Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Polygnotus

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

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. ~2025-29356-55 (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

---

~2025-29356-55

Description of the problem - (~2025-29356-55)

This U4C request concerns an editor called Polygnotus, registered on 8 September 2022 and having made 38,684 edits, i.e. ~1,046 edits/month. Polygnotus is active on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Meta-Wiki and Simple English Wikipedia.

Over the past three years, Polygnotus has exhibited a persistent pattern of habitual incivility, bludgeoning, vandalism etc. on multiple Wikimedia sites. The UCoC rules I believe Polygnotus to have flouted repeatedly include UCoC 2.1, 2.2 and 3.3. Due to the risk of real-life harassment, I am filing this request with a temporary account. Evidence is presented in the following sections. Due to the sheer amount of diffs that may serve as evidence, I have not been able to include all of them, though I would try my best.

Evidence from Wikimedia Commons

Tendency to personal attacks

Examples:

• 1 and 2

[1] in particular: You said you were gonna upload insect photos instead of being counterproductive here. Why do you ask these questions that you would already know the answers to if you had read the links provided? Can you please go upload insect pictures like you promised? There are over 900.000 known insect species. If you delete your comments here I might even come help you when this is done. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

[2] in particular: @Rhododendrites if you are not interested in engaging in a battleground, it may be wise to not post a comment. I can't repeat everything for everyone who is too lazy to actually read the walls of text that were already posted. You have not adequately made your case I have, but you seem to be unwilling to read it, as you have admitted yourself. Polygnotus (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The rudeness of and bludgeoning by Polygnotus reached such a point that Compassionate727, who was sympathetic to Polygnotus, decided to criticize Polygnotus:

You have made your opinion clear. Please refrain from bludgeoning and allow other people to weigh in on this. Also—and I fear to say this, lest I provoke you further, but I feel it needs be said—you have been unacceptably rude at several points in this discussion (not to me, but to ProfGray and Rhododendrites). We can disagree about policies, including extremely important policies like BLP and NPA, without resorting to incivility and personal attacks of our own. Please bear that in mind. Thanks, —Compassionate727 (T·C) 06:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

to which Polygnotus responded by defending his abuses:

@Compassionate727 That is not very compassionate of you. If you understood the situation, you would scold Rhododendrites. But you'll probably find the suggestion that there are things you do not understand "impolite" again, although it is a neutral observation of a fact. Polygnotus (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

That discussion was closed in favor of Polygnotus. Images that might not have broken rules were deleted because both Prof Gray and Rhododendrites were intimidated into not participating further and nobody else took up their position, so the whole thing petered out. Simply put, Polygnotus dominated discussions and manipulated content by bullying out others to create a victory illusion, more evidence from other Wikimedia sites shown in the following sections. These are enough to show that the problems with Polygnotus are not associated with personal grudges but the very manner Polygnotus has conducted oneself in.

Evidence from English Wikipedia

See this admin warning on the Talk page of Polygnotus to which Polygnotus responded defensively.

Tendency to personal attacks

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

[2] in particular: Also, you are making it harder and harder to assume good faith. If you are of good faith, and you fucked up, then why act like this? Why not simply say "oh I am sorry" and stop wasting my time? Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

What good-faith editors would resort to profanity to make a point? Note that Polygnotus also used profanity in editing summary on Simple English Wikipedia. Two editors criticized Polygnotus in another dispute:

Now that you’ve resorted to name calling, revealing a decided lack of neutrality, it is clearly appropriate that DaveApter has requested another RFC. I initially found myself in some agreement with you ("proving or disproving that it is a cult is not what we do here on Wikipedia"), but only to a point. As an editor, haven’t you agreed to validate the edits you make? To assess cited resources for accuracy and credentials? Or have you merely looked for “evidence” to support what your “cult members” references reveal to be an obvious point of view? Ndeavour (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ndeavour. Openly insinuating that other editors are "cult members," without a shred of evidence supporting such a remark, would seem to clearly demonstrate your own bias in this matter and belie your statement that this argument is not about proving whether Landmark is a cult. If you're calling others cult members, then it seems clear that you believe this organization is a cult and, therefore, cannot claim neutrality in this discussion. Coalcity58 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

These are also enough to show that the problems with Polygnotus are not associated with personal grudges but the very manner Polygnotus has conducted oneself in.

