Requests for comment/Concerns about administrator conduct in Indonesian Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. This is a local issue on idwiki and thus not in scope for a meta RFC. Try to get the block lifted locally, contact the Ombuds commission if you suspect abuse of Checkuser tools or open a case at the U4C for UCoC violations. --Count Count (talk) 08:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue

Several patterns on the Indonesian Wikipedia (idwiki) raise concerns regarding administrator conduct, particularly around the enforcement of Sockpuppet Investigations (SPI), ideological bias, and the use of indefinite blocks. These issues may constitute violations of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and broader Wikimedia principles:

Unverified SPI blocks: SPI cases are sometimes closed with indefinite blocks without transparent evidence, such as CheckUser confirmation or behavioral clarity. Some blocked users have not been conclusively linked to other accounts.
Ideological retaliation: Editors who express secular views or critique dominant cultural/religious norms are disproportionately targeted by SPI reports or administrative warnings.
Lack of due process: Some administrators act as both accuser and executor in SPI cases, without neutral oversight or community review.
Suppression of dissent: Rather than engaging with concerns or requests for policy clarification, certain admins resort to accusations of “disruption” and escalate to indefinite blocks.
Absence of local accountability: Idwiki lacks effective dispute resolution mechanisms. Appeals are difficult, especially when those involved in SPI and blocking are also sysops.

I would like to clarify that I am not the same person as Bayu Fuller, Eustatius Stridjer, or Puspa Mayangsari. While I acknowledge that some of my edits may have overlapped with topics they also edited, my contributions reflect different viewpoints, approaches, and goals.

Differences between me and the other accounts are: • I use HotCat, while the accounts in question do not. • I use a light blue signature for my username, which they do not. • I have never edited articles like “Pahlawan Nasional Indonesia” [1] • I never inserted Bible verses or female identity indicators in my userpage like Puspa Mayangsari [2]. • I never edited about Pattimura in the id.wiki [3] • I also have not written about Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas or other Muslim scholars commonly edited by those accounts [4].

It is possible that technical similarities (such as IP range overlap or behavioral assumptions) may have led to confusion. However, I believe the administrators on Indonesian Wikipedia failed to fully consider this and proceeded to block me based on assumptions rather than conclusive evidence.

As a result, I was globally locked, even though there was no confirmed CheckUser evidence linking me to those accounts. After I directly contacted the stewards through email and provided context, my global lock was successfully lifted, confirming that there had been a misunderstanding in how the case was handled/.

This experience highlights the broader issue this RfC seeks to address: lack of due process, ideological bias, and misuse of SPI mechanisms that affect contributors unfairly on Indonesian Wikipedia.

Comments

Thank you for bring this to the table, and I am apologize for what that happened. I am checkuser on Indonesian Wikipedia and also handling SPI case related to Pineapplethen. Yes, I check both of users and said "Possible likely" (Indonesian: "Sepertinya berhubungan") on that report. Simply said, my reasoning is based on range IP, activities, and topic similarities.

But, I doing indefinite block only socks are "Confirmed" (Indonesian: "Terkonfirmasi") and not "Possible likely" (example: this and this). Also, reasoning for indefinite blocks for socks are based on Indonesian Wikipedia blocking policy as states:

Penyunting yang terbukti melanggar kebijakan pelanggaran keamanan dan/atau kebijakan pengguna siluman hanya dapat dikenakan sanksi cekal situs untuk jangka waktu yang tidak terbatas/selamanya.

or in English

Editors who proven break safety policy and/or sockpuppet policy could be charged with indefinite block.

There are many things we need to improve at Indonesian Wikipedia, and I apologize from my part as administrator and contributor. Personally, I am consider to unblock Pineapplethen at Indonesian Wikipedia, but again I need more confirmation from other admins as well. --Nohirara (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to clarify several misunderstandings that may have contributed to my block.

First, one of the accounts involved in the SPI case was reported by another user, who I believe may have filed the case in retaliation over editing disputes. Although it’s possible we coincidentally shared an IP address at some point, we are not the same person, and we hold very different views and editing interests.

Secondly, I once shared a network with a former real-life friend, whose account name was Jeremy Kusumaatmadja, who used to edit Wikipedia from the same location. However, we have since moved apart, and he now rarely edits and does not contribute to the same topics as I do. He was called in an SPI case before, but it was rejected because it had already been confirmed that we are not related [5]

I understand that these overlapping situations might have triggered suspicion, but I hope it’s clear that there was no coordination or intention to deceive. The SPI case was closed as “possibly likely,” not confirmed. According to both idwiki and global norms, an indefinite block should only apply to confirmed sockpuppets. I also want to point to a similar case involving a user from the Maldives, who was blocked as well under similar "possibly likely" circumstances. After an honest appeal, he was unblocked and is now contributing positively. I believe my situation deserves the same level of review and fairness. Now that my global lock has been lifted by stewards, I hope that the Indonesian Wikipedia community will also consider my request for the lifting of my Indonesian Wikipedia block. I am fully committed to editing respectfully and responsibly. Pineapplethen (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

mau ikut akrehab atau gimana Satutitikduakoma (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the proper venue for such problems, I suggest making a case at U4C or Ombuds, but either way the global community is ill-equipped to neutrally judge upon actions taken on a big wiki (idwiki), especially that concerning admin/CU conduct and behaviour. As Meta:What Meta is not argues that Meta is not an appeals court I think another Meta admin should close this RfC as invalid.--A09|(pogovor) 06:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]