Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Bineart versus Jalu and others

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: Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. Bineart (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Bineart

Description of the problem - (Bineart)

I am requesting a review regarding coordinated harassment, abuse of administrative tools, and systemic violations of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) on es.wikipedia, which have now escalated to Meta-Wiki. * **Targeted Harassment and Cyberbullying (UCoC 3.1):** Following a Deletion Discussion for the article "Sorin Cerin" on es.wikipedia, my account (Bineart) was indefinitely blocked under the pretext of being a "Single Purpose Account". This block was tactically timed to deny me my right to defense. After the deletion, User:Jalu and Administrator Marcelo publicly mocked my volunteer work and the subject on the local community noticeboard (Café). Being blocked, I am left completely defenseless while they defame my character. * **Cross-Wiki Stalking (Hounding):** User:Jalu has followed my global actions to Meta-Wiki, launching further bad-faith attacks against me on the "Steward requests/Miscellaneous" noticeboard to damage my global reputation. * **Ideological Vendetta and Abuse of Tools (UCoC 3.2):** This is a retaliatory action. The subject published a book critical of Wikipedia in 2011. User:Jalu explicitly admitted her bias on the Café noticeboard by mocking this specific book, proving that administrative tools were weaponized for a personal vendetta, violating mandatory neutrality. * **Why Stewards cannot handle this:** Stewards deal with technical and cross-wiki emergencies but do not adjudicate complex behavioral disputes or local administrative cabals. Trust & Safety (Kevin Peterson) explicitly directed me to file this case with the U4C. Evidence: * Active Deletion Discussion: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/Sorin_Cerin * Deleted Article Link: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorin_Cerin?action=edit&redlink=1 * Abuse in local community noticeboard (June 2026): https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Archivo/Miscel%C3%A1nea/Actual * Cross-wiki hounding on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Miscellaneous * My Block Log and Talk Page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Bineart

Evidence of Defamation and Harassment on es.wikipedia

The following discussion took place at es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Miscelánea/Actual, where administrative accounts targeted and mocked the subject of the biography, demonstrating bad faith and systemic bias:

Sorin Cerin Último comentario: hace 8 días 3 mensajes 3 usuarios en la discusión Se terminó la Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Sorin Cerin y el resultado fue borrar porque obviamente no se trata de un personaje relevante aunque se intente promocionarlo en todos los proyectos posibles de Wikimedia (Wikipedia en todos los idiomas, Wikiquote, Commons, etc). Hoy me llamó la atención encontrar a la venta su libro, Wikipedia: Pseudo- encyclopedia of the lie, censorship and misinformation en el que nos acusaba por su resentimiento de que en tantos años no haya logrado publicar su biografía en Wikipedia (desde los inicios que lo intenta). Hasta me dio ternura que todavía insistan en publicarla. --Jalu (discusión) 02:15 11 jun 2026 (UTC)

¡Qué agradable sujeto! --Marcelo (Mensajes aquí) 02:29 11 jun 2026 (UTC) Cuidado que se podría convertir en LTA. --Леон Поланко говорит вам и слушает вас 03:11 22 jun 2026 (UTC)

Description of the problem - (Bineart)

I am requesting an urgent review regarding coordinated harassment, abuse of administrative tools, systemic violations of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), and ideological retaliation on es.wikipedia, which have now escalated to Meta-Wiki.

• **Severe WP:INVOLVED Violation:** Despite having deleted the article in 2010, administrator Taichi aggressively intervened in the June 2026 deletion discussion with an extremely biased stance ("Gran NO"). Under global policies, an administrator with a historical, emotional, or editorial conflict with a subject is strictly forbidden from driving a consensus or abusing their authority to enforce past decisions.
• **Editorial Fraud and Source Manipulation:** In the active deletion discussion, user Jalu openly admitted she "got tired of investigating" (*me cansé de investigar*). The deleting faction actively lied to the community, claiming that 56 reliable, secondary sources (including downloadable academic and literary journals with official ISSN codes, such as *Revista Convorbiri literare* ISSN 0010-8243) were "just simple photos" or "personal blogs." Their goal was never an objective evaluation of notability, but the deletion at all costs of an author who criticized the platform.
• **Tactical Blocking and Abuse of Block Evasion Pretext:** My indefinite block was used purely as a tactical muzzle to ensure I could not reply to false claims, present verifiable PDF links, or defend the international academic reception of the subject. Furthermore, when an independent user later posted valid data on the deletion page showing that the targeted journals were downloadable academic sources and not "pictures," the local administrators deleted that post within 48 hours and falsely charged my account with "blocking evasion"—despite the fact that I had absolutely no involvement in that post.
• **Targeted Harassment of a Blocked Editor (UCoC 3.1):** This goes beyond an editorial dispute. Even after forcing the deletion of the article on June 11, 2026, user Jalu continued to make public, bad-faith remarks targeting my volunteer work on the local community noticeboard ([[1]]). User Jalu is taking unfair advantage of my block to defame my character in front of the entire Spanish community while I am left completely defenseless.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Bineart)

