Requests for comment/Lombard wikipedia - problems

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. reset all about


See also:

====It needs an "ONU observer" on the LMO wikipedia====

On the LMO wikipedia it should need a kind of "ONU observer", a steward following the "Steward policies" [1] : "Stewards should always be neutral".

Unfortunately the LMO community cannot do this request, because an admin (Fabexplosive, not elected by the community, but by people came from away, as will be detailed in the following) has blocked and/or banned 30 or 40 users, and the 5 or 6 remaining are afraid to be banned too.

All started when the administrators (no one elected by the community, as will be detailed in the following) proposed a regulation [2]. A lot of users voted "NO", stopping the regulation. A user, "Nemo", cancelled the votes of the users with less than 50 edits. Nemo was wrong, because when he voted for the administrators, he had only 25 edits, and his vote was counted! A "request for comment" [3] was opened.

A lot of user protested, so an admin ("Fabexplosive") started to block 10 or 15 user for "sockpuppeting". When were demonstrated that these users were not sockpuppets [4], the admin Fabexplosive started to block other 20 or 30 user for meatpuppeting. A "request for comment" [5] was opened.

The admin Fabexplosive was not elected by te community, but by people come by away. Let we analyze the election of Fabexplosive, as we can see there: [6]. The votes of 17 people on the total of 19 (89% of the votes) were as follow:

  1. Dracoroboter - 2-dec 19:52 - voted at the 15th edit [7]
  2. Xaura - 2-dec 20:02 - voted at the 3rd edit - but 3-rd vote! [8] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted 1 minute after!
  3. Ilario - 2-dec 20:02 - 3rd edit - but 3rd vote! [9] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted 1 minutes after!
  4. Marcok - 2-dec 20:10 - 2nd edit! [10] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:06, 2 dic 2007, voted 4 minutes after!
  5. Paginazero - 2-dec 20:17 - 4th edit [11] - and then disappeared -
  6. Veneziano - 2-dec 21:16 - 5th edit [12] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted 23 minutes after!
  7. Tanarus - 2-dec 21:52 - 2nd edit! [13]
  8. Balabiot - 4-dec 10:11 - 2nd edit! [14] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dic 2007, voted 5 minutes after!
  9. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - 4dec 16:35 - 8-th edit [[15]]
  10. .snoopy. - 4-dec 16:58 - 5th edit [16]
  11. Nemo - 4-dec 17:52 - 25th edit [17] - Nemo is fantastic. In september he destroyed a votation (see [18]) deleting the votes of Users with less than 50 edits. But when Nemo voted Fabexplosive, he had only 25 edits. ------ first edit on 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted 38 minutes after!
  12. Olando - 5-dec 13:40 - 1st edit!!!!!! [19] - and then disappeared - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD!!!
  13. Civvi - 5-dec 14:37 - 5th edit, 3rd vote! [20] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted 03hh:39 minutes after!
  14. Lusum - 5-dec 20:35 - 3rd edit, 2nd vote! [21] - and then disappeared - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted 1 minutes after!
  15. Ripe - 6-dec 20:32 - 3rd edit, 3rd vote!!! [22] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted 1 minutes after!
  16. Loroli - 6-dec 20:34 - 3rd edit, 3rd vote!!! [23] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted 2 minutes after!
  17. giacumìn - 9-dec 10:41 - 19th edit, 7th vote! [24]


Now Fabexplosive is promoting the regulation [25], even if the majority of the users voted "NO", as demonstrated here : [26] .

As already written, on the LMO wikipedia it should need a kind of "ONU observer", a steward following the "Steward policies": "Stewards should always be neutral".

If is possible, it's better if the request is not completed by "Nick1915", that already trust the admin Fabexplosive in all his decisions, even if Fabexplosive has been elected in the detailed way; the same for Paginazero, that voted for Fabexplosive as the 4rt edit on the lmo.wikipedia; the same for steward coming from the same cultural area.

