Requests for comment/Lombard wikipedia, urgent desysoping and unblock requests

The following request for comments is closed. The request was eventually archived as inactive.

Desysoping

Sirs, I request the following users to be desysoped at Lombard wikipedia:

I have spent time and voice, and more important I have spent my name to convince good persons who love Lombard (I can confirm their identity) to write on lmo wiki and now they are blocked only because they are against an anti democratic set of rules and noboy can stop an antidemocratic administrator. probably tomorrow I will be blocked too only for this opinion! there is someone who love democracy or wikipedia is a savage forest? plese desysop Nemo, now, and restor democracy on lmo. --Aldedogn 16:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have made arbitrary blocks of 18 users, some of which had voted no-confidence motions against them. There can be no discussion within that wikipedia at present, because these users misuse their administration tools, and simply block those who vote aginst them. This should be severly blamed. Thanks, --10caart 08:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited all the users who have been blocked (and the identity of most of which I can confirm) to register here and put their request for desysoping the above admins.

In this way, a simple checkuser will be done her and things will be easily clarified. Thanks, --10caart 08:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add a not bona fide behaviour by lmo:user:Fabexplosive: a notice had been placed in the local "village pump" to make this poll visible to the local community. The above user removed it. Please see this comparison. --10caart 09:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored that notice. --10caart 09:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are desysoping Fabexplosive is your own business as a local project, but you cannot desysop Nick1915 who is no perm admin on lmowiki (lmo:Special:Listusers/sysop).

As far as I see his using rights on lmowiki[1] there seems no problematic actions: renaming accounts per request and related actions which may fall safely within steward actions.
You can discuss protection and deletion are to be done by local admins, and categorically you may be right but I personally feel it justified.
Since August, except those blocking-related actions, Nick1915 didn't use his sysop power on lmowiki, hence request for desysoping and further sanction looks me having no basis, unless there are things you haven't mentioned on the above and we need to consider. Cheers, --Aphaia 07:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The point is that these people has blocked users as "sockpuppets" after a check user had showed they were not socking. And they have tampered with a votation rebuffing their proposals 27 vs. 8, declaring that they won the vote instead. Moreover, they have blocked people denouncing this fact. Basically an unfair behaviour, which must be severely blamed. Bests, --Lombard 14:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see also this: Requests for comments/Lombard Wikipedia - Someone tampering with a regular vote. Thanks--Lombard 15:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lombard, I am afraid you didn't read my writing and the linked log. I said Nick1915 hadn't blocked anyone but those abandoned accounts and the log is the evidence. You said "thank you" and then continued "they blocked". You seem not t o understand me and you confuse me. --Aphaia 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for desysoping lmo:user:Nick1915 and lmo:user:Fabexplosive at lmo.wp

More elements: the page containing the rebuffed regulation has been protected. Another adminship abuse.

