me botflagging an non-bot again is absolutely zero, mainly because it does not work.--Snævar (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counterclaim #2

A09 has on his homewiki been banning bot accounts that have few or no edits at all - essentially banning people for merely logging in. In User talk:A09#Portrait-bot and IP blocked he claims this is on the basis of w:sl:Wikipedija:Uporabniško ime. GoogleTranslate says: "Accounts with names that imply that they are bots may be blocked by administrators and the user may be required to confirm that they are indeed bot accounts.", and I find his understanding of that rule to be broad. Both in order to take into account that GoogleTranslate can be wrong and to see how this rule has been enforced by others let's examine the blocks. I pulled all blocks of accounts ending in "bot", case-sensitive. This includes blocks that where reverted.

A09: 000robot - 5 years after their only edit (https://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posebno%3APrispevki&target=000robot&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 ), Perasedriobot - edit is not by a bot (https://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posebno%3APrispevki&target=Perasedriobot&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 ), Optobot - banned after edit within the same day (https://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posebno%3APrispevki&target=Optobot&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 ), Portrait-bot banned before editing - complained on meta (https://sl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Posebno%3APrispevki&target=Portrait-bot&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 complaint link above), never edited ever: Snaevar-bot, Sldst-bot, QWERTZUIOP-bot.

As you see there is an discrepancy here. Actions by other admins where typically made after the bot made interwiki links. Interwiki links where (well, techically still are, just not really used) a phenomenon common prior to Wikidata. Since interwiki bots are not common anymore, that would indicate that these blocks are not as neccisary. The policy is not the issue here. I find it interesting that A09 thinks that it is likely a user name with a botname would show up after one guy fits the description.

000robot, Snaevar-bot, Sldst-bot and QWERTZUIOP-bot should all be unbanned.

Finished mitigations

Local rule change on edit wars, that partial bans are used where the edit war is on only on one page, reducing collateral damage. This will apply to any future issues. Done with community consensus.
Bans removed on all but A09 and SHB2000. Bans limited to my user talk page for A09 and SHB2000.

Previous attempts at a solution - Snævar

Prompt for a checkuser check

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 (Hide on Rosé)

This is an extremely condemnable behavior. Despite holding the title of administrator, Snævar has acted in a very rude manner toward other users – who, notably, are trusted members of the Wikimedia community. Suppose they hadn’t been experienced users, but newcomers instead – what would have happened then? Would they be silenced entirely, barred from communicating? I’d bet there’s a 99% chance I would get blocked by that user if I were to participate in that discussion. This is a blatant case of biting other contributors in an extremely disrespectful way, and this user should be desysopped immediately.

It must also be made clear that Snævar is not the only one on iswiki exhibiting signs of power abuse. It appears that Berserkur may also be involved, as evidenced by the block of user Aqurs1 under the claim of vandalism – even though Aqurs1 was actually reverting vandalism and helping the project. I urge all involved parties to participate in this discussion and provide a clear explanation of these issues. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 11:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that Berserkur's block was reverted by themselves Superpes15 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Aqurs1)

Based of all evidence pointed out above, this is a really serious admin abuse, Snævar clearly violated '2.2 – Civility, collegiality, mutual support and good citizenship' and '3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence' section of UCoC. I would only recommend U4C to revoke their rights, even Snævar willing to lift those invalid blocks. About my block from Berserkur was already solved and unblocked, and I can understand his concern, I hope it'll not affected any judgement for this case. Best regards, aqurs 🍧 11:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Other feedback (Johannnes89)

While I think it's pretty obvious that the blocks are unjustified/abusive, I want to note that many projects don't have policies like en:WP:REVERTBAN. If local admins / communities decide that they want to keep edits from certain LTA, xwiki patrollers should respect that. Only edits by globally / WMF banned users may be reverted regardless of local policies (Risto hot sir ist "just" globally locked, not globally banned). And if local admins make questionable decisions (like the initial block), it's usually not helpful (rather escalating tensions) if many xwiki patrollers appear at the same time to argue on behalf of the blocked user. Cross-wiki patrollers are experienced and can advocate for themselves – if they are unfairly blocked and even their talk page access has been revoked, it should be enough for one other user to speak on their behalf. This is not to justify Snævar's actions, but the discussion could have been handled better by the global rollbacks involved as well. --Johannnes89 (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (SHB2000)

Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, but this is really just another case-in-point of Snaevar's inability to handle conflicts in an appropriate manner. Such include that legal threat of 3 million krona (about €20k/US$23.5k) which I pointed out in Melos' steward confirmation. Even today when A09 pointed out that giving out the flood flag to LTAs was a terrible idea, this should have just been responded with in a calm and collegial manner, not with a block. Even after A09's first block was lifted, Snaevar had the opportunity to apologise and take a step back to reflect, but they chose to dig deeper into the rabbit hole they created and blocking anyone else who called Snaevar's behaviour out (and worse yet, reblocking A09 for a month) – and once again, ignoring Bjarki S's attempt to get Snaevar out of this rabbit hole. What the content was or whether it was reverted is second to the point, this is absolutely not how discussions should be handled, nor should this ever be an acceptable way of what the wiki calls "foreigners".

Overall, they had their chances, but they blew them by digging deeper into the rabbit hole and going full-on abusive with their tools; the ship has sailed and I think desysop is the only option going forward. //shb (t • c) 12:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add on, I'm quite confused as to why so many people are bringing up what the content was reverted. In both this and the etwikiquote situation, had A09 and Aqurs1 been reverted and explained that the iswiki community wishes to keep Risto's edits, I'm sure this would have been fine – except that didn't happen. Instead, the iswiki community decided to go the hard way by resorting to abusive blocks. Those blocked were never given the opportunity to explain themselves or even accept what the iswiki community wants. This situation is entirely the fault of Snaevar and they shot themselves in the foot. //shb (t • c) 23:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So…, I’ve just come to learn that Superpes15 and Sakura had their blocks removed for “[having] achieved the desired results” (block summary translated). I’m tempted to believe that this comment was why Superpes’ block was lifted (but can’t find any for Sakura), but if I am correct in my assumption where all you need for your block to be lifted is to apologise, it genuinely comes out to me as an attempt of “you can be unblocked if you shut up about it” (I realise it may not actually be what’s intended) – which, really, is just another way to hide behind your actions. And I don’t see why I need to apologise for my block to be lifted when I’ve never done anything wrong other than call Snaevar out. And no offence, but you really can’t blame this on us GR/GSs when we were never given the chance to explain ourselves…and doing so really smacks of victim blaming. //shb (t • c) 10:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, nobody has managed to cite a written policy that I violated that warrants a block; I still stand by my words. //shb (t • c) 06:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Óskadddddd)

While the concerns about cross-wiki abuse were understandable, it's important to acknowledge that some of the involved users, including mainly A09 and Aqurs1 (but also SHB2000 and Sakura emad) didn't always behave in 'good faith'. Specifically, there was notable resistance directed at Berserkur over a relatively brief one-day block, even after he had clearly explained his reasoning. The repeated pinging and persistent arguments from multiple users became excessive for such a short-term action and appeared less like constructive discussion and more like an attempt to pressure or override a local decision, which the locals are not obligated to follow. (https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandaspjall:Aqurs1)

Bjarki S also raised this concern after unblocking A09, expressing that the behavior felt like brigading, especially when several users arrived in quick succession to challenge local decisions and revert content already deemed acceptable by the community. (https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notandaspjall:Sn%C3%A6var#c-Bjarki_S-20250418063400-SHB2000-20250417234900)

Even though the blocks were eventually removed, the tone and intensity of those exchanges didn't fully reflect the collaborative spirit expected across Wikimedia projects ('good faith'). I'm raising this here because much of the feedback feels one-sided, and am hoping a non-participant from the Icelandic Wiki will only help the case.

Just, to make it clearer: Several of the involved users, including A09, were known to share a Discord server. While that alone doesn’t prove coordination, it’s relevant context given how quickly and similarly the responses unfolded. Combined with the previous involvement noted by a U4C member, this strengthens the concern that the situation resembled brigading more than independent engagement. This makes it clear why the reaction felt neither neutral nor entirely in 'good faith'. This is an oversimplified summary of my response to A09 and Aqurs1.

