Requests for comment/Canopus Kilya Blocking

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. Closed as bad-faith RFC due to massive trolling and sockpuppetry


Dear Wikipedists!

I ask for your assistance with the complex situation in the Russian Wikipedia.

Canopus Kilya has been very helpful to Mediawiki projects - more than 600 images uploaded to the Commons, more than 12,000 edits in the Russian Wikipedia, a reconciled and sharpness of mind helped him to work productively for the benefit of the encyclopedia.

Then it occurred black stripe - lock and insults and harassment by administrators for his hobbies and thoughts in the form of sub. Canopus was depressed and began to vandalism. Rather than understand his situation and pomos break the vicious circle, administrators began to block his every appearance indefinitely. All attempts to return to constructive and writing impinges on the ruthless CheckUsers.

Two weeks naza he completely stopped vandalism, I proposed to unblock it and to give another chance, but the administrator Obersachse, which has a personal account to Canopus, closed the discussion without reason that, while regular Canopus accounts positive contribution - "Telescope Bresser" and "Snow and rain" were blocked. The Arbitration Committee does not help, see the section below about this.

Please help the Wiki community to Canopus return to normal activities.

Best regards, --Arben 21:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee request[edit]

Canopus Kilya wrote me a letter asking to place the request to the arbitrators, arbitrators rejected the deployment, has not responded to any of the letters sent. Here I quote the full text of Canopus Kilya's request:

{{shortcut|[[ВП:ИСК392]]}}
{{Заявка на арбитраж}}

'''Истцы:''' [[Участник:Канопус Киля|Канопус Киля]]

'''Ответчики:''' [[Участник:Darkoneko|Darkoneko]],
[[Участник:Lvova|Lvova]] и др.

== Суть иска ==

В французской Википедии меня заблокировали за создание вандальных
аккаунтов. После создания очередного аккаунта стюард Darkoneko
бессрочно блокировал мой аккаунт на Мете без возможности аппеляции
(нельзя даже зайти со своего аккаунта). Я вытерпел всё это и
попоытался продолжить нормальную работу в русском разделе:
* {{userlinks|French Wine}}
* {{userlinks|Голубой слонёнок}}
* {{userlinks|Смартасс, Всевышний Господь}}
* {{userlinks|Поросёнок Плюх}}
* {{userlinks|Русский квас}}
* {{userlinks|Жало Скорпиона}}
* {{userlinks|92.113.135.151}}
* {{userlinks|92.113.204.214}}
* {{userlinks|92.113.149.134}}
Но все эти аккаунты блокировались чекюзерами по причине "обход
блокировки", хотя они правили только статьи и ничего плохого не
делали. Дошло даже до того, что French Wine был блокирован на
Викискладе и в Украинской Википедии, где я ничего не нарушал и не
вандализировал статьи.

Но стоит отметить что мое такое поведение было вызвано общем
ухудшением обстановки в проекте, когда меня целенаправленно
преследовали некоторые участники, допускали систематичесое
преследование в моем отношении, в результате я был вынужден перейти к
вандализму, хоть никакого желания заниматься этим у меня нет, я хочу
вернуться к написанию статей и обсуждению допустимостей проверок.

Примеры такого преследования я вам сейчас приведу далее:

[[Обсуждение_участника:Канопус_Киля/2008-3#Что_за_шутки?]] следующая секция:

Я ради теста убрал одну из правок бота, чтобы посмотреть как он
среагирует. Учитывая, что бот не был причащен к административным
правам, ничего страшного из этого получиться не могло, но Львова сразу
накинулась на меня в резком тоне: ''Ну ни хрена себе! Слушайте, а ведь
бот оборудован владельцем, у которого, чёрт возьми, можно спросить!''
Я мирно согласился так больше не делать, но Львова продолжила
преследование, имеющее целью вывести меня из равновесия и добиться
моей блокировки.