--10caart 13:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--10caart 08:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Br3nn0s 09:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Something of strange happened between 16 and 17 September on the LMO-wiki -- Dragonòt 12:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let us say something 'dishonest'. Thanks, --10caart 13:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see very little proof of any dishonesty or wrong doing or abuse of admin tools. Mind you checkuser data cannot be made available publicly due to the privacy policy. Also checkuser cannot be used to verify "innocence". There are many ways to trick the checuser tool to create false results. Disruptive users are known to abuse such methods. This could be such a case. Stewards like Nick1915 do not randomly sysop themselves on wikis with active admins and they only do so when there is an interwiki threat. I do not believe you can request desysoping of a steward. And again, so far there is no proof to prove misconduct. -- Cat ^chi? 14:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But the CU results are clear (see below: users are unrelated): and this is the basis upon which we must proceed, unless CU it is completely unuseful, which means that users with privileges can decide arbitrarily about other users and projects, no matter what they do. And this is not wikimedia spirit. Thanks,--10caart 15:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not see any interwiki threat, do you?--10caart 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am yet to see any evidence of wrongdoing. Unless you can provide that, we are finished here. -- Cat ^chi? 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)/[reply]
I agree with the accusation of cheating, here is the evidence: there was a vote about a regulation, started on about 14/08/08: users agreed that the deadline was 15/09/08, with no opposition. The vote was about (among aother clauses) the rule of 50 edits needed to vote.The vote was against that set of rules, 28 vs. 8. Then lmo:user:Nemo applied the rule of 50 edits as if it had been approved to blank votes against. The community almost unanimously said that this was unfair: and Nick1915 and Fabexplosive blocked these users. This is evidence of cheating and abuse of adminship. The page is lmo:wikipedia:Grott which has been repeatedly altered, but everything is recoerded. I am prone to do any translations required. Best regards, --Lombard 16:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: I am lmo:user:Quantum. An important element has been forgotten above: user:Nemo has altered the deadline to an arbitrary date, when the result was the one he wanted. And then, indeed, there seem to have been the above false accusations and blocks. Yes, this not fair.--85.18.201.166 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am lmo:user:Atlas. I agree with the above request and with the above accusation. As to the request for evidence, it is clear: a poll result has been arbitrarily changed and the users daring to oppose to this cheat have been blocked. --213.140.22.75 08:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just saw that Nick1915 knew the accounts were unrelated before blocking them. --213.140.22.75 08:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm the above by creating an account, --Atlas 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe. This is a scandalous beahviour: the results of the check user being negative, nothing such should have been done. --Fithuus 14:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree they have been dishonest, to say at least: they have tampered with a vote and blocked those who denounced them. Shame, --Fithuus 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, fabexplosive has an unanimous no confidence motion--Fithuus 14:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this motion. Polls are polls and cannot be arbitrarily altered. Moreover, blocking those who denounce an abuse is shameful--Villa 15:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I agree too, from Switzerland --Belinzona 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree — their behaviour is counterproductive at best. -- Olve 10:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. TXiKi 07:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree --79.0.100.58 15:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- I'm agree because I was registered on Lmo from Agost and I have voted only after 100 edits on Lmo. My vote has blancked by lmo user nemo, because he say I have no edits! See my contributions please! Then a lot of user are blocked without good reasons. lmo.user cuaciuna is a real person, infact she is my girlfriend, she has written on lmo wikipedia with making problem. She has only voted against that set of rules. Moreover another lmo user Jmark is a real person too, he is the son of a great bergamach poet, he write on lmo without making problems ha has only voted against that set of rules. The lmo user gioancarlo is a real person too he has recently translated Andersen'stories in Bergamasco, he has written on lmo wikipedia without making problmes, he has only voted against that set of rules. it has been very difficult for me to convince these persons to write on wikipedia, because they have non much free time, now they ask me why they should keep on writing! what should I answer them? That lmo wiki is antidemocratic and fascist? why they are stopped? why they cannot write on lmo? why the vote has been arbitrarily changed and the users daring to oppose to this cheat have been blocked? I can confirm the identity of these users. To tolerate this behaviur is an enormus demage for the Wikifoundation's image. --Aldedogn 16:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Cuaciuna 16:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Hello, the following users lmo:user:Fabexplosive and lmo:user:Nik1915 say they have blocked 18 accounts at Lombard wikipedia. These were accounts of people voting against some of their recent proposals. This is an severe misuse od administration tools (this is a metaphorical "killing" of opponents), so I ask in turn these users to be punished. They have based their actions on unproved claims, or, to be more precise, calumny. Best regards --10caart 07:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I request all the above arbitrary blocks at Lombard wikipedia do be reverted. And those who made them to be punished, --10caart 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is important, because a poll is being held: lmo:Wikipedia:Regolament_Lombard. Thanks, --10caart 08:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited all the users who have been blocked (and the identity of most of which I can confirm) to register here and put their request for desysoping the above admins. In this way, a simple checkuser will be done her and things will be easily clarified.

