Requests for comment/cs.wikisource admins

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following request for comments is closed. Inactive RfC, no consensus for action. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


Statement of the issue[edit]

I'm not active on cs.wikisource as much as on other projects (cs.wiktionary, cs.wikipedia) but that doesn't mean I'm entirely inactive there. In 2010-2014 I used to edit as Aeromix. Last summer I edited Wikisource as Oťásek Vocásek and added 22 entries of en:Otto's encyclopedia. I used another account because I felt harrassed by cs.wiktionary admins previously and 2 of them are cs.wikisource admins as well so I wanted to have no problems with them on another site. Since 2015 I edit as Auvajs (previously AuvajsAuvajs, I had the account renamed).

Last week I saw a strange block on cs.wikisource - an admin who himself recently called some editors he's in dispute with trolls gave a week ban to a user who is known to have lots of long time conflicts with and who, after being provoked in a discussion, replied "Don't troll!". After I saw the block I was curious what can be done about it and posted the following message to the local village pump (literal translation):

Admin rules, admin votes[edit]

Are there apart from Wikisource:Admins page any admin rules? And another interest of mine: what was the method of the establishment of today admins? Is there some kind of an election archive? Thanks for an answer. --Auvajs (diskuse) 29. 5. 2015, 04:10 (UTC)

note: the Wikisource:Admins page on cs.ws basically only says what admins (can) do and that it's possible to remove adminship from inactive admins

Well my question was not (yet) answered but I already managed to be banned indef on the site. -jkb- blocked me with this block summary: "subversion of the project, transferring conflicts from project to project, trolling and offensive provocation".

Honestly I see absolutely no justification for this kind of admin behavior - it caused a minor outcry in Czech wiki community (As Vlout mentioned "Because at cs.wikisource edit only few people ("Czech world" is small you know) some users discuss this situation at cs.wikipedia (cs:Wikipedie:Pod lípou (sesterské projekty)#Bezprecedentní blokování správcem -jkb- na Wikizdrojích)". I asked -jkb- to uplift this ban via email on Sunday and recently here on meta on his talk page but he seems not to be ready to accept any responsibility. Several editors asked to uplift this ban on cs.wikisource but nothing happens either. --Auvajs (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems:

  • stupid unreasonable block(s)
  • cs.wikisource admins misuse their adminship

short statement -jkb-[edit]

The user Aeromix/Auvajs promissed in an arbcom case 2014 (see here) to create one account to start a "clean start". In the mean time there are accounts Lexiq and Oťásek Vocásek at lesast, there are some CU investigations at present. Thus I cannot speak about some "old" accounts but about sockpuppets. I don`t care what some other Czech projects think about it, I have a long experience with sock puppets on German WP and I use the usus there (just like English WP, Cmmons etc. - socks should be normally blocked). See please the page Poznámky k blokům/notices to blocks on Czech Wikisource with a short English summary. Thanks. -jkb- 14:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It is not the first time that some users from Czech projects export their problems to other projects and even Meta - only here you coud find some dozens of pages like this one. -jkb- 14:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)



