Wikipedia Owner Banned European Admin Who Edited Site for Money, Then Let Him Return

In March, Wikipedia’s parent organization the Wikimedia Foundation banned Serbian admin Bojan Cvjetković from all affiliated sites alongside numerous others primarily active on the Serbian-language Wikipedia. Cvjetković possessed “checkuser” privileges on the site, allowing him access to confidential user data, which proved controversial as he also engaged in paid editing. In an unprecedented development, Cvjetković’s ban was lifted on Wednesday along with another banned user, allowing them to resume editing.

Others banned at the same time included current and former admins on the Serbian Wikipedia site. An in-house community newsletter and Serbian media both suggested the bans were connected to concerns about political manipulation of Wikipedia sites associated with the former Yugoslav republic. Under Foundation policy, the details of such actions are typically kept confidential.

Foundation bans, also called “SanFranBans” in reference to the Foundation’s San Francisco Headquarters, are carried out by the Foundation’s Trust and Safety Team following an investigation into alleged violations of the Terms of Use that apply to all Wikipedia-affiliated sites. Bans by the Foundation are generally meant to occur only in cases where self-governing community processes are unable to address an issue either due to it taking place across multiple sites or entailing activity on unaffiliated sites, though the Foundation also intervenes in cases with legal implications. The Foundation traditionally does not provide a public explanation for why a ban is imposed in any given case.

Cvjetković was banned by the Foundation on March 30. He retained admin and checkuser privileges until being banned. On the same day, the Foundation imposed bans on six other individuals. All but one was primarily active on the Serbian Wikipedia. Foundation bans are often implemented in batches and not always due to a single case. However, the Serbian Wikipedia accounts were all prominent users. Editor “Sadko” was an admin until July of last year, while “CarRadovan” and “MareBG” were still admins when both were banned. Another editing as “NikolaB” had been an admin until 2022, losing privileges due to inactivity. Several other Serbian admins resigned following the Foundation bans.

Paid editing concerns

Before he was banned, Cvjetković had been the subject of an intense discussion at the Meta site affiliated with Wikipedia. Editor Zoran Filipović had raised concerns about him doing paid editing work through his company Brisk Web Services. Cvjetković responded that he disclosed his paid editing work, which is consistent with the Terms of Use as it only prohibits undisclosed paid editing, though both are common and controversial practices on Wikipedia. Filipović had been banned from the Serbian Wikipedia with Cvjetković suggesting the paid editing complaint was an attempt at discrediting him in response.

Several admins from the Serbian Wikipedia, including then-admin Sadko, agreed and stated Filipović had circulated private information along with a “list for liquidation” on social media. Filipović contended these actions were being misrepresented, but was later banned from all Wikipedia-affiliated sites over comments made on multiple affiliated sites that users deemed “spam” with one admin banning him stating it came after consulting with Serbian Wikipedia admins. However, the admission of paid editing still attracted criticism with English Wikipedia admin Sohom Datta noting Cvjetković had gone against normal procedures for disclosed paid editing in edits regarding sleep apps.

Following an exchange where Datta noted promotional editing and potential use of AI tools, Datta raised concerns about such conduct from an administrator with privileged data access and initiated a discussion about whether paid editing by checkusers should be allowed, even if disclosed. Datta and others noted checkuser privileges are often used to identify paid editing, thus representing a conflict of interest. Subsequent discussion saw numerous admins with these privileges at various Wikipedia-affiliated sites argue against prohibiting paid editing, though others favored such a prohibition.

Many opponents cited people employed by educational institutions and other cases as potentially affected, with supporters proposing exemptions in any policy change. The discussion was closed at the end of November in favor of prohibiting paid editing by checkuser privilege-holders. It was suggested that a new discussion be initiated for specific changes in policy. After working out potential wording for the policy change, the proposed wording for changes to policy was reportedly reviewed by Foundation staff who raised no issues, allowing for a potential discussion on changing policy. Such a discussion has yet to be initiated. After the Foundation ban, the discussion about Cvjetković’s conduct itself was closed.

Foundation ban reversed

The official Wikimedia Foundation account lifted Cvjetković and former admin NikolaB’s bans on Wednesday. Explaining the action, a successful appeal to the “Case Review Committee” was cited. Only one Foundation ban was lifted previously in 2023. In that case, the Foundation simply reinstated an existing community ban from all Wikipedia-affiliated sties after lifting its own, making the reversal of Cvjetković and NikolaB’s bans the first lifted without any restrictions remaining. In a statement on the Serbian Wikipedia, NikolaB noted the ban being lifted after a lengthy complaint. While claiming to know who was responsible and criticizing the ban, NikolaB pledged not to dwell on the issue.

The Case Review Committee was first established in September of 2020 pursuant to a decision that year by the Foundation’s Board of Trustees, which also announced a code of conduct that advanced left-wing identity politics. Its decision came after an editor revolt the previous year over the Foundation temporarily banning a veteran administrator from the English Wikipedia. Consequently, the Foundation submitted the case to the site’s Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court, which lifted the ban. However, his admin privileges were not reinstated and his attempt to regain them through a community process sabotaged by former Committee members with grievances against him.