Thanks, --10caart 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another simple way to prove one's identity is to make "anonimous" edits (without login) and then adding one's identity at Lombard wikipedia. The above should then be confirmed by logging in and signing again. Thanks, --10caart 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that one of the editors you linked above, lmo:user:Nick1915 is a steward who did it on request and he took the help of a sysop on that wiki (lmo:user:Fabexplosive) after he CheckUsered those accounts and found them to be socking ....--Comet styles 09:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like that the result were "no connection" instead: please see this. By my POV this is natural: I know the users. Thanks,--10caart 09:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for new evidence to supercede any past closure. Have you tried talking to Nick1915? -- Cat ^chi? 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also blocked me. I am sorry, but I fall in angry and I insulted their fascistic methods of doing. I have a lombard course in my City and I'd like that my students do practice on wikipedia. I try to involve them in lmo wikipedia. Yesterday evening, after the lesson, two of my students tell me that they were blocked from writing in lmo wikipedia. I don't understand why, so I protested vigorously in lmo wikipedia. The result is the block of my account. I am also blocked in other italian wikipedias, cause I protested there again, cause I cannot write on lmo wiki. I am very angry about that. I cannot imagine that there is no democracy and that italian wikipedias begin to be as Salò Repubblic of Mussolini. I am against fascism and anti-democratic way of doing. I fight for democracy and freedom. Thanks. --Br3nn0s 15:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me why I am blocked? My opinions are not glad to some Operators/Admins or so on? I am very angry about their behaviour. The extromit me without any word to cause my angry reaction and have something to block me. Where are the false proofs someone use against me? I only try to involve other friends in wikipedia lmo TO WRITE and NOT to VOTE. Cannot I speak to friends about wikipedia lmo? Why I was punished for this?

The vandalization of the pool is the proof that there is no democracy. I am right when I say that someone want to close wiki lmo. Some one dont want that there are writers, so they blocked them, estromit them, and accuse them to false the pools. Where are the proofs? This is a profound injustice. I have written many articles on wiki lmo and I try to help wikipedia. The blocking of my account is the proof that I am in right when I say that there are people that want to close wikipedia blocking who that write there. In Italy there are many people that are nationalist and hates the minority languages. They want to show with fascistic methods that our minority language doesn't exist and they say that lmo is shit. They wrote that too! It is an absurdity that nobody doing anything to stop them.

I don't say excuse to anybody till someone proof me the contrary. I am very angry about that anti-democracy. I am blocked for political opinion of someone that is not capable to keep politics away from wikipedia. The proof are that minority language are recognized internationally as languages and not as dialects, but they in wiki it signal them as dialects. They say that ISO is not the proof and they adduct ideological reason to sustain their decision to downgrade our minority languages to a dialect rank. This is a political idea. This is a nationalistic idea. ISO is right, but they don't admit that. Am I blocked cause I defend ISO? Cause I am against the nationalistic idea that sustain that our minority language is to be downgraded to a dialect rank? I this this is the true and I am very angry about the method of stop my mouth and block my writing. --Br3nn0s 08:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser results

These are the checkuser results, which clearly state that "there's non connections among the accounts"

Reproduced below

Many@lmowikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Please check users: Igloo, West, Yattagat, Tarisì, Matteo Sinelli, Xccapp, Theriddle, Aldedogn, Irciol, Albi, Giorgioo, Fithuus, Villa, balloto, Atlas, Somia, Quantum, Bengala, Dulo, Affori, JMARK, Lombard, Cuaciuna, Cailleach, Alien972, Gioanì. All of them are meatpuppets, and probably sockpuppets by 10caart: we suspect him to be a puppetmaster who vandalized also it.wiki (with another nick containing cart, if I remember correctly) and perhaps Meta itself (e.g.). The votes were deleted because the users did not have at least 50 edits before the start of the poll they tried to alter. Thanks, Nemo 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No connection between 10caart and the other accounts (and no connection between themselves).--Nick1915 -^{all you want} 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Nick1915 blocked the users knowing that the accounts are unrelated cannot be assumed to have been done in good faith. Also, the accusation of having vandalised the Italian wiki, or even meta, puts me in a state of profound sadness. And this too does not seem to have been done in completely good faith. Sad. That's a pity. Thanks,--10caart 10:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests of removal of arbitrary blocks at Lombard wikipedia

