Requests for comment/Lack of block policy and arbitration committee at the Spanish Wikipedia and (abusive) administrative actions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for anything proposed by the creator. --MF-W 22:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De partida, abro esto para obtener opiniones de las comunidades de otros proyectos (por eso lo escribí en inglés en un principio). Si está en el lugar equivocado (una RFC en lugar de una discusión del Café), sientanse libres de trasladarlo al espacio de nombres correspondiente.

Después de leer la discusión en el Café sobre este hilo, se me sigue acusando de sabotaje, cuando mi única intención es acercar el debate a una área más amplia.

Además, se recomienda tratar de solucionar los problemas localmente, cosa en la que he fracasado ya que se resolvió rechazar la solicitud de desbloqueo ignorando mi defensa, y si comento algo en mi página de discusion, dicho mensaje suele ser retirado, cosa que no pasa en otros proyectos (digamos Wikipedia en inglés y Commons). Sin dejar de mencionar que estos problema ya se han debatido localmente antes.

He de mencionar que desde hace tiempo que he pensado llevar estos asuntos acá, más de un año para ser exactos; no es una ocurrencia reciente gatillada por un bloqueo que he considerado "injusto", sino por varias de las injusticias que se han llevado a cabo en el proyecto, en gran parte promovidas por políticas "de facto", que no han sido resueltas en más de 15 años no por falta de "consenso", sino que por falta de "voluntad", IMHO.

Sientanse libres de preguntar lo que estimen pertinente, pero antes de expresar opiniones (y en particular, antes de acusar de sabotaje), por favor lean detenidamente este y los hilos relacionados.

Sientanse libres de traducir.

Rationale[edit]

So, this is what I call an issue, even if some other users refuse to admit it: The lack of a Block policy and an Arbitration cometee at the Spanish Wikipedia.

The lack of a Block policy (policy that is still in a proposal state) allowed to "invent" "policies" "for convenience", including the prohibition to talk "more than the enough" to appleal the block, by removing messages, specially if I'm providing some information, and isnsisting I followed the Antur's advice, wich is systematically ignored. No other project forbids it in that sense; if this ocurrs, eg. in Commons, it will not allow users to defend agains copyright issues.

The problem with that, is that some controversial blocks are discussed, decided and performed by few Bibliotecarios, and some cases require a wide input from the community, and if it ocurrs, the Bibliotecarios have the ultimate answer, rather than attending the wills of the Community.

My second block[edit]

I have been blocked (for second time) due I recreated articles deleted.

The Criteria for speedy deletion says:

G9. Recreación de material borrado. Páginas borradas anteriormente, mediante el borrado rápido o por una consulta de borrado, y recreadas sin solucionar los problemas que llevaron a su eliminación.

The criteria says clearly the pages recreated without solving the problems that caused their deletion. So, I've recreated them, solving the problems and following the advice from Antur. Despiste of that, Taichi decided to:

  • Close the restoration request as not done
  • Block me for disruption.
  • Deleting several pages of Superactinides and merging into the main article, without asking the community (eg. by a Deletion request).

I have recreated those articles in good faith. So, does Taichi deleted-then-redirected those articles in good faith? I have my doubts.