At the time, the Foundation initiated a discussion about its ban process with contributors to Wikipedia-affiliated sites roundly rejecting expanded power for the Foundation over their largely self-governing communities. While the Foundation had backed down from the kind of intervention that prompted the editor revolt, it insisted Foundation actions would not be subject to review. However, the board decision changed this policy and allowed for the creation of the review committee. The committee for reviewing Foundation actions began accepting appeals in the same month the Foundation submitted its first draft of the code of conduct. Originally intended as a temporary process, the committee was made permanent in 2024.

Ban reasons unclear

Just as the reasons for imposing the ban are not disclosed by the Foundation, the reason for it being lifted was also not provided. In the Signpost newsletter run by members of the English Wikipedia community, a piece on the initial ban of Serbian Wikipedia admins cited an unidentified Serbian Wikipedia editor claiming those banned were “not apparently connected to each other, and did not appear to act as a coordinated political group.” However, while the Signpost suggested the group showed a mixture of political allegiances, it concluded the most likely explanation for the bans involved claims of a radical nationalist bias on the Serbian Wikipedia.

Serbian news outlet Vreme identified three banned by the Foundation as “right-wing” admins, including former admin Sadko. Vreme reported another admin, who identified as a “Serbian nationalist” on his profile page before removing the statement mid-April, had received a warning. An individual claiming familiarity with the case praised the Foundation’s action as “a huge success for freedom of knowledge and opinion” and claimed the Foundation recognized the site was being used “to spread radicalism.” Vreme’s reporting did not mention Cvjetković and his paid editing or NikolaB, but noted another admin not subject to a Foundation ban was previously banned from the English Wikipedia for undisclosed paid editing.

Editors on Serbian Wikipedia expressed consternation over the bans in comments to the official Foundation account, noting the removal of so many active editors and admins without warning or explanation disrupted the site’s governance and made it vulnerable to interference. Responding to these claims, the Foundation’s Vice President for Community Resilience & Sustainability Maggie Dennis acknowledged the concerns but did not deviate from upholding the Foundation’s ban practices. In a statement on the page, Dennis noted that while the Foundation previously provided limited explanations for some group actions, its policies have since changed. She added the Case Review Committee can review collective actions should an eligible individual appeal.

Appeal procedures

Reviewing the committee’s charter and a handbook provided to its members, whose identities are generally only known to select Foundation staff and a Foundation-appointed community Ombuds Commission, Foundation bans subject to appeal are mainly those involving alleged harassment or incivility where there is not a legal component to the case. Both the charter and handbook emphasize that overturning an action does not mean no wrongdoing occurred, stating it may only indicate a lesser action was warranted or it should not have been handled at the Foundation level. It also notes decision are only based on existing case files, though the committee can have Foundation staff gather further information.

Bans that involve legal implications, particularly potential criminal conduct where courts or law enforcement have already intervened, are not eligible for appeal to the Case Review Committee. According to a “category” system included in the handbook provided to committee members, such cases would be classified as “category three” cases. Those actions subject to review are mostly “category one” cases. No action can be appealed by someone more than once. While harassment and incivility are said to make up the majority of cases, instances of “project capture” are also included.

Project capture on Wikipedia refers to editors and admns colluding to systematically control site content for a particular agenda. Such cases include a group of Chinese Wikipedia editors the Foundation stated were attempting to advance a pro-China agenda, Croatian nationalists taking over Croatian Wikipedia, and efforts by Persian and Arabic Wikipedia editors. According to the Case Review Committee Handbook, group actions must be reviewed and overturned as a whole. If the committee review an individual’s case in such an action separately it is treated as a “category two” case according to the handbook. Category two cases otherwise generally involve harassment that may not be deemed criminal, including doxing and extortion in some cases.

Unlike category one cases where the committee can just rule in favor of overturning a Foundation action to have it reversed, the committee can only recommend overturning category two actions. Foundation lawyers can then reject their recommendation, though this may be publicly logged if the committee insists on its position. With Cvjetković’s ban, a Foundation staffer updated the Case Review Committee report page over two weeks before the ban was formally lifted to log the decision. Under the timeframe outlined by the committee handbook, the time between a decision’s approval and notification of those involved would be five business days with reversal to follow promptly.

Transparency concerns

Wikipedia editors have routinely challenged the opacity of Foundation decisions and the potential for abuse, including during the revolt over the Foundation’s ban of veteran admin “Fram” in 2019. In Fram’s case, opponents quickly identified one complainant and uncovered she had a close personal connection to the Chair of the Foundation’s Board of Trustees. Such concerns have also extended to community groups such as the Arbitration Committee, which took the unprecedented step of suspending one member in 2023 for breaking the “code of silence” in comments about cases, particularly for helping an editor understand the reasons for a community ban from all Wikipedia-affiliated sites so it could be overturned.