Requests for comment/Long abuse on

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Per Millennium Bug, this RFC has been resolved, however this RFC can be reopened at anytime if matters arise again. --Znotch190711 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from Meta:Requests for comment/Long abuse on, of which the discussion in that page was closed as invalid since it does not concern Meta.

Statement of the issue[edit]

The account JMGM (talk · contribs), who mostly edits on, comes with a long and insistent abuse in the same space and lately is transferring to other projects like and commons.

For example, record the number of times the account has been locked out, as well as the reasons:

  • August 30, 2009 - two days by Lechatjaune (talk · contribs) - Using Wikipedia to drive offenses (Uso da Wikipedia para dirigir ofensas)
  • October 19, 2015 - twelve hours by Érico (talk · contribs) - Violation of interaction ban imposed as an alternative to a public space abuse block request (Violação da proibição de interação, imposta como medida alternativa a um pedido de bloqueio por abuso de espaço público)
  • January 2, 2016 - three days by Érico - Public space abuse (repeat offender / see more information) (Abuso de espaço público (reincidente / ver mais informações))
  • June 1, 2016 - three days by JMagalhães (talk · contribs) - Offenses to third parties using Wikipedia pages: 45762803 + repeat offender (Ofensas a terceiros usando páginas da Wikipédia: 45762803 + reincidente)
  • September 28, 2016 - three days by Conde Edmond Dantès (talk · contribs) - Offenses to third parties using Wikipedia pages link (Ofensas a terceiros usando páginas da Wikipédia: )
    • On the same day, user Nakinn (talk · contribs) increased the period to one week - progression
  • January 4, 2018 - one week by Conde Edmond Dantès - Offenses to third parties using Wikipedia pages: + Public space abuse + Harassment and threats (Ofensas a terceiros usando páginas da Wikipédia: + Abuso de espaço público + assédio e ameaças)
  • February 5, 2018 - one week by Stuckkey (talk · contribs) - Abusive Behavior: Misuse of talk pages for personal attacks, personal harassment of users. (Comportamento abusivo: Uso indevido das páginas de discussão para ataques pessoais, perseguição pessoal de usuários.)
  • June 27, 2018 - two weeks by EVinente (talk · contribs) - Abuse of public space: Abuse of Wikipedia to prove a point (Abuso de espaço público: Abuso da Wikipédia para provar um ponto de vista)
  • July 28, 2018 - three weeks by Stuckkey - Abusive Behavior: Wikipedia Abuse to Provide a Viewpoint - Progressive Blocking (Comportamento abusivo: Abuso da Wikipédia para provar um ponto de vista - Bloqueio progressivo)
  • August 5, 2018 - Érico resetting previous lock parameters (removing the right to edit the talk page)
  • May 18, 2019 - one day by Millennium bug (talk · contribs) - Abusive behavior (Comportamento abusivo)
  • June 29, 2019 - one day by Tuga1143 - Refusal to abide by policies: Due to personal attacks and widespread distrust, was already under observation, but now has to be blocked after Block Request (Recusa em acatar políticas: Por ataques pessoais e disseminação de desconfiança, já estava em observação, contudo agora teve de ser bloqueada após Pedido de Bloqueio)
  • July 22, 2019 - one week by Tuga1143 - Wikipedia abuse to prove a point: For continuing to abuse to prove a point, ignoring the recommendations of the latest DBs and aggravating off-wiki offenses (Abuso da Wikipédia para provar um ponto de vista: Por continuar a abusar para provar um ponto de vista, ignorando as recomendações das últimas DBs e com a agravante das ofensas off-wiki)

In summary, the user in question is involved in a number of conflicts, in particular by title grammar, with several other users. It is not enough to argue, the user offends, attacks, accuses and spreads distrust against those involved in the conflict with her.

