Requests for comment/Wiki mobbing on de.wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. Local matter, user got blocked for edit warring (for a day), resorted to abuse of open proxies and then filed this RfC where they failed to obtain any support. There is clear consensus that the user's action were not appropriate and the matter is anyway stale. The user is advised to pursue local dispute resolution and policy-changing avenues, especially given their block was for a day only. Snowolf How can I help? 13:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


I hate having to do this, but I have no choice.

There's been a big campaign at German Wikipedia at mobbing, stalking and hounding in an attempt to get me to leave, including personal attacks which are backed by the local admins.

Let's start over from the beginning:

This is obviously a campaign set out to get rid of me, and is something which harms the reputation of Wikipedia and must be stopped at the first opportunity. Especially the clique which likes to personally attack me must stop immediately - this cannot continue. -- Liliana 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And to think, showing this much disrespect against a global sysop, of all people - this shows that there's something seriously wrong in there!

And just now, there's been a new campaign to get rid of all articles I ever created: [3]. Why doesn't anyone do anything against this? -- Liliana 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And now look at this: User:Julius1990/Requests for comment/Remove Global Sysop Rights from User:Liliana-60. This has to be a conspiracy against me. That can't be good faith. -- Liliana 20:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Hello Liliana! I have read through the whole vote-pages, and I have read the vandalism pages. You are totally right here. I bet all the people who have attacked you here so far and again only with personal attacks have relations to the initiators of that ridiculous de-Wikicup. Just like you said: Offensive attacks, distortions of your voting-page, stalking. Stalking is a severly punished charge in the USA, so it's a major fault that the Wikimedia-Foundation allows it, doesn't stop it, doesn't stop the derogatory remarks on this page here and on other pages, and doesn't take actions to prevent it in the future.

Reading that you are a Global Sysop I assume that might in fact be the real reason they are attacking you so harshly.

It's the German wikipeida gang. And they want the money - nothing more, nothing less. Winning by making ridiculous many and ridiculous unimportant edits/stubs, that's what they are out for.

Just to make it absolutly clear to everyone reading my comment here: I have absolutly no relation to anyone involved in this. I came across this today by chance.

Cheers up! And always remember: Overall Wikipedia is a commercial business of Mr Wales. :P

Greetings DH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.204.139.144 (talk)


