Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Alex 21

Parties
Parties	Notifications
DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Alex 21 (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	w:en:Special:Diff/1282945999

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:0xDeadbeef User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:Civvì User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 User:Superpes15 DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91

Description of the problem - (DoctorWhoFan91)

Apologies for only giving diffs and not writing lots of context, as I'm tired on how many times I have been ignored on English Wikipedia. I came here because of violations of 2.1 Mutual Respect and 2.2 Civility. I came here instead of trying en.wp ArbCom because they said it does not come under their purview, plus an ArbCom member had repeatedly said that there were no uncivility towards me, when there is almost certain evidence they did not read any of the diffs that were provided by me.

The behaviour shown by User:Alex 21 that I'm going to list has gone on for years, and has even resulted in blocks in 2016 and was warned for this behaviour in 2019. This is not all the UCoC violating edits of theirs, because there a lot and being ignored has not made me want to find every single one.

Evidence
2025

[1] uncivility, followed by 20 identical edit summaries pinging me by name
[2](twisting of words to make it seem like I was stopping the use of non-primary sources(they wanted to add an unreliable source))
[3], [4](Gaming wikipedia by speaking of reverting a change that was made for FLC of which he was pinged twice-once before the change, and one after, and then lying that he wasn't told)
[5], [6],(uncivility and twisting of words).
[7],[8](uncivility, sarcasm and accusations of canvassing)

2024

[9], [10], [11](uncivility and sarcasm, along with incorrect logic, to keep a marginally unreliable ref)
[12],[13](uncivility)

2023

[14],[15],[16], (uncivility and ignoring consensus by twisting of words)

2019

(the following has been copy pasted from [17] as reported by User:U-Mos with changes to only focus on the diffs)

Uncivil reply & groundless accusation [18];refers to a user's work as "horrendous" [19] & restates this when challenged [20]; deliberate manipulation of the following comment [21]; repeatedly diverts discussion to derail [22] [23]; groundless WP:CANVAS accusation on U-Mos's talk page [24].
Regarding templates for discussion: Highly uncivil responses[25] [26] [27]; deletes U-Mos's comment [28]; further spurious accusation, made uncivilly [29] (see also self-contradictions below).
Regarding episode list module/MOS:ACCESS: Refuses to recognise accessibility guidelines and states direct intention to contradict them [30], continues when WP:POINT violation noted [31]; uncivil comment [32]; attempts at WP:GAMING [33] [34]; describes accessibility improvements as "unreadable" [35]; WP:WIKILAWYERING [36]; accuses a user of WP:CANVAS [37]; shifts goalposts in discussion to suit non-neutral viewpoint & uncivil comment to me ("What a mess!") [38], latter denied [39]; further major incivility [40], [41],[42]; misrepresents comments [43], [44]; finally resorts to denying an issue was ever raised and repeats incivility [45] [46].
Other infractions: sarcastic uncivil response to U-Mos's RfC request [47], repeated in response to proffered olive branch [48] & spurious accusation of poor faith [49]; shows no concern for Wikipedia community as long as he's "happy" [50].

Self-contradictions, suggesting WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:GAMING: Inferences from guidelines should stand in articles while discussed [51], unless the inference is made by someone else [52]; single-use or little-used templates are acceptable [53], except when they're not [54] [55]. On the latter, after contradiction was pointed out Alex claimed he was now neutral on the earlier discussion [56], refused to acknowledge that on the still-live TfD because "I don't care" [57], then denied any change of mind when U-Mos noted it in the TfD [58], and further refuted evidence of WP:GAMING (and misrepresented the entire discussion, clearly listed as a merge proposal) [59].

2017

(this whole thread, I do not understand how to unravel this)

2020 (sorry, thought this was in 2021) and other minor years

whatever is going on here 2020
[60] uncivility, linked to here in this discussion in en.wp WP:AN 2017
this 2020 discussion on WP:AN

2025 continued after interaction ban

[61] uncivility towards a different editor(needs to be read in context of the vote above it)
[62] unhelfulness, the keep votes were mine and the above editor's with our reason, [63] provocative, he replies to me saying my reasoning is wrong, then claimed later that I was trying to break my iban by replying to him discreetely, while I'm just clarifying what I meant[64], also twisted what I said in the messages above it and my rationale for my accidental iban break
[65] reverts an edit calling it w:en:WP:SYNTH for not stating the episode number, even knowing I can't explain why it isn't SYNTH
[66] uncivil, w:en:WP:Gravedancing here, knowing I can't reply bcs of being blocked(or ibanned bcs he didn't notice my block) and calling an unreliable source reliable bcs a rumour turned out to be correct
[67] reverts my edit fixing the info for a post-split article knowing that I wouldn't be able to fix it, especially one he voted in the splitting for