  • How the cs.wp arbitration is related with cs.ws?
  • Global policy does not prohibit socks, cs.ws does?
  • You could block Auvajs and allow him to edit his userpage. You didnt so than its not a surprising he comes here. It is also not surprising that this request is open as cs.ws does not have its own procedure to solve conflicts as RfC.--Juandev (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@ -jkb-: No, I didn't promise anything. You (intentionally?) misrepresent my words. One user asked me why I needed sockpuppets. I replied I did't want sockpuppets but a fresh start. User:Lexiq was my fresh start at Czech Wiktionary. User:Oťásek Vocásek was my fresh start at Czech Wikisource. As far as I know there's no reason why I couldn't use different usernames on different sites. In any case the block was not about sockpupping but aboout "subversion of the project, transferring conflicts from project to project, trolling and offensive provocation". You should really really really explain how can a question on site rules be a "subversion of the project" etc. Socks are totally irrelevant to this case. --Auvajs (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
You didn´t block Auvajs because of sockpuppeting but because of "subversion of the project, transferring conflicts from project to project, trolling and offensive provocation" ([1]). Can you remeber? And what bad Auvajs had done? He just asked about the rules of sysops at cs.wikisource. So if your statement is about to tell us the reason, it´s not true, in fact it´s a lie. But this is not the worst of it. Auvajs hasn´t done anything bad to cs.wikisource and you blocked him indef. Maybe you have some bad experiences with him long time ago at some other projects - is this the reason for blocking him indef now at cs.wikisource? No, it isn´t. Or we can see the reason in your fear that somebody came to cs.wikisource and create rules of how to vote sysops? (To the other readers - at cs.wikisource are no rules about this.) It doesn´t matter. You just abused your rights -jkb-. You do not have any respect anymore. Shame on you -jkb-. --Vlout (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am a member of cs.wiki arbcom, which has cancelled the ban of creating sockpuppets for the user nowadays known as Auvajs. I have to say that -jkb- has misinterpreted this decision. The user was banned to create sockpuppets in 2006, because he had used sockpuppets for personal attacks and to influence discussion about block of one of the sockpuppets. This ban was valid only for Czech Wikipedia, because cs.wiki arbcom has no rights to accept decision aimed at any other Wikimedia projects (besides that nobody suggested that his behaviour influenced other projects as well). 8 years later he asked cs.wiki arbcom to cancel the decision, because he wanted to stop editting from the old account and start a new one. Because he had adhered the arbcom decision and had made no problems of that kind any more, arbcom decided to comply with his request. Since then the user has been allowed to create sockpuppets if they do not violate generally valid rules, as all other users are. All of this has been valid only for cs.wiki, so I suppose that for other projects only their local rules/decisions or global rules can be taken into account. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@-jkb-: Can you please provide evidence that the user has been socking and concealing identity and undertaking problematic editing at csWS. Each wiki is independent of others and we should not be exporting/importing problems from other wikis. In my experiences in WS there is little reason to sock, especially do we have the content battles; that said though I do know that we have general issues across the Czech sisters in which this person has had participation. I sense a lack of natural justice in your decision and believe that the user should be given an opportunity to edit within the strictures of the policies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It's been more than a week, meanwhile -jkb- has been active on at least one wiki project (see Wikisource. How long are we supposed to wait? --Auvajs (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • Well, I think that it was an overstep of -jkb-. Today he even blockedlocked Auvajs'es older accounts. I dont see a need to block his previous accounts. Even its shocky it should be discussed localy. The fack that Auvajs cannot disscuss the issue localy put Czech Wiktionary into the bad light. It is up to its actuall community, how they will manage it.--Juandev (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I consider Auvajs's block totally insane. Auvajs only politely asked a question. Many people, including myself, don't know the answer for this question. I'm active on Wikisource since several years and I myself have no idea what was the way -jkb- became an admin. Is is forbidden to ask this question? Or is it a provocation? Accoring to -jkb-'s statements Wikisource is his own private project. That is not compatible with Wikimedia founding principles. -jkb- doesn't act as a colleague but rather as a ruler. But his activity in the last five years was minimal. He came back only after he resigned as an admin of German Wikipedia. From what I know he resigned because they had some problems with him. --Martin Kotačka (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have only short experience with Auvajs at cs.wiktionary, but despite this I personally consider some behaviour of him problematic. However, it has probably never been too bad, since he has been blocked only twice so far, in Feb. 2015 for 1 hour and in March 2015 for 1 day. I have no experience with him at cs.wikiversity, but I can see that he has never been blocked there for a single hour because of inappropriate behaviour. Despite this he was blocked indefinitely at cs.wikisource immediately after he asked a question concerning local admins, despite the fact that the question was worded in a polite way. This decision was not consulted with the local community and has no support in local rules. What is more, -jkb- keeps changing reasoning, why he blocked Auvajs. Originally he wrote "disruption of the project, transmitting conflicts to the project, offensive trolling and provocations" (my translation). Nothing of that kind was performed at cs.wikisource. Later he explained it was also because Auvajs had not done anything at wikisource and suddenly started provocating with elections. The truth is that elections of admins is something that cs.wikisource is really missing and would help the project, so I personally cannot see any provocation here. Such a discussion is really needed there, and although Auvajs might not be the best person to start it, I cannot see why he should be blocked indefinitely for that. Even later he stated that it was done because of sockpuppeting. 1) If this was true, it would be mentioned at the block summary, which is not. 2) No proves of misusing sockpuppets were provided. -jkb- first blocked Auvajs and only then started looking for potential sockpuppets. Some other accounts of Auvajs were found, but still no misusing of them.
    The last thing I would like to mention is that -jkb- is not very consistent in his effort to protect the project. There is a user who is known for very indecent behaviour full of personal attacks against her opponents at various Wikimedia projects (who by the way also has several accounts), against whom no action has been taken by any admin so far. I have no other explanation for that, only the fact that she always supports admins in all discussions. I have been a subject of her personal attacks recently and asked the admins, including -jkb- who I pinged twice, to protect me and block her for personal attacks. -jkb- and other admins kept ignoring my requests, while her attacks kept mounting. After several days I received a notice (not from -jkb) that after such a long time after the attacks there was no use of taking any actions against her and so no action would be taken. This happened only short time after user Juandev (who has a serious problem at Wiktionary but no problems at Wikisource so far) was blocked for 1 week because of a single word written to -jkb-: "Netroluj" (Do not troll). Although I agree with this block (not with the length) I believe that he should perform such actions against all attackers, no matter if they are opponents or supporters of admins in numerous discussions. (Shortly before I wrote this -jkb- had written a statement where he had expressed his will not to tolerate similar behaviour anymore, which I did not notice but which I really appreciate. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC))
    I do not think that -jkb- performs his admin rights in favour of the project. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