Тут пришёл верный помощник Административной Партии германский бюрократ
[[Участник:Obersachse|Obersachse]], человек добрый но черезчур восприимчивый к
вики-воздействию. Он предложил мне '''совершить
вандализм''': ''А ещё можете
поэксперементировать, выставив заглавную страницу на удаление или
создав учётную запись "Самохвалов сосёт". Я думаю, вам будет очень
интересна реакция администраторов на это.'' Я не стал поддаваться на
провокацию, но преследование продолжилось! (Хотя мой наставник Винд
одёрнул своего бюрократа-коллегу, верно написав, что "могут и серьёзно
воспринять".)

Я даже извинился перед ботом и Анастасией, но тут на мою страницу
пришёл с претензиями какой-то Kebristar (как оказалось по проверке
чекюзером, работавший с открытые прокси баттискаф) и начал
возмущаться, что я не подписался при извиниении, а я всего-лишь хотел
показать так свою искренность.

Это всего лишь один эпизод моей всевикипедийной травли - было очень
неприятно, что многие активные участники поставили своей целью довести
меня до того, что сейчас случилось, хотя всё можно было легко
объяснить и не доводить до войн. Было ещё много неприятных моментов,
один раз Lvova блокировала меня за вынесение к удалению на долгий
срок, хотя можно было всё обсудить на странице обсуждения.

Прошу о разблокировке, обстановка в проекте нормализовалась, и если
ряд участников (не буду показывать пальцем) не будут мешать мне
работать я могу продолжить вносить полезный вклад с моего основного
аккаунта. Прошу Арбитров сделать правильное решение и понять, что я
собираюсь работать над созданием свободной энциклопедии и меня ничто
другое не интересует.

== Исковые требования ==

* Разблокировать мой основной аккаунт Канопус Киля.
* Запретить участнику [[Участник:Lvova|Lvova]] в любом виде
комментировать мои действия и совершать действия против меня,
запретить ей подговаривать против меня других участников через аську и
почту.

== Голосование арбитров о принятии иска ==

*
*
*
*
*
</nowiki>

Machine translation this request into English[edit]

((shortcut | [[VP: ISK392]])) 
((The application for arbitration)) 

'' 'The plaintiffs:''' [[User: Kanopus Kiel | Kanopus Kiel]] 

'' 'The defendants:''' [[Participants: Darkoneko | Darkoneko]], 
[[Participants: Lvova | Lvova]] etc. 

== Essence of the claim ==

In the French Wikipedia I was blocked for the creation of vandalnyh 
accounts. After creating another account steward Darkoneko 
indefinitely blocked my account by Meta without possibility of appeal 
(you can not even go to your account). I endured all this and 
popoytalsya continue normal work in the Russian section: 
* ((Userlinks | French Wine)) 
* ((Userlinks | Blue elephant)) 
* ((Userlinks | Smartass, Almighty God)) 
* ((Userlinks | Pig Plyuh)) 
* ((Userlinks | Russian kvass)) 
* ((Userlinks | sting Scorpio)) 
* ((Userlinks | 92.113.135.151)) 
* ((Userlinks | 92.113.204.214)) 
* ((Userlinks | 92.113.149.134)) 
But all of these accounts chekyuzerami blocked because of "circumvention 
lock ", although they have ruled only articles and nothing wrong is not 
doing. Even gone so far as to French Wine was blocked by 
Wikimedia and Wikipedia Ukraine, where I have not violated and is not 
vandaliziroval article. 

But worth noting is that my behavior was caused by a general 
deterioration of the situation in the draft when I was purposefully 
chased some participants allowed systematic 
persecution of my respect, as a result I was forced to turn to 
vandalism, although no desire to do so I do not have, I want to 
go back to writing articles and discussion of the permissibility checks.