• I contacted Trust & Safety (Ticket #148418). Kevin Peterson responded that the WMF cannot act directly as an appeal body for local community decisions, and formally advised me to escalate the matter to the U4C. * I attempted to reply soberly and correctly to the accusations on Meta-Wiki (Steward requests/Miscellaneous), but the harassment from User:Jalu continues.

Suggested solutions - (Bineart)

1. An independent investigation by the U4C into the coordinated harassment and cyberbullying perpetrated by User:Jalu. 2. A formal review of the tactical indefinite block applied to my account (Bineart) on es.wikipedia, restoring my global standing as an editor. 3. Sanctions against User:Jalu for clear UCoC violations regarding targeted harassment, cross-wiki hounding, and retaliatory behavior.

User:Jaluj

Previous attempts at a solution - User:Jaluj

This complaint is only a retaliation for the complaint that I filed a few days ago and can be read here. In that message appear all the links that prove everything I denounce. As for the fact that my goal was never an objective evaluation of notability, but the elimination at all costs of an author who criticized the platform, I must clarify that I learned of the existence of that book after the deletion of his biography, and anyone who reads my comment can see that I don't make fun of him. I had never heard of that person before so I couldn't have anything against him.--Jalu (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Taichi

Previous attempts at a solution - User:Taichi

I want to clarify that I haven't been an administrator for 15 months; I suppose LLM's hallucination didn't show that update. My only participation in the deletion request was as a regular user (just like the other users who argued in favor of deleting it). I have nothing more to say. Taichi - (あ！) 04:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Marcelo

Previous attempts at a solution - User:Marcelo

Realmente no sé qué hago aquí. No sé qué es lo que tendría que solucionar. Fuera de que me acusa de "burlarme" de él, cosa que no he hecho (una presunción de mala fe notable), no veo por qué me han llamado a defenderme... concretamente, ¿de qué cosa? --Marcelo (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - User:Marcelo

Sugiero dejar de lado las denuncias de usuarios cuyo único interés en Wikipedia es promocionar a una única persona, que no resulta relevante. --Marcelo (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2026 (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

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Response to EggRoll97 regarding case acceptance

@EggRoll97: Thank you for your initial review. I respectfully ask the committee to look beyond the local "Single Purpose Account" and "notability" pretexts, which are being used as a tactical smokescreen to mask severe UCoC violations.

This case is not an editorial dispute about biography metrics; it is a textbook case of **Ideological Retaliation (UCoC 3.2)** and **Targeted Cyberbullying (UCoC 3.1)**: 1. **Administrative Retaliation:** The local bureaucrat (Jalu) explicitly admitted her motivation on the Cafe noticeboard by mocking a critical book published by the subject in 2011 (*"Wikipedia: Pseudo-encyclopedia of the lie..."*). Using administrative tools (deletion and an immediate block) to settle a 15-year-old historical grievance against an external critic is a flagrant violation of administrative neutrality. 2. **Coordinated Harassment:** Posting derogatory remarks ("Hasta me dio ternura...", "¡Qué agradable sujeto!") on a public noticeboard targeting a blocked editor who cannot legally reply or defend themselves locally constitutes severe psychological harassment. 3. **Procedural Sabotage:** The block was timed precisely during an active debate to prevent me from exposing that 56 official academic sources with registered ISSN codes were being fraudulent dismissed as "simple pictures" by the deleting faction. Furthermore, when an independent editor tried to point this out, their post was deleted within 48 hours and falsely labeled as my "block evasion" to reinforce my ban.