Previous attempts at a solution - (DoctorWhoFan91)

2017 ANI thread (ended in I-ban between Alex and another user)
2019 ANI thread (I have no idea why no action was taken)
2025 ANI thread(apologies for the mess I made here, and my subsequent lashing out)

Alex 21

Previous attempts at a solution - Alex 21

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)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Dear @DoctorWhoFan91: i have two initial questions:
- Can you please give us a link to your previous en.arbcom request?
- Having looked through the difflinks, which were the five difflinks that you perceived as the worst?

Thank you, --Ghilt (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not ignoring the request and for fixing the template failure

I'm banned on English Wikipedia(I'm sorry for many of my actions that played a part in it btw, I lashed out again and again in response to bullying), so I mailed them- they said that arbcom only deals with matters that are unsuitable for public discussion, or were enforced by Arbcom, neither of which I fulfill.
Kinda hard to say because many of them are related, and I didn't link many of them as they were too numerous, but I'll try(from my own diffs, as those are the ones I'm most familiar with), in no particular order
- [1], as they pinged me 20 times with the same edit summary, one of which can be seen here, for edits that was in talk space, and weren't broken due to redirects, and bcs alex gave the rationale as Manual of Style despite it applying only in articlespace
- [3], because they wanted to discreteely add a semi-unreliable ref that was removed for it be a Featured List: alex was told of the change and agreed to it and lied that he didn't get them(can be seen in this discussion)
- [6], bcs he twisting someone else's words to suggest that she is the one who is trying to own the page
- [9] bcs the WikiProject had even went to the Reliable Sources NoticeBoard a year before it(can be seen in 14-16), and yet alex said we were the ones going against consensus
- [13] bcs he was uncivil to a relative newcomer, who was only asking that alex put his points forward instead of trying to ignore consensus.

Also, I can't inform alex 21 of this case as I'm banned on English Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if pings work without a user page on meta wiki- can someone else do that, and use a non-number external link, as I have listed the diffs by their number here(or I could update the diff numbers he4e, if a number is to be used for the diff that shows that he has been performed). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, as I said in ans to the first question, en.wp Arbcom does not hear cases from blockled users except in two exceptions, neither of which I fulfill. Also, to clarify, in order to preempt any such questions: I didn't go to arbitation requests before the block bcs I did not know it was usable for general conduct cases. I only knew of ANI, and then AN, when it was suggested to me in passing by an admin(and arbcom member). Which, again to show that many comments about me on English Wikipedia were in bad faith, is something I partially apologise for- for not searching for more options by myself instead of choosing the options most editors use and which I didn't know there was an alternative to. (edit- Though I have no opinions on the systemic integrity on English Wikipedia, I kind of think the noticeboards had and have systemic issues, if that counts as systemic failure? I didn't bring it up bcs I just wanted to focus on the many breakings of policies by alex instead of the response the reports and related things had gotten on English Wikipedia) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: sorry, didn't ping correctly. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current charter, I don't think that matters (it's perhaps debatable under the proposed revision but that's not what's being asked about here). Absent systemic failure - which I don't think has been close to demonstrated here - I don't think we have jurisdiction. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies bcs I didn't want to extend it beyond alex's conduct but I feel like I have to, bcs it feels like admins on en.wp have failed to act in a systemic manner, and bcs I have no other avenue to go to.