Examples of such prosecution, I now give you further: 

[[Obsuzhdenie_uchastnika: Kanopus_Kilya/2008-3 # Chto_za_shutki?]] Next section: 

I for one test away from the bot edits to see how he 
sreagiruet. Given that the boat was not prichaschen to administrative 
Human, do not worry, the result could not, but the city soon 
nakinulas me in a sharp tone:''Oh no fuck yourself! Listen, though 
Boat is equipped with the owner, who the hell you can ask!'' 
I peacefully agreed to no longer do so, but the city continued 
prosecution having to bring me out of balance and achieve 
my blocking. 

Then came the Administrative Assistant to the Party faithful German bureaucrat 
[[User: Obersachse | Obersachse]], a good man but too susceptible to 
Wiki-effects. He invited me'' 'commit 
vandalism'' ':''And can 
poeksperementirovat, put Home to erase or 
Create an Account "Samokhvalov soset." I think you will be very 
Administrators are interested in the reaction to it.''I did not yield to 
provocation, but the persecution continued! (Although my mentor Vind 
odernul a bureaucrat-colleague correctly wrote that "may seriously 
embrace ".) 

I even apologized to botom and Anastasia, but here at my page 
came to the claims of a Kebristar (as proved by the 
chekyuzerom working with the open proxy battiskaf) and began 
resent that I did not sign with izvinienii, but I just wanted to 
both show its sincerity. 

This is only one episode of my vsevikipediynoy game - it was very 
unpleasant that many active participants to bring 
I got up to what is now happening, but everything can be easily 
explain and bring to the war. It was still a lot of unpleasant moments, 
once Lvova blocked me for making a disposal for a long 
deadline, although it was all discussed at the debate. 

I ask for unblocking the situation calmed down in the draft, and if 
A number of participants (will not show finger) will not interfere with me 
I can continue to work to make a useful contribution to my main 
account. Please Arbitrov make the right decision and understand that I 
going to work on creating a free encyclopedia, and I got nothing 
others are not interested. 

== Claims == 

* Unblock my main account Kanopus Kiel. 
* To prohibit the party [[User: Lvova | Lvova]] in any form 
comment on my actions and to act against me, 
podgovarivat prohibit it against me the other participants via ICQ and 
e-mail. 

== Voting arbitrators on the adoption of an action == 

* 
* 
* 
* 
*

Comments[edit]

  • Please note that a vote here can NOT overturn an Arbcom decision. If you disagree with the decision of that Arbcom, you have to take it up with them. It would be in your best interest to work with the Arbcom on that project, not here. It's just not going to happen, sorry. Kylu 02:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The Arbitration Committee has NOT taken the decision to indefinitely blocking Canopus, the Russian Wikipedia Canopus is not blocked. The lawsuit demanding unlock, in due course sent to arbitrators, was not even published (this is because of personal animosity arbitrators to the Canopus Kilya). --Arben 07:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
  • Is it request for COMMENTS or some kind of stupid useless voting? Stop playing guys, and return to work, if you ever had one. It can be cruel from your point of view, but it decision of arbcom, and you have just to live with it. Vlsergey 06:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Vlsergey, better go for three gray letters, as you did not know Canopus - very useful and correct party, without the Russian society Wikipedia is doomed to die, people must return to work constructively, do not take offense at his ideas expressed in very rough form and erroneously recognized vandalism. --Arben 08:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
      • Arben, it's better to use russian, not google english translator. I can hardly understand you. As far as i know Kanopus (from real life) he need to wait. Not 2 week, but at least 2 month. Vlsergey 13:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • A senseless page... ~ Aleksandrit 06:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • See arguments for unblock them, they are very strong and very Canopus adds his weight. --Arben 08:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