Tendency to bludgeoning

• Covered in diffs in the previous subsection

Further examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Tendency to canvassing

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Supplementary evidence:

Editor Interaction Analyzer result, Intersect Contribs result, and Intertwined contributions results: 1 and 2

On top of the first four diffs, where Polygnotus posted on the Talk pages of like-minded editors to request discussion participation, the latter four links showed a large editing overlap between Polygnotus and another two like-minded editors. Particularly, the minimum time between their edits on several pages is so short that it is hard for a rational person not to suspect concurrent off-site coordination. English Wikipedia's arbitration committee ruled in 2009:

When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it makes sense to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.

Thus, it makes sense to suspect Polygnotus of tendency to canvassing.

Tendency to use misleading editing summaries

Polygnotus often does these in editing summaries:

• Input of nonsensical remarks or random policy jargons
• Dismissal of well-sourced content as either "spam" or "propaganda" (JDLI trolling)

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9

Under their policy, these actions are considered vandalism:

...

Edit summary vandalism

Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and require administrative action if they have to be removed from a page's history). Often combined with malicious account creation.

...

Hidden vandalism

Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism, or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.

...

Illegitimate blanking

Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good faith content removal ... should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries.

...

Most of the diffs show that Polygnotus' edits fitted the definition.

Tendentious editing

Polygnotus tends to dismiss reliable sources as "unreliable" over personal disagreement. For example:

On 20 May 2025, Polygnotus removed a reliable source by claiming [it was] attributed to some random visiting assistant professor. There is no policy basis. On 7 July 2025, Polygnotus removed a peer-reviewed article of a reputable journal as "unreliable". It was undone by a senior editor because Polygnotus' claim was nonsensical. There are too many examples of tendentious editing to include.

Tendency to edit warring

Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8

There are too many examples of edit warring to include.

Ongoing vandalism

While this case is open, Polygnotus continues vandalizing several articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.

Evidence from Simple English Wikipedia

Profanity in editing summary

Example:

• 1

Tendency to unexplained mass deletions

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13

Particularly, Polygnotus vandalized the article Holocaust denial: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. No admins have ever stopped this. Be aware that (1) Polygnotus continuously targets Jewish-related articles (2) Wikimedia Foundation rejects racism (1 and 2) with which Polygnotus' conduct is incompatible.

Blanking of articles

This and this; one can hardly find more egregious violations than these.

Tendency to use misleading editing summaries

Polygnotus often does these in editing summaries:

• Input of nonsensical remarks or random policy jargons
• Dismissal of well-sourced content as either "spam" or "propaganda" (JDLI trolling)

Examples:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (more academic leftists! woohooo "common leftist indifference." "), 6 (oh those leftwing/western academics!), 7 (even more bad academics!), 8 (oh god even more western academics), 9 and 10

Habitual incivility

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Tendency to bludgeoning

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

In every dispute, Polygnotus is aggressively tendentious, intimidating, and showing no remorse for any proven violations while pointing fingers at others. Polygnotus feels entitled to break rules when he considers others "wrong". This is not a recent issue but has been happening since Polygnotus registered. It makes sense to say that Polygnotus is WP:NOTHERE, who must be dealt with in the most serious way. It is shocking that Polygnotus has been allowed to do these for so long.

Tendentious editing

• See the first Tendentious editing section

• Further examples:

Dismissing a Routledge-published book by sociologist David Hirsh as "far-right propaganda": 1 and 2. Note that calling a sociologist "far-right" without evidence is a BLP violation.

Disclosure of personal information

Example:

• 1

Evidence from Meta-Wiki

See this admin warning on the Talk page of Polygnotus, Polygnotus' aggressive responses (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), and subsequent self-revert on Talk page to conceal warnings.

Tendency to bludgeoning

Examples:

• 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Off-wiki evidence

[Private evidence]

I would email your committee to provide it once I have the consent.

Previous attempts at a solution - (~2025-29356-55)

Wikimedia Commons

Covered by diffs in the first section.

English Wikipedia

Covered by diffs in the Personal attacks section.