Thank you very much indeed, Yattagat 16:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you specifically envisage steward(s) doing on lmo.wikipedia? BTW, I'm doubtful ONU would send their representatives ;) --FiliP × 22:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps they want a couple stewards to visit and oversee the local voting? (Note that there are two RFCs at meta already for this project). Kylu 19:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


I think it should be enough a steward following the "Steward policies" [27], where is written: "Stewards should always be neutral".
I think that Nick1915 is not neutral, non only because he trusts the admin Fabexplosive in all his decisions (even if Fabexplosive has been elected in the detailed way) but also because he is destroying the comments of the users, as here [28] and [29], and so on.
As written above, the LMO community cannot vote the request of help, because the admin Fabexplosive blocked 30 or 40 (or maybe 50) opposers, the user remaining are 5 or 6, and they are afraid to be blocked too. The admin Fabexplosive blocked the opposers for sockpuppeting (false, as the checkuser demonstrated) and then for meatpuppeting; but he were not elected by the community, he were elected by 17 people that suddenly accessed the LMO wikipedia, immediately or after few minutes voted for Fabexplosive, and then disappeared (as demonstrated).
Who could help the LMO users, blocked only because their voted against a regulation supported by the admin Fabexplosive? Is there anyone that can send an "observer"? Maybe the "stewards community" ? Or the WMF could act as the ONU, and send a "WMF observer" ?
I think that the task of the "observer" (the task of the steward) should be very simple:
  • he should grant to the users the rights to vote "NO" in the votations, without to be banned;
  • he should grant to the users the rights to describe (for example) the way of the Fabexplosive's election, without to be banned "ad infinitum";
  • he should grant to the users the rights that the users have on all the wikipedias, but not on the lmo.wikipedia.
Thank you very much indeed,
Yattagat 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to hear a statement of Fabexplosive to these accusations, why were the users blocked.
The request for comments Kylu mentioned is a desaster, maybe it would be better to place facts constructively (with links to have some background) instead of strange demands,
Lmo.wiki should think about voting requirements to avoid such votings,
best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
just to clarify: fabex was flagged by former local 'crat, at the same time with several other users, who thought (and nobody had contested him) that the votation was right. Meatpuppets were blocked as per result of canvassing on external website (yattagat is one of them), my two actions are rollbacks of a banned user (yattagat) who recreated his account only for trolling. I'm not neutral? No, I'm not neutral with vandals and trolls. Thanks--Nick1915 - all you want 20:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Yattagat does not come across as a vandal or troll. I suggest that you look into his concerns, which seem to be genuine. Guido den Broeder 21:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The evidences are showing that Nick1915 didn't write the truth. Nick rolled back my comments [30] on the lmo.pub (grott=pub) a lot of weeks before I was banned. Some weeks after, I contested the votation of Fabexplosive [31] and so I was banned. Fortunately there are the logs. -- Yattagat 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the request here is. Yes, stewards should be neutral and whatnot, but that's a rather unspecific request. Being neutral isn't an active action. What do you really want us to do? To actively intervene and act like cops or be there as counsels or make ourselves local sysops so we can patrol the situation or checkuser some users so that we can gain more insight or reset all sysops' statuses or try to reason with both/all parties or... Few to none of the listed can really be applied in this situation, but I don't know what to make of this request when in fact I don't know what specifically is requested of us. Just "being on the project" and silently following the charade doesn't seem useful at all. --FiliP × 10:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all for the comments. I will try to list some request:
  1. the problems started with the vote for the regulation [32]. The votes "NO" where cancelled, saying that the voters had less than 50 edits. But we see that Fabexplosive were voted by people with 1,2 or 3 edits. Could someone act as local sysop, patrol the situation and reset the correct poll result ?
  2. Fabexplosive start to ban the users voting "NO", for sockpuppeting. A "checkuser" [33] demonstrated that these users were not sockpuppets. Could someone act as local sysop, and reset the rights to the users banned without any reason ?
  3. then Fabexplosive start to ban all the users that criticized his actions, for meatpuppeting (I was banned because analyze tha Fabexplosive's election way). Could someone act as local sysop, and reset the rights to the users banned without any reason ?
  4. after that, could someone patrol the futures votations/election ?
  5. and then, could someone act as counsels, trying to reason with all the parties?
Thank you very much indeed,
-- Yattagat 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you considered asking all sides of the dispute to create a page at Meta and having the vote here, that way the local checkusers and sysops (that we have plenty of) can monitor the elections? Just a thought. You could also have the other issues at RFC handled in the same way, and hopefully remove all the problems in one stroke. 206.246.160.221 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
LMO: a request for the future