I make a collective request for the accounts in the CU; involved users will confirm, if willing. Maybe not all account have been blocked. I proceed to check this manually. Thanks--10caart 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I will place a notice on the right of the users that have a "sockpuppet" note on their user pages: the others: please check. Thanks--10caart 10:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; seemingly I have not been blocked,--Lombard 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above, --85.18.201.166 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (lmo:user:Quantum)[reply]
Me too. Yet that's a shame, --213.140.22.75 08:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (lmo:user:Atlas)[reply]

I confirm the above by creating an account, --Atlas 08:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. And the above is understated.--Fithuus 14:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on those who made these fraudulent blocks, making a political misuse of wikimedia. --Villa 15:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, from Switzerland --Belinzona 08:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lmo:user:Igloo
lmo:user:West - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Yattagat
lmo:user:Tarisì - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Matteo Sinelli - This is one of my students at the course of lombard. Is it this a Schindler's List? -- Br3nn0s 15:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC) If only! You were be saved. On the contrary, this is an extermination list, and you guessed the kind of methods these people use.--Villa 15:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lmo:user:Xccapp - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Theriddle
lmo:user:Aldedogn
lmo:user:Irciol - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Albi
lmo:user:Giorgioo - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Fithuus - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Villa - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:balloto - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Atlas
lmo:user:Somia - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Quantum
lmo:user:Bengala - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Dulo - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Affori
lmo:user:JMARK
lmo:user:Lombard
lmo:user:Cuaciuna - has a sockpuppet note on user page. She is my girl friend, she live in Monza, while I live in Bergamo, she is a botanic. Lmo is a sheme, realy! I hope she will wants again to write on lmo after this shame. Where should I post my and her identity card? What we will win? A YELLOW STAR? --Aldedogn 16:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lmo:user:Cailleach - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Alien972 - has a sockpuppet note on user page
lmo:user:Gioanì
lmo:user:Br3nn0s --Br3nn0s 15:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lmo:user:Davide88_d This is one of my students at the course of lombard. Is this a Schindler's List ? --Br3nn0s 15:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lmo:user:Algiz - I think it's sure a list of margin people! First an admonition and after only 3 hour the blocks arrives. But during those hours I didn't do anything! Incredible! --Algiz 20:06, 07 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the right venue for such a task. That is for the local admins to decide. There happens to be six of them. -- Cat ^chi? 14:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. Please see the analougous page Requests for comments/Dutch Wikipedia - unblock request. Respectfully, --Lombard 17:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. That is a different RfC attacking a different steward. I... see a pattern. -- Cat ^chi? 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban

Also, there's a request for ban of the above users:
lmo:user:Nick1915
lmo:user:Fabexplosive

