Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Systematic failure to enforce UCoC on Simple wiki

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: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 NorthernWinds (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

---

NorthernWinds

Summary

Failure over months to prevent content manipulation by User Steven1991, failure to prevent erasure of the holocaust and antisemitism by User Polygnotus, failure to enforce already-placed restrictions and failure to enforce civility, coupled with statements from administrators such as such as “We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily” and “I think I'm unable to help mediate further ... and suggest you take whatever action you feel is best.” (in the context where we talked about contacting WMF) has led me to believe a systematic failure to enforce UCoC is present on the Simple English Wikipedia. The specific segments of UCoC that have been failed to enforce are: 2.2 Civility, 3.3 Content vandalism and abuse of the projects. The first two sections here are violations of Steven and violations of Polygnotus, then how they were handled.

Steven1991

This user has been pushing his point of view for a long time, since at least October 2024, when he started to spread unrelated “references” that are actually controversial definitions of antisemitism. You can see another one that User:Polygnotus has discovered recently here. There are more here, here, here and here and there are probably many more I did not get to.

Other than that, he has also been spreading misinformation, blaming the so-called “leftist academia” for “rewriting history”, supporting terrorism and being antisemitic. Here are a few examples. None of the sources really contained the information he has added. Additionally, he also seems to have diverted the topic in some articles. See: The “violence” section in Hamas’s article that includes “Jewish Voice for Peace” and more claims related to academia that have nothing to do with Hamas’s violence. He has done other things as well, I believe Polygnotus knows more about these

These violations were not caught or undone until his ban, which was unrelated to any of the things I have mentioned. They were caught only months after he began pushing his point of view (see the link I included earlier about his earliest violation). He was banned for harassment.

Other than that, I recall him spreading things about “Nation of Islam” and black Hebrew Israelites in unrelated pages. But I did not dig for diffs due to relative irrelevance in scale. This is not a part of the report

User:Polygnotus

Polygnotus has repeatedly harassed me on simple wiki and erased content about antisemitism/holocaust from relevant pages. Despite my reports, he was not dealt with, but was even encouraged. To understand the context, please first read my report on the administrator noticeboard (and the thread that followed). Following this, we were both given a topic ban, but following Polygnotus’s abuse of position, he was granted an exception, which, as I will show later, was a de-facto a neutralization of his topic-ban (which means that in practice, I was the only one receiving a limitation despite being a constructive editor). There might be more I am forgetting. In general, I found his conduct often rude (as did others), but have always treated him with respect, until I reported his disruptive behavior. And even then, I have never “disrespected” him and only expressed concerns about his violation of the rules. He has posted many messages on my talk, often responding multiple times to the same thing until I gave up and stopped responding. In what he posted warnings for on my talk page for “edit wars”, he has always made the last edit. There is not even one time he backed down. I have always taken the responsible step and stopped the reverts.

Regarding his conduct, and the administrators’ handlement of it, I want to would like to point out something weird that is more of a strong speculation: look at this warning here. Had administrator fr33kman took a look at my English Wiki profile, he would have immediately seen that I was unblocked from enwiki, and would not have placed this warning on my talk page. Now look at this comment made by Polygnotus after I was blocked. He said I was banned without mentioning the unban and the appeal. Finally, look at this email notification. I know that Polygnotus looked at my page since he followed me and raised unfounded claims about me on enwiki, and I know he sent fr33kman things which I cannot see. Furthermore, I know he does not care to mention I was unbanned when mentioning my former ban. I speculate that he may have told fr33kman that I am banned, and fr33kman did not care to check if it is true and went straight ahead to warn me. It is very much possible that by this, Polygnotus hoped to ban me on a false premise, hoping that the administrator will not check (as happened) and will not warn (as did not happen). Administrators should double check before giving users final warnings. But, as I said, it is just a speculation.

He has had quite a few instances of erasure of holocaust and antisemitism. Shown are a few that demonstrate it best:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10396644 removing lies about Jews from the antisemitism article (yes, it was copy-pasted from another page, but he didn’t leave a link to this extremely relevant article. No one will see it.)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10396596 Removing sections and saying he is “moving” and not leaving links. Also, he did not “move”. The content was already in the other article. The antisemitism article sections did need to be summarized, since the content there included more or less all the content in the “main articles” it was linking to. But Polygnotus just removed everything. He didn’t even leave a link to the extremely relevant articles. The insertion of such a huge amount of content and making a separate page to hold that same content is, by the way, Steven’s doing.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_trivialization&diff=prev&oldid=10391793 Couldn’t he leave a link to the page he was moving stuff to? He just erased information about a form of holocaust trivialization from the holocaust trivialization page.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_trivialization&diff=prev&oldid=10391793 He didn’t “move” content. The content was not duplicated from the article he linked, nor did he add it to that article. He simply removed a form of holocaust trivialization from the holocaust trivialization page without even leaving a link and masked it with an ambiguous edit summary.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=10382941 He removed the widely accepted definition of holocaust denial from the holocaust denial page, saying the definition is “disputed”. As I have demonstrated here, this claim holds no weight. The footnote he removed was controversial, not the article content.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism&diff=prev&oldid=10396614 Removing the holocaust from the Antisemitism page? Does the holocaust not deserve a few sentences in the antisemitism page? And why did he remove all these relevant Nazi posters but leave in the black Hebrew Israelites, which are nowhere near as relevant? The holocaust is definitely notable as a “global event of antisemitism” and should not be tied to articles an article about antisemitism in Europe (or as his later edits implied, when he removed the holocaust section and main article link from antisemitism in Europe to the holocaust, to an article about antisemitism in Germany). Somehow, this article now only mentions the event of the holocaust once, in a sentence that is not even exclusive to it.