impersonation

  • We can't infer with a local wiki's decision, but there is something that can be decided here : wether to lift the global account lock on Канопус Киля. Since I'm the one that made it, I'd like others inputs on this specific point. DarkoNeko 07:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, we discussed it unlock global account, in the Russian Wikipedia it's not blocked and can immediately return to work. --Arben 08:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
      • If the global account will be unblocked, local account will be blocked ASAP as a serial vandal's account. --Grebenkov 14:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have to say that I'm not able to assume any longer any good faith towards Canopus Kilya's actions, especially since he hasn't stopped vandalizing Wikimedia projects. We had a discussion on our administrators' noticeboard where many sysops opposed his unblocking. If Canopus Kilya wants to edit Wikimedia projects in constructive way, he may just create a new account, and nobody will touch it until it starts trolling or vandalizm — vvv 11:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Sergey, You do not understand that this is a real person who wants to benefit from Wikipedia writing articles? Are you depriving a person with 12,000 edits that possibility simply because the power is coming from the Administrator and CheckUser flag overshadowed your eyes? The man promised to stop vandalism and kept his promise and then you deny him in so small - access to the edit button on the pages and able to log in? You do not feel sorry for? All his life - the opportunity to edit and you are ready to violently expel him! I very much hope that other parties will assume the good intentions of the author. --Arben 12:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
        1. He is not Sergey! :)
        2. "A novice was once curious about the nature of the Edit Count. He approached the Zen master and asked, "Zen master, what is the nature of the Edit Count?" / "The Edit Count is as a road," replied the Zen master. "You must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you." / And the novice was Enlightened." ;) Lvova 15:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "If Canopus Kilya wants to edit Wikimedia projects in constructive way, he may just create a new account, and nobody will touch it until it starts trolling or vandalizm". I am afraid VasilievVV is trying to mislead people here regarding the practices in ru.wikipedia.org. Their checkusers would never let a person safely open a new account and let him/her write articles. Rather, they would hunt a poor guy and make his/her life miserable. Interestingly, they even craft falsifications against users designated as their political enemies. For example, recently :ru:user:Wulfson (a checkuser) claimed that :ru:user:Winterheart committed a computer crime by using a Trojan program for vandalism, but failed to present any evidence. Wulfson was not punished for false accusations in any way. Finally, I simply do not understand Vasiliev's logic: how is creating a new account different from simply using an old account? It would be much easier to follow the edits from the old account. SA ru 19:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest Meta administrators to close this request as soon as possible. It only serves one purpose: to give a soapbox to users, who have been blocked on Russian Wikipedia for vandalism, trolling, disruptive editing, uncivil behavior etc. --Grebenkov 14:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with situation around this user in Russian Wikipedia. However, request itself as trade stopping vandalism in exchange for unblocking looks like blackmailing. Vandalism is definitely wrong type of behavior. User:VasilievVV's suggestion to make a fresh start with new account seems very reasonable. --EugeneZelenko 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The old account more than 12,000 edits and so easy to lose it badly, a new sinister CheckUsers are blocking for "bypassing the lock and prevent the continuation of constructive work. --Arben 15:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    • Sergei Sokolov said it is not true, he acts so because of Canopus start of his friends in Wikipedia, Canopus insulted them and the righteous anger of the Orthodox kvass of Sokolov, as he saw it myself, should immediately strike the offender, wants to return to normal work. This is inhuman and immoral. --Arben 15:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
  • There are many arguments "pro et contra". On the one hand, Canopus didn't stop vandalism at all (some days ago he vandalised Bulgarian Wikipedia). On the other hand, he wrote some articles in Russian Wikipedia not long ago (he had been blocked that time). His new account in ruwiki (French Wine) was blocked only because of his owner, not because of vandalism. It's contributions weren't bad. If we unblock him, he can stop vandalism or vandalise more. So, I think he can be unblocked for some time, and if he will vandalise even in other projects, not ruwiki, he'll be blocked for infinity another time (sorry my bad English).Deevrod 17:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

About Arben[edit]

Meta's current User:Arben is not the real russian user. He says so Here (it could happen because the account has no SUL).

Thus, VasilievVV has blocked the meta account [1].