You can see from the lock log of the same show that the locks she suffered were made by several administrators (8). Since the user has recently been blocked from creating articles and editing in the Wikipedia domain! In July, I requested that it be filtered on the Wikipedia domain and collected dozens of comments from her that accuse third parties who have an opinion contrary to hers. Please note that comments are dated from 2015 to 2019.

In addition to all abuse on the Lusophone Wikipedia, she has been looking for other projects to "extend" her conflict with other users. In May, she was warned by user xxx for loading screen prints from Wikipedia, in which she tries to prove that certain users are wrong (see here and here). Also, has been trying to change the same spelling in Lusophone and Anglophone


I consider the last attempt to rename the titles to two wikis a serious misconduct, given the full history of blocking the user and the other penalties suffered on The user strongly argues that article titles need to maintain the spellings of their original languages or English spellings, opposing transliterations based on lexiographic sources!

As you try to argue, you have English sources to prove that the title uses the particular grammar, but the discussion falls on transliterating the titles into Portuguese! English fonts are not strong enough to oppose transliteration. In addition, abuse of offenses and spread of distrust...

Sincerely, I made several proposals to prevent the user from continuing such a conflict, but she continues even after the imposition of these sanctions!

I asked a member of the Ombudsman commission for help and he recommended that I open this request. I would like the case to be debated by a community free from the Lusophone environment to decide on any recommendation (ban on interaction, ban on renaming in all Wikimedia projects, etc.) to stop this inappropriate behavior.

Edmond Dantès d'un message? 05:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This matter was brought to my attention here, on Facebook, this despite lengthy discussions on not debating these issues off-wiki, on Facebook or elsewhere. What the user has in the past successfully don it to rally disaffected editors who have mostly abandoned the problem to parachute in and come and muddle the waters and when necessary intercede in her favour. The user also uses this Facebook page to level insults at other editors and at Wikipedia itself. Editor has a history agreeing to community decisions or promising to stop doing something, then later going back on her word, even where this involves a community decision taken after long discussion and finally reaching consensus. This applies both to newly created work as well as going back to older articles and changing things back to the way she likes/ wants them. On one occasion she wrote to an editor who was implementing a community decision that the moment she found some time she would revert all his work. In her constant edit-warring, user also has a habit of ridiculing top reference dictionaries as not reliable because they want to impose their own truth. In the process, she manages to make people waste hours rehashing the same arguments ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Not sure about proceedings on this forum and at what stage what evidence is required, so I’ll hold off on providing any such for now, but when required I have the necessary diffs to back up my statements and any other possible questions that anyone might want to pose. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To exemplify the problem, see this discussion. The user disagreed with the title in 2011. So she started the topic to discuss and for four years no users agreed with her. Even so, she moved the title of the article to the one she defended. To recap, in four years no one agreed with her with the title and yet she moved it! After being reversed, she insists until June 2019 on the change!

The problem of Facebook is constant, uses social pages to offend users who disagree with it (something recurring in the wiki itself). As well as exposing only her opinions. These actions result in problems such as inactive publishers being "required" to interfere without having full knowledge of the case.

This post caused a stateless user to deny the user's block request. The user who denied neither status to answer the request had and, to make matters worse, was inactive.

These two examples can be seen in lots of Lusophone Wikipedia, this is an obvious case of insistence and refusal. Recently, she was prevented from editing in the Wikipedia domain by community decision, but would rather ignore the consensus of various administrators (here and here). Edmond Dantès d'un message? 11:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling all the administrators who opined in the last discussion of the case on @Fabiojrsouza, JMagalhães, Tuga1143, Leefeni de Karik, Millennium bug, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira, Jbribeiro1, HVL, Skartaris, Vanthorn, DARIO SEVERI, and Renato de carvalho ferreira:.

As you know, the user was filtered for a year from the Wikipedia domain in July. However, in less than a month it has been blocked, tried to bypass the filter twice (1 e [1]), spread distrust and off-wiki offenses.