There is much more, and it is very hard to follow and report all his violations. The summary “moving to” applies to deduplication, deletion for no reason and, frankly enough, from what I have seen, rarely stands for moving. Sometimes he removes two-sentence summaries of the holocaust in a relevant page and says “moving to holocaust page”. I am going by memory here, and I remember a lot more violations that I did not have time to link here, but if you request, I will go ahead and dig these edits out. I believe what I have provided here so far is more than enough to justify action, which the simple Wikipedia admins did not take.

The failure in enforcing

1. In Steven’s case, there is not much left to say. As I have pointed out above, he has been pushing his point of view in articles for months.
2. Ignoring/not dealing with vandalism and incivility: Polygnotus pinged all admins to his violations, yet everyone either didn’t go through what I said, or decided that they should block both of us, which I have agreed is valid in the case that it is too much of a headache to investigate, and that it is either a block for both of us or continuous content manipulation on Wikipedia. After that, Polygnotus was granted the ability to “Fix what you need to fix (i.e pov push)”. As I will soon show, this was not enforced, and he was de facto under no restrictions. I think that the most disturbing and telling of a wiki-wide problem is this comment: “We don't have so many active admins that we can police problems like this easily”… this is like saying “We can’t administrate this project”.
3. Fr33kman’s Partial enforcement ignoring vandalism. Take a look, he was clearly ignoring how Polygnotus does not remain in the limits of “fix what (pov pushes) you gotta fix and we’ll call it a day”. Take a look here. This is beyond the “fix what (pov pushes) you gotta fix” point, he was never given permission to do this. The admin who imposed the block from such matters on him (fr33kman) knew about this, but did nothing. Take a look here. He told Polygnotus (After I raised it in his talk page) “Can I ask why you removed those edits. I have read the page and it seemed useful to me.”. Did he just remove “useful” information, or did he erase the holocaust from antisemitism in Europe page? Look at how Polygnotus explained his edit (same link, scroll down): “That text about the holocaust is a copy of The Holocaust which was also copied to a bunch of other articles before I removed it”. Ok, but does the holocaust not deserve a few sentences in the antisemitism in Europe page? I see no issue copying such a short summary. And if it disturbed him so much, he could write “The holocaust was a genocide in which six million Jews died”. The sources were already there, it would have been two seconds. Back to topic: Admin fr33kman responded with this, saying “I didn't understand why you removed so much text but if you're deduplicating that's fine as long as the article points to the main article version for each country”. He (fr33kman) didn’t address the original concern I brought up to him, which was the removal of the few sentences on the holocaust.
4. Indefinite block for what seems like was a misunderstanding: Administrator fr33kman, who earlier (as I mentioned) warned me about the onestrike policy for no reason, without checking my talk page on English Wiki (nor the arbitration committee noticeboard), has blocked me for doing something which (I understood) he gave me permission to do. It appears there was a misunderstanding, so I went ahead and explained myself, going as far as citing the dictionary. An admin, who is also a part of the UCoC committee, closed my unblock request saying it did not address the original concern leading up to the block. I have no idea how they reached that conclusion, when I very clearly said that the original concern of me doing something I was banned from is wrong since I was given permission. A week has passed, and still no admin has questioned this verdict, which raises the question how many admins truly care about administrating the project. Even more so, my unblock request explaining the misunderstanding has been ignored for (almost) a week. In practice, it seems like I either got a permanent ban due to a misunderstanding, or a deliberate attempt to make me do something I am barred from (most likely the former). Whichever is true, both constitute a great problem in simple English. Also notice how this stands in stark contrast to the treatment of Polygnotus, who was not punished for exceeding his topic-ban exception.

Acknowledgements

There are likely many more instances I did not get around to finding (I mainly focused on the things that were related to my interactions and in my timeframe). I have been committed to civility all throughout, not once doing something bad intentionally. And when I realized I am mistaken, for example, here (amongst other times), I have always politely apologized for the disruptions caused.

I would like to disclose I was blocked by the arbitration committee (about 3 months ago) from the English Wikipedia for attempts at canvassing and then a week later unbanned. In my appeal I laid down the facts, including listing my attempts and showing them how I have already changed my approach at the time of the violations (I was blocked in a delay), which granted me the unblock. I am committed to following the rules, and I believe I did so in this case.

There is more to say but I have only pointed out highlights due to time constraints and since I don’t want to write a threateningly large wall of text (which looks like has already happened). If you need to clarify or ask anything, I will be more than happy to help.

I would like to apologize for the (as I see it) relative disarray in the report. It was written over a span of multiple days for short periods of time due the intensive semester. I did my best to organize it.

Previous attempts at a solution - (NorthernWinds)

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_85#c-NorthernWinds-20250710231900-User:Polygnotus, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fr33kman#c-NorthernWinds-20250719081900-Reporting_vandalism

Suggested solutions - (NorthernWinds)

Stricter enforcement, and perhaps promotion of more/new administrators.

I see that one of the arguments against the deletion of the wiki was “The community is active and robust, and spam and vandalism are handled in a reasonable way, given the size of the community”. I do not know what is a reasonable way for the size, but I would just like to raise this as a comment.