(note that there may be a renaming of that account to get the name back to it's rightful owner)

DarkoNeko 16:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting for CK Unblock[edit]

Support[edit]

can not be so cruel. --Arben 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation

It will be "last chance of Zidane".--Аурелиано Буэндиа 05:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I have changed my vote in connection with vandalism relapse.--Аурелиано Буэндиа 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Zidane didn't have a last chance. His last match ended horribly, and that's it. DarkoNeko 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It was the irony. I like this expression. :-) --Аурелиано Буэндиа 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  1. Unblock. Serebr 05:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Serebr is blocked infinitelly in ru-wiki by arbcom decision Vlsergey 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I am blocked in ru-wiki not for vandalism. Serebr 06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Anatoly blocked for political reasons, it is in Russian Wikipedia, he has the full right to vote here. --Arben 14:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    Please stop spreading the lie. Anatoly was blocked not for "political reasons", but for grossly violating the most basic Wikipedia rules, for using Wikipedia as his political tribune, a hosting for his "party", for engaging in edit wars, personal attacks, hijacking the Wikipedia LiveJournal community, and lots of other things. Роман Беккер 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Please you stop spreading the lie. I have no blocks for edit wars for example. Serebr 17:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Serebr is a very respectable person. He is a moderator of an LJ community of Wikipedians. He is indeed blocked in ru.wikipedia.org, but their arbitration committee cannot be taken seriously. They think they are KGB or something, trying to censor livejournal. Роман Беккер is not trustworthy. He has a very long block list for violating Wikipedia policies. He was recently blocked by the member of administration :ru:EvgenyGenkin for 1 week for insulting other wikipedians (:ru:Solon and :ru:The Wrong Man). Here he is insulting Serebr. He just likes to insult people. SA ru 19:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    it does not behave to business. Ruhe! --Deutscher Friedensstifter 12:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. If he promised not to engage in vandalism, I don't see any reason for the continuation of the block.--Stoljaroff 09:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. If he doesn't recur to vandalism in other wikis, lift the global block and let the local Russian community to decide whether to keep him blocked or not. If he refrains from vandalism and insults, his edits would be rather helpful for the enclyclopedia. --Volkov 10:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. only after Canopus Kilya will apologize to ru:User:Lvova (and other ladies, if he has insulted anybody else) can be unblocked. --Deutscher Friedensstifter 12:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Deutscher Friedensstifter is blocked infinitelly as well in ru-wiki Vlsergey 06:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Ruhe! it does not behave to business. I was blocked illegally for non-wikipedian reasons. --Deutscher Friedensstifter 12:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I confirm, Deutscher Friedensstifter was a very useful user law in many articles and encourages fair criticism. He blocked because of personal resentment of Roman Bekker and his retinue. --Arben 14:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    Please do not spread the lie and stop making personal attacks on me. You know perfectly for what the DF was blocked, and know that his behavior was seen as highly annoying and unacceptable by many good standing editors, that he frequently engaged in personal attacks (both in Wikipedia and off-wiki sites), was deliberately talking in non-Russian so-called "kaschenite" language, etc, etc, etc. So the final decision of the ArbCom was more than predictable, and the resulting indefinite block was perfectly legitimate and was the only available measure to stop that all, after several warnings and shorter blocks were ineffective. Роман Беккер 15:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. With no hope, I however express my support for unblocking. Canopus is a person that cause some problems, but he also works positively. Blocking won't prevent him from vandalism (and even motivates him), but prevents from making good for Wikipedia. He is not blocked in Russian Wikipedia, he is under mandatory mentorship there. Which works much better than blocks. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 15:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Maybe he won't vandalise. If he will, he should be blocked anoyher time (see my later post).Deevrod 19:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. To my best knowledge, Canopus Kilya is a teenager from Ukraine who was experimenting with Wikipedia in different ways, including writing articles. Blocking him indefinitely in all Wikipedia projects is like hunting ducks with an atomic bomb. Of course, he should be unblocked. Short-term blocks for inappropriate behaviors will be much more effective in this very simple case. SA ru 19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolute support Kanopus unblock. --Dukaro 05:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

need checkuser assistance Vlsergey 06:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Striked out his vote, confirmed sockpuppet — vvv 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectable and positive contributions. --Pablo xvi 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

need checkuser assistance Vlsergey 06:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Striked out his vote, confirmed sockpuppet — vvv 16:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