  • Not really sure why this is being brought up on meta, quite honestly. I can understand why they would block you for repeatedly reverting reverts by many other users there, especially when that comment was on the project's talk page and not your own. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It's brought up here for two reasons: 1. local dispute resolution is very obviously impossible while blocked, 2. anything I've tried in that direction locally just led to more mobbing and insults. It's unworkable. -- Liliana 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, my dear, you started a poll out of inadequate reasons with out any adequate reason. I would favour to ignore your silly tries to anoy people just for nothing. But somehow, people seem to be annoyed. --62.143.248.45 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please look for a new hobby. Thanks, --Capaci34 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thats the way German users are editing at the moment. No substance but really eloquent, Capaci34...--Angel54 5 (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC
    • I am not going to talk to forever blocked users in de:WP. You should find another hobby as well. --Capaci34 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Edit wars by Liliana. Articles without any sources whatsoever. Criticism of this behavio(u)r is regarded as mobbing and insults. And then she circumnavigates a temporary block with open proxies. What else is there to say? --Gereon K. (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • First: I have never participated at any WikiCup, and I know de.wikipedia pretty well. We have, like any Wikipedia, a lot of quality problems, but none of them is a result of the WikiCup. On the contrary, the articles created there are of an overall very good quality as far as I can say. I look at a lot of new articles (for authority control, categories etc.), but the ones from the WikiCup participants never stood out in a bad way, on the contrary. Your deletion request (and now the "Meinungsbild" vote) seems to me a deliberate attempt to annoy certain people, I don't know who and I don't know why, but I cannot see any reason behind it. If you feel that the WikiCup, Germany way, isn't a good idea, then you're welcome to your opinion, but you didn't (couldn't?) substantiate any of your allegations. And after your attempts to destroy the WikiCup didn't have any positive resonance, you went berserk. No wonder the WikiCup contestants (mostly very estimated and very good article writers, not just some trolls!) want to get rid of you. Such processes should never result in mobbing, but after your approach to your personal problem with the German WikiCup, it seems to me quite natural that you'd face severe opposition. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've tried asking why the rules differ between en and de - and despite agreement by people who are not part of the WikiCup, I just got more insults. -- Liliana 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This user is just telling half the truth. Yes, i said the articles by this user are emberassing. And they are, because this user is trolling against an institution that improves Wikipedia by producing content and improving articles with the reason that it would reduce the quality while this user writes articles that lack of any source, necessary information, are based just on company infos and so and so on. It is simply rediculous when this user doesn't even nearly fit the standard taht this user uses to measure the contest. Then there was multiple editwars by this user. After the block the user used open proxy ... And now this here ... --Julius1990 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Liliana, you've just got a wrong project. This is Meta, not the deWP. -jkb- 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So? This is a dispute that requires comments by outside people. -- Liliana 18:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      No, it does not. First, the policies of English and German Wikipedias are different and they do not have to be difficult - for instance, on de.wp fair use is prohibited, whereas on en.wp it is allowed. Second, please go all the way of dispute resolution in German Wikipedia - including the Arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      This isn't possible while banned. German Arbcom does not accept cases by banned people. -- Liliana 18:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Absolute bullshit. --Capaci34 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        Wait till the block expires or get unblocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        Of course. You have to create a subpage yourself if you want a case - this is impossible while banned. And German Arbcom does not accept cases by email, IRC or any other way which is explicitly stated on the Arbcom page. -- Liliana 19:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Don't use Openproxies as you did, no problem then. --Capaci34 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
          You're completely missing the point. As always. -- Liliana 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
          You're completely missing the rules. As always. --Capaci34 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
          Shut up. -- Liliana 19:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
          LOL. --Capaci34 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You complain about disrepect – well respect has to be earned. --Drahreg01 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit-Warring and block evasion are reasons for (increasing) blocks, no matter how "just" the reasons for doing so are. --PaterMcFly (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • User Liliana is blocked for a day on deWP. And I think, if she goes on the way she went for the last couple of hours, next block will be longer. --Capaci34 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No, certainly no. If a user wants to create an official set of opinions she should not be hampered and what quality their articles have has to be secondary. Its true, WikiCup was an invention from Achim Raschka. To be against sth. he has driven forward, results in mobbing and in blocking this user with arguments as "look for another hobby".--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you understand my message before? No? Your problem, just leave the project, thanks. --Capaci34 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to talk to u either. But u could leave the project also, thanks.--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The matter is not only Liliana's attempt to destroy the Wiki Cup without further discussion. I am no participant of the Wiki Cup, but I have seen that the output of this project is great. The concern, that they would produce too many stubs is really ridiculous, because stubs are not allowed in de:WP in general. There is not even a label to indicate that an article is a stub. So the rules in de:WP have to be different for initiating articles, if somebody likes it or not. The main discussions about those things took place in 2006 and 2007. Of course Liliana may unroll these discussions again. But after her deletion request was rejected, she tried to attack other content of de:WP (even in other projects like Commons). I think she wants to show the German speaking communities, that they are completely wrong with many of their rules. As a global administrator she may think she has the right or even the duty to disturb other communities fundamentally. --213.47.70.155 14:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary[edit]