An admin, who is also an en.wp ArbCom member, has repeatedly said that (edit-missed the words "there shouldn't be a 2 way iban") in various avenues that there was no uncivilty towards me, with the same diffs of 2025 and 2024 that are here. [68][69] I almost certainly believe it's because they didn't read it [70](they also came to my talk page half-angry when I called them out for it [71],[72])
I have asked for clarifications for an Interaction ban which I put on myself(I thought it would stop the bullying), but they(edit-they=another admin, not the ArbCom member) have just quoted the words verbatim instead of telling how they apply[73], and when I ask them(edit-they=other admins) how I should edit something where Alex has deliberately tried to twist my words, they just tell me to "drop the stick" and stop "wikilawyering"(this was off-wiki, though one example [74])
At unblock requests, I'm told not to talk about alex bcs I should focus on my conduct, or to talk more about alex bcs I am leaving out the part I did, and when I try to take a middle road and say that the two are interlinked, they call it wikilawyering[75][76][77]
Non-admins regularly come to admins's noticeboard: one basically gave generic advice while saying the words "I didn't look at the precise edits, but", [78][79] while another on another thread assumed bad faith and called me ne a "chronic time waster" just bcs he saw the number of times I had tried to get myself heard, not seeing a lot were closed early[80][81] (example of early close[82])
Seeing that this was happening, I was talking to editors (including admins) off-wiki, though only for trying to calm myself down- an admin had a problem with that, while making no attempts to help me on-wiki, or to stop the unnecessary interruptions at any of the threads I brought.[83]
I have been blocked repeatdly and my talk page access removed for saying "I was bullied"; any attempts at trying to get the original ANI thread has proven futile and being called wikilawyering.[84][85] DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide diffs later if required, I didn't before bcs I didn't want to link non-parties with a link. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will add, not as a U4C member but as an enwiki editor, I think enwiki struggles to sometimes think about the entirety of a situation at a place like ANI. I wish enwiki had given some more time to the substance of your concerns, rather than focusing on this implosion of a valued editor about this topic. But as a U4C member none of that is relevant. I have to follow the charter and enforcement guidelines and my feeling is those only give me one option here: decline. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe others will think differently. Thank you for your words as a enwiki editor- it's honestly more than I got at en.wp itself: they either ignore me, call me stuff bcs they read the situation wrongly, or call me a "valued editor" while calling it wikilawyering when I try to explain the situation. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghilt: what other avenues do I have- I went to WP:ANI, I walked away with a self-imposed Iban bcs the wording did not seem the same as it has been implemented. I went to WP:AN, and no one wants to hear anything bcs I have an iban, and when I say the iban wasn't properly implemented by an admin, they call it wikilawyering. Then they block me for saying I was bullied. I go to ArbCom, they say they don't hear from blocked users, go to utrs, utrs says the same thing of wikilawyering, then I ask to just be indeffed bcs they kept saying the siteban is a mercy(with some critiscm, and some insults, of which I'm slightly sorry, of them not reading anything at all), so I'm also banned on utrs- even if I wasn't, I have no idea how to get them to hear me.

This users has 60 diffs against them, I could probably find 10-15 more from the 2017 thread and from minor incidents involving alex each. And 20-30 more diffs about their recent behaviour. Is no one gonna stop an uncivil bully from insulting editors and showing ownership towards wikipedia articles just because of a technicality?

If I show the noticeboards on English Wikipedia have failed systematically, will you hear the case then?

Also, apologies for such long replies, I am really desparate, not a single admin on English Wikipedia heard me, even the good ones were telling me to let it go bcs it's so tangled and they didn't wanna seem WP:involved. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the substance of your concerns got the hearing they deserved on enwiki. I said it above and I'll repeat it here. And I wish that were different. We also don't have the authority to change that here. But I also need to share that given that your actions have contributed to that outcome. You've had multiple iBAN violations - the fact that it was voluntarily entered into doesn't change that it became binding on you to not violate, got caught socking, got banned from Discord, and then sent an abusive/threatening message to UTRS. All of this just in a single month. I'm really sad to see this kind of spiral from an editor, especially one who is feeling bullied by another user and who edited productively for such a long time. To get the outcome you want there is going to have to be some passage of time without further attempts by you to solve this, whether by socking or by other means. So time is your first step. And the second step is going to be to show you can edit productively despite what you feel the wrongs done to you were. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sound like I'm arguing. I am not saying my actions didn't lead to it, I'm not actually arguing about removing my block yet. I'm saying English Wikipedia won't listen to me, I tried.

You said I violated my iban multiple times- but like I said, I can't talk why I should be unblocled or my iban removed without mentioning alex. And not that it makes this things okay- but I socked bcs I saw no way English Wikipedia would listen, I was banned from discord bcs I said I was bullied, and that admins aren't usually a helpful bunch(in a far more insulting way, to be honest). Also doesn't make it okay, but I was tired of being told I was being handled mercifully, that I was a "great content writer" despite being baselessly reverted many times by alex, and that the community does not think I was bullied.

What I am basically trying to say is I don't know how to go about it- people on-wiki keep saying my iban appeals and unblock requests are wrong, and don't tell me how, and I avoid off-wiki half the time bcs it might be canvassing, and half bcs no one wants to seem involved.(Plus I'm not in the servers so I can barely contact anyone).