Polygnotus

This is obviously a CIR problem, a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and (I believe) also a language barrier. Since this SPA is a net negative I don't think explaining things would help, but if they keep harassing me I will get them globally locked like Steven1991 is. They have exported Simplewiki drama (them whining about the fact that a POV pushing campaign was cleaned up) to Enwiki and now Meta. Enwiki Arbcom knows more about the offwiki coordination, the socking and the reddit harassment and doxing campaign than I do. I am not a Simplewiki admin. If Fr33kman did anything wrong then it was that they didn't indef NorthernWinds soon and permanently enough. I don't know enough about Simplewiki to be able to judge it as a whole, but I have seen somewhat similar POV pushing campaigns on enwiki (e.g. Hajer-12), and the way admins dealt with it wasn't much better. Polygnotus (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are lazy just look at [4] and [5] and [6]. They promised to stop hounding and harassing me, but they continued. Polygnotus (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Fr33kman

This situation can be boiled down to an edit war between two editors. I don't think I need to get into the details of who was right or wrong as it isn't germane to the case. An accusation has been made that there is systematic violations of the UCoC on simplewiki. That is patently not the case. Both editors were treated in a very similar manner and both were given topic bans initially and an interaction ban which is still in place. NorthernWinds was found to be a contentious editor and is still under the topic ban preventing them from editing all antisemitism and Holocaust topics and has since been placed under a topic ban for all Arab-Israeli conflict topics in sympathy with their ban on enwiki. Polygnotus was released from their topic ban upon reviewing their editing history and they are responsible for their edits. Both editors were very aware of the interaction ban and only NorthernWinds broke that by directly addressing Polygnotus on an article talk page. As they have claimed to have had a misunderstanding they have been released from the block they received for violation of the interaction ban. I am not familiar with the situation regarding Steven1991's actions or their block on simplewiki as I have had no interaction with them. fr33kman 01:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - Fr33kman

Since NorthernWinds has been unblocked, given topic bans and can edit whatever else they wish, I consider the situation solved. I refute that any UCoC violations have occurred. fr33kman 01:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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 (A09)

Since some editors are still trying actively to rope me into this case I will restate my position, that I had no sufficient data given by the email sender (NorthernWinds) and all I could do was give generalised comment on the situation. I deny any responsibility for the lock request and any misunderstood action that was taken after the email was replied to.--A09|(pogovor) 09:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

A09’s advice is not an indication of his position, opinion or anything else about him NorthernWinds (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.
@User:Polygnotus Thank you for helping with evidence for the case. As I said, you have done a lot to reverse Steven’s violations. To the U4C members: Polygnotus has been documenting Steven’s violations. Please note that despite the length difference, Steven’s incident is the main point in my report.

To U4C members: The next few paragraphs do not have a lot to do with the wiki failure, but I feel obligated to defend myself against false claims.

Polygnotus, let me give you some advice. When you lie about someone, do it like you did here, when the person can’t respond. I have never been involved in any kind of “reddit harassment”, “doxxing campaign” nor socking activity. This is not a one purpose account (Example: the thousands of articles I helped source). Polygnotus left out my unban thread. See it here. And regarding your “exporting” claim, on enwiki I simply reported your harassment on enwiki, and on meta I have requested lock after consulting an admin and a steward. I believe in transparency. Upon request, I will provide my arbcom appeal and answer any questions. I do not, and will never hide my past violations. It’s important to remember them to never repeat (or justify). Even when innocent, it’s important to preserve the record. You are constantly harassing me while accusing me of harassing you. Your accusations are severe. Please apologize for making up such lies.

Also, it seems that to back up your statement you posted one link related to ProfGray/Steven, one link related to Steven and one link about my report of you on the administrator noticeboard... what? NorthernWinds (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Calling something defamation falls under the WP:NLT policy, so I suggest you retract that as soon as possible.

Polygnotus, let me give you some advice. No thank you.

What is your native language? Every time I write something in English you do not understand. Are you using AI or a translation tool?

Every time things have been explained to you you repeat yourself and double down. Why do you keep digging this hole you are in?

I do not want to explain the situation to you, because it would be a waste of my time and because I do not like you. It is also completely irrelevant here, and you seem to not understand what the UCoC and the U4C are, and what their role is.

But dude, I gotta tell you, basically everything you say is based on you not understanding the situation or the English language. The "Big Lie" thing was a great example and here in this relatively short comment you made so many mistakes that explaining them all would take quite a while. Maybe you can find someone who you trust who knows Wikipedia who can explain your mistakes to you in your native language? You have wasted a very large amount of time and energy of myself and others.

On Wikipedia I deal with people who defend cults and people who believe in UFOs and people who spam and people who vandalise, but the CPUSHers are the most tiring by far. Polygnotus (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You are repeatedly accusing me of not knowing English and not knowing what I am doing. Please stop this personal attack. regarding big lie

But most of all, please stop diverting attention from the topic. Take responsibility for your actions. I request an apology for your unfounded accusations NorthernWinds (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I request a hand-drawn picture of a duck riding a bike. Are you claiming to be Canadachick? Should I ask a checkuser? You do understand that if what you are claiming is true, and you are Canadachick, you will be blocked for violation of the sockpuppetry policy, right? Polygnotus (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@dbeef Regarding your vote, I would like to comment that I did not discuss “admin abuse” because 1. I do not have sufficient evidence 2. I do not want to assume bad faith. Fr33kman has accepted my unblock request following my U4C notification. I wish not to comment on his explanation, and want a more neutral observer (like you you) make the verdict. Either way, I did not suggest admin abuse in the report.
Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like respond to this comment. The comment mirrored Polygnotus’ false claims and some more, so I would like to address it now to prevent any further misunderstandings. “You have been involved in several edit war in the area which was already experiencing much disruption”. I have only had one, If you would even call it that. I do not mean to wikilawyer, but edit wars are events in which you revert instead of discussing. I have constantly been talking about the changes. After the first revert here and here, after the second revert here. The other so-called “edit wars” are actually one singular revert, always followed by a revert done by Polygnotus and a discussion on my page (Perhaps the disruptive behavior may be attributed to the one always reverting instead of following WP:BRD like I did). The only other somewhat valid case of an edit war is me reinstating warnings on Polygnotus’s talk page. Note that I was not plain reverting, but rather adding information. That was indeed an immature thing to do, but hardly “several edit war in the area which was already experiencing much disruption”. “repeatedly disagreed with others holding a differing views”. I have repeatedly agreed with others. When I agreed with Polygnotus here about the content in the Hamas article (more than twice), or the agreement about the controversiality of IHRH definition of antisemitism. What I do not agree with is misinformation. Such as saying that a 2013 definition is controversial because of a different 2016. I also disagree that the holocaust doesn’t deserve a section in the article about antisemitism. “and been involved in exporting issue” already explained above. “could have just been avoided by complying with admin and editing in unrelated areas” I was in full compliance with administrator guidance. The sole exception was an interaction ban violation that was made under perceived permission from the administrator who imposed the topic ban. “Every-time someone tells you to drop the issue and edit elsewhere, you just start Wikilawyering” This, just like the other accusations raised in the thread (such as conflict of interest), is not true. Firstly, this is the only time that someone told me “drop the issue and edit elsewhere”. Secondly, I have not “wikilawyered”. If I misinterpret the rules, I welcome correction and improvement going forward. Never have I “abused” rules out of bad faith, or at all. “You have already been topic banned on another project and if we see signs of disruption here, the same can be enforced here too”. I have yet to see anyone point out disruptive behavior (Except polygnotus’ talk page?). “If you do not wish to comply, I can just block you again” I want to emphasize I never meant to break any restrictions, and never said I did.