Untriunio history

  • 05:26 10 abr 2020 Taichi creó la página Untriunio (Redirigir hacia Superactínido usando monobook-suite)
  • 05:22 10 abr 2020 Taichi discusión contribs. borró la página Untriunio (https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tabl%C3%B3n_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/Solicitudes_de_restauraci%C3%B3n/Actual&diff=125052342&oldid=125052042)
  • 20:36 8 mar 2020 Antur discusión contribs. borró la página Untriunio ('''G9''': El artículo fue revisado y <span class="plainlinks">[//es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial%3ARegistro&type=delete&user=&page=Untriunio borrado con anterioridad]</span> y este aún no cumple con los criterios mínimos para permanecer en Wikipedia.)
  • 19:41 8 mar 2020 90.165.36.214 discusión creó la página Untriunio (he creado el articulo del untriunio)
  • 01:51 15 ene 2020 Edslov discusión contribs. borró la página Untriunio (Recreación de material borrado)
  • 17:09 14 ene 2020 93.176.153.181 discusión creó la página Untriunio (Página creada con «{{Ficha de elemento químico|nombre=Untriunio|cond_térmica=|E_vaporización=|T_crítica=|P_crítica=|volumen_molar=|presión_vapor=|velocidad=|electronegatividad=|calor_es…») Etiqueta: Edición visual
  • 11:06 11 ene 2020 Geom discusión contribs. borró la página Untriunio (Bulo, fraude)
  • 00:54 11 ene 2020 Omarcianito random discusión contribs. creó la página Untriunio (le he echo una página a un elemento que no tenía una) Etiquetas: Edición visual sin categorizar Sin referencias
  • 15:57 29 jun 2019 Marcelo discusión contribs. borró la página Untriunio (Infraesbozo: '''A2''': La página de 216 bytes contiene información tan reducida que no alcanza a tratarse como un artículo enciclopédico.)
  • 13:24 29 jun 2019 83.52.232.199 discusión creó la página Untriunio (Untriunio:nombre temporal del elemento químico 131.)
In summary
  • The article has been created by 83.52.232.199
  • Laterly, it has been first deleted by Marcelo as infraesbozo ('substub'): was the article actually a valid stub? I can't remember.
  • Afterward, it has been recreated by 93.176.153.181 with even a infobox: the user tried to solve the issues that caused the first deletion.
  • It has been deleted again, now by Geom, under the speedy deletion rationale «G5. Bulos, fraudes.» (Hoax), where clearly is not.
  • Then, the article has been recreated again by 90.165.36.214
  • and then, Antur deleted again the article under the rationale «G9. Recreación de material borrado.» «(G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion», assuming the recreated article is a hoax.
  • After creating an Undeletion request and after following the Antur's advice, I recreated this and other articles part of the w:en:Superactinides (I don't know why it does not appear in the logs)
  • Taichi resolves the Udel as don't restore, then, blocking me as disruption. Then, Taichi, unilatery, deleted every article about the Superactinides and making redirections to Superactínido.

The problem here is not the Taichi's action by itself, but the bias he acted, as he prefferred to block me, but acting very differently with other users, for example, with User:Ontzak (former Bibliotecario), who acted even worse, and where Taichi preferred to claim Ontzak incurred in Deletionism, while he (Taichi) incurred in deletionism while deleting the articles I (re)created. Is this not bias?

Unlike the first block performed by Marcelo (wich was totally correct), the block performded by Taichi laks of impartiality, and ignores the advice from Antur for recreating them.

Mar del Sur[edit]

One of the most busiest cases is Mar del Sur, where even her User page has been deleted by an involved user. This causes some users abandone the project.

In her latest unblock request, Furti says:

Lamento tener que comunicarte que tu desbloqueo no es posible ahora mismo por las mismas razones por las que no fue posible cuando presentaste tu última solicitud: **ni hay consenso para ello** ni **ha transcurrido el tiempo suficiente para que esta situación cambie y pueda reexaminarse con otro espíritu**.

So, I see two issues there:

  • «No concensus», wich is very hard if that is decided only by a few users (the Bibliotecarios) rather than a wide part of the community, who claims, (including me), she should be unblocked due the abuses they allegued.

And reading the report at the Tablón, I see the toxicity several users see on the community, even Bibliotecarios, where I see efforts to remove those "garbage" for their way rather than protecting the project for vandalism.

So...[edit]

What do you thing? Are the lacks of those policies really an issue? I want wider input from the communities from other projects. Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment from Fixertool[edit]