form Lombard wikipedia for cheating in a regular vote. Thanks,--10caart 12:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC) This is also motivated for insisting in the above arbitrary blocks. Please see Requests for comments/Lombard Wikipedia - Someone tampering with a regular vote--10caart 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More elements: the page containing the rebuffed regulation has been protected. Another adminship abuse. --10caart 13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAN:--10caart 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a request to ban Nick1915 and Fabexplosive from lmo.wikipedia? -- Cat ^chi? 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is--10caart 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs are not a way to vote-ban people you dislike or disagree with. "Overkill" would be an understatement. -- Cat ^chi? 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet I place my subscritpion to this request here all the same, due to the anomalous situation: seemingly there's no other suitable place --Lombard 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: I am lmo:user:Atlas. Regards--213.140.22.75 08:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm the above by creating an account, --Atlas 08:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAN these users who have made dishonest contributions --Fithuus 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAN these users forever. Dishonest behaviuor.--Villa 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAN- my father escaped Italian fascist persecution by getting refugee in Switzerland (thanks to this fact I am a Swiss citizen now). The behaviour by FabExplosive and Nick1915 is not strictu senso fascist: but it answers to the question: "how do racial persecutions begin?". To be blamed, --Belinzona 08:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the ban. -- Olve 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. TXiKi 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAN --Br3nn0s 14:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAN Agree with the ban. Absolutely unacceptable behaviour. -- Xccapp 15:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAN NOW! It's a shame, an incredible shame!--Aldedogn 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others doubts about Fabexplosive and Nick1915

Others lmo users have doubts about Fabexplosive and Nick1915.

See Fabexplosive's discussion page on lmo and you can see that: 1)lmo user Dracoroboter has ascked to remove all blocks 2)lmo user Eldomm has ascked to remove blocks for some lmo.utent that aren't sockpuppets or meatpuppets.

Anyway they has answer " absolutely no" and keep on blocking utents only just these utents have voted against them. Desysop as soon as possible.

--Aldedogn 11:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:White Cat

As I see it several people are overextending their accusations. I see a lot of accusations and very little evidence. -- Cat ^chi? 14:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. So, if Fabexplosive and Nick1915 withdraw their accusations and remove blocks, I will do the same. I agree about the lack of evidence: unfortunately, only on Fabexplosive and Nick1915's side. Bests, --10caart 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not work that way. You cannot try to force people to make them do what you want like this. If they had been abusing power as you claimed, I want to see the proof of that. -- Cat ^chi? 15:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments here above clarify the abuse. Also, unrelated users (according to the "check user") have been arbitrarily blocked: and this is in turn evident evidence--Lombard 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reproduce my comments here:

I agree with the accusation of cheating, here is the evidence: there was a vote about a regulation, started on about 14/08/08: users agreed that the deadline was 15/09/08, with no opposition. The vote was about (among aother clauses) the rule of 50 edits needed to vote.The vote was against that set of rules, 28 vs. 8. Then lmo:user:Nemo applied the rule of 50 edits as if it had been approved to blank votes against. The community alnost unanimously said that this was unfair: and Nick1915 and Fabexplosive blocked these users. This is evidence of cheating and abuse of adminship. The page is lmo:wikipedia:Grott which has been repeatedly altered, but everything is recoerded. I am prone to do any translations required. Best regards, --Lombard 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a classical case of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and your conduct alone makes you a suspected sockpuppet/meatpuppet. -- Cat ^chi? 16:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, --Quantum 16:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I... stand corrected. -- Cat ^chi? 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am afraid I do not either. Please if you look for "evidence" as above, do not spread unfounded accusations. Also, I can say, with a clear conscience, that I am beyond suspicion, in this case. Respectfully, --Lombard 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That... is something you can count on. -- Cat ^chi? 17:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, who are really the meatpuppets this time?

Please, take also a look at this: lmo:Wikipedia:Grott#D.27accord: the history of pro votes clearly shows that:

Nemo
Veneziano
Xaura
Remulazz
giacumìn
Fabexplosive
Draco "Brambilla Piras" Roboter
Pietrodn
Nick1915

are all meatpuppets. And this is confirmed by the fact that they accused other people to be.--Atlas 08:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable: meatpupping is a form of cheating.--Belinzona 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And more most of them #Nemo #Remulazz #giacumìn #Fabexplosive has voted the six augost between the 13.59 and 15.14. THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON? CHECK THEM, BLOCK THEM! --Aldedogn 16:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you're saying Nick1915, a steward, is a meatpuppet? I'm confused by that. Voting the same way is not a sign of being a meatpuppet in and of itself. Accusing someone else of being a meatpuppet is not a sign of being a meatpuppet in and of itself. Your statement confuses me. ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you people understand what meatpuppetery is. Please look at enwiki for a clear description and quote "the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged." and thats exactly what has happened here, yes none of those ips are the same so no sign of sockpuppetery but those accounts were blocked for meatpuppeting and it has nothing to do with with what either Nick1915 and Fabexplosive agree or disagree with..--Comet styles 05:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I know that very well. You can be sure that there are no puppets of any kind. Thanks,--10caart 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Belinzona

