Why Aidityas Adhakim Is Named in Complaint No. 068/ADUAN/RW/09/2026 (English Edition)

This post explains why I named Mr. Aidityas Adhakim as reported party T-1 in my public complaint to the Jakarta Regional Police (Polda Metro Jaya) dated 21 September 2026. It is my account, not a police finding or court judgment. I do not assert that he is guilty of any offence. The wider context is in the main post on Complaint No. 068.

Why I reported him

I reported him for three things I attribute to him, and for one thing I ask the police to examine.

1. Removing me from a community after I explained my condition. I say he was an administrator of the Discord community "Gen AI Labs" and knew from me about a personal circumstance that affects how I post, and that a promotion channel had been set up for that. I say he still removed me as "disturbing" and "spam", and later removed me from a group again.
2. A public reply pointing to an account about me. On 25 May 2026, answering a post by @lucaxyzz that mocked me, he wrote, in my rendering, "Have you checked out his behaviour here, bro?" and tagged @KawalRahmatwi, an account that I say contains claims against me that I consider defamatory. The reply had at least 606 views (Evidence E-1).
3. Blocking me. His X profile shows that he blocked my account, which I say closed off my chance to reply (Evidence E-3).
4. A one-word reply to a post about my address. On 12 June 2026 @lucaxyzz posted that he knew where I live. Mr. Adhakim replied "Damn" (992 views). I do not say he wrote the address post. I asked the police to examine whether his reply, given what he knew about my circumstances and his earlier pointer to @KawalRahmatwi, amounts to taking part or assisting (Evidence E-2).

What I said the law may cover

For the "check his behaviour" reply: defamation and slander and minor insult under Arts. 433, 434 and 436 with 441(1) of the Criminal Code, or alternatively Art. 27A of the ITE Law. For the "Damn" reply: participation or assisting under Arts. 20 and 21, to be examined. I asked that my address be protected. The complaint reads his intent from what it says he knew: what I had told him and his choice to send the public to that account.

How strong I think this is

The complaint's own review rated the defamation claim against him as moderate, not strong. The main weaknesses are that the contents of @KawalRahmatwi are not in my evidence, that "check his behaviour" is sarcasm and not a plain factual claim, that "Damn" is a single word, and that his role as an administrator is what I was told and have not proved.

Limits of this record

• This is my account and my legal reading; no authority has made a finding.
• He did not write the address post, and I do not say he did.
• The contents of the account he pointed to are not included in my evidence.
• I am not a lawyer, and this post is not legal advice.

Right of reply and correction

Mr. Aidityas Adhakim is invited to respond, correct, or add context. A substantive reply may be published alongside this article, edited only for privacy, safety and relevance. If reliable evidence shows any statement here is wrong, I will correct it and note the change.

#PublicComplaint #ReportedParty #DigitalConduct #CaseRecord