If this case is declined, can you help me with all of it(this case, maybe the unblock requests), say in a month's time? Also can you atleast restore my talk page and email access on English Wikipedia right now, it was literally removed for saying I was bullied and asking why I wasn't listened to? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to start by thanking you @Barkeep49, this is the literally the most by far any en.wp admin has heard me on-wiki.

Just to reiterate what my iban violations were-

Accidental revert
Me discussing the content on the article(I thought it would be fine bcs I wasn't changing alex's edits or asking anyone to change it, just asking if it was correct)
Saying I was bullied in my iban appeal/mentioning him too much in the appeal
Fixing an error again after he needlessly reverted it(2nd time he reverted my edit for a superficial reason, 4th or 5th he replied or reverted my edit, knowing I would have to answer, and I still did it only 1.5 times)
Saying I was bullied in my block appeal

Like, pls tell me how I'm supposed to appeal my iban when it counts as an iban violation if I mention what he did, and if I don't then I am said to be hiding my own actions. Like do you know how much iban violations this whole case would be counted as if it was in an admin noticeboard or in front of en.wp ArbCom/on English Wikipedia anywhere at all? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal your ban, when the time is right, by sincerely apologizing and saying you will abide by the iBan. You can appeal your iBan by explaining why the iBan will no longer be needed or productive. You've acknowledged making some mistakes and one cost of those mistakes is, in my opinion, that you're going to need to live with the iBan for a bit. Right now that seems too painful and I get why that would be the case. I don't think time heals all wounds (it does heal some of them but not all) but time can give space on how to live with it and that's part of why I suggested time is your first step. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to do that to the best I could with the info for appealing ibans I could find on-wiki, in my first appeal, explaining why the iban wasn't productive. It came to nothing bcs I was told I was focusing too much on Alex.

Like I can't explain why the iban isn't productive or needed without showing Alex's behaviour, and I can't do that if it just looks like Alex has done nothing wrong bcs he has not been reprimanded. And I can't appeal my siteban when I know I would have to show alex's behaviour eventually. Like it's a whole deadlocked situation- and I don't see a way out.

Like how I'm supposed to show something like the 2025 continued evidence above, when the last time I tried something like that, I got a whole speech by an editor that though they didn't read the diffs, we shouldn't accuse other editors of bad behaviour, and then the thread was closed by an admin soon after. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am just throwing this idea out here @Barkeep49, so apologies if it unintentionally seems like GAMEing behaviour, but perhaps you could unblock me on en.wp just so I could ask en.wp ArbCom to take on the case? I promise not to edit any other avenue than the arb enforcement noticeboard. This is of course assuming that I can put this in front of ArbCom as I'm not sure if this whole case will be allowed because of the iban, and I don't know how to appeal the iban as I get accused of focusing on alex whenever I try to appeal the iban. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a lot here, so I will basically summarise what I'm saying:

If the case is accepted- take actions as the U4C members see fit regarding Alex; if possible, they could take actions regarding my interaction ban and the block, not that I'm not requesting those as they are a different, though very much related matter
If the case is declined, the following possible actions in order of preference(for those that are sysops on en.wp)-
- Help me provide the evidence to en.wp ArbCom, either by reporting of their volition if possible, or by unblocking me just so I could report by myself, if it does not seem like w:en:GAMEing
- Restore talk page access, and hear a shorter appeal on en.wp(as the previous ones failed partially bcs of my conduct and partially because the situation was not misunderstood)
- Restore talk page access for now, and after some time(say a month of editing elsewhere), help me appeal my block and iban, as any attempts to make my words clear on en.wp through on or off discussion proved futile due to a mix of conduct and improper admin or editor conduct

I also summarise my actions, and my reasoning behind them, though they only half-justify my conduct, so partially I apologise (not my intention to make excuses, just giving my reasons; if you do not believe me, maybe y'all will after a month or so, or however time y'all decide?).
- Multiple iban violations- most of the ~half dozen of those were during appeals- the words were usually a form of "I was bullied" which was seen as referring to the editor and not as references to the uncivility I faced; one was bcs I misunderstood the wording of the iban, and another was fixing a technical error again after it was reverted
- Socking- there was a repeated failure to have my words heard, I would never have done that had they been acknowledged, like they have been here.
- Ban from discord- One for very indirectly referencing that I was bullied on-wiki(after a warning not to do so), and one for insulting admins on noticeboards not listening
- UTRS ban- similar to above, I was angry at being patronised by admins, especially when some of those have other powers too, and others are looking for more powers despite their other recent unrelated actions.