I agree with this protest. Not only have the above user tampered with a vote, the are preventing free knowledge from developing. --Belinzona 08:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A dialog?

May you (all of the interested parties) write here what do you think that it should be done to solve problems at lmo.wp? (Without calling to block someone or so.) --Millosh 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ?

Yes, that should be the right venue of doing things. Beforehands notwithstanding, there's an urgent thing to do: remove blocks of the above users at Lombard wikipedia : there's a pending poll, and potential electors have been blocked while the checkuser had shown that they were unrlated users. Thanks, --10caart 08:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that we have accusations from both sides about sockpuppetry and so on, but it is the top of the iceberg. I want to hear what are the problems there and how can it be solved. Before any action should be done there, the situation need to be clear here. So, I would like to see a dialog like: "The problem is this; I think that it may be solved like that." If it is not an appropriate solution for the other side, it should be explained why and some counter-proposal should be added; and so on. --Millosh 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, it may be added that one of the problems are blocks. However, as I said, it is at the top of other reasons. --Millosh 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Millosh. But the most important problem is perhaps not the above blocks, but gerrymandering by lmo:user:Nemo with a vote for Lombard wikipedia's regulation. I am going to report here (by using a subpage) this user's actions so you can judge by yourself. Please wait a few minutes, just the time to write. Thanks, --Atlas 12:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a short report: Requests for comments/Lombard wikipedia, urgent desysoping and unblock requests/elements. Thank you, --Atlas 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems?

Yes, There are several problems. I suggest starting to examinate the above: but, then there's a problem about witch hunt towards "Catalan" (see below), then there're no admins knowing the language, then there some entity called "Clamengh" which I do not see what it is, but instead of being welcome at my registration, I had been addressed with: you smell of Catalan, are you Clamengh?"..., well let me think more about "problems", I will come back on this page. Thanks--Atlas 12:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to catchi looking for proofs

1) I had 100 edits when I had voted

2) Anyway lmo.utent nemo has blancked my vote.

Do you want proofs?

1) check my contributions.

2) check the result of the vote on grott in lmo.

This time if you cannot see proofs again it will be sure that you don't want to see them.

Best regards. --Aldedogn 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation: catalans flooded the lombard wikipedia

Fabexplosive, administrator of italian wikipedia (it:Utente:Fabexplosive), in an online newspaper, accuses catalans to have flooded the lombard wikipedia. Here http://www.dnews.eu/contents/pdfedizioni/22-09-2008_DNewsBergamo.pdf he said, pag. 11 : "Lombard Wikipedia? All written by catalans".

Fabexplosive, controversial administrator of the lombard wikipedia and member of [italian Wikimedia Association] also accuses: "the old administrators were not lombards but catalans".

Paesaggix 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "Catalan probelm"

OK. So, it looks that we have the first problem articulated. May someone (or, better, more persons) explain that problem in depth? (I understand that there are accusation that "someone is a Catalan", but I would like to see explained background.) --Millosh 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Lombard Wikipedia#Artificial language used. There was a problem about the standard used for Lombard languague, "a koiné with lot of Catalan and Occitan influences". The two users involved were Italians, not Catalans, and as far as I now, this is not a Catalan problem. --Vriullop 18:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Native speakers