Simple English Wikipedia

This. Note that the admins appear to be biased for Polygnotus: 1 (We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily. Of the two of you I support your side the most but I have to try and be neutral.), 2, 3 (Thanks for the clean up! Things turned out a bit messy but there is no point engaging in discussions that'd never end. followed by BLP-violating allegations from BRPever against someone) and 4. They also admitted a lack of admins to adjudicate problems on their site.

Under their policy:

Change summary - this is meant to tell other users what has been changed. Many vandals do not write anything, but if they do, it appears in brackets "(" and ")" and in italics. Look especially for common sentences like "Fixed typo" or "Added content" - these are called "canned" summaries and can often be "misleading", or in other words, not tell the truth. It may look to be any other normal change, but could be vandalism.

Despite clear evidence that Polygnotus has been vandalizing dozens of Jewish-related articles since July 2025, under pretexts Polygnotus insists to be right, Polygnotus has never been blocked. Polygnotus' vandalism apparently occurs with full admin collaboration, who have rarely hesitated to block others when they acted similarly.

This reeks of what happened on Croatian Wikipedia (Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment). It is not that they are directly comparable, but that the warning signs have emerged. Be aware that the article of Croatian Wikipedia on English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia were vandalized respectively by Polygnotus (1 and 2), who removed reliable sources about its controversies. I do not see any justifications unless Polygnotus considers the WMF-confirmed overt Holocaust revisionism acceptable.

Another editor who confronted Polygnotus appeared to have been wrongfully sanctioned (1, 2 and 3), and even threatened with an indefinite site ban reinstatement by BRPever. The way the admins treated someone who tried to stop Polygnotus' mass vandalism of Jewish-related articles is shocking.

The arbitrary policing has granted Polygnotus impunity, effectively enabling Polygnotus to break every rule. This is not the first time particular editors were treated preferentially (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Note that fr33kman recently created an unsourced POV fork on Simple English Wikipedia, which falls within the same topic area as that of the above dispute. This further shows him to be on the side of Polygnotus as he previously stated. Do rules matter only when the offenders are not favored by them?

Ferien, a bureaucrat on Simple English Wikipedia, recently pointed out that several of its admins, including Barras (former bureaucrat), Eptalon (another bureaucrat), Fr33kman, M7 and Ternera committed "widespread misuse of A4". It is concerning that its admins do not know the rules but habitually overstep their remits. Is this directly related? Hard to tell, but it is worth consideration.

As Simple English Wikipedia has no arbitration committee, it leaves us with no choice but to escalate to your committee when its admins do not stop long-term abuses jeopardizing site integrity and community well-being.

Meta-Wiki

Covered by diffs in the previous section about Meta-Wiki.

Higher-level attempts

[Private evidence]

I would email your committee to provide it once I have the consent.

Suggested solutions - (~2025-29356-55)

A logged warning, if not higher-level sanctions, shall be handed out to Polygnotus, and any other local admins who may be at fault, in order to prevent further violations, protect other participants, and guarantee a safe environment for those who may interact with Polygnotus.

fr33kman

Previous attempts at a solution - fr33kman

I was unaware that there are alleged problems with Polygnotus' behaviour and/or edits. I have not followed their actions on Simple English Wikipedia so have not tried to solve a problem I was unaware of.

Suggested solutions - fr33kman

Seeing the evidence above I would recommend a period of block for Polygnotus for being incivil and a review of their problematic edits to determine if the allegations are true or not.

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 (Compassionate727)

I would not characterize myself as having been sympathetic to Polygnotus in that one discussion where I was involved, although I did try to be cordial. In any case, I haven’t read the totality of the evidence presented here, but it’s not clear to me why this rises to the level of requiring U4C intervention, other than perhaps the cross-wiki scope of the problem (although, admittedly, his comment to Rhododendrites about uploading moth photos is the most egregious incivility I can recall ever seeing someone get away with, and were I an admin, I would have given something like a 48 hour block for it). I thought based on his response to my rebuke that I would need to escalate to ANI, but both Prof Gray and Rhododendrites were intimidated into not participating further and nobody else took up their position, so the whole thing petered out. All of this is our civility processes working as they normally do. (Perhaps not how things should’ve gone, but I don’t think we should expect better from people.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

