Requests for comment/Monopolizing behaviour of a sysop on nl-wikiquote
The text below has been moved from Steward requests/Miscellaneous
About a month ago, I put this request on Meta to have user:Whaledad's rights as a sysop on wikiquote-nl terminated. One of the reasons was that he had allowed a sockpuppet (Opruimer) of this globally locked user to keep on editing on that project. On the other hand, he has blocked me indefinitely because of a conflict on the project (with the sockpuppet being involved as well) in which he was also directly involved himself (discussion about that can be found for example here and here. Here I commented on it myself). My request of last month here on Meta was not granted. However, several users acknowledged that Whaledad's behaviour was indeed very controversial (e.g. user:Natuur12, user:Ajraddatz).
Yesterday, working under and IP address, I undid again some edits in the main space of nl-wikiquote (see here). The edits which I reverted were mainly nominations for deletion which had been done earlier by the sockpuppet named above (see here) after which it was Whaledad who put them back (see some edit histories such as this, this and this one). These nominations can be considered both arbitrary (because some rules are applied for allowing a quote which only a few users have more or less invented, and which are way different from the criteria used on other wikiquote versions) and "illegally" done because as such they were a form of block evasion by the sock puppet Opruimer.
In my view, this behaviour of a sysop is not only undecent in several respects but also an outstanding example of both selective blocking and monopolizing of a local Wikiproject where there are practically no other active contributors at the moment. Therefore it can in some way be seen as misusing of the whole existing situation on that project. Furthermore, no other sysop on nl-wikiquote was involved either in establishing the rules for the blocking/unblocking policy (see here, which is actually just a copy from the same page on nl-wikipedia). This makes it actually only a part of Whaledad's own policy, laid down merely by himself.
If stewards here still do not think there is enough reason to have Whaledad's rights as a sysop on nl-wikiquote terminated, could somebody at least reconsider the justification of the block of indefinite duration he gave me? If I wanted to get unblocked on Wikiquote, I should, given the current policy, be forced to use this. However, I refuse to do so since I consider it a "part of the game", for the reasons just mentioned De Wikischim (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Another update on this whole issue: in the past week,Whaledad has again consciously admitted some of Graaf Statler's IP sock puppets. See also this remark which makes clear he is well aware of the fact that this is Graaf Statler. Some months ago I submitted here on Meta this request to have Whaledad's adminsitration rights on nl-wikiquote removed. Could a steward consider one more time if Whaledad's rights as a sysop on nl-wikiquote can be terminated because of unfair/inconsistent policy, as well as the undeserved block he gave me last year, so I can again contribute to nl-wikiquote in a normal way? De Wikischim (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to note that at the time De Wikischim wrote this he was wrong 👎🏻 on many grounds, though Graaf Statler has been Foundation banned now he wasn't banned from participating in Wikimedia projects at the time of this Request for Comment, global locks aren’t synonymous with global bans and shouldn’t be treated as such, however with Graaf Statler (prior to his Foundation ban) it was enforced as such.
- And even though some local admins that don’t understand policy enforce these as if they were global bans, the page List of globally banned users clearly states “This list does not include accounts that have been globally locked on charges of cross wiki disruption, spamming, or vandalism. Such users are not globally banned, per se. If they create new accounts and are not disruptive with those accounts, they will not be locked again merely because it is discovered that they were previously globally locked.” Which basically means that many Stewards are locking non-disruptive non-banned users not because of policy but because they see themselves as judge and jury in global banning. Global locks are technical and the global lock page also states that It's a temporary measure until global blocks of named accounts are created (where the user can locally request an unblock) however for around 10 (ten) years this feature hasn't been enabled and global locks are (incorrectly and against policy) enforced as de facto global bans. Whaledad’s actions en weren't against any policies (at the time), it’s funny how Stewards are elected because of their supposed knowledge of policies while willfully ignore those policies in this case, I do not condone any of Graaf Statler’s actions if they are harmful, but you can’t “circumvent” a global lock 🔒 where you aren’t locally blocked, also note that global locks don’t override local consensus while global bans and Foundation bans do. However if Graaf Statler at the time was being disruptive then a global lock 🔒 wouldn't been in place as it would still constitute an ongoing pattern of abuse but by official policy he would've been welcome (at the time, not now) to start contributing elsewhere as long as he wasn't evading any local sanctions.