Requests for permission/Ripuarian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This debate was moved from the main Requests for permissions page. Bastique 18:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ripuarian Wikipedia[edit]

I request sysop and bureaucrat access removal.

Emergency: voting procedures not followed, insufficient community support.
bureaucrat promoted his closed group.--Peterretep 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you give more details? Please point to the procedures, and where the voting page was located. I don't see the sysops using their rights right now, so there is no big emergency. I will ask Duuvelskaal to respond here and maybe explain. Effeietsanders 07:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me! User:Peterretep does not exist in the ripuarian wikipedia, so I wonder who this is. Actually, a vote is running here to remove admin rights from ksh:user:Purodha, who is the only admin apart from the five listed above. I have been administrator with Purodha right from the start of the ksh-wikipedia. You already noticed the page where four of the five users listed above were voted as admins (here) with 1:0 vote. The only contra vote stemmed from a user with no previous article edits (ksh:user:De Klütteboor) and was not counted. Purodha or other users did not protest. And after the vote was finished, a new user appeared and voted contra (ksh:user:Satansbraten). Actually, Purodha has previously been accused of using sockpuppets, but due to my lack of technical knowledge, I am not able to find out if that is true. Dbach 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (aka ksh:user:Düüvelskääl)

The removal request was initiated by an unknown user, who wants to disturb the process of cooperation in ksh by spreading untruths. There was no discussion to dismiss ksh:User:Düüvelskääl. Nobody wants to dismiss him. This is a strange idea of a strange new user. Forget this disturbing request. Thanks. --Metacaesius 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (ksh:user:Caesius)

Sadly, I must disagree with several assertions, above. So the case can, imho, not be closed and forgotten. However, I see no urgency, as I cannot see damage happening currently (beyond a non-material, possible loss of prestige of the Ripuarian Wikipedia itself, or some of its contributors) So, I shall be back when time permits, and clarify these points one by one. --Purodha Blissenbach 13:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm Back. I did some reseach, too. Going through the above assertions one by one.