• Just adding this to say I'm not inclined to participate in a case brought by a brand new account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Ferien recused from the case as Ferien is an admin on Simple English Wikipedia. Given that this case involves Simple English Wikipedia and BRPever is one of the admins who handled disputes related to Polygnotus, who had praised Polygnotus, I am concerned that BRPever's involvement would constitute WP:INVOLVED which may affect the process. Please advise. ~2025-29688-18 (talk)
• BRPever also said Many of the claims are misrepresented or exaggerated. It would be good if they can elaborate, especially when the evidence of Polygnotus' long-term abuses is clear and abundant, and has never been sanctioned on Simple English Wikipedia, where BRPever serves as one of the admins and handled related disputes. I do not find emotive phrasing like alas, I ended up wasting almost an hour helpful either. It appears to be highly personalized. ~2025-29707-94 (talk)
• As shown in a couple of diffs above, Polygnotus did interact with me a bit, including saying AOT that I uploaded images, for an article, as if they "serve no purpose other than to falsely accuse Wikipedians."[1] At the time, I did wish that their statements toward me, and others, were more civil, less personalizing, and more AGF. The same concerns could have been expressed entirely in terms of WP policy or guidelines. Such user conduct does discourage me from editing controversial topics, despite my interest and knowledge. Since their interactional style is not uncommon on Wikipedia, and this is my first exposure to a U4C case, I'm not sure what else I can contribute to this situation. ProfGray (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Fr33kman, there is no way you could not have been aware of it when you are the admin who handled a major complaint about Polygnotus' conduct in July 2025. Not only did you fail to sanction Polygnotus, but also you wrongfully sanctioned the user who made the complaint. This section clearly listed everything. Had you done your job in July 2025, this would not have escalated to this stage. I would appreciate it if your admin team could enforce the very rules you are supposed to. It is surprising to see you denying everything when you are the admin most involved in the handling of the issues surrounding Polygnotus. ~2025-30240-21 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Fr33kman, so now you have all of the evidence, are you willing to sanction Polygnotus and lift the topic ban from the user who was wrongfully sanctioned for trying to stop Polygnotus' disruptive editing? ~2025-30240-21 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Civvì, the problems surrounding Polygnotus' conduct were repeatedly reported on Simple English Wikipedia, but their admins have refused to take actions against the user at all. There is no arbitration committee on Simple English Wikipedia, so taking it here is the only avenue via which it can be reviewed. ~2025-30267-14 (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I would normally default to a decline on any request submitted by a user editing while logged out - it isn't fair to other parties to present a case anonymously