I hope everything is clear now, NorthernWinds (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I have constantly been talking Yeah that is one of the problems. You have now exported your Simplewiki drama to Enwiki and then Meta (where you tried to get me globally locked without providing any evidence of wrongdoing). When all that didn't work you started this page to waste even more time. Note that this stops here. This is the last page you can use to whine about this topic. If you continue elsewhere, you will be blocked. Polygnotus (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I have responded to everything you said already, please check previous responses. You may stop threatening and trying to discourage me from improving the encyclopedia now. I am reminding you that you have have still not retracted the baseless claims made about me yesterday. I will no longer respond to your traducements. NorthernWinds (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

You already promised to stop harassing me and then you failed to keep your promise. Stop harassing me. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to comment that fr33kman stated (following my block) that Polygnotus’ edits were “clearly not problematic”. I would like to also point out that so far no one has shown proof of any unconstructive anti-encyclopedia conduct by me. All instances of so-called “edit wars” were detailed here. I have also disputed that Both editors were treated in a very similar manner in the original description (Polygnotus had de facto no restriction). Indeed, Steven’s case is (in my opinion) the most clear example of a long-term failure to enforce, or a long-term lack of ability to enforce on the Simple English Wikipedia. Coupled with the fact Polygnotus’ topic ban was not enforced, and that I have been accused and restricted for things which it appears I have not done (being “disruptive”, being engaged in “several edit war”.. more details here).
I want to bring to attention that my block (and subsequent topic-ban) on enwiki had nothing to do with WP:NPOV violations, which is likely why I was unblocked this quickly. I tried to improve the coverage of the deir yassin massacre by adding a list of dead and causes of death, and yes, bring outsider opinion that would support the addition. This coincided with my efforts to improve coverage of other massacres in the British mandate, which by the way, I have nearly doubled. I do not try to push a point of view and never have. I have been committed throughout my Wikipedia editing journey to improving the encyclopedia. Please take this into consideration when judging my actions/case.
Kind regards, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz in regards to your vote, I would like to mention that I have been on simple wiki prior to the events mentioned in the case, and it is Polygnotus who was new (new to simple but not to Wikipedia as a whole). I am sorry if seems a bit confrontational that I respond to much of what is said by others, but following this, I believe it is necessary in order to avoid such misunderstandings again.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

U4C

@U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 As this is an attack page, and I have no interest in defending myself against all that incomprehensible rambling, the page should be deleted by one of you once everyone has voted that this of course is not a valid request. If you disagree I can also spent yet another bunch of hours of my valuable and limited time on this planet to refute all that nonsense, but then you need to tell me. I think it is obvious, but things that are obvious to me may not be obvious to others. If anyone other than the filer needs information, feel free to ask. Polygnotus (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a case page. It is generally advisable to use one's possibilties to correct misrepresentations. I think you have made your position clear and there is little need to add text, but it may be needed that you answer possible questions. Ghilt (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt This is a case page Indeed, but 95% of it is not about "Is simplewiki able to deal with problems" but used to attack me personally, despite me not being an admin and me having nothing to do with Simplewiki. So the options are to delete it as an attack page when voting is complete, scrub all the offtopic nonsense, or force me to waste even more of my precious time and energy to refute the nonsense. Polygnotus (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

It is quite easy, simply wait if there are questions. There is no need to waste your time. There is also no need to delete this page. Ghilt (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt This is probably something the Committee needs to think about. I don't think it is desirable that people can use this as a platform to attack people with false allegations. So either rejected cases need to be scrubbed, or something else needs to be done to prevent further abuse. Platforming this kind of behaviour is a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

We will discuss your request to delete this page or remove parts. But in general, pages like this or local noticeboards are there for checking allegations. And that's where your viewpoint is helpful, so it is in your interest to clarify possible misrepresentations. Ghilt (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt Thank you. Since the U4C members are experienced Wikipedians they can easily tell that all this is nonsense. But stupid people, or people who dislike me (e.g. because I reverted them or disagreed with them) and want their biases confirmed, may stumble upon it and see it as validation.

Basically everything they wrote is either a misrepresentation, nonsense or incomprehensible. Clarifying all the misrepresentations would take hours because there are so many. Feel free to ask questions.

Unlike some, I do not get paid for my editing.

The fact that I was willing to get rid of the trash of a POV pushing campaign does not mean I am responsible for fixing and rewriting all those articles, adding summaries of other articles and building a linkstructure and all that. We are talking about well over 160 articles! The idea that no one will be able to find those articles is insane because they got like 50+ inbound links because the POV pusher spammed them everywhere. If someone volunteers to do one task that doesn't mean they have to fix all problems on those pages. I also didn't translate all those articles to Korean, or fix all typos, improve sourcing, or check if they used difficult words. If you click the "Show any page" page link on Simple wiki, which is the same as enwiki's "Random article" you'll see that very few articles on Simple wiki are perfect.