Reminder: Commons.--Fixertool (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Fixertool, but keep in mind
  • Even my latest block at Commons was for harassment, some users believe I may be unlocked as more than one year passed since, and I still contributed in other projects (despiste the block at the Spanish Wikipedia).
  • The latest block at Commons has been performed by Daphne Lantier, sockpuppet of the globally banned INeverCry. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the last one was @Taivo:, and it was not just a block. It's a definitive one. The reasons are the same for both es:wp and Commons: negative behavior, disruptive actions, stalking, etc. There wasn't the slightest admin abuse. No more to say.--Fixertool (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A ver Fixertool, eres un usuario muy experimentado, por lo que no me parece bien que estés desviando la atención del propósito de este hilo (buscar opiniones sobre las malas prácticas en Wikipedia en español producto de la falta de políticas esenciales y un Comité de resolución de conflictos), con mi bloqueo en Commons. Además, lo de Commons es un bloqueo indefinido, no definitivo, y no, Taivo no fue quien me bloqueó, sino el que modificó el último bloqueo (permitir editar mi página de discusion, para poder apelar). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my error. @Taivo: just unblocked your user page for another unblock request. But the first time at es:wp you weren't blocked by Marcelo, as you've said here. You were blocked by Laura Fiorucci. (I understand it could be just another involuntary mistake, as mine. But it's important to clarify it).
The most important issue to consider is not who was the one to block your user. The real reason is why you were blocked, and why you are using meta to cast doubts about mismanagement or abuse on other projects. The reason of the problems involving your user is always the same, since the first of several blocks at Commons in 2015: "Repeated uncivil behaviour".
At this point, I find important to copy the resolution by @Elcobbola: declining at Commons your last unblock request, titled "unblock for a start over" (date: 6 january 2020), less than five months ago. Please, note mention to es:wp, and the important last reminder: "This is not a venue...".

As was previously explained, our criteria are an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue. This request does not provide (or even attempt to provide) these and, yet again, continues to ignore specific, non-rhetorical questions to assess against those criteria, which is telling. Also telling, for example, is your recent (September 2019) block on a sister project for "disruptive attitude" ("actitud disruptiva") for three months (!!!). This indeed suggests you in fact do not understand the issue, do not intend to remedy the issue, or both. This is not a venue to repeat non-responsive requests until you get the answer you want and continuing to do so may result in the loss of your ability to edit your talk page.

6 January 2020. Enough said. Thanks.--Fixertool (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixertool, insisto, este hilo no es para hablar sobre mi bloqueo, sino del problema mayor que he (y varios más) he identificado. Ya he asumido mis fallas, por lo que no es necesario restregarme en la cara dichas fallas. Por favor, eres un usuario veterano como para caer en este argunentum ad hominem, sacando a relucir solo lo negativo de mi historial como wikipedista. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are using Meta "to repeat non-responsive requests until you get the answer you want", as established before at Commons, and as you already did at es:wp, too. Now at Meta, the same pattern.

Read again words by Commons Admin Elcobbola, and especially read the words by es:wp Admin Durero declining your last unblock request at es:wp (And he's another es:wp Admin, not the one who blocked you for the last time). He was very clear few days ago, 4 May 2020: "evidente sabotaje" (that means clear disruptive behaviour). Both answers declining your unblock requests are the same kind of answer. Because the problem is the same, and clearly they are not "abusive admin actions". Those are proper answers to this kind of behaviour.

So please, stop using Meta to "get the answer you want", as you've already done at es:wp and Commons. Remember Failure or refusal to "get the point", as you were already told.

This is my final intervention.--Fixertool (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SRuizR[edit]

