Requests for comment/Untrue block reason demage my reputation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Inactive for 2 years. -- 08:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Statement by Juandev[edit]

First of all I am sorry for grammar mistakes, which I can have in the statement. If you’ll find something let me know please on the discussion page.

Recently I found that people believe in untruth statements which are scatter by certain users about me (they know each other and they "fight" for each other so I call them "the clique"). These users include Lenka64/Dubicko, Milda, Tchoř, Danny B., etc. The untruth information is that I have been revealing personal information of one user via WMF sites. I never did that. I already proved that these people are not saying the truth, but admins and stewards tend to believe them. Recently user Milda blocked me on Czech Wiktionary indef with similar untruth statement.

The situation was as follows. About two years I created new article on cs.wikt. It was edited and the example phrase was removed. I noticed that about one year after. I quoted similar phrase from online mass media site. Immediately I was indef ban by user Milda for "revelation of personal information" and my edits were oversited. Moreover Milda said that the phrase I used is 100% correct and it’s about that user (this statement was later hided). So in fact the person, who revealed that user's personal information, was user Milda (agreed later by many others). Unfortunately he was also not saying the truth about the content of the phrase: the phrase was not describing any Wikimedia user.

Later some stewards evaluated my behavior as POINT, the same as many other users. Milda lost his admin rights, but I am still indef blocked there with wrong untrue statement. Other two users of cs.wikt used the same phrase as me in other articles. This phrase was not oversited at that time and these users remain contributing to the project as they weren’t blocked. This is another example of harassment of the clique towards me.

The problem is not only the fact, people believe these lies, but I found they tend not to cooperate with me on projects and won’t help me if asked. So recently I requested cs.wikt admins to change the statement, but they refused. One did, not responeded at all, the second questioned the seriousness of the situation and the third said he don’t want to unblock me and I should stay blocked.--Juandev (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this page now includes the prove, who in fact try to manipulate with facts.
  1. Compare Lenka64's edits during the time. You will find out, she manipulates with here statements. Why is she doing so? Because, she tryes to "create" a prove, she was asked for. But the prove doesnt exist.
  2. Than you will see, there are oversighted revisions. Its because I have requested stewards to oversight her revision and they did that. Lenka randomly picked my edits and said, this is my name, this is my place of residence and Juandev abused that knowledge and bully me. And that is their modus operandi. They pick some of your edits, describe them publicly (e.g. you edit an article London, so they say its their place of residence) and accuse you from revealing PI. Than everything is oversighted and you remain the bad, while their are victims.--Juandev (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Milda[edit]

Statements of Czech Wiktionary admins[edit]

(Actually Danny B., JAn Dudík, Shlomo, Tchoř.)

Comment by Tchoř: I'm not sure I want to spent better part of my wikitime arguing on Juandev's POV, translating relevant parts of Czech discussions with the need to meticulously watch I do not unintentionally leak some of the personal information which are part of the controversy, but being asked, I'll try at least a short overview.

I do not feel being part of some clique, I am just sure that harassing other users using the knowledge of their personal information is something very bad. Any harassing is bad, we are here to create the contents, not to wage silly personal wars. But harassing using personal information, so public disclosure of the misdeed is effectively impossible (it would do more hurt to the victim than to the aggressor) is especially bad. And of course, I find the very situation, when someone invests his talent to devise new cunning ways of harassment, pretty disgusting.

There is some history of privacy violation using IP addresses of open proxies on Czech wikiprojects. Juandev was accused in the past and not proven guilty. But I believe that after participating in the previous long and unpleasant discussions exhausting large part of Czech wikimedian community, he should have really understood, that private knowledge of personal information is not something that should be misused just for personal fun. And no further warning is needed before block in his case. From my point of view, that's the main difference between his situation and the situation of his colleagues participating in the same „fun“.

Juandev is probably right, that only Milda's action brought up the attention triggering the Streissand effect, and some see his action as unwise. But Juandev is the real cause of the problem, his disrespect to the privacy of others, his decision to edit in a special way to harass another user. In this sense, it's probably good when users of other projects are warned.

Juandev: As for Special:Diff/15343041 – don't forget you have already another RfC for that.--Tchoř (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how this statement advocate the block reason? You are just advocating the block itself, not the block reason.--Juandev (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have you sticked to the topic, my answer could have been shorter. When you include lies about me being part of some clique or present the situation in the sense that there had been no just reason why you have been blocked and others have not been, I consider it right to react.
As I have said: You have problem respecting privacy of others. So the core message of the block reason is right and the very reason why you would like it to change – so users of other projects do not consider you tainted – is directly opposite to its most useful impact. Also, it is not desirable to publicly dissect the misdeed in detail, because it could lead to another leak of private information. I consider the privacy of the victim more important than the exact wording of the block reason. --Tchoř (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Just to mention all circumstances: As far as I can see there was also a request on the cs Wikipedia here, with a participation of more users incl. admins and arbcom members; the request for changing the block reason was rejected ("the block reason was OK"). Trully, -jkb- 09:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Can you prove your accusation?--Juandev (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You abused the knowledge of my private data by using them in your edits. Lenka64 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
--Lenka64's oversighted edit--
I really wonder from where comes this strong intent to accuse me from something bad. Now I (and anyone else) knows you full name and place of permanent residence. Because if somone is revealing personal information its you. And the fact I have edited those articles, is not a prove of my guilt.
I am going to ask stewards to thing about possible oversight again! I already did that once on Czech Wikiversity, where you did the same revalation about yourself, trying to accuse me of that revalation. Thats the same modus operandi as Milda's.--Juandev (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.Compare Lenka64's edits during the time. You will find out, she manipulates with here statements. Why is she doing so? Because, she tryes to "create" a prove, she was asked for. But the prove doesnt exist..... you are liar, you abused the knowledge of my private data on cs wiktionary, and as proxy on cs wikiverzity..... --Lenka64 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Lenka, but I had known almost nothing about you. If I wanted to harm you, why I had asked stewards to oversight your revisions?--Juandev (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, if you are accusing me from lieing and from some bad behaviour on cs.wikt and cs.wv - can you prove it?--Juandev (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions[edit]