I actually did make an article for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. And "maybe make definitions of antisemitism / definitions of holocaust denial articles" is on my todolist.

Perhaps I would be more willing to help improve Simple if I didn't get harassed by someone who, whenever something is explained to them, doubles down or ignores it. It would be far easier to deal with criticism of someone who understands what they are talking about, understands English and knows how Wikipedia and MediaWiki work.

Completely unrelated but I think the Wikipedia community as a whole should do a far better job protecting volunteers against energy vampires who are net negative timesinks. And I think that people worry too much about seeming cruel or unkind when dealing with people who contribute nothing and give everyone a headache. Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Administrators have the unenviable task of dealing with the worst of the worst, and there is a very thin line between biting and protecting the encyclopedia and its most important asset, the people. Polygnotus (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus’ constant attempts to make it seem like I am targeting him or that this is about me and him rather than an issue with Simple English diverts the topic of this discussion. There may be delete-worthy things in the discussion. As I have noted above, some of the things in my response to him were outside of the scope of this page. (To U4C members: The next few paragraphs do not have a lot to do with the wiki failure). I have refrained from bringing them up in the original report (for example, see note 5 in the original description. The explanation I had ended up being posted here in note 1).

I completely agree with Polygnotus regarding I don't think it is desirable that people can use this as a platform to attack people with false allegations (by the way, he initially called me “undesirable”) and am reminding of what he said here. Polygnotus has consistently avoided commenting on the substance but rather used this as a platform to harass me, spread lies about me and gaslight, just like they did on Simple Wiki.. The comment above also contains gaslighting/strawman. For example: The fact that I was willing to get rid of the trash of a POV pushing campaign does not mean I am responsible for fixing and rewriting all those articles, adding summaries of other articles this is true and I have never said otherwise. You are responsible for leaving a link, if relevant, to the article the content was copied from. I do not know what “linkstructure” is referring to. The idea that no one will be able to find I said No one will see. The comment above also repeats some personal attacks It would be far easier to deal with criticism of someone who… understands English. The other things he said also did not address what I said. But anyways I do not mean to respond to harassment. Look, he has harassed me, lied about me, gaslighted etc etc both on Simple and even here. None of what I said is true about him is wrong (if you think it is, you are more than welcome to visit the link I have attached to every claim, or ask for one if I did not). Every single one of my comments here went through meticulous process of evidence lookup to make sure I am not wrong. This is a massive time sink for me, and I would not have done it for no purpose. I have provided ~77 links in this page for proof while polygnotus has only linked... ~less than ten times overall, some of which were not evidence. And I did not count the links in this comment. The existence of my well-researched statements in the appropriate forum where you are supposed to report UCoC violations do not constitute an attack.

@Ghilt All I have done was done in accordance with the advice of administrators and stewards, including every report I have made about him (excluding the enwiki one). If there are any issues (e.g. ‘sneaky attempt’), please raise them and I will redirect you to the advicegiver.

Kind regards, NorthernWinds (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Who recommended you to ask for gblock while this case is open? And more importantly, do you yourself not see the problem with that? Ghilt (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Ghilt,

I have not submitted any request for a global lock nor a global ban while the case was open. The global lock request happened prior to it and was advised by @A09. I have not made any lies in the email chain, and will soon, given @A09’s permission, forward it to the U4C. @Barkeep49 given this new info, you may want to reconsider your vote.

Sincerely, NorthernWinds (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarification. I will strike the sentence in my vote. Ghilt (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarification from my side and it will be the only thing I'll say here, that I hadn't any specific data besides "user is crosswiki harassing me" description. Of course if the username would be given I'd not advise for a global lock. A09|(pogovor) 16:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I was referring to the unfounded claims of close connection raised in enwiki.

@A09 may I forward the email?

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You may forward the email. BR, A09|(pogovor) 16:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NorthernWinds#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Norm_Architects_(June_12) If someone has a COI with one company of architects, and get their AfC draft declined for being too promotional, it seems obvious to tag the next draft in the same category with the same tag. Guy Geier is a senior partner at FXCollaborative which has a major project in Copenhagen, Denmark which also happens to be the same place as Norm Architects is located. And neither are notable. And especially considering they are written like international acclaim for its holistic approach to design, The studio gained particular recognition, has received numerous awards, overseen several significant, sustainability-focused projects, achieved the highest point total. Polygnotus (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

For the protocol, I do not and have never had COI with any of the subjects I write about in Wikipedia. I have not noticed the COI mention on my talk page and have addressed it now (on my talk). I accept your explanation as reasonable since you are not the source of the claim and am retracting any claim I have made about you due to that template. The promotional language is a result of usage of LLM to create the articles (with manual sourcing verification). I apologize for any negativity resulting from the misunderstanding. NorthernWinds (talk) 07:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds Just for my curiosity, can you explain how you ended up making these articles? What made you pick these topics? Usually when people ignore COI notices and post promotional articles about people and companies that share a connection it is because they work for that company/person. I am not saying that is 100% always the case, but it is not an unreasonable expectation in my view. Polygnotus (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

As noted above, I was making requested articles. Both Norm and Guy were listed there. The fact I created both was mere coincidence, I had no idea of any connection between the two until you pointed it out (assuming what you said is correct, I did not check). Also note that I made some other requested pages as well.