I know that this is not ideal, but this happens due to the risk of further real-life harassment for which I just emailed private evidence. It should have reached the committee mailbox. Feel free to check. Thanks a lot. ~2025-29688-18 (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• This page has been edited 226 times since the request was submitted. I am asking the OP to kindly inform us when they have finished so that we can start reading the final version. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Supposedly, the current version is the final version, though it may be complicated by Polygnotus' ongoing vandalism on English Wikipedia, adding to the amount of evidence. ~2025-29815-98 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 You wrote I have more serious concerns about UCoC issues with the filer than Polygnotus. This analysis includes private information about the filer and the answer to a question I asked privately about the privately submitted materials. I do not know what this means. Is it possible to elaborate? I only replied to your email once, laying out my concerns over safety and privacy as a nobody, which is more important than procedural technicalities. Given that transparency is desired by the community, I can post my email reply to you, if not also the Trust & Safety reply to me, here if I have your committee's consent.
  I am not sure why the abundance of evidence showing Polygnotus to have committed long-term abuses, echoed by ProfGray and Compassionate727, does not appear to satisfy you that Polygnotus has more UCoC problems than every other editor Polygnotus has ever clashed with. It is also clear that Simple English Wikipedia admins are not willing to enforce rules on Polygnotus when that site is the second largest English Wikipedia version.
  Just because Polygnotus perceives every other to be "wrong", it does not give Polygnotus a blank cheque to break rules on multiple projects. Rather, a no-action decision would set a bad precedent encouraging more unchecked abuses like that, driving off good-faith editors and making content problems far worse than they are.
  You also mentioned But please take note Polygnotus that from the brief look I took..., does this imply that you may not have reviewed the totality of evidence yet? If yes, I would humbly advise you to. Note that the involved decline by BRPever, and their highly personalized judgment, on this case also causes me concern. ~2025-29815-98 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have read what you have written here and what you sent to us privately. My obligation at this point is to have enough of an understanding of the evidence to determine if a full investigation is appropriate. If a full investigation is opened, I carefully read the evidence (often multiple times), to form final opinions. While there would be some circumstances, largely around abuse of power, privilege, or influence, where I might be willing to overlook a bad faith filer (as that is what I see a preponderance of the evidence supporting here) this case is not one of them. According to the U4C Charter, "The U4C may accept or decline any matter at its sole discretion; it will take into account, but will not be bound by the views of the parties to the request and other informed users." and in my discretion this is not a case I think we should take, but neither was I willing to completely overlook the UCoC violations. Hence my comment directed to Polygnotus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I see. It looks too complicated for normies to maneuver unless they have been around for years. Is it possible for the committee to consider a motion setting conditions for direct intervention in case of further violations by Polygnotus? ~2025-29815-98 (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would deeply appreciate it if this problem can be paid attention to. It is in my view something that has been going on for quite a while. ~2025-29815-98 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz I do not consider it harassment to report long-term abuses by a user who has never shown remorse for a succession of unchecked cyberbullying they committed against multiple users, nor is it a "slight incivility problem" when the problem can be proven by almost a hundred diffs. As much as I respect the committee and assume good faith, I have to object to such classification that resembles victim blaming of those at the receiving end of their vitriol or have stopped editing as a result, which would set an undesirable precedent for these issues, driving off good-faith editors and making content problems far worse than they are. @ProfGray @Compassionate727 are right about the nature of Polygnotus' conduct, and I am grateful for their input. ~2025-29521-84 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• I must recuse in discussion in this case given I myself declined to take action when it was reported at Simple Wikipedia's Vandalism in progress page this morning. Ferien (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• @~2025-29356-55: (I can't remember if pings work for temp accounts or not): please email us your private evidence. Please also include who your account is and information about the real-life harassment. You can email us at u4cwikimediaorg. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• I would normally default to a decline on any request submitted by a user editing while logged out - it isn't fair to other parties to present a case anonymously, when the other parties are expected to respond publicly under their own names. If a complainant has legitimate privacy or harassment concerns relating to filing a case, then that evidence should be submitted privately to the U4C before filing a case, and the committee can either consider the evidence in private or set appropriate conditions (such as through motions that create consequences for further harassment) for the case to move forward publicly.

Because the complainant has said they will submit private evidence, I will hold off on voting until I see that evidence. But I do note that what they have posted here is not, in my view, serious or sanctionable beyond a reminder. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Decline votes

• I went through the details, even though I had little hope that this case was filed in good faith — alas, I ended up wasting almost an hour. Many of the claims are misrepresented or exaggerated. A request in this condition is definitely a decline. --BRP ^ever 12:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• I want to leave open the possibility of unregistered users opening cases and I want to leave open the possibility of cases being opened with an anonymous filer. However, from my current look into this case I have more serious concerns about UCoC issues with the filer than Polygnotus. This analysis includes private information about the filer and the answer to a question I asked privately about the privately submitted materials. This is not to suggest Polygnotus is clean here, only that the balance of issues, from what I have seen at this stage, leans away from Polygnotus and towards the filer. But please take note Polygnotus that from the brief look I took, I think there is a case that you're on the wrong side of the UCoC at times. If this continues I think you invite enforcement, whether locally or through us, in the future. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• My thinking aligns with Barkeep here. Polygnotus seems to have a slight incivility problem - nothing that requires our action at this time, but some reflection on how they interact with others on these projects would serve them well. But this case page is turning into something that more resembles harassment against Polygnotus than a demonstration of their own alleged UCoC violations. Decline. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Polygnotus, you need to be less harsh. For the uploading comment, imo a short block would have been appropriate. On the other hand, many claims were exaggerated and there seems to be a reason for the filer not using their main account beyond the reason given by them. --Ghilt (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
• There is considerable room for improvement in the way Polygnotus interacts with other users, but their behavioural issues should be handled at a local level. --Civvì (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Motions

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

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

• We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)