Please just help me. Many apologies for my bad actions, a lot of hope that something will come out of all this, and many thanks for listening to me. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of decline votes, it seems like the case would be declined, and that not much can be done on en.wp. Could an en.wp admin pls atleast restore my talk page access- I promise not to make any ban appeals for atleast a month; I just want to thank editors, and check on the status of my nominated articles and such, and have an easier time with appeals when it's eventually time to do that. If further possible, they could just restrict me to my userpage and user talk page on en.wp, I just want to draft articles in my sandboxes. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:/any other en.wp admins, given that this request of mine is about something tangentially related to the case, can I elaborate/get replies about it it on one of your talk pages here? If yes, then I withdraw my case here. Thank you all for listening, and providing me advice and helping me not spiral by not ignoring me. You are all great people from what I have seen. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in my capacity as an uninvolved enwiki admin, I think I would be most comfortable with restoring your talk page access after some time, with the only intention being for you to post a well-thought-out appeal.

One of the things I've learned about English Wikipedia, especially the ANI culture, is the considerable weight being put on presentation in addition the substance. There's a self-selecting tendency for things to be rational, unempathetic, perhaps there are some benefits to that, but it sure is unfriendly to new editors or anyone who is unwilling to spend time learning about that culture. When I reported an experienced editor to ANI because I thought he was being rude and unresponsive, the responses I got didn't look like anyone really wanted to explain to me what I needed to do other than to just take it up and leave. If I wasn't at least somewhat prepared for the responses I got, I probably would have gotten very emotional and thought that everyone just ganged up on me. (for raising a concern that someone was very hard to communicate with!)

I don't exactly know whether this story applies here (because I skipped some of the text, sorry), but the general story still holds true. For me, I had to walk away and try my best to stop caring. One month later, experienced users at ANI found the same user that I complained about, problematic at an entirely different discussion, for the same issues of bad communication. He got sitebanned.

What I am concerned about, in your case, is exactly how much you can do, to try to get your opinions heard and your concerns registered, without you harming your own ability to edit and contribute to the website. In your case, you've already lost most of them and it is an uphill battle to get what you want back. When you appeal, you must try to not justify what you did (not because people think they weren't justified, but because it is irrelevant), but entirely focus on the understanding that what you did disrupted the project and may have hurt other people in the process, and that's a hard thing to do (requires a lot of honest self-introspection).

In any case, I believe that you can stop the spiral, become more calmed down with time, and hopefully what I wrote above is helpful. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you, and everyone else, has been saying has truly been very helful and kind, thank you; and I have stopped spiralling, I think. Also, like I would have to basically ask for my talk page access back on non en.wp site, as there is no other way- so that's why I asked for them now only.

I don't know how to write a "well thought out appeal", I have tried. I have apologised for lashing out, and said I would be productive. But someone always brings up the stuff with alex- I can't exactly say "yeah, he is good" when he has continued to attack and provoke me even after my ban.

I did try to be rational on ANI, alex came and lied about stuff there, and the most anyone did was say that alex was a good editor. No one even read any of my appeals, yet the replies to them are always insulting or patronising. I have more or less lost faith in any en.wp admins who frequent noticeboards.

Your situation is kinda similiar, but like alex has been reported several times before, and no one does anything; the literal response I have gotten from a few editors(off-wiki) has been "yeah, he is bad, but if we bring evidence about him, everyone would think we are attacking him". You can see the number of diffs and the stuff alex has said- and the responses(like 50 diffs in the 2019 thread, and the only thing the admin said was "alex, don't break policy, but let's close this discussion and do nothing even after every time he is reported").

Umm, thank you, and everyone else here, for listening. You can close the case, it's gonna be declined with the trend of votes. I'll request tpa back in a month. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: I am not spiralling now that someone actually decided to listen to me instead of hindering, insulting or patronising me, though I was spiralling before. I don't actually have any other avenues to go to; even if they were, I am still being patronised there at best- the reply preceding an admin taking my talk page access literally said I wasn't bullied despite no one listening to it on en.wp and that "I hope that in six months this can be a memory in the distant past for you." when they had already blocked me for a week before for the same, and had given a lecture on how Discord shouldn't be used.

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

enwiki has an ArbCom and so the U4C can only get involved in matters of systemic failure. There is no systemic failure demonstrated here and so we have no jurisdiction. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as Barkeep49 stated, this is not the right place. --Ghilt (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the right venue. @DoctorWhoFan91: it seems like you're spiralling. And that's ok, but that means it's time to take a step back from the wikiworld and focus on other things. Otherwise you will continue to burn bridges here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:20, 31 March 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.

This request has been noted. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]