At the time, I was inactive on all projects due to being busy, so I did not bother to fix, correct nor go over anything. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@NorthernWinds Ok thank you. That was just for my curiosity. Both were requested by the same user. It is possible that that person has a COI, but I am too lazy to check. Polygnotus (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have not made any lies in the email chain[7] and user is crosswiki harassing me[8] Busted, that was a lie. Polygnotus (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. A09|(pogovor) 22:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

You promised to stop harassing me twice (This is the last time I am responding to you. and I will no longer respond to your traducements.) and twice you broke that promise. There is no way in which you could've thought this was a good idea. Stop harassing me. Stop lying about me. Stop talking about and to me. Stop emailing people lies about me. Stop lying on IRC about me. Go away. Polygnotus (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Polygnotus: your communications on this page are quite rude and are contributing to further animosity. I understand the emotions associated with being brought to some faraway noticeboard, but please try to comport yourself more appropriately here. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz I can try. I hope you also understand the emotions associated with being falsely accused of antisemitism, with attempts at doxing, with the doxing of others, with total communication breakdown, with people who waste hours of my time et cetera. I may not believe in compliment sandwiches, CPUSHing and other manipulation tactics, but at least I am factually correct. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  One of the whole points of the UCoC is that factual accuracy does not outweigh poor behaviour. If a user is complaining that you are harassing him, seemingly making it your mission to act as obtusely as possible will not help your case. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Ajraddatz I am the user who is complaining that they are harassing me. First on Simplewiki they followed me around and reverted me, first on the Hamas article and then two others. At first I was very polite but then it became obvious that it was impossible to have a normal conversation. Then they tried to go to enwiki to complain about me there. They emailed people lies about me. They lied on IRC about me. When that didn't work they requested a global lock on Meta, and now they are wasting even more of my time with this stuff here. That is clear crosswiki harassment.

  I have been exceptionally kind considering the circumstances. I just want them to leave me alone and stop wasting my time. Polygnotus (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hello @Ajraddatz,

  Please note that I have never said “antisemite” for a reason. I do not know why he does what he does, and do not want to accuse him of something he may not be. Also note that he again repeats the baseless doxxing allegations. I have never doxxed anyone.

  The first revert on the Hamas article was followed by me agreeing with his changes (discussed with proof elsewhere on this page), and the second revert was immediately reverted by him without any discussion. He has later apologized for the quick reversion.

  There were two other articles, Holocaust denial and big lie. He has removed a non-controversial 2013 definition of Holocaust denial from the Holocaust denial page, so it’s expected that a revert will follow. The big lie page was rather weird, he has added an unsourced wrong description which contradicts academic sources, so of course a revert will follow. He has later justified this by saying he removed the nonsensical sentence in the beginning. Yes, it should have been removed but this was not why I reverted.

  “At first I was very polite” no

  “I have been exceptionally kind considering the circumstances” please take responsibility for your actions and apologize for the unfounded accusations of doxxing, socking and reddit campaign. This lack of responsibility acknowledgement is similar to a different incident where he said he “should get a medal” for “how patient he’s been” in an incident where he actually personally attacked people.

  Polygnotus, stop framing this wiki failure report as if it's some personal thing I have against you. It ain’t.

  @Polygnotus just because I said I will not respond to your traducements, does not mean I am not a human who feels compelled to respond. Sometimes I am able to not respond, but sometimes it’s very irritating when I don’t. You may ask @Daniuu if I lied on IRC. NorthernWinds (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sometimes I am able to not respond, but sometimes it’s very irritating when I don’t. No, it is very irritating when you do, because then you post another 30 things that aren't true. See en:Brandolini's law, the en:Gish gallop and en:sealioning.

  And the result is that you force me to waste yet MORE hours refuting all that stuff. So far I have ignored 95% of what you wrote, but I could write a book about every misinterpretation, misconception and misunderstanding. And if I do it is not surprising that you'll want to respond to that. And if I then respond to that and you respond to that we have reinvented the Israel/Palestine conflict, an ever growing snowball that just can't stop.

  If you admit that I did a lot of good work on Simple, and we then got into some discussions that were less than productive, why do you keep posting enormous walls of text every time? Why continue the discussions that we both agree were unproductive? Why do you repeat yourself over and over again?

  This is not a debate club, so why is your sole focus to have a discussion with me? You have wasted a metric ton of my time. We are not going to reincarnate. Do you not understand how pointless your rants are, unless the goal is to waste time? And you probably don't care about me, but you are also wasting the time of a bunch of other people. Polygnotus (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Hello,

  You seem to not understand why I respond here. I am not debating nor continuing discussions. I am simply responding to provide my two cents to the U4C who later judge these actions. You are citing laws that seem to apply in the other direction. You are the one saying misinformation and I am the one meticulously debunking and linking evidence. I myself have put many hours into this discussion, practically all of my free time with overflow. And if and when you provide a reasonable explanation, like you did here, I do not hesitate to reconsider my actions and apologize for disruption caused by the misunderstanding and the actions that I thought were right at the time. My focus is countering misinformation about me and providing my input where needed regarding the case, not on you. And if you say wrong things about me or comment on the case, then yes, I may respond. I came here in good faith to resolve issues, not to debate. I expect the same open minded approach from you, or anyone else on Wikipedia for that matter. Please apologize for your unfounded claims of “socking”, “reddit harassment” and “doxing campaign”, which you have just repeated.

  Please try to keep all responses in the same comment
  

  That is because there is a lot of stuff you are unaware of. And perhaps even more stuff that you misinterpreted. I am more than welcoming corrections to misunderstandings.
  

  What are you hoping to achieve? I am trying to achieve a better online encyclopedia by addressing issues I believe are present in it
  

  You might get blocked for continued harassment Please stop trying to intimidate others into backing out of a legitimate complaint. What I now know had the same effect as harassment resulted from a misunderstanding, and I have apologized for it. I have never done anything out of bad faith.
  

  So I think that the options are to either talk it out, on something like Discord, which would be a complete waste of both our time, or just accept that we won’t be friends and ignore eachother? We don’t have to interact, no one is forcing us to. My goal is not to “be friends”, but to resolve issues. I would like to keep all conduct on wiki, as I have done ever since the incident that eventually led to the arbcom case, with the exception of the email to A09 and the IRC with daniuu with which I had no choice because I did not have the IP block exempt required to contact them on-wiki. And regarding ignoring each other, I will not ignore actions or events which I think are problematic, no matter who does them. I do not have an issue with avoiding interaction under different circumstances.
  