If local administrative cabals can completely silence an editor under the guise of routine maintenance, while publicly mocking them and carrying out ideological vendettas, the Universal Code of Conduct loses its protective purpose. I kindly request the U4C to accept this case to investigate the weaponization of these tools.Bineart (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Independent of what you've said, Bineart, I assume you mean Jaluj, not Jalu? Jalu is a 3-edit account, but Jaluj is the one directly mentioned in your links. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: Yes, absolutely. My apologies for the typo, I meant Jaluj. Thank you very much for catching this critical error; I will correct the username in the case filing immediately to ensure the evidence aligns perfectly with the correct account.Bineart (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• @EggRoll97: Thank you for your review. I would like to clarify the context regarding my contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia (es.wikipedia) and address the "promotional tone" concern:

1. The draft process on es.wikipedia was collaborative: In 2023, I was explicitly requested by local Spanish editors to help recreate the article about Sorin Cerin in a draft format. I worked strictly in the draft space for about one to two weeks, following the guidance of the local community. Local editors advised me not to include the names of literary critics directly within the body text. This formatting constraint, requested by them, inadvertently created the false impression of a "promotional" or unsourced tone. Please verify this collaboration on my Spanish talk page, where editors instructed me on what and how to write in the draft, as well as my edit history.
2. I was not responsible for the final mainspace publication: After my brief assistance in the draft space, I stepped away entirely and left the local Spanish editors to continue the work and decide whether to publish it. They ultimately moved it to the mainspace. Therefore, the final structure and tone of the published article cannot be attributed to me. Since 2023, I have not touched the article's structure; my only edit in 2024 was a minor update adding an important award granted to the subject by the Société des Poètes Français.
3. Single-purpose account (SPA) accusation vs. Article complexity: The reason my contributions on es.wikipedia were centered around this single topic is that the subject is highly complex. It involves a vast system of philosophy (Coaxialism), a massive collection of aphorisms, and hundreds of literary reviews. Translating and organizing such a large volume of dense, reliable academic sources required extended, focused work. I never intended to become a permanent contributor to es.wikipedia; my goal was simply a short-term collaboration to help with this specific draft.Bineart (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• @EggRoll97: I would also like to raise a fundamental question regarding accountability and timing in this case:

1. Unfair accountability for local editors' actions: I worked on that draft back in 2023—nearly three years ago. After my brief assistance, I completely left the draft in the hands of the local Spanish editors. If the local editors decided to publish the article in a state that the community later deemed "promotional," why am I the one being held responsible and banned indefinitely for it? It was the responsibility of the local Spanish editors who moved the draft into the mainspace to ensure it met all community standards before publishing it.
2. An indefinite block after three years of inactivity: It is deeply unjust that after three years of having absolutely no structural contribution to that article or to es.wikipedia, I am suddenly handed an indefinite block. I am being penalized today simply because I helped with a draft three years ago. I did not publish the final version, nor did I control its format at the time of publication. Holding a user accountable for how other editors choose to handle and publish a draft years later completely contradicts the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Thank you.Bineart (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: I must also address and firmly reject the assumption of a "Conflict of Interest" (COI) that is being thrown around in this discussion to justify my local ban: # No personal or professional connection: I want to state unequivocally under global UCoC standards that I have absolutely no personal, professional, or financial relationship with Sorin Cerin. I do not know the subject personally, I have never met him, and I am not operating under any form of paid contribution. # Academic focus vs. COI: My sole motivation for working on this topic was purely encyclopedic and research-driven. Translating and organizing a dense contemporary philosophy system (Coaxialism) and an extensive world-class aphoristic collection requires highly focused, long-term work. This level of dedication is an **academic interest**, which is the very foundation of volunteer work on Wikipedia. # The danger of false labeling: Confusing a single-topic focus (Single-Purpose Account due to the complexity of the subject) with a Conflict of Interest (COI) is a severe administrative error. When local administrators use "COI" as an automatic label to silence anyone who deeply researches a complex niche topic, they are weaponizing a policy to mask procedural abuse and avoid reviewing the actual academic evidence. Focused research and volunteer passion for a complex philosophical subject must not be falsely criminalized as a COI simply to uphold a retaliatory block. I kindly request the U4C to evaluate this clear lack of objective criteria. Thank you.Bineart (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to Superzerocool regarding local policies and timeline

@Superzerocool: Thank you for your feedback. However, I respectfully argue that the evidence of misconduct **is** constant in time, spanning over a decade, and points directly to a deep-seated historical resentment rather than a routine enforcement of local policies.

