Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/When I'm blocked, I'm also blocked from sending emails.

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
Ekrembjk09 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Dr. Coal (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) Notification Sent to the User

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Ekrembjk09 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ekrembjk09

Description of the problem - (Ekrembjk09)

  • Hello. I am Ekrembjk09. I felt the need to write here because my posting is blocked on my page.
  • The reason for filing a lawsuit is the message page block mentioned on the Turkish Wikipedia page.
  • I received a message message requesting that a message be sent to lift the block, but despite not having committed any message violation, I am unable to send any messages.
  • Furthermore, the conditions under which the message block should be implemented are clearly stated in the link I provided link.
  • Afterwards, since I did not get a result in the Turkish version, I had to send a message to the same user from the English Wikipedia message, but again without success.
  • In conclusion, I accept that the blocking decision is correct, but I find it wrong that my right to appeal has been taken away despite not having committed any violation.

Sincerely
Ekrembjk09

Little Addition
I mentioned email in the title, but I meant an in-site message.
I hereby withdraw my lawsuit and request that this be taken into consideration.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Ekrembjk09)

The message I posted in Turkish on the English Wikipedia is link.

Suggested solutions - (Ekrembjk09)

The message says the page opens and I can make my own defense.

Dr. Coal

Previous attempts at a solution - Dr. Coal

  • The user, Ekrembjk09, had applied to be a sysop on trwiki several times with short time ranges and this became a disruptive pattern. Some members of the community understandably reacted to this situation and even the troll(s) made fun on several occasions. As a result, the user had been blocked to create a new application. (On 26. November 2024 by Anerka as a result of this complaint, see the log).
  • Later on, the user had kept initiating conversations about their adminship and/or block here and there. When another one of them got the reaction of a troll on Anerka's talkpage, which would still be disruptive without such a reaction, a restriction seemed inevitably necessary on grounds of tr:VP:İAD. (tr:VP:YP was just an offer at the time, became a policy on 27. Dec. 2025). So I defined a restriction on the user's talkpage, prohibiting the user take other users' time with endless and recurring statements. They replied: You're right, I'm sorry, won't happen again... I also announced this restraint on the noticeboard.
  • And then, they did it again, troll(s) got there again... So, I had to enforce the sanction which the user had known and accepted. And I did. The user has also been blocked from sending e-mails and editing their own talkpage because of the nature of their disruptive behaviour. There would be no point without these additional block settings.
  • On 3. February 2026, the user sent me a message on enwiki which I haven't replied. Normally, I would, but this time it is consistent with my reasoning. The user won't stop taking someone's time just because they want so. (Just as what's happening here right now.)

Dr. Coal (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Dr. Coal

  • The user stated above that "the blocking decision was correct". Well, considering their tendency to take everyone's time in a recurring manner, I would say the block with additional settings is both correct, and necessary to preserve the community's (including myself and other sysops) labour and time. The user's previous and current statements, such as "Oh, I'm sorry, you're right, won't happen again, I won't do it again", don't seem credible because of what happened in the past.
  • On my talkpage here on meta, the user told that they changed their mind (see) and were sorry to take time and wanted to be unblocked.
  • That being said, I don't see a reason to unblock the user (or change the block settings) apart from the user's wish on its own. As a selected sysop on trwiki, I bear responsibility to the community (again, including myself and other sysops) and sincerely do not want them to undergo the same endless conversations, applications, etc.
  • My suggestion, which won't be a solution actually, is the user to wait for their time to be back and contribute to the encyclopedia instead of talking about how badly they want to be an admin and apply every three months or so to be one. I'm sorry.

Dr. Coal (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 (~2026-81208-8)

  • this has the /tr/ prefix, though none of the cases beforehand had such a term, is that a mistake?

--~2026-81208-8 (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Robert McClenon)

Does the U4C have anything resembling the English Wikipedia boomerang essay cautioning that the filer at a conduct noticeboard of a baseless complaint may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@User:Dr. Coal is this a similar situation to the previous case? --Civvì (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, Civvì, it's not. Regards, Dr. Coal (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Dr. Coal I fully understand that it is really tedious to explain a situation that to you seems clear and obvious. I would also like to reassure you that we are not here to question administrative decisions, but we have an obligation to respond to a request, and to do so we need to understand what happened. Unfortunately, we have found that automatic translations from Turkish do not give very good results, which does not make our job any easier. :-( For this reason, we would be very grateful for an explanation, even a brief one. I understand that the block has to do with a previous partial block and repeated RFAs, is that correct? Many thanks. --Civvì (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, we were writing in the same moment, please do not consider my previous message. --Civvì (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Civvì, I thought, it would be rude not to reply here even though I was going to make a statement above under relevant section. :) Regards, Dr. Coal (talk) 11:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, when I saw your first reply I started digging into logs and translations of talk pages and missed your statement, apologies for my message.--Civvì (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

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.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2026/When_I%27m_blocked,_I%27m_also_blocked_from_sending_emails.&oldid=30070495"