In short, her behavior has not changed at all even receiving a sanction that I find heavy. Therefore, I would like to use this space for a definitive resolution: extend the user's current sanction indefinitely (filter it indefinitely). Request a ban on user interaction with users that it conflicts, especially Renato and JMagalhães (target of her in 2015) and zero tolerance for cross wiki abuse, as was done in Commons. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 21:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Question: Conde Edmond Dantès: Is there any cross-wiki activity by the user? Millennium bug (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support Experienced users should be the first to watch over the good environment on Wikipedia and as such should observe community decisions. This is not the case! I completely agree with the proposer's suggestion! Skartaris (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Support I believe that coexistence on Wikipedia generates the need to know when to continue in an attitude and when to withdraw.

Of course, the user has the right to voice her opinion and try to convince the community that her opinions are sufficiently grounded to be implemented.

However, to the extent that the community rejects this view and, even at an insistence, continues to reject the arguments, it is up to the user to accept the situation by allowing such a matter to be addressed at another time.

The insistence on something that has already been decided ends up damaging by generating the concentration of efforts on something that has already been decided.

For these reasons, the attitude of the user is counterproductive to the community and to herself who engages in such endless discussions while she might be performing other tasks.

Nevertheless, the Lusophone community gave the user many opportunities (opting for filters instead of blocks). However, it seems to be in vain.

I hope that the measures that are now pleaded serve to allow the user to change her performance.

Anyway (apologizing for English, as I do not speak such a language - I have to use a translator), I agree with the measures requested.Fabiojrsouza (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbribeiro1 and Millennium bug: This requirement has no relation to cross-wiki abuse and can address local situations.

Moreover, it is obvious that the Lusophone community has understood and agrees that there is a longstanding conflict between the user in question and others. However, what differentiates the case is that the user uses offenses and accusations (which can be very well seen in the recent blockade discussion (DB/8)

So, Jose, understands this discussion as my last attempt to brake this behavior without the user being blocked. After that, and if the behavior persists, I will look no further for intermediate sanctions. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 05:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