There are not any abusive administrative actions in the spanish Wikipedia. Our librarians (sysops) have made every block correctly. Mar del Sur's indefinite block has had a lot of controversy but there is no abusive action here, there were violations of our policies from this user, it was her 3rd indefinite block and we can't make exeptions for users just because they're good editors because this would not be neutral, Wikipedia follows etiquette rules no exceptions. About Amitie 10g's block, he insisted in recreating a deleted article without fixing the issue Wrong statement --SRuizR ¡Pure life! 17:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (UTC) and that's disruption even if good faith is assumed because you can't do that. Yes, there is clearly a lack of blocking policy and that is an issue that has to be fixed and I'll make an effort to fix it but I don't think we can solve that here. The spanish Wikipedia does not have an arbitration comitee because the spanish Wikipedia community has opposed to having it because it had one before but it failed, so not much can be done in that part. Regards.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 02:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SRuizR, if you're not able to tell the full story, please be more careful when making your opinions, specially if you're a little more than a year in Wikipedia.
Regarding «Mar del Sur's indefinite block has had a lot of controversy but there is no abusive action here», the abuse is not the block performing by itself, but the fact that everything is decided by a few bibliotecarios rather than a wider part of the community (that is required for controversial cases and theasons why the AbrCom exists).
And regarding my block, «he insisted in recreating a deleted article without fixing the issue», the issue has been fixed by adding the needed references. And talking about telling the full story, you must first see the article logs (see above). Conlusion: There was abuse, bordering the jerkiness, by deleting the article repetidely by invalid reasons, by blocking me for disruption just for "winning a game" instead of making a better encyclopedia, and acussing me for disruption, where Taichi also incurred in it by deleting several articles and making redirections, without asking the community. This is not a «This is not a venue to repeat non-responsive requests until you get the answer you want» as Fixertool claimed, but an attemp to tell the full story of recent events I identifed as abusive, adn trust me, I'm not the only who believe it. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I said without fixing the issue, I meant: w:es:WP:CRISTAL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I didn't tell the full story because that's not my work here, I just say what I have to say. The action is performed by a few librarians and that's how we work here in eswiki and it has worked good.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 15:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I made a mistake saying without fixing the problem, I was going to put something else but I didn't know how to say it. There was an undelete request without response yet and the article was recreated without approval from librarians, you can't recreate something that was deleted without approval before even with good faith. Anyways, we're not talking about your block here. The spanish Wikipedia community has prefered to give this cases to librarians and not much can be done in that case and it has been working, to change it, we need the consent of the spanish Wikipedia community.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 17:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to mention those articles has been deleted for invalid reasons (Hoax). Common sense is also a policy, so, no approval is required to recreate those articles if the issues are solved, and no, the disruption is not recreating those articles, but deleting them without asking the Community. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Now, deleting articles without asking the community is not disruption, librarians have permission to do it, which has been granted by 70% or more of the spanish Wikipedia community. Now, the thing of your block is another subject and I'm not going to intervene more on it because I'd have to see the revision (that's why librarians are the ones who decide), so if someone has to say something else there, it'd have to be a spanish Wikipedia librarian. So far I don't have anything else to say.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 18:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • «Now, deleting articles without asking the community is not disruption», No, speedily deleting content under an invalid rationale, is disruptive. The deletion policy and the Criteria for speedy deletion are quite clear. «Recreation of a page» by itself is not a valid reason for deletion; another valid reason should be provided. In the caso of Untriunio and Untribio, almost all the biblios failed to provide a valid reason for deletion.
  • «librarians have permission to do it, which has been granted by 70% or more of the spanish Wikipedia community» Wrong. Sysops don't have "special" permissions granted, but special tools to make some actions under the current policies; they are not exempt from complying with them, and they are required to don't abuse with those tools.
  • «that's why librarians are the ones who decide» This is why me and several others are demanding the AbrCom.
Common sense is the first policy that everyone should comply. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, Sysops don't have special permissions granted by the policies but the whole community manage the sysop policies how they're not written and treat them as gods so for them voting them is giving them power, and yes, it is a problem. Yes, an ArbCom would be useful and I want it too, but the rest of the community does not agree, I've come with an idea but I don't know if it may be admitted. When I said deleting articles without..(etc) I meant with a valid rationale (did not mean that specific case). I can't know much about that specific case so some librarian would have to say something about it.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 22:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After reflecting a little, maybe I could say Amitie's block could have been wrong. He says to have recreated the articles in good faith and yes, common sense is also a policy. Anyway, I don't believe it as an abusive action because abusive and wrong are different things and being wrong is something that everyone can face. Anyway, as I said, I can't know much about that specific case so a statement from a librarian would be more accurate. This will probably be my last intervention.--SRuizR ¡Pure life! 01:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Herbythyme[edit]

Simply from the perspective of Meta and RfCs - you cannot ask for comments and then remove ones you don't like. That is not constructive behaviour. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you're right, but personal attacks and ad hominem is far beyond a comment "I don't like" (specially if those comments come from a very experienced user). This thread is exactly about that, exposing the issues that caused a toxic ambient in Wikimedia projects (namely, the Spanish Wikipedia). I'm talking at the "Estrategia Wikimedia" Telegram channel, and some users agree with that, so... --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Lack_of_block_policy_and_arbitration_committee_at_the_Spanish_Wikipedia_and_(abusive)_administrative_actions&oldid=20369776"