I think that is possible only for a "power user" to follow the suggestion of anonimous (206.246.160.221). As explained, on the lmo.wiki there's a steward that destroy the commments of the registred users (as here [34]) and an administrator that blocks all the attempt to the dialog, as suggested by Millosh (as reported here [35] and [36]).

Now Fabexplosive proposed himself as bureaucrat [37]. For now there are 2 favorable votes and no one "contra", because the users are afraid to be banned. The 2 favorable votes are of:

  • "dracoroboter", that was elected admin [38] in the same time, by the same people and in the same way of Fabexplosive;
  • "remulazz", that was elected admin [39] in the same time, by the same people and in the same way of Fabexplosive.

If Fabexplosive will be bureaucrat, on the lmo.wikipedia there will be a bureaucrat that has been elected administrator in the "strange" way (i.e. not elected by the community, but elected by people that suddenly accessed the lmo.wiki, after few minutes voted fabexplosive and then disappeared) analyzed above, a bureaucrat now elected by 2 users that were elected admins in the same "strange" way.

So I would require that, if Fabexplosive will ask the rights of bureaucrat,

  • the rights of bureaucrat would not be given to Fabexplosive, because he and his voter did too much irregularities till now.

Thank you very much indeed, Yattagat 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked only meatpuppets (such as Yattagat) and sockpuppet of user banned for meatpuppetry, I haven't banned all users of lmo.wiki but only problematic users (ex: open a poll for shut up my meatpuppeter opinion of new users joined for change rules with 0 active edit or only bot edit (registred - bot edit and vote for shut up me, total time 1 day max of activity). Meatpuppet isn't discovered with CU and I'm not a "power user", only a sysop "policy friendly". btw Yattagat tried to talk with me using some sockpuppet (not one but 4 sockpuppet), IMHO isn't correct... All users that voted me isn't meatpuppet because are active on some project (with sysop status or upper), especially Nick1915 helped me for fight trolling on lmo.wiki. --Fabexplosive The archive man 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


LMO: request for the future confirmed (with new evidences)

I'm very grateful to Fabexplosive to have finally accepted the dialog.

  • The evidences are showing another truth. The votation was for the regulation of admin and crats elections [40] (not for shut up someone) ; the votation was for the 1st regulation on the lmo.wikipedia (not for change rules) ; of course Fabexplosive didn't block only users with 1 day of activity. Fortunately (for the second time) there are the logs.
  • Fabexplosive wasn't elected by people of the LMO community. He was elected by people that suddenly in december 2007 accessed the LMO, immediately or after few minutes voted Fabexplosive and then disappeared. According to the main definition of meatpuppet ([41]) , "Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position."; according to the main definition of meatpuppet the voters of Fabexplosive should be considered meatpuppets. Having accepted their votes and continuing to trust them, Fabexplosive should be considered a meatpuppeter.

So I would confirm the request and, if Fabexplosive will ask the rights of bureaucrat, I would require that:

  • the rights of bureaucrat would not be given to Fabexplosive, because he and his voters did too much irregularities till now and because Fabexplosive was elected with a meatpuppeting action.

Thank you very much indeed, Yattagat 21:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

.. moved from SRP, where it was the wrong place for such discussions, it is a requestsite only. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)