So, is it true that there are no admins who are native speakers of Lombard Wikipedia? --Millosh 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm catalan. I'm a user of catalan viquipèdia. I've never edited on lombardian wikipedia. And I think that Fabexplosive may advert this acusations directly on the board of catalan viquipèdia and lombardian wikipedia to search solutions on that problem, instead of talking about it on a newspaper. But the problem is not for the catalan viquipèdia, I think that he don't like the idea of a non italian language on Italia, and he accuse the administrators on lombardian wikipèdia of being non lombardian (may'be they're from Catalonia, I don't know). I think this is a way to discrediting lombardian wikipedia. And I don't know which kind of objective wants to reach Fabexplosive to benefit the lombardian wikipedia. Sincerely I don't know.

After all I'll lament any disturbance on lombardian wikipedia from catalan people, and urge to the authors to contact on that persons to find solutions (not only recriminate actions).

Finally I think that the origin of administrators on early stages of a wikipedia project does not matters. Then if the project works for itself it could be naturally adquired for native speakers if they have the skills needed for an admin.

Thank you for your time and excuse my english. --Bestiasonica 23:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language used on Lombard Wikipedia

I am trying to make the picture more clear. May you describe here what language is used at Lombard Wikipedia: Is there a standard? If yes, may you give relevant links to that? If not, are you based on some other written literature and which? How are you solving orthography problems? -- and so on. --Millosh 11:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing the Fabexplosive's election

As is possible to view, looking at the last people blocked on the lombard wikipedia, Fabexplosive blocked a lot of Users on lmo.wikipedia.org, saying that they were meatpuppets.
I analyzed the Fabexplosive's election [2] and I was very surprised.
It seems that on 2, 4, 5 and 6-dec-2007, a lot of people , never activ on the lmo.wikipedia, suddenly registered on the lmo and as the first thing voted for Fabexplosive as administrator.

But let we analyze the votes of 17 people on the total of 19 (89% of the votes):

Dracoroboter - 2-dec 19:52 - voted as the 15th edit [3]
Xaura - 2-dec 20:02 - voted as the 3rd edit - but it was the 3rd vote! [4]
Ilario - 2-dec 20:02 - 3rd edit - but 3rd vote! [5] - and then disappeared
Marcok - 2-dec 20:10 - 2nd edit! [6] - and then disappeared
Paginazero - 2-dec 20:17 - 4th edit [7] - and then disappeared
Veneziano - 2-dec 21:16 - 5th edit [8] - and then disappeared
Tanarus - 2-dec 21:52 - 2nd edit! [9]
Balabiot - 4-dec 10:11 - 2nd edit! [10]
bramfab(=Barbapedana) - 4dec 16:35 - 8-th edit [[11]]
.snoopy. - 4-dec 16:58 - 5th edit [12]
Nemo - 4-dec 17:52 - 25th edit [13] - Nemo is fantastic. In september he vandalized a votation (see [14]) deleting the votes of Users with less than 50 edits. But when Nemo voted Fabexplosive, he had only 25 edits.
Olando - 5-dec 13:40 - 1st edit!!!!!! [15] - and then disappeared
Civvi - 5-dec 14:37 - 5th edit, 3rd vote! [16]
Lusum - 5-dec 20:35 - 3rd edit, 2nd vote! [17] - and then disappeared
Ripe - 6-dec 20:32 - 3rd edit, 3rd vote!!! [18]
Loroli - 6-dec 20:34 - 3rd edit, 3rd vote!!! [19]
giacumìn - 9-dec 10:41 - 19th edit, 7th vote! [20]

From the point of view of Fabexplosive, the users above should be considered as meatpuppets (now Fabexplosive is blocking the users voting without 50 edits).
And then, how should be considered the admin that these 17 people elected? Perhaps a meatpuppeter? (from the point of view of Fabexplosive).
Another thing. If 17 votes are not valid, then the election of Fabexplosive is not valid.

And what can we say of Nick1915? Nick1915 always certified that these elections were all OK.