if there isn't cross-wiki activity, there's nothing to discuss here. You must propose whatever you want among our mates in our community. Millennium bug (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Millennium bug:, I have one question for you: if the user goes to and starts talking about sysops, talking about Conde and Renato, starts doing some changes on some articles to prove her point at, would that be considered some kind of cross-wiki? Tuga1143 (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly yes! Millennium bug (talk) 12:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabiojrsouza, JMagalhães, Tuga1143, Leefeni de Karik, Millennium bug, Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira, Jbribeiro1, HVL, Skartaris, Vanthorn, DARIO SEVERI, and Renato de carvalho ferreira: To all who participated on the previous discussion, I would like to say that I looked at JMGM’s block log, and noticed that this user really has a tendency to edit disruptively. Though this isn’t a proposal by proposal RFC, this is a really big issue. Millbug’s mention is right, but I would not like to switch this to cross-wiki edits. Znotch190711 (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Znotch190711:, I know that and I know this user since 2010. The problem, though, is twofold. For one side, she has an ardent group of supporters that blocked any attempts in the past to ban or filter her out ("Mitch McConnell style") in the past. Moreover, ptwiki is very provincial and previous "foreign" interventions left a bad memory to the community. I really do not know how to solve this without a heavy hand.... José Luiz talk 12:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "provincial" wiki?? Millennium bug (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Znotch190711: If we won't switch to cross-wiki and it's not RFC business, what are we discussing? The matter is being held locally and ther is an active filter. If someone wants to extend the sanction why not to discuss this locally? After all, what's at stake here?? Millennium bug (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Millennium bug and Jbribeiro1: Well, this RfC is not really multiple users causing the start of this RfC, but rather one user. Jose Luiz's mention is completely right, two sides are making different opinions, and if cross-wiki edits concerns more than the subject of this RfC, a global ban request might be in place. --Znotch190711 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Znotch190711: Should I remember that there was an abuse on Commons? I admit that the conflict occurs between the account and others for different opinions, but the destabilizing behavior occurs at the insistence and refusal of the user: sometimes for offending or making accusations, sometimes for insisting on her point of view even with a massive refusal of the community.
An example is this: in the link, the user's proposal to consider external links as a reference was unanimously rejected! Even so, she kept insisting on her point of view on the same page. Months later, she incorrectly replaced the "External Links" section for "references" - obvious abuse to prove the point.
In addition, some of this request falls on the other users who support her, who consider her attitude to threaten others as "laudable". I admit that the Lusophone Wikipedia community has no competence to review the case neutrally, constantly refusing any attempt to ban interaction or other measures to try to contain inappropriate behavior: an account that has collected dozens of accusatory comments in the public domain (wikipedia domain, mostly) since 2015, was only filtered more seriously four years later. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She is filtered now. What's the matter that we can't discuss there? Do you want to appeal from a penalty that in your point of view was too light. If so is there such a channel here? I guess not. Millennium bug (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the Portuguese-speaking Wikipedia were able to debate the case, it would not have expected eight blockade discussions and more than 10 blocks. The fact that the user put their "outrages" on Facebook has already caused stateless users to intrude on attempts to stop the behavior.
Now, I never wrote that the penalties are soft, but useless because we are discussing the same thing... It's useless because it needed to be blocked again days after the filter was applied, it's useless because it's still using social networks to offend users, it's useless because it's already tried to get around the filter...
So I wonder what solution you have for the case? Because it has not demonstrated a significant change and it seems that it will continue to conflict with publishers who have offended numerous times. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 21:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my little knowledge about this, but is it possible to punish an editor for off-wiki actions? Millennium bug (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcb: could manifest by what happened in Commons? Edmond Dantès d'un message? 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They uploaded a series of screenshots from PT Wiki, apparently to question the acts of Renato and you. Only one was commented, with this text: "Modificações feitas em edições por perseguição de editor.". I deleted the screenshots as spam and left the user a warning, which you can still see at their user talk page. So far so good for Commons, as far as I can see no more incidents happened there with this user after this warning from three months ago. Jcb (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: If this is the issue on Commons, is she blocked there? Znotch190711 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Znotch190711: I made the point of just requesting removal of the uploads; however, this act only adds to the others that have been taking place for years on and various other social networks. The point I question is this insistence, which can be transferred to other projects, mainly because the behavior persists in even after the various sanctions suffered. I have reached a point where I have run out of possibilities for lighter sanctions because they do not yield results. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Znotch190711: Why should we have blocked this user? I left them a warning, after which the behaviour did not continue. What would have been the point of blocking them? Blocks are, at least at Commons, not a punishment but a means to protect the project. In principle we first try to talk to a user if there is such an issue. Jcb (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcb: Okay. Thanks for the explanation. However, Conde Edmond Dantès said that JMGM could possibly be banned by Conde Edmond Dantès on She wasn’t blocked on commons, not a global ban. Znotch190711 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Znotch190711: This commons case demonstrates behavior beyond a mere editorial conflict, even using another project to continue the conflict.
Since, I opened this RfC for two reasons: first because I don't think a discussion on the local project is conducive to a resolution without partial interference, mainly because JMGM uses social networks to offend users who have conflict, resulting in a poor view of the publishers. . In other words, attacking credibility. As a result, I ended up being guided by a trusted Ombudsman commission member. If you say that this is not a case for RfC here, I will not regret and insist that I will take the case to to waste time. Edmond Dantès d'un message? 05:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you ppl are doing here writing in English about stuff, but I surely agree with jbribeiro1: "I cannot remember a single case where international interference was a good thing for our local conflicts". Let alone for such trifles...--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wise comment. Millennium bug (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Millennium bug: Guys, this RFC is becoming stale. What should we do to keep this RFC running? If this issue has been resolved, I will closed this RFC as resolved. --Znotch190711 (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support closing. Millennium bug (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stale and pointless, Support Support closing.--- Darwin Ahoy! 15:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]