It also comes across as somewhat hypocritical, especially given that it seems to go against 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence (specifically 'Abuse of seniority and connections').

Update: The users have denied any direct coordination or a major prejudicial bond. However, still doesn't make it an open and shut concern.

Other feedback (Sakura emad)

~~I would like to briefly clarify my role in this discussion.~~

My comments on the iswiki talk page were made in good faith, not to escalate the situation or challenge local authority, but to address what appeared to be a pattern of administrative responses that were disproportionate or dismissive. When a global functionary like A09 is blocked for raising concerns about a sockpuppet with flood permissions, it raises red flags not because of seniority, but because of the serious implications for abuse handling and project safety.

I did not assume bad faith from Snævar or the iswiki community. My goal was to explain the context behind A09’s actions, including his background and global responsibilities. I referenced Wikimedia policies such as UCoC and collaborative norms, precisely because I wanted the conversation to stay constructive and anchored in Wikimedia principles.

I understand that comments from global users may be seen as pressure, especially on smaller wikis. But silence in the face of a steward-level contributor being blocked with the reason "hypocrite" would have been far more harmful. My intention was not to override local governance, but to uphold Wikimedia’s commitment to procedural fairness, accountability, and collaborative discourse. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First i am saying this as a Responsibility towards God and the trust i've been given in my right as a Global contributor:

I want to sincerely apologize for the haste in my earlier decision and felt the need to speak on behalf of one of my colleagues, whose as i saw their block unjustified and unfair. My intentions were to stand up for what I believed was right, but I now recognize that my actions contributed to an outcome that was neither helpful nor constructive for anyone involved.

I fully acknowledge the weight of my involvement and the unintended consequences that followed. With that in mind, I formally withdraw my previous comment. I will be taking time to reflect on how I approach such matters in the future and to train myself to engage more responsibly and respectfully across Wikimedia projects—God willing, to prevent similar incidents from occurring again.

Thank you for your understanding. 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (BRPever)

I will just sum up my opinion into as less words as possible. IMO the initial block of Aqurs1, and the follow up conversation show no critical issue. Things went chaotic in Snævar's talk page after multiple users jumped into the conversation escalating the issue. To sum up:

It was inappropriate for multiple global users to participate and make the whole situation worse. Regardless of the intention; it can been seen as a threat to local autonomy. It wasn't very polite to insist on requests that the local admin declined in somewhat commanding tone.

However, the block reason given was completely unacceptable IMO. As well as the comment mentioned by Civvì below.

There isn't really a solution I can think of as I see faults on both sides. I'd say closing the case with this casepage itself being a reminder on how their actions were inappropriate might be a good idea. This case is one that rapidly got worse from what could have been a simple conversation; and I don't think giving it anymore highlight will do anyone any good.--BRP^ever 10:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of recent development, I want to add that what A09 and others did was not ideal behavior for someone in their role. It was inappropriate for multiple user to join in and worsen the conflict. However, I do want to draw a line on what's not ideal or appropriate and what's unacceptable and not tolerable. Personal attacks such as calling a user 'hypocrite' and incivility like the comment 'I will block your ass' is unacceptable behavior in my opinion. Legal threat like the ones that were made in this page should be something not tolerable in collaborative community like ours. This is not the first time Snævar has broken these code of conduct; they were warned for their comments that broke the Civility and No personal attacks policies in the past. And this is also not the first legal threat they made. It would have been great if this case had simply ended with the motion below, but the lack of response from Snævar and a follow up with legal threat has me worried. Some further measures might be needed. I think this makes little below 400 words of my comment which is within limit set by U4C. Thank you.-- BRP^ever 12:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Svartava)

(Noting that this comment was made after Snævar's legal threats unlike the other comments above.)