I want to follow the suggestion of Millosh ("A dialog?") and I will try to speak to Fabexplosive and Nick1915 on the lmo.wikipedia. Most probably I will be blocked for sockpuppeting, or meatpuppeting, or "lesa maiestatis" or similar. If I will be blocked, what could I do? Thanks a lot, -- Yattagat 15:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog impossible, Fabexplosive blocked me

As I supposed, when I tried to speak with Fabexplosive (and Nick1915), Fabexplosive blocked me "ad infinitum" [21], with the motivation that I am a meatpupped. But we just see that Fabexplosive were elected by a majority of user at the 1st, 2nd and 3rd edit!.

It seems that any dialog will be impossible. And now, what it is possible to do ?

Yattagat 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start over, and make sure that you have a bureaucrat that you trust. Guido den Broeder 08:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. OK, I will retry to have a dialog with Fabexplosive (also if I'm afraid that he will reblock me). On the lmo.wikipedia there are not bureaucrat. There are others 3 administrators, that have been elected in the same days of Fabexplosive (2, 4, 5 and 6-dec-2007), by the same voters, and in the same way analyzed for Fabexplosive; they are: Snowdog [22], Flavio05(= Flavi) [23] and Barbapedana [24]. A last administrator, Snowolf, is defined "temporary" (he seems have not been elected). -- Yattagat 20:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even on a small project you need a bureaucrat, one that has access to the checkuser function. I wouldn't be surprised if these new users that suddenly turned up to vote had one and the same IP address. Guido den Broeder 21:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

when a small wiki doesn't have a checkuser you can ask a steward. Sterkebaktalk 11:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog impossible 2nd, they refused to answer

I wrote to Fabexplosive something as: "On meta there has been the suggestion to dialog. I think you should not block as meatpuppets the users voting against a regulation that you support, because Fabexplosive has been elected in a way that could (using the Fabexplosive's point of view) be considered a meatpuppeting action".

They only deleted my contribution ([25] and [26]) , so refusing to answer.

I would retry the dialog another time. Do you agree ? -- Yattagat 03:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now Fabex and Nick1915 has blocked me

I'm lmo.user --Aldedogn 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC) and I'm blocked now too, because Fabexplosive has decide so. He tells that I has threaten someone, but he dosen't say where, when and what I have done. they cannot say that I'm a sockpuppets, so they has invented something about threten. After Yattagat I was the last free voice on lmo, last that may say something against their antidemocratic way of work. Lmo is now like France during the Terror, enemy must be killed! Meatpuppets must be blocked if they vote against Fabex and Nick1915, meatpuppets is good if vote for them, and if someone protest must be silent! Anyway they have really threaten me yesterday when nick1915 said to me to go away from lmo. I answer, "why? is it a threaten? If I will not go away will you block me?" Just yesterday! Check "Grott" on lmo. They should be desysop now and forever; but really nick1915 is a stewart? It's impossible, it's unbelivable. --Aldedogn 17:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really time to proceed to desysoping of Fabexlosive

Now it seems that it is time Fabexplosive to be desysoped: he's blocking practically all users: the international community cannot accept this. This user needs a doctor, rather than contributing to wikipedia. Best regards,--10caart 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's proved: I'm NOT guilty, but still blocked

Lmo.user Ninonino and lmo.user Darkrismeno have proved, without doubts, that I'm not guilty, that I never have threatened someone.

The most important lmo.users have protested against the unjustified punishment I have suffered; even Nick1915 thinks that Fabexsplosive's decision is unjustified.

And what about Fabexplosive?

He himself has admitted his error and has admitted that I never have threatened someone. Anyhow he has decided that I must be blocked for two weeks, although it's proved I'm not guilty! Why? There is no good reason to justify his decision, evidently an action "ultra vires".

You may read everything on lmo.Grott.

Please, stop fabexplosive has soon as possible.

--Aldedogn 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]