  I feel we have diverted a bit from the topic of this case. I would like to remind that this case is about Simple Wiki.
  

  Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  @NorthernWinds One thing is really important: Can you tell me about the Arbcom ban on Enwiki (which was later converted to a topic ban, as you'll insist I mention)? Where did the offwiki canvassing and coordination happen (on which website or service). Who else was there? Who coordinated it? How did it get found out? Polygnotus (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  I would like to remind that this case is about Simple Wiki. I wish it was, then I could move on and do something more fun. If it is about Simplewiki, why not remove like 99% of the text on this page? You have my permission to remove all my comments and everything about me. Then you can debate the U4C on whether Simplewiki is a viable project.

  I would like to keep all conduct on wiki Downside is that Wiki has no built in chat function, although there is IRC chat, which means that it takes ages to communicate because whenever you explain something it is unclear if the other person "gets" it until they have responded. Quickly explaining something turns into an endless stream of editconflicts because of MediaWikis aging codebase.

  Is there another way we can chat via text? You can record the screen if you like. You can even invite NATO peacekeepers/neutral observers or whatever. You are clearly familiar with IRC. If we both record the screen it would be pretty difficult to manipulate, unless you work for the CIA. Polygnotus (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  This and the two other questions you posted (one of which received a response) do not have a lot to do with the subject at hand. If U4C needs to know anything, they can request and I will happily provide answers. I do not want to complicate things and prefer to walk the king’s Highway, so I would like to keep our conversation here. And regarding your denial of accusations of socking, reddit harassment and doxing campaign.... If you did not mean that, you would have said so by now. When you say “Enwiki Arbcom knows more about the offwiki coordination, the socking and the reddit harassment and doxing campaign than I do.” in a comment dedicated entirely to me and the treatment of me on simple wiki, which is also riddled with misinformation related to this (e.g. “them whining about the fact that a POV pushing campaign was cleaned up”) it can only mean one thing. Please take responsibility and apologize. NorthernWinds (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Why would I take responsibility for the fact that you misinterpret literally everything I say? That doesn't make sense to me. Why should I apologize for something I seem to have no control over? I wish you would interpret everything I say correctly. Shouldn't you apologize for misinterpreting or not reading correctly? It has been rather frustrating for me. Polygnotus (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please don’t repeating personal attacks or game the system. I also request that you stop flooding me with many different responses/requests and try to centralize the discussion. I firmly believe I did not misinterpret you. If anyone else is reading and disagrees with me, please let me know.

  Honestly, this is becoming a convoluted mess that is unrelated to U4C. I will stop responding to anything that does not directly accuse me of things I have not done or address the case itself
  

  Best regards, NorthernWinds (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  @NorthernWinds So stating that you have repeatedly misinterpreted what I wrote is, according to you, a personal attack? You already made similar promises twice (This is the last time I am responding to you. and I will no longer respond to your traducements.) and twice you broke that promise, and you kept posting walls of text.

  Thanks for the link to en:WP:SANCTIONGAME. Number one and five. Polygnotus (talk) 12:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  This and the two other questions you posted (one of which received a response) do not have a lot to do with the subject at hand. That is incorrect.

  If you answer this honestly and then spend 20 minutes on Discord then we are done. Polygnotus (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please apologize for your unfounded claims of “socking”, “reddit harassment” and “doxing campaign” Have you not noticed I didn't say that you, NorthernWinds, socked, harassed on Reddit, or doxed?

  There is a clear difference between "someone stole my baguette" and "NorthernWinds stole my baguette". Polygnotus (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Please stop trying to intimidate others into backing out of a legitimate complaint. I insist you finally post a legitimate complaint. That would be nice. Preferably about someone else. Maybe about Simplewiki? Polygnotus (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Also, do you not see that we are talking on two completely different wavelengths, about 2 completely different situations? That is because there is a lot of stuff you are unaware of. And perhaps even more stuff that you misinterpreted. I could explain it all to you, but it would take hours and it would be a complete waste of both our time. I could also explain it to 9 U4C members, which again would waste a lot of time of people who probably have more important stuff to do than be arbiters over some bizarre discussion that has nothing to do with whether Simplewiki sucks or is awesome.

  Do you really want to keep going indefinitely? What are you hoping to achieve? You might get blocked for continued harassment, other than that I am not sure what your end goal is.

  So I think that the options are to either talk it out, on something like Discord, which would be a complete waste of both our time, or I could explain it to the U4C and not to you, or you could just accept that we won't be friends and then we can ignore eachother? We don't have to interact, no one is forcing us to. Can we please just not be friends and ignore eachother? Voluntary interaction ban, if you really need to make it formal? Try to stay out of eachothers way? Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi NorthernWinds and Polygnotus, please end this discussion, because it isn't helping us and continues escalation. --Ghilt (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

As said, I have disengaged due to the conversation diverging from the topic of the case.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt That sounds like an excellent idea. I do actually think some of the most recent edits by NorthernWinds were useful. Enwiki has 7 million articles. Simplewiki has 270k. If they stop following me around they never have to see me again. I am very rarely on Meta and I only came to Simple to clean up the trash left behind by the POV pusher. Polygnotus (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt I am still curious if I should actually write something for the U4C people. Not sure if there is a point if the discussion is closed. I haven't received any questions from the U4C members. My email is polygnotuswiki@gmail.com (it may be better to use email so that it won't lead to endless bickering). Of course I can back up everything I say with a mountain of evidence upon request.