I just want to note that the response after the legal threats (and request for legal actions) felt pretty disappointing and lackluster and it feels like there is hesitance to take action against Snævar, otherwise ordinarily legal threats (that too not the first time he made them, per SHB above) should be grounds for immediate desysopping and/or blocking. There is no scope of assuming good faith also at this point; even aside from the other issues, he showed no inclination to take back his words despite being pinged after it; he also did not reply to other questions or comments directed at him and did not unblock A09. Apart from the legal-concerning nature of his recent comments (which are now deleted from this page), there couldn't have been a clearer statement of his continuing bad-faith assumption and blatant refusal to cooperate and peacefully resolve the already cooling down issue. I hope the team is already working on this matter, as appearing disinclined to take action leaves a really bad taste on me. – Svārtava (t ɕ) 14:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to Special:Diff/28652420/28652428:) I am not understanding why this case always seemed to be leaning towards defending the iswiki admin (such as, even the motions were more focused on crosswiki patrollers and had no statement about the unjustified blocks issued on users by Snævar) and that may be the reason he was bold enough to double down. The initial issue (about the crosswiki patrollers commenting on the admin's talk page followed by a rude response from the admin; where it can be argued that there were issues from both parties) does not seem as relevant now as the legal threats and requests for legal actions which is some of the worst behaviors I have seen on-wiki. Further, the legal threat was removed by someone else rather than Snævar himself, and there has been no public statement by Snævar that he has realized his errors and has remorse for them and that he will not repeat it - even if he does that now, I no longer believe that it would be a saving grace at this point. – Svārtava (t ɕ) 15:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Hello Snævar, we'd appreciate a response in a reasonable timeframe, especially given the section 3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence of the UCoC and the evidence listed above. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through the talk page and knowing some past history, I am a bit concerned with the actions of both sides here. This isn't the first time that A09 has been blocked on a small wiki after "ordering" them to do something about an LTA account (in fact, an alleged account from the same master - [8]). Judging from the talk page conversation in this case, one or more of the global users commenting have previously made requests to the local admin which were declined. There is more history here than alluded to, and I hope Snaevar takes the time to lay that out for us.

Users active on a global scale, particularly those involved in counter-vandalism and abuse generally, need to be very careful with their attitude and how they present themselves on small wikis in particular. We are not here to take over, we are here to augment local capacity. If a local admin decides to not block a non-disruptive sock account, we should not be questioning that decision. I also am not entirely sure how the bot flag would allow the sock to evade scrutiny - you can still look at the contributions page, and the edits would still appear on a variety of monitoring tools, including the cvn irc channels (not sure about SWViewer). And multiple globally-involved users "ganging up" on a local admin who refuses to comply with a directive is similarly not a good look for all of us.

I am concerned with the actions of the local sysop, but I am possibly even more concerned with the actions of the global users in this case. Global rollbackers, sysops, etc. are trusted with a large level of mainly unsupervised access, and that trust needs to be accompanied by discretion and judgment. I would encourage everyone involved to reflect on this and how they could do better next time. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that the reaction of some of the global users involved here is to call valid criticism of their actions "victim blaming". The simple fact is that your brigading of the iswiki admins was far more disruptive than the potential sock in question was here. I will note that the conversation at is:Notandaspjall:Aqurs1 is of the appropriate tone, so no real concerns on the part of A09 or Aqurs1 at this stage. But keep in mind that if you go to a small wiki and revert edits that they do not find unproblematic, you might get blocked for it. Use judgment and discretion in this area.

The conversation here is when things fall apart. The tone of A09's message is not appropriate for the circumstances - at this stage the point has been made, time to move on. Instead the situation continues to escalate, with the incident being discussed on a private discord and other users joining in the discussion. Imagine if 20-30 enwiki users started jumping on this discussion now - the effect is intimidation on the local users, intentional or not.