# Power support, useful mega party, a huge positive contribution dostoit return to Wikipedia. --Тень Господина Ы 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy — vvv 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. it`s bad idea--SkyDrinker 09:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why?--Stoljaroff 09:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    If it's voting, then no arguments are required. If it's request for comments, then no voting is allowed. Vlsergey 14:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why are you so cruel? Canopus - author of excellent articles wise unmasker CheckUsers dictatorship, which in its retaliation block parties with a useful contribution, not looking at their merit. You thus supporting a bloody regime and help bring government operators. Anatoly, Canopus, who next? --Arben 10:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    Why? What are your arguments?--Аурелиано Буэндиа 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. He hasn't stopped vandalism, see my user page, recent check-users requests on fr: and a list of his sockpuppets on fr:. Moyg 11:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Moyg, if Kanopus will be global unblocked, it will stop vandalism. --Arben 14:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
  3. See my point in #Comments section — vvv 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Sergey, your position is flawed and inaccurate. You refuse to unlock a person based on personal animosity and the views of your wiki friends, the man and his contribution deserves to return to the project and continue to work on it. I hope to change the vote. --Arben 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    You, as an Orthodox webmaster should be kind and patient. Give a chance Kanopusu, change the voice! --Arben 15:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
  4. Strongly and maximally oppose. DO NOT UNBLOCK HIM PLEASE! Роман Беккер 13:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why? What are your arguments?--Аурелиано Буэндиа 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    If it's voting, then no arguments are required. If it's request for comments, then no voting is allowed. Vlsergey 14:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    it does not behave to business. --Arben 15:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
  5. Canopus Kilya is a serial cross-wiki vandal, and it does not seem that he is going to stop doing harm anytime soon, vandalism is just going, going and going. The request above is full of libel and false information, and the translation presented by Arben only makes it worse, it is grossly incorrect. I cannot possibly believe that this request was made in a good faith, the block should stay. I also would like to know how these edits could have been done by a user whose account is globally blocked. --Grebenkov 14:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    His account in Bulgarian WP was not attached to SUL.--Аурелиано Буэндиа 14:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Doesn't matter. This link demonstrates what kind of "useful edits" (made 4 days ago) this user makes now. I still can't see how anyone behaving like that could be unblocked. --Grebenkov 14:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Kanopus apologized to all and is no longer going to be vandals. He did this because of the terrible force of depression, is now all behind us and he was ready to write articles. --Arben 15:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    I do not see him "apologizing". Instead of that, I still see him making vandal edits, just as like in Bulgarian Wikipedia, just 4 days ago. And I do not see any "depression" or another mental illness as an excuse for vandalism, neither do I think that such psychically vulnerable users should be allowed to edit Wikipedia, as it can make their mental status worse. Роман Беккер 15:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    "psychically vulnerable"? Do you remember about inadmissibility of insults?--Аурелиано Буэндиа 15:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    No insults, my dear :) Only if you talk about "depression" as an argument and excusement for any user that vandalizes (not only Kanopus), I have to say that depressive patients are psychically vulnerable, especially if they do not take their treatment or if the treatment is ineffective. And anything that, say, makes the patient temporarily angry, can imburse him to, say, commit suicide. Do you want that for Kanopus to happen? If he suffers from depression, it is best for his own mental status to stay away from highly conflicting area of Wikipedia editing. Роман Беккер 15:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Offtopic: Roman, let's be reconciled…--Аурелиано Буэндиа 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Bekker, stop outpouring of malice! --Arben 15:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC) impersonation
    Remember about en:WP:CIV. Роман Беккер 15:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Roma, this page does not exist. --Arben 15:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I am not "Roma" for you. We didn't happen to meet and drink wine together, and I do not have any wish to ever do that. I'm Roman, not "Roma" for you. Stop this familiarity. And the page perfectly exists. Роман Беккер 15:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. If it's voting, then no arguments are required. If it's RFC, then no voting is allowed. Vlsergey 14:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    Vlsergey, if Canopus will be unblocked, he will stop vandalism.--Аурелиано Буэндиа 14:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I would prefer him to stop in first place. And do not start again in 2 month, at least. Vlsergey 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    So if there will be no vandalism by C-s in 2-3 months, you won't vote oppose him unblock?--Аурелиано Буэндиа 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not an arbcom member to decide it, but i can support him in this case and provide mentorship, if it'll required. Vlsergey 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. I think, it's not a good idea. Canopus have made a lot of vandal edits only a few days ago, I can not believe in his good faith. Сиркеджи 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Today on ru.wiki blocked new vandal accounts of Canopus Kilya — Ferrer 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. --Rave 22:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. [2] [3]Elfix × talk (fr) 22:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. --Kartmen 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. --Torin 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Strongly oppose in connection with relapse of vandalism by him.--Аурелиано Буэндиа 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Strong opposition. As I have already said in Wikimedia Forum (November 13): « any action of unblock this global account should be seen, by many pattrollers on wp-FR, as a hostile action, because of the huge perturbations made by this user, not only on wp-FR. » Hégésippe | ±Θ± 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. Canopus had lots of useful contributions as well as vandalism and trolling. If he apologizes for his bad behaviour in different wiki-projects, I'll think of supporting the unblock. --Cvz1 16:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions[edit]