I do think it would be good to ensure this process cannot be used to platform false allegations, please let me know if a decision is reached about that. If they do not harass me at another venue and no one needs any further information from me then we are done. If they continue harassing me at another venue I will get them blocked. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, i have asked to be available for potential questions and to stop escalation. Then you wrote another 13 sentences without unknown information and with further escalations. Please stop this. Ghilt (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

What a weird request in response to me signing off. Oh well. Have a nice day. Polygnotus (talk) 13:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Hello,
  The case has reached a majority 5/7 decline. I want to mention I was initially reluctant to contact U4C directly and wanted to open an RFC, but was advised (see email) to contact you directly. Some of the votes cited “content disputes”, but please don’t forget there are content guidelines in the UCoC. Nevertheless, it seems it was concluded that there is no systematic failure to enforce. Since there is no arbcom on Simple English, I ask of you to consider a case of an isolated failure, the topic ban on Israel/Palestine that was seemingly imposed based on a few false premises. Given my constructive conduct of discussion, agreement and civility, I believe it was wrongly imposed. Given my commitment to discussion and civility in antisemitism-related articles, the topic-ban on it may be vacated as well. If rejected, I kindly request diffs/links to the basis of the rejection.
  Best regards, NorthernWinds (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  The decline votes apply to the case (and facts) as a whole, not to whether this is a systemic failure or not. In reviewing we have considered whether this is a local failure, and per the U4C majority decided it is not. My advice for you is to take a lighter touch in the future - rushing into a project with only a couple hundred edits to accuse others of antisemitism is an approach that will result in a block more often than not. If the conduct of the other users is that bad, other people will notice and take action. Your best bet is to respectfully raise any issues you may see once, and then it is out of your hands. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  Please note I did not “rush into a project” nor accuse others of antisemitism. Never have I accused Polygynous of any belief and have also never tried to guess his motives. Please give me advice on what to change in the future regarding our conduct, since I truly believe I tried to solve it any other way (other than admin noticeboard, which failed and led me to believe in a systematic failure). As said elsewhere with links, I have been constructively discussing changes and reverts that we had. When some of the discussions went nowhere, I suggested RfC. I got a “That would be a waste of time. It is obvious that you are wrong.” This adds to a comment that was received a day prior “If the book makes that claim then it is not a reliable source, and therefore cannot be used, no matter who published it.” This is like saying “What I believe is wrong is actually wrong no matter what”. Both were linked here or on my report on the Administrator noticeboard. In the comment where he said it would be a “waste of time” to go to dispute resolution, he has also accused me of things which I have not done (edit warring, etc) and even threatened to take this to the administrator noticeboard (reject dispute resolution and threaten to report at the same time?). Yes, I did not realize my edit that reverted him was wrong, but I did say that something else was right. I was very clearly misreading what I reinstated. Anyways instead of addressing fixing his version, he said the sources supported his change, and continued to talk about the version I reinstated. The fact the reinstation was wrong had nothing to do with the fact that his version was wrong. I suggested going to dispute resolution, and then I got the “That would be a waste of time”. If calling dispute resolution a “waste of time” is not unconstructive and anti-encyclopedia, I don’t know what is. Worst case scenario someone else points it out and I rethink it, like I did here. The comment and the threat made me believe he is not interested in constructive discussion, which is what prompted the admin noticeboard report. Please point out where I have “rushed” or where I have “accuse[d] others of antisemitism”. (Also remember earlier that I said steven liked to spread the black Hebrew Israelites everywhere? randomly found an example)

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes people will disagree with you, and sometimes they won't do it as politely as they could. In those cases, sometimes you can present a crisp and clear case to the broader community or editors concerned/interested that sways them into action - sometimes not. This seems more like one of those "not" times. The thing to do is move on. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

sometimes you can present a crisp and clear case to the broader community I am quoting the email you sent me: It is fine if requests are not technically perfect. I am confident in this committee's members ability to investigate independently and base their decision on evidence. I am sure every single one has read what I wrote very carefully. This includes the section about Steven, stated several times as the most telling sign, which every committee member rushed to pay attention to. I am completely confident in this committee's ability to interviene even if a personal attack happened right in front of them. I am also confident in their ability to look at all sections, including the local attempts, and to consider admissions (from the local administration) that local administration can't do anything, or that they can't solve these issues with care and investigate. And of course, I am confident in their ability to check join dates in projects, and check global (and local) edit counts. This is why I am confident that you have proof of what you claimed. So please, show me where I have called anyone antisemitic. I want everyone to see how I personally attack people. And also if I rushed things I also want to know when exactly did that happen, between lengthy good faith discussion ending with “RfC is a waste of time, you are obviously wrong” to waiting many days to make sure no administrator intervienes in a block that was clearly imposed because of a misunderstanding before concluding of a failure. Such valuable information will prevent such escalation in the future.

Thanks, NorthernWinds (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

---

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• I am stepping back from this case as an involved user. I declined filer's unblock request. I will also note that their unblock was being discussed in Simplewiki's admin mailing list before they filed this request on meta. Thanks,--BRP ^ever 13:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline votes

• I don't see a systematic failure. The claims of harassment seem to be based on a content dispute. Please try to attempt conflict resolution at the local level. I do not see administrative abuse by fr33kman. dbeef (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• The arguments for systemic failure are not sufficient in my opinion. The sneaky gblock attempt while this case is open adds to my impression that there was no previous misjudgement and no disproportionality in admin decisions regarding the filer. --Ghilt (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
• As above, I do not see a systemic failure or strong evidence of one. Coming into a project and causing a big stir within your first 200 edits will usually generate pushback. – Ajraddatz (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  The glock request while this is open makes clear to me that the filer's inexperience and willingness to "go big" is what led to the sanctions on simple, rather than a systemic failure (or even just a regular failure). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  Given the correction above, I am rethinking my decline. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• I still land at a decline. In re-reviewing the evidence I think my assessment that the filer's inexperience and willingness to "go big" is what led to the sanctions on simple remains correct, even while I was obviously incorrect on the glock. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute which should be discussed and solved locally. --Civvì (talk) 18:17, 1 August 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.