All of this said, the actions of the local admin were not acceptable here. Admins are expected to also behave with tact and discretion, and while the activities of the global users in this case could have been considered disruptive, the tone of the messages being sent back and the blocks (and reasons for blocks) fall outside what I would expect an administrator to do in this situation. Here to, de-escalation could have happened - a quick "thanks, but no" message would have been fine, followed by a warning if messages from the global user(s) continued. In my view, I think it would be appropriate to accept this case and resolve by motion, issuing a warning to Snævar. But I will think about it some more and see what my colleagues think. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is a very thoughtful analysis and I find myself mainly agreeing with your points. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snævar maybe there is some linguistic misunderstanding but I am wondering if it is customary on iswiki to reply using expressions like that to requests (however annoying you may find them)? --Civvì (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Snævar please know that this is a real question, not a rhetorical one. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience there are many people indefinitely blocked and even banned on English Wikipedia (my home wiki) who contribute productively elsewhere, and sometimes are even admins. So if iswiki wants to allow Risto hot sir to contribute, that wouldn't be my choice, but why is that such a problem from the perspective of the global rights editors? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Besides the obvious socking, they clearly present CIR issues. They have high rate of false data/date insertions, most commonly inserting wrong image datation or subpar image captions. They also abused machine translation which is not a constructive thing to do, especially on projects of small languages (especially some creole and alike projects). I believe the latter is a good enough reason to revert at least on some projects due to texts, inserted as wrong languages, but do understand projects where they don't want to do this. I am not disputing your first argument, but RHS would first need to lift their lock before editing other projects, hence locks and local blocks where appropriate are very much needed. Best regards, A09|(pogovor) 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A09 what, if anything, would you do different on iswiki if you could go back to April 17? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Disregarding the block, I'd perhaps make a further explanation and then leave. I must point out that I wasn't reverting RHS on iswiki recently nor at the time of the incident. I cannot comment on actions of other editors as they are taken independently. A09|(pogovor) 15:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for U4C: will blocks get lifted? This is currently not mentioned in #Motions.--A09|(pogovor) 10:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A09: I'm pretty sure you are only blocked from Snævar's talk page as well as have email disabled. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still blocked on Snævar's talk page and that's still a block; I'd like to know if that will be removed.--A09|(pogovor) 12:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only for myself, I think this block is a little harder to defend than the ones SHB asks about above - which I would not have labeled as harassment for the first one and for which I think sus is not a great summary for the second one but which I think there is reasonable justifications for under local policies. But I'm not sure your current block is a UCoC violation - forcing a pause in interaction between the two of you doesn't strike me as an abuse of power or other issue. It is a really heavy handed way of doing that. I also don't know, based on what has been said here, that it is going to be necessary going forward. So I would hope that Snævar would chose to lift the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion: since Snaevar is involved in the block, I'd say it'd be fair to ask another admin for evaluation of the block. First block was abusive and later raised, but was blocked a few hours after unblocking eventhough I had not edited iswiki in the meantime. I'm getting the impression the last block is a revenge block for opening this case and that Snævar is not lifting it under any condition. Sorry, but we are all setting a really dangerous precedence here. A09|(pogovor) 18:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am troubled by the accusation of law breaking made today. I might have more to say on this later. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing these legal threats on the page and am wondering whether really any action will be taken against Snaevar – honestly, he was made aware of the cited policy in the past and moreso, it'd be a block on most projects for throwing such accusations. Further, if no action is taken, UCOC is setting a really dangerous precedent denying all current policies on AGF (and it's even forbidden by UCOC itself). Would also like to point out that his argument about me blocking bots is completely irrelevant here, a mere strawman argument. A09|(pogovor) 19:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm also bothered by the legal threats. As you can see they have been removed and he definitely needs to not repeat that sort of behavior in the future; this upholds the UCoC. What I am trying to think through is whether further sanction is necessary to address this or if this problem effectively goes away with the close of this case. Just because we can under policy and authority, doesn't mean doing so is wise or the best course of action. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some further sanctions are necessary: Snaevar brought up his legal threats of paying a fine on a third editor two times in the past (see above Snæevar failure to assume good faith is not a new trait, where one of the most notable failures is his message on Icelandic Wikisource, where he threatened to press charges and monetary compensation of 3 million krons due to copyright infringement) and I believe we can be only lucky his threats were made against someone who knows how to deal with them and not some wikibeginner. A09|(pogovor) 09:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't responded to my previous queries, I'll now ask directly: Does the U4C's continued silence imply that issuing severe legal threats is tolerated within Wikimedia spaces and that such behaviour can occur without consequences? Furthermore, is the referral of this matter to the U4C committee as a whole an attempt to downplay or deflect attention from a more serious underlying issue? I, for one, cannot possibly ignore the level of threat made here and what consequence it could potentially inflict on me. And who exactly will be liable for those? To reiterate if I hadn't made it clear: I have no problem with iswiki community, but rather Snaevar who has repeatedly violated UCoC.