  • Hello, why is this voting on Meta, I guess the appropriate place would be ru.wiki?! Arbcom can add a request at SRG when they have made a decision. We asked ru.wiki checkusers in the past if he should be unlocked: see here (permalink). If this is an unblock request on Meta, Meta:Requests_for_CheckUser_information/Archives/2008/11#Drone.40meta should be considered, and I guess he needs to appologize to a lot of other people too (see contributions of the socks). All I can read from his statement right now that he was only creating other accounts because he was blocked. But he was blocked because he vandalized and the other accounts were blocked because they vandalized. So, sorry, but they were not blocked because all were so evil to him. But people can change to the better, at least I hope that sometimes. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

About sockpuppet invasion[edit]

Since that page became a place for massive sockpuppet invasion (2 obvious (Arben, Malt) and 2 zero-contributions users (Durako, Pablo)), I warn everyone:

Please, do not turn this page into a sockpuppetry circus. Another time I find any sockpuppet trolling around here or making a vote fraud, I will close the whole RFC.

Thanks for understanding — vvv 10:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you simply remove the sockpuppets' statements and let the legitimate users continue this discussion. IMHO this would make much more sense. Your arrogant behavior only promotes sockpuppet provocations. SA ru 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It has been a sockpuppetry circus and trolls' happy hunting ground from the very beginning. See also recent revisions of ru:Википедия:Заявки на арбитраж/Разблокировка Канопуса Киля (now deleted). There is absolutely no practical sense left in this request, it serves no purpose now but to feed the trolls. I say, let it burn. --Grebenkov 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Today, Arbitration Committee member in Russian Wikipedia deleted the Canopus' case as "page created for the sake of vandalism". Also, after I issued the warning above, the fifth sockpuppet of the same (obviously) troll appeared in RFC, which shows out that it's a bad-faith request. And right now it has snowball in hell chances.

Therefore, it's closed due to massive trolling and sockpuppetry — vvv 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)