  • Propose to speedy close as out-of-scope issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What is "in scope" or "out of scope"? Are there any policies here on Meta that describe this? -- Liliana 19:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. This case is completely out-of-scope on Meta-Wiki. --Capaci34 (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Abuse of admin rights for mobbing is very much in scope of meta.wiki. -- Liliana 19:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Now it is relevant to meta, because one user threatens to open a vote on removing global sysop rights (see above). -- Liliana 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not, because if i should open the request, it is because of your violation of guidelines, proxy abuse and so on and if this is suitable behaviour for any sysop no amtter if local or global... it has nothing to do with the "conspiracy" you try to see. Julius1990 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This does seem like an internal de:wp issue, and not appropriate for an RfC here. The only point that might be a cross-project question is how to let people publish requests to be unblocked, in a way that doesn't encourage forum-shopping or endless repetition; but which allows their request to stand for others to see. I believe many wikis have some mechanism for this (even if blocked, here is a public way to post a req for unblocking), and some have only a private one. SJ talk  01:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • There is currently no way to do that that doesn't involve open proxy abuse. While German Wikipedia does mention a second account can be created for requesting an unblock, the autoblock mechanism conveniently prevents that. -- Liliana 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Debate[edit]

  • Noone abused rights. You abused the project. --Capaci34 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're totally the right person to say that. -- Liliana 19:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Liliana, die Zuständigkeit liegt nun mal wirklich nicht bei Meta, so viel weiß ich, da ich hier seit langer Zeit lese; und das SG auf de WP kann von jedem angerufen werden, auch von gesperrten oder "banned". Gruß -jkb- 19:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dann sag mir, wie. Denn wegen der Sperre kann ich keinen Fall eröffnen und E-Mails nehmen die nicht. -- Liliana 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Schon zig mal passiert. Du kontaktierst das SG über die SG-Email-Adresse und sagst, du möchtest eine SG-Anfrage machen; jemand vom SG beantragt deine Entsperrung zu diesem Zweck; dann wirst du Entsperrt (und darfst natürlich nur beim SG editieren). -jkb- 19:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Genau so haben sie mich damals auch gekriegt. Mach genau das nicht, sonst darfst du erstmal gar nicht mehr editieren...--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Wennde wieder editieren darfst, stell deinen Fall auf Benutzer:Grillenwaage oder im Diderot-Club vor. Das ist viel besser.--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
//bk//Schau mal Angel, erst einmal würde ich in dem Vergleich Liliana = Angel eine relativ erhebliche Diskrepanz sehen, und zweitens dachte ich, ich darf hier der Liliana etwas zur Seite stehen, wenn sie fragt. Eröffne doch einen anderen Thread. Gruß -jkb- 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Allerdings kommt er mir vertrauenswürdiger vor, ehrlich gesagt. -- Liliana 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Na ja gut, dann wende dich eben an DCII (wobei mit auch die Zuständigkeit des SG nicht ganz klar ist, ich habe auf deWP das Problem und die Sperre noch gar nicht unterscuht, muss ich zugeben). Gruß -jkb- 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
-jkb- erzähl doch nicht son Unsinn. Du warst Mitglied des SG und müsstest die Verfahrensweisen genauestens kennen. Also jetz reichts, Leuten an die Karre fahren, die nur einen Tag Sperre haben ist einfach nur unredlich...--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Liliana, du solltest das Ganze auf sich beruhen lassen, einen Tag die Finger (und Gedanken) vom WP lassen und dann mit klarem Kopf zurückkommen. Du demontierst dich gerade in atemberaubender Geschwindigkeit selber. Du hast genügend Wiki-Erfahrung, um zu wissen, dass du mit deinem derzeitigen Vorgehen nichts erreichst. Dass SG kannst du in drei Tagen immer noch anrufen, sofern du es dann noch für nötig erachtest, so schnell, dass es innerhalb deiner derzeitigen Sperre noch entscheidet ist das SG sowieso nicht.--Nothere (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
//BK// Hm? Ich rede nicht darüber, dass sie wg. einer 24-h-Sperre zum SG läuft. Der erste Satz von ihr hier oben enthielt aber andere Punkte. Ob das aber nun so ist wie geschildert - das will ich nicht beurteilen. Ansonsten full ack mit Nothere: schlafen gehen und 16 Stunden abwarten. -jkb- 19:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now it is relevant to meta, because one user threatens to open a vote on removing global sysop rights (see above). -- Liliana 20:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not, because if i should open the request, it is because of your violation of guidelines, proxy abuse and so on and if this is suitable behaviour for any sysop no amtter if local or global... it has nothing to do with the "conspiracy" you try to see. Julius1990 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
However, this is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with my global sysop right. I have never done any misconduct in my position as a global sysop, so a request will have no chance of succeeding. -- Liliana 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It would be to question if someone who violates guidelines the way you did, can impose guidelines on others. How could you ever block anyone, when you react against ablock against you by abusing proxys whiel you shoudl know the guidelines about it and so on ... that is no sysop behaviour. But anyway, maybe you will become rational again and step back from the theater you caused with all this and i won't have to put this into process. Julius1990 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What I do on de.wikipedia is my thing. de.wikipedia is not a global sysop wiki, so whatever I do there is irrelevant to my global sysop right. And I refuse to stop until people stop with their personal attacks like this one. -- Liliana 20:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
We will see. What i can tell you: if you won't stop taht behaviour your next blocks on de.wiki will be longer, much longer if not permanently. You are raising conflicts, you don't accept admin action but violate guidelines with using proxis and so on. With this behaviour you have no chance. And that you hand yourself to complete ridiculousness with claiming for article quality while by yourself you wrote articles that doesn't fit even the minimal criteria for an acceptable article. Julius1990 (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What you're saying is lies and deception. And you're not an admin, you won't decide who gets blocked. -- Liliana 20:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but you know by yourself that it will be that way. And teh only one who is lying the whole day again and again is you. But everyone can see that ... Julius1990 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone here can form their own opinion by following the provided difflinks. -- Liliana 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll have this one on my watchlist. If u need my help, let me know...--Angel54 5 (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Typical case of w:de:Wikipedia:Störe Wikipedia nicht, um etwas zu beweisen (English equivalent would be w:en:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). BTW: That the user has global sysop rights isn't of any significance on DE:WP as the project has enough local sysops. --Matthiasb (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked at the document - it was u, matthiasb who tried to disturb that sheet before it even started, u began the EW, although with the help of some others. It is her right to develop a set of opinion for the community as inconvienient the content for some others may be. The sysops should have banned u not her...This again shows how this "community" (on purpose in quotes) works, its a real mess.--Angel54 5 (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Discrimination at work?[edit]