At this point, the committee’s lack of action is effectively equivalent to inaction. As I see it, there are only two appropriate paths forward – either an only warning where any continuation of legal threats leads to a ban or a U4C-issued global ban – both of which fall squarely within the U4C's jurisdiction.--A09|(pogovor) 14:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A09, no, silence does not imply anything but silence. The second question i can't answer. Now, both parties have violated the UCoC imo. Pressuring local admins in a coordinated manner to do something they have no obligation to do is also one. I do miss insight on what your contribution was. The legal threat has been removed and Snævar will not repeat it. Ghilt (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion. Given how grave legal threats were made, I need assurance these threats will not inflict consequences upon me – furthermore, how can you be so sure they will not continue this trend? I have provided proof this is a longstanding problem and he did not once respond to questions from U4C. Personally, with respect to other opinions, I'd take such offences more seriously. Lastly, nobody proved the inflow of global community member comments was actually an organised manner and I still fail to see which article of UCoC I have failed to comply with. Regards, A09|(pogovor) 15:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We made clear that repeating the legal threats can have consequences. And we have the toolset. Regarding the inflow, this is not the first time a situation like this has happened. It would be better, if the group pressure (without having last say on removing the edit of an unbanned user) wasn't coordinated, but still not good. Ganging up on people is not acceptable. Especially for users with additional rights and responsibilities. Ghilt (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find what Snævar added today quite troublesome too. @User:Snævar maybe you can also find the time to reply to my question of 10 days ago?. --Civvì (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

After re-reading (for the umpteenth time) the whole thing and seeing Snaever's escalation, the repetition of uncivil comments, the legal threats, the lack of responses, and the insistence on their positions without even considering that "they might be wrong" I have changed my mind. All of this is completely misaligned with what is written here. I think that communities and projects have the right to have higher expectations from admins. --Civvì (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The legal threat escalation and general tone/content of the responses here do not sit well. I think further examination is merited. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the escalation a closer look is needed. Luke 081515 08:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had hoped to handle this situation in a nicer way, but both sides don't see their responsibility in this conflict. --Ghilt (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Escalation to legal threats and continued violations of the UCoC would prevent us from resolving this case with the only thing being proposed the motion below this. I agree with others that more investigation and discussion appears necessary. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either Snævar or A09 acted all that well. I had hoped that the motion below would be sufficient to end this dispute, but it's clear that from comments from both it won't be. I am particularly concerned about Snævar's conduct with the legal threats. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline votes

Motions

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

✅ Passed Motion— Date: 2025-05-08

Snævar is warned against using the type of language shown in this case, which is not compliant with local guidelines or the Universal Code of Conduct
Users with global rights and users doing cross wiki patrolling are reminded to give more context in interactions with local admins and to be respectful for local decisions and norms
Users with global rights and users doing cross wiki patrolling are reminded that there is no need to rush en masse to support each other and about the need to be cautious when using off-wiki platforms to coordinate. Urgent or severe situations should be reported to the Stewards for action.