a request to withdraw a lie and a calumny[edit]

I ask a steward, that the user Martin Kotačka is forced to either call his statement "Accoring to -jkb-'s statements Wikisource is his own private project" (see [2]) immediately. It is a lie. I would also like to clarify that my Desysop was voluntary, after I - as well as several other admins - were attacked and bullied from ouside, with the acknowledgement, that my personal data (name ...) will be published in the Internet. This mobbing can be confirmed by the entire community, incl. the German stewards. In particular, there were no problems with me - that is a calumny. -jkb- 09:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)




There were problems with you:
The last problem that lead to your "voluntary" desysop was you blocked indef a user that there was no consensus to be blocked even for a week. It caused a minor outcry in the German Wikipedia and was criticized by other admins as well. There was a possibility you wouldn't be confirmed as an admin.
As to your explanation that you were mobbed by publishing your personal data — this explanation is very stupid. Your personal data (name, photo, year of birth, location, negative details from your real life you should REALLY be ashamed of, all linked to your WM username) were published many years ago and can be easily found online. --Auvajs (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The penultimate paragraph of Auvajs is very simmilar to what is happening right now on cs.ws. -jkb- blocked Auvajs indef. Auvajs's contribution to the project was fixint typing errors and pointing out there might be typing errors. So there is no reason to block Auvajs at all. Even community members have protested ([3], [4]) they were not listened. So why? Lets anylize -jkb-'s reason for indef block: rozvracení projektu, přenášení konfliktů z projektu do projektu, ofenzivní trolling a provokace, in English: poject undermining, tranfer of conflicts from project to project, ofensive trolling and provocation. Lets have a look in detail on it:
  • poject undermining: this probably -jkb- linked with one question of Auvajs at the Village pump, where he asked weather exists some rules for admins and how actual admins were appointed. This is morelike a personal fear of -jkb- from the loss of function than real project undemining. Noone was horrified from that, excluding admin -jkb-. Deffinitely not the reason to block someone, who had been contributing to the project without any problems.
  • tranfer of conflicts from project to project: the pure question is not transfering conflicts. But the truth is that some smaller Czech communities have rosen up against its admins. It would not be a conflict, it would not be a uprising if those admins would show, they have community support. But those admins didnt want to show a community support and started to fight back. So in this case "the conflict" was created by admin -jkb- who build a wall between admins and community.
  • ofensive trolling and provocation: "Offensive trolling" is an "offensive" statement. The expression trolling is enough descriptive, no need to use the word "offensive". Or maybe it has the other meaning for -jkb-? Never mind. Offensive trolling might be understood as "combative bothering". But who was bothered? cs.ws admins? Because Auvajs have asked how they were appointed? cs.ws admins, had forgotten what is the role of an admins?! One question is understood as continuos trolloling? Strange!
    • And wikt:en:provocation (wikt:en:provoke): to cause someone to become annoyed or angry OMG! Admins (-jkb-) become annoyed and/or angry that Auvajs is asking how admins and/or -jkb- where appointed? --Juandev (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

-jkb- has no legitimacy to be cs.wikisource admin[edit]

There is no proof that the community ever decided -jkb- should be an admin. This is probably the reason -jkb- blocked me: he's unable to prove there was ever any decision that he should be site admin. Now he has been asked by several editors to resign: by Jowe, Sapiens123456 and Martin Kotačka. Dan Polansky asked him to either resign or have his adminship confirmed.