One point which I did not notice until people in the chat brought it up, is that this may be a clear point of gender discrimination. Some people who participated in the mobbing have a track record of editwars and WP:POINT violations against female users only. Many other users, who I shall leave unnamed for privacy reasons, reported similar experiences on German Wikipedia. If WMF indeed wants to close the gender gap, something needs to be done here to stop this. -- Liliana 08:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"This" os you violating WP:POINT? (Asking for "something to be done", because your opinion about the WikiCup did not find the support you wanted it to, and the EditWar got you blocked? ..... --T3rminat0r (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You're one of these persons. -- Liliana 08:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow. That's almost Godwin's law: "I don't want any opinions against me. I just need to say Gender Discrimination and not say any names because of privacy and everyone that replies and whose comment I don't like is one of them." Maybe you should reflect your own behaviour. --84.152.140.231 09:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Privacy is important, because I do not want the other people to face the same insults just because they supported me. It's for their own protection. -- Liliana 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, ok. So now we've gone from accusations wikimobbing to sexism? Perhaps it would be best for Liliana-60 to close this now rather than embarrass herself further. This really isn't going anywhere productive, and I personally see no need for an English, off-wiki discussion about how things are done on dewiki. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Um - blinded by the light? There are several users discussing here who do such things as mobbing especially women...its not going from one accusation to another one but to combine those two. And the obscene non-argumentative behavior is completely obsolete...--Angel54 5 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC) PS.: Some people openly do: [[4]]. And please follow the provided link.--Angel54 5 (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
this supports my notion quite well. -- Liliana 22:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)