Support

I regret User:Snævar not replying to our questions, I'd like to ask them to lift the block of User:A09, I don't think this long block is needed or that this is one of the "more serious cases" mentioned in the local policy. On the other hand I did not like some confrontational comments in Snævar's talk page. Cross wiki patrollers should keep in mind that smaller projects may not have as much knowledge about xwiki issues and that providing better explanations can be helpful to increase local awareness about these issues. --Civvì (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, both sides overreacted. We have addressed what led to this conflict. This conflict will probably end now, as there may be consequences for extending the conflict. I would be impressed by Snævar if they lifted the remaining blocks as good will, because they are not appropriate anymore and blocks prevent participation at some places like the Wikipedia library. --Ghilt (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This case has made me deeply appreciate iswiki's behavior policy. I think both sides would have been well served to Gerðu ráð fyrir að fólki gangi gott eitt til and omdu fram við aðra eins og þú vilt að aðrir komi fram við þig (or my preferred version: treat others as they wish to be treated). Ef þú átt í deilum, taktu þér hlé; ef þú ert að miðla málum í deilum annarra, leggðu þá til að þeir taki sér hlé also would have served both sides well. I genuinely hope the global patrollers take a different tone, and consider when appearing en mass on a local project where a request of theirs has been declined is helpful and where the act of doing so escalates the problem and creates its own issues. I join Ghilt in hoping that User:Snævar lift the block as no longer necessary, but at minimum would remind him that Þótt það sé skiljanlega erfitt í heitum umræðum skaltu gæta þess að ef viðmælandi þinn er ekki eins kurteis og þú myndir helst kjósa, þá verðir þú eigi að síður kurteisari applies and Kaldhæðni er ekki alltaf augljós – texti er án andlitssvips, ítónunar og annars látbragðs. Gættu vel að orðavali þínu — það sem þú ætlaðir að segja er ekki alltaf það sem aðrir lesa úr texta þínum og það sem þú lest úr texta annarra er ekki endilega það sem þeir ætluðu að segja. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to barkeep above. I hope that the escalation will not continue. Luke 081515 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The things that happened in the case are unfortunate, but since it's over we should avoid any future issues, so I agree with the motions and support it.--Ibrahim.ID (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Civvì and Ghilt, I join my colleagues in suggesting Snævar lift the block on A09 as it is no longer necessary. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

...

Neutral

...

✅ Passed Motion— Date: 2025-05-19

Finding of facts

An account of the cross-wiki long-term abuser (Risto hot sir) was noticed editing the Icelandic Wikipedia in April 2025, with the account having local bot user rights, including an exempt from the rate-limit.
Aqurs1 with global rollback rights reverted the edit of Risto hot sir on Icelandic Wikipedia, but then was reverted and blocked for a short period. So it was clear that Icelandic Wikipedia had a different view of the usefulness of the edits of Risto hot sir and the local admins were the decision makers.
A day later, A09 with global sysop and rollbacker rights politely demanded to not give cross-wiki long-term abusers bot rights. They did not ask and they were not decision makers on this issue, as the user Risto hot sir was not globally banned.
Snævar replied impolitely ("show some respect, or i will block your ass")
A09 was blocked for one day, the blocking reason being "hypocrite".
Several users with global rights appeared on Icelandic Wikipedia to pressure Icelandic admins to change the decisions on the edits of Risto hot sir. This pressure was locally perceived as harassment.
Three users with global rights (SHB2000, Sakura emad, Superpes15) were blocked for harassment, some of them having mostly tried to de-escalate the confrontation. Some had never reverted an edit by Risto hot sir.
During this U4C case Snævar issued legal threats, similar to what he had done before in a different context.
After posting their statements, Snævar refused to engage in a discussion with us about these issues, which limits our options.

Motions

Users with global rights are reminded to give more context in interactions with local admins and to be respectful for local decisions and norms.
Users with global rights are reminded that there is no need to rush en masse to support each other and about the need to be cautious when using off-wiki platforms to coordinate. This can be seen as harassment in local projects, especially when not being decision makers. Urgent or severe situations should be reported to the Stewards for action.
The remaining blocks from this interaction on Icelandic Wikipedia will be lifted, if they haven't already expired.
Snævar is warned against using the type of language shown in this case, which is not compliant with local guidelines or the Universal Code of Conduct.
The U4C encourages any community members who notice further UCoC violations by Snævar to raise those concerns through local processes.
Probation - The U4C is placing Snaevar's adminship on Icelandic Wikipedia on probation for a period of one year. This means that during the next year from when this motion is passed, community members who believe that Snaevar is behaving contrary to the UCoC may directly request action from the U4C on this case page, without the need to create a new case request. The U4C will evaluate the new evidence and may take appropriate action, including a desysop or block if appropriate. Snaevar will be engaged during this process, if applicable. Concerns raised after the probation period will need to be addressed through a new case request. Nothing in this action prevents the local community from pursuing their own sanctions through local processes during or after the probation period.