1. **A 15-Year Grievance:** The subject published a book heavily critical of Wikipedia in 2011. The fact that the local Bureaucrat brought up this exact 2011 book on a public community noticeboard in June 2026—explicitly to mock the subject right after deleting the article—proves that this was not a standard, isolated administrative action. It demonstrates a long-standing, personal, and ideological vendetta that has persisted over time. 2. **Immediate Public Mockery:** Local policies allow for article deletions, but they strictly forbid administrative elites from publicly mocking a blocked editor who is legally muted and cannot defend themselves. The coordinated public comments ("¡Qué agradable sujeto!", "Hasta me dio ternura...") on an official board constitute targeted cyberbullying under UCoC 3.1. 3. **Systemic Defenselessness:** This is precisely why local mechanisms are compromised. When the administrative body itself carries a 15-year grievance and uses local blocks to silence an editor while publicly disparaging their character, the editor is left in a state of systemic defenselessness.

I kindly ask the non-involved members of the U4C to evaluate this case based on global behavioral standards, as local pretexts are being used to cover an ideological retaliation. -Bineart (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Superzerocool: Thank you for your feedback. While I respect your point regarding local policies, I must emphasize that this is precisely why the U4C exists: local policy enforcement must never be weaponized as a smokescreen to violate global Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) standards.

1. UCoC supersedes local pretexts: Local policies allow for article deletions and standard maintenance. However, they do strictly forbid administrators from abusing their power to enforce an indefinite block based on an unproven assumption ("Single Purpose Account") while denying the user any due process or right to defense. When local tools are used to completely muzzle an editor, preventing them from providing high-quality, independent academic sources, it ceases to be "routine policy enforcement" and becomes procedural sabotage.

2. The "Evidence over time" is clear: The timeline itself is the strongest evidence of misconduct. I helped with a draft in 2023. If the local administrators truly acted out of objective policy routine, why did they wait nearly three years—during which I had zero structural contributions—to suddenly issue an indefinite block in 2026? A three-year delay followed by a permanent ban for briefly assisting with a draft is a heavily disproportionate and punitive action, not a standard administrative cleanup.

3. Public Mockery is a flagrant UCoC violation: Even if we assume the block followed local rules, no local policy justifies or allows administrative elites to publicly mock a blocked editor on a community noticeboard (Café) right after the deletion, knowing the editor is muted and cannot reply. Derogatory public remarks targeting a defenseless user constitute targeted harassment and cyberbullying under UCoC Section 3.1.Bineart (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If global U4C oversight can be bypassed simply by labeling systemic bias and retaliatory blocks as "adherence to local criteria," then the Universal Code of Conduct loses its meaning as a protective shield for global volunteers. I kindly ask you to reconsider the timeline and the behavioral evidence based on these global standards. Thank you.Bineart (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to Ghilt regarding systemic harassment

• @Ghilt: Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully urge you to reconsider the threshold of what constitutes a UCoC violation in this specific context:

1. Systemic harassment vs. Casual sarcasm: There is a fundamental difference between an isolated sarcastic remark and a group of local administrative elites using an official community noticeboard (Café) to publicly mock a blocked user. The behavior displayed by Jaluj and Marcelo ("Hasta me dio ternura...", "¡Qué agradable sujeto!") was targeted specifically at a user they had just completely muted. When administrators weaponize local tools to strip an editor of their right to reply, and then immediately use that defenseless state to disparage their character publicly, it goes far beyond "harmless sarcasm"—it becomes a textbook case of **Targeted Cyberbullying (UCoC 3.1)**.Thank YouBineart (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt: Apologies, my previous message was cut off at the end. To complete my response regarding your assessment:

1. The SPA and COI labels as a tactical shield: Labeling any editor who focuses heavily on a complex academic biography as a "Single-Purpose Account" (SPA) or having a "Conflict of Interest" (COI) has become an easy tactical pretext to justify procedural abuse. Translating and organizing a philosophy system (Coaxialism) with over 56 verified academic sources with ISSN codes requires intensive, targeted work. Doing focused work on a complex topic does not mean an editor lacks global good faith, nor does it strip them of their human dignity and right to be protected from public mockery.Bineart (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt: To conclude: If the U4C dismisses coordinated public humiliation targeting muted editors as mere "sarcasm," it sets a dangerous precedent where local administrators can bully any user with total impunity as long as they phrase their attacks as jokes. I kindly ask you to look at the abuse of power behind the remarks. Thank you.Bineart (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

"Que agradable sujeto" (What a nice guy) is an internet meme derived from "the Simpsons". "Hasta me dio ternura..." (It even made me feel a bit touched) is in no way a personal attack. I do not see that as bullying, even though you may have perceived it this way. And i really think you should reflect on your conflict of interest, which you spread over many wikipedias. I have not seen any reflection of your actions by you on this page so far. For example, would you continue editing wikipedia if we gave you a topic ban (= you may never edit the articles Sorin Cerin)? Ghilt (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ghilt: Thank you for your question. Yes, I would continue contributing to Wikipedia even if I were subject to a restriction regarding the Sorin Cerin topic.

I am willing to accept a Topic Ban concerning Sorin Cerin on Wikimedia projects where such a measure is considered necessary, including a restriction from editing the biography, philosophy, works, or other content dedicated to this subject.

Regarding fr.wikipedia, I would prefer any possible restriction to be considered separately, taking into account the history and context of that specific project, rather than applying an automatic global ban.

In practice, I intend not to edit this subject on the other Wikimedia projects. If, in the future, new independent and verifiable information about major literary recognitions were to appear on fr.wikipedia, such additions could be considered separately according to editorial rules and the principle of neutrality.

I accept the basic principle: I can continue contributing to Wikimedia without editing this subject. My encyclopedic contributions do not depend on a single article or a single topic.

I hope this approach provides a clear framework for evaluating my future contributions and addresses concerns related to conflict of interest.Bineart (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think you should go back to the projects where you were blocked and propose "unblocking in exchange for a topic ban". And also, you need to take their criticism seriously, instead of claiming harassment. And please stop pinging people multiple times because this is perceived as very annoying. -- Ghilt (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

Decline votes

• What I see from the links provided is that it appears the filer's article was deleted on eswiki following a deletion discussion, as the consensus of the community was determined to be to delete the article. They were blocked as they appeared to have a conflict of interest with the article subject, and they then disputed it via a block appeal, which another admin rejected, stating that while they might unblock them, they would immediately re-block them for being a single purpose account (to promote the article subject). I am largely unconvinced there are UCoC violations present within this case, and therefore I land in the decline section absent further evidence proving violations of the Universal Code of Conduct. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• En mi caso, apoyo declinar el caso, ya que los administradores han actuado de acuerdo a las políticas locales y han mantenido el criterio a lo largo del tiempo sin que se muestre evidencia constante en el tiempo acerca de lo indicado por la persona que abre el caso. Superzerocool (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Deepl translation
In my case, I support declining the case, since the administrators have acted in accordance with local policies and have consistently applied the same criteria over time, without any consistent evidence over time to support the claims made by the person who filed the case.

• This looks like a single purpose account with a conflict of interest to me. Not every sarcastic remark is a sanctionable UCoC violation. Therefore I decline. --Ghilt (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• I don’t see UCoC violation at the moment, more evidence is needed to support these claims. -Borschts ^Talk 12:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• I am not sure it is necessary to block an account who has not edited for 3 years. However, the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines do not prohibit this. So I do not think there is anything for the U4C to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• I also am not fully happy with the block after three years of inactivity, but there's no real evidence of harassment or hounding, nor any U4C violations. EPIC (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• No violations apparent. This appears to be several processes to combat promotional editing working as intended. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see anything that requires our intervention here. --Civvì (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2026 (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.

• The U4C has seen this. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• With 7 votes to decline and 13 active members, this case is declined. Toadspike [Talk] 16:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)