Other editors expressed that the block was totally out of line/unacceptable/bad: Jan.Kamenicek, Chmee2, Harold, Mates. Even Tchoř said I should be unblocked. --Auvajs (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say if he is an admin right from the beggining it was agreed by the community on the beggining (back in 2006). But I am not able to find it. There is no request under Requests for new languages and there are no records in local or global rights log. That might happened on oldwikisource, where he was appointed October 11, 2005.
There is a request for new language on old.wikisource, but it doesnt clarify, how -jkb- got his admin rights. So it looks it was automatic for a requester or for an admin of old.wikisource to become and admin at the new language. Even there is -jkb-'s statement during nomination at cs.wp: Jiná věc je pak rozhodnutí, je-li komunita pro to, abych v této jazykové mutaci se stal správcem-byrokratem, English: Other thing is a decision, wheather the community agrees with me as an admin-bearoucrat at the new language mutation.. The expression admin-bearaucrat is probably mentioned in the sense of "crat" only, because the voting which followes, does not mention administratorship. We may coin with the idea that confirmation as crat was an automate confirmation as admin, but it is still not clear. Nothing in bug 4965 alias T6965.
To conlude my research, I would agree with Auvajs, that it is not clear, how -jkb- got his rights. The best solution, rather than blocking, would be for -jkb- to show wheatehr he has the support from the actual community.--Juandev (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed solution[edit]

  1. User Auvajs will be unblocked.
  2. User -jkb- will be stripped off his admin rights @ cs.wikisource
  3. admins Danny B. and Milda will be obliged to have their adminship confirmed since they don't interfere when needed (user blocked indef for posing a question on site rules in a polite way)

Comment[edit]

While I have a tendency to agree to the first point, the second and third are decisions for the csWS community, not those for determination here. A wiki community has the ability to review the holders of advanced rights and its management at any time. Of course all such reviews can be problematic, and can cause other issues so should always be looked at with a sense of moving to a better place rather than as kneejerk retributive processes. I see some of the elements of this in the resolution proposed, and think this internecine war needs to come to a halt. I see too many elements of "me me me" from both parties, and not enough about what the projects need to the detriments of the projects.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I understand your point. If I may explain my intention leading to formulating the proposed solution (point 2 and 3): I was not seeking "retribution" or anything of that kind. I do not seek "revenge". I only sincerely believe that an admin who bans indef a user that made no harm to the project at all, doesn't recognize it as a mistake and doesn't apologize for it (I could live without the apology) should not be an admin at all — on any WM project. If you allow the presence of admins who clearly misuse their powers or don't interfere when other admins do so, you are telling that this kind of admin behavior is acceptable, in other words that an admin can ban anyone freely and is not responsible for it. Is this what you mean? I honestly don't know how else to solve this situation except to remove adminship from -jkb- and force the other admins to have their adminship confirmed. --Auvajs (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I am saying that it is not a decision to be made at meta in English, it is a decision to be made by the community of csWS and presumably in Czech, whenever the community wishes to have the conversation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
remove adminship from -jkb- , and from Milda, and from Danny. B, and from Zdeněk, and from Jan. Dudík, and from Tchoř,... and from anyone who is against me ... --Lenka64 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Is this supposed to be ironic?--AldNonymousBicara? 13:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with billinghurst. In addition, I strongly recommend that
  1. Auvajs specifically avoid -jkb-, and -jkb- avoid Auvajs for six months or more. Wikisource can be a lovely quiet place, where each person can work happily in separate areas of a project without worrying about what another person might be doing, and
  2. -jkb- does not block establish usernames of the Czech community on cs.wikisource, and another cs.wikisource admin takes on a responsibility to do this when it is required. (I note that -jkb- has not actively been blocking on cs.wikisource since this RFC was created, which is appropriate and appreciated, and a sign of good judgement)
  3. the cs.wikisource community hold a vote on -jkb-'s rights six months after this RFC has closed, unless new substantial problems are raised regarding other admin actions during that six months. -jkb- has been a very valued member of the international Wikisource community for a very long time, and while that does not mean they can perform inappropriate admin actions, it certainly should be a good reason to not make quick judgement on isolated incidents, and it is a good reason to try to find peaceful solutions where nobody is rejected from the small community so that the project continues to grow.
  4. the cs.wikisource community actively tries to recruit (and possibly train) more admins (I see several candidates who are regularly active in the community), and considers holding re-appointment votes for existing admins (maybe every two years?), so that these types of issues can be effectively resolved within a more diverse admin group of the community. It may be a silly process, but the rules can make it very painless to complete, and it helps build a sense of community.
John Vandenberg (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@John Vandenberg: Are you serious? I did absolutely nothing wrong to Czech Wikisource and yet I'm banned indef. Do you think this is something what makes -jkb- "a very valued member of the international Wikisource community for a very long time"? Speaking of Czech Wikisource, -jkb- is long time nearly inactive there. He makes some edits every now and then but the last time he added a new content was in 2008 (!)

Speaking about new admins and admins confirms: this is something -jkb- and the other admins are terrified about and would never allow. They are panic stricken over losing their "rights". I was banned not because I did anything wrong to the project but because -jkb- is paranoid about losing his position. As you can see, he was asked by many users to have his adminship confirmed but he ignored them all. He's just power-hungry, that's the only thing he's about. In order to retain his powers he keeps lying, manipulating and banning his opponents. --Auvajs (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Request to close this RfC[edit]

Can we please proceed to closing this RfC and unblock user Auvajs on cs.wikisource?

  1. -jkb- provided no explanation at all that user Auvajs did any "subversion of the project, transferring conflicts from project to project, trolling and offensive provocation"
  2. He tried to argue that user Auvajs did some sockpupping when he used several user accounts but this is not true and admin -jkb- didn't explain it either
  3. Therefore it must be concluded that admin -jkb- banned user Auvajs out of personal animosity and not in order to protect the project.
  4. User Auvajs and all his accounts will be unblocked on cs.wikisource. --Auvajs (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So dear wiki world, all this leads me to the conclusion that a WM admin can ban anyone freely for whatsoever reason including his personal hatred towards a user and is never responsible for it because noone cares. Thank you but this is a clear indication that this system is rotten and I will not be a part of it. Good bye. --Auvajs (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite I was blocked him (Auvajs) for 4 hours (for strong comment about namely this case), I think, that ignorance of argues that admin -jkb- didn't explain his block/ban (n.b. indef. - sic!) of Auvajs sufficiently, as well as other questions above no one did sufficiently/clearly, and no actions/refers of Meta-wiki staff to this question was made, I think that it throws bad light to Meta-wiki at all. Personally I think Auvajs should be unblocked on cs.wikisource, as there is no reason to block him globally + and he made no bad/dangerous edit on (namely) cs.wikisource. --Kusurija (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Establish Meta Arbitration Comittee[edit]

We may propose here to unblock Auvajs on cs.ws, but I wont be performed and all admins there wont perform it. Or we may say, let Czech Wikisource to work on the problem itself. But cs.ws wont do it. So I see the best sollution would be to establish Meta's AC, which would "gain wider input regarding conflicts or unresolved issues on other Wikimedia projects" as mentioned for RFCes on Meta.--Juandev (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ofc no global arbitration comittee will be set up. If projects want to have such they can make their own. Most of projects never wanted or even closed local arbcoms. Also, this kind of proposal shouldn't be make on personal needs. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
If there is no global arbitration comittee or something with a similar function, it basically means any small wiki can easily turn into a kind of a concentration camp where local admins harass users they don't like - and there's nothing that can be done about it. Is this what WM projects are for? --Auvajs (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, I dont understand your first phrase, what does it mean?
If projects want to have such they can make their own. --> thats right, but the problem of small projects is that their desire is to contribute, not to create project legal system and project jurisdiction. Thus these projects doesnt have even the policies themselves. I think that is the work of actuall community interesting in this area, to make it easier for participants on smaller projects. Because in this example we see, that the actual system of rights holders, who have to protect the project and those, who contribute is failing so the next step could be arbitration comittee.
Most of projects never wanted or even closed local arbcoms. -->Do you have a reference to that? Could you mention some projects, which have closed their ACes? I remember that Meta's AC for all projects where already promoted on Meta years ago and now come back in harassment consultation.
Also, this kind of proposal shouldn't be make on personal needs. --> First of all, those are not my needs. The RFC was open by Auvajs and I came to help and propose solution as I think the other solution proposed above wont work.--Juandev (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say its even vice versa. This kind of proposal always comes, when its needed. If you are not able to resolve conflict by admins, than you need something supreme.--Juandev (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This proposal feels quite unrelated to the RFC. While the arguments are relevant here, they are also relevant for any RFC involving small communities. This proposal has been discussed in other places on meta, and it shouldn't be raised at each RFC, which must work within the existing dispute resolution framework. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry John. I dont read Meta so much, to know about it. I was just trying to deliver my best to the solving of this problem.--Juandev (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
No worries. A meta arbcom is a good idea, but hard to implement. Search meta if you want to help that concept become a reality. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)