  • True: a vote is running here to remove admin rights from ksh:user:Purodha,
  • True: who is the only admin apart from the five listed above.
  • True: I [i.e. Düüvelskääl] have been administrator with Purodha right from the start of the ksh-wikipedia.
  • False: four of the five users listed above were voted as admins (here) with 1:0 vote.
    1. Fact: vote counts given as support:reject:neutral (before the a complainer changed them) were: 1:1:2 (Caesius) 0:1:3 (Helesike) 0:1:0 (Jüppsche) 0:1:2 (Manes)
    2. Fact: Adminstrator ksh:user:Purodha copied the above data from a pretty informal and casual series of written opinions in midst of a discussion on a talk page, so as to follow the requirement that ballots are to be held on the page registered for it, which apparently everybody else including Administrator Düüvelskääl was willing to ignore. By mistake, he added Jüppche, who had been voicing his opinion, but neither was suggested as an administrator, nor asked for it. Adminstrator ksh:user:Purodha also asked that others check what he did and correct possible mistakes. As a courtesy to his fellow editors, he copied their noted opinions, too. He also added a leading section to each candidate, saying candidate did not yet declare his readyness to accept being elected and This voting runs for 1 month once a candidate made such declaration, and a proper announcement has been made and we have not yet set up rules governing the process of counting votes
    3. Fact: Since Adminstrator ksh:user:Purodha added the 3 correct and 1 incorrect copies from the talk page, 2006-Dec-07, the page was not edited until 2007-Jan-23
    4. Facit: Noone cared to be elected. Moone cared to vote. Noone even cared to remove these obviously unnecessary attempts to hold a voting as timed out. Even Adminstrator ksh:user:Purodha forgot to follow up, or did not care to.
  • False: The only contra vote …
    • In fact, there were 4 reject votes
  • False: …stemmed from a user with no previous article edits (ksh:user:De Klütteboor)
  • True but misleading: …and was not counted.
    1. Fact: not counted by ksh:user:Düüvelskääl, that is.
    2. Fact: which was not justified. There was no rule allowing it when the voting started, and you cannot alter the conditons after the fact. Doing so would even be illegal. I.e. under our jurisdiction, ksh:user:De Klütteboor could force us to have his vote being counted by court order.
  • Incorrect: Purodha or other users did not protest.
    1. Fact: There was a protest raised here (else, to what am I replying here?)
    2. Fact: There was protest filed on the election page
    3. Fact: having been made aware of, and researeched some facts, I do protest.
  • Twisted truth: after the vote was finished, …
    1. Assumption: he likely wanted to say "the election", or "the process of voting", not "the vote."
    2. Fact: newly made sysops and beurocrats by Düüvelskääl now show up and enter votes for each other, and themselves.
  • True: a new user appeared,…
  • Nonsens: and voted contra ksh:user:Satansbraten).
    1. Fact: ksh:user:Satansbraten was the new user, none of the ones being listed to be voted on.
    2. Fact: after Düüvelskääl had arbitrarily declared the elections closed, which formally had not even begun, see above, and after Düüvelskääl had published 3 undisputibly wrong counts of 1 support votes, 0 reject votes, where indeed were 0 supporting votes, and another hardly disputibly wrong 'final count' of 1 supporting vote and 0 votes against here, where in fact there was 1 reject vote, see above, the new user made an edit both showing protest and adding his No-vote against each of the proposed candidates.
    3. Fact: Had the voting correctly been closed, I would have to call that a clear case of attempted forgery (else stupidity).
    4. Fact: Under the circumstance mentioined, I am inclined to see these No-votes rather as part of the protest, like telling each one individually: "I don't want you as sysops/beurocrats, you've not been honorably elected. Instead, you were promoted into a position that you did not earn by merit, and don't imho deserve." This edit summary is a key to my understanding, it says (translated) "you cannot do it this way", in the sense of "it is incorrect" or "unfair" or "immoral."
  • True Purodha has previously been accused of using sockpuppets
    1. Fact: by Düüvelskääl, only. It has never been proven.
    2. imho: it is likely an expression of anger, that comes up when Düüvelskääl thinks others weren't supporting his views but, what Düüvelskääl − often incorretly − sees as Purodha's.
  • Opinion (which may be true, maybe not) but due to my lack of technical knowledge, I am not able to find out if that is true. Dbach
  • True: The removal request was initiated by an unknown user,
  • Opinion (cannot comment, imho irrelevant): who wants to disturb the process of cooperation in ksh by
  • Questionable: spreading untruths.
    • Fact: As seen above, there were some irregularities.
  • True: There was no discussion to dismiss ksh:User:Düüvelskääl.
  • Wrong: Nobody wants to dismiss him.
    1. Fact: Düüvelskääl is listed in this request as one of the users to be dismissed.
    2. Fact: Düüvelskääl, it says, 'was promoting his closed group'
    3. Question: is that valid a cause for dismissal?
    4. Fact: Düüvelskääl, in his edit comment, when giving the incorrect vote counts, wrote (translated) 'we have [made/found] an agreement, let us play a bit Democracy [now]'
    5. Fact: He made several (as he likely sees it) supporters of (part of) his positions sysops.
    6. Fact: Noone suggested, or voted for, a new beurocrat.
    7. Fact: Düüvelskääl made a new beurocrat.
    8. Fact: Düüvelskääl, in his edit pretends, a beurocrat were needed to edit the MediaWiki name space.
    9. Fact: The only thing, a beurocrat can do, is to make sysops.
    10. Fact: Düüvelskääl is well aware of this fact.
    11. Remark: (Even if if he were not, since he is both a sysop and a beurocrat, it is among his obligations to be informed) but he knows it.
    12. Fact: Meanwhile, also Satansbraten expressis verbis asked him to resign from his positions.
    13. Fact: Düüvelskääl threatens a user with admin power abuse, audaciously misinforms him, and incorrectly tells him, he were not allowed to vote. Since this is an absolute nogo for me, I now support his dismissal as an admin, and consequentially, as a beurocrat.
    14. Fact: I see that Düüvelskääl violated this rule, last section, when he without establishing the required community consensus initiated these checkuser requests. Regarding this another serious violation of duties, and power abuse, I suggest his dismissal.
    15. Fact: As I see it, Düüvelskääl had no justifying cause for any of these checkuser requests. Regarding this yet another serious violation of his duties, and power abuse, I request his dismissal.
  • Opinion (cannot comment, irrelevant): This is a strange idea of a strange new user.
  • (Wish) Forget this disturbing request. Thanks. --Metacaesius
    • My Wish: see the facts, value the facts, and take appropriate action, if need be.

These were the facts as I see them, and to the extent, I could find them.

My opinion about all this:

  1. These quarrels are likely just another step of a process described here (page currently needing minor updates)
  2. As to sysops and beurocrats:
    1. workloadwise, there is no need for additional sysops, leave alone beurocrats. There are:
      1. less than 2 pages to be deleted a week,
      2. one page protected in a year (other than main page, and inconsiderate activity of admin Düüvelskääl)
      3. nothing to be moved from talk pages to protected pages ever,
      4. no users or IP adresses blocked in a year.
    2. I don't mind to have more sysops, provided, they know their duties. I'm participating in other wikies, where almost everyone is a sysop, and a beurocrat, which works seamlessly.
    3. As to admin Düüvelskääl, I am a little bit more inclined to see a request of removal of adminship raised here, than not.
      • I shall not take a stance, since I simply do not know the rules governing it.
      • Also, I stand neutral towards his adminship.
        Should it come to me having to answer whether or not I want his adminship to continue, I'd say no, now.
        1. We are having several arguments about presentational matters, minor content, and about personal conduct, etc. in the Wikipedia. Concering adminship, afaiks our only disagreement worth mentioning is that,
          • while I want admins (in their role as admins) to not engage in decisionmaking about article content other than deleting patent nonsense, and undisputed SPAM,
          • Düüvelskääl wants to give admins, per their majority, the final say about matters of article content, etc.
        2. having seen this edit, I now shall support Düüvelskääls dismissal, I believe. This is few drops too many in a full barrel. Instead of welcoming a new user, he dumps 6 viable misinformations on her, twice threatens to block her (on illegitimate grounds) and tries to deprieve her right to vote (on illegitimate grounds again)
          I believe, this is completely unacceptable.
        3. With these checkuser requests, Düüvelskääl violated the requirement of community consensus.
          I believe, this is unacceptable.
          Please, tell me, when my analysis is wrong.
        4. With the same checkuser requests, for which a valid reason does not exist, and was not presented, Düüvelskääl imho violated basic rules of respectability and mannors.
          I believe, such conduct cannot be accepted.
          Please, inform me, if my analysis is wrong.
  3. The election process was invalid and should imho be dropped, or repeated. Even if practical results can be expected to finally be similar or identical to what we have now, just for the sake of transparency and clarity, and courtesy of future new users, I suggest:
    1. that we establish formal, written, rules to be followed in elections, such as:
      1. who can start an election process,
      2. candidates must agree to be elected,
      3. announcement(s) to be made,
      4. minimal duration of the voting process, and
      5. who is elegible to vote;
      6. final vote counting and possible verification process,
      7. possibility to raise complaints, and
      8. final decision when time to complain is over;
    2. and when we have them, hold elections, if we have candidates.
    3. I have no proposal to make so as to what we should do in the meantime, since we now have admins and a beurocrat, whose authority is questionable. If there is a rule for it from the side of the Wikimedia Foundation, which I am not aware of, may it be followed.
--Purodha Blissenbach 17:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC), additions --Purodha Blissenbach 03:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on folks - what are you discussing here? The vote for the new admins which is doubted here is currently being repeated (ksh:Wikipedia:Köbes-Wahl), and if Purodha wants to act faster, he can start a vote against these adims in the local project (ksh:Wikipedia:Köbes-Avwahl).

If there is a local majority against the new admins - it will be easy to get rid of them. If however there is a local majority for these admins - it is probably not a gentleman's way to ask for de-sysoping them on meta due to formal reasons.

Also, Purodhas own election as admin suffered from the very problems that he states now as reasons to make the current elections invalid.

  • Nonsens. Also, everything you now raise against it invalidated your election as well. They were held in parallel under exactly identical conditions. They were properly announced, we agreed to be elected, votes were counted correctly, there were 0 No-votes, so there was no question of a quorum, noone complained. Anything else? --Purodha Blissenbach 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to answer all the "facts" and statements from above nor the personal accusations - I believe this is just not the right place to discuss such stuff. Dbach 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Imho
  • This is exactly the place to make admin/beurocrat power abuse known, afaics. My point is not the support or lack off support you may have in the Ripuarian Wikipedia, nor the chance that — as Peterretep put it — 'your closed group' may vote each other into adminship. (Note that, I do not share his/her view, I only quote it)
  • It was not me who asked for desysoping in the first place. (But I now agree, because of facts which you have set later)
    Reasons why I see it as detrimental to our Wikipedia should you continue being admin acting like this:
    1. older ones:
      • serial destruction of editors work by rewriting/renaming orgies.
      • unwillingness to discuss, instead article rewrites and abuse of admin power protecting pages to to push a view.
      • engagament in destructive edit wars.
      • misguiding users, admins were deciding about content.
      • public personal attacks, public insinuations against and public lies about me.
      • deliberately wasting weeks of my admin time, boasting publicly with intention to keep me off useful work.
      • creating a whole mess forwarding unchecked, untested, and wrong localization data in a wrong file most quickly into Mediawiki svn, against my warnings, publicly putting all the blame for your lack of caution, lack of knowledge, and your mistakes on me at several places (indide, and outside), abusing this to ask other editors for my dismissal as an admin, even though you know well, that programming work supporting MediaWiki development has absolutely no relation to adminship, telling editors the opposite.
      • election forgery, resp. promoting users who were not elected.
      Out of solidarity with you, I did nothing about all these beyond restoring other users edits after your attacks.
      Someone else raised complaint against your 'creative' vote counting.
      Someone else asked to desysop you.
    2. Newer ones:
      • Threatening a new user with admin power abuse and blocks
      • Trying to disallow users to vote.
      • Starting CheckUser without required community support.
      • Several CeckUser requests against the privacy protection rules.
      Now I finally agreee with some others sights.
      I have likely talked to 3 dozen people or so about our difficulties, both wikipedians, wikimedians, and not, many of whom told me, I should suggest to have you desysoped. I didn't. I asked wmf for mediation, and heared it is going to take some time. Ok. I hang on.
  • Now, if any of the above, or all together, should allow wmf to revoke your admin/beurocrat right, I support the pledge.
  • While I can well stand an occasional joke, I am tired of having to remove nonsential edits like this one again.
  • Should this end with no admin at all but myself in our Wikipedia, I am contemplating to resign. I don't want to be the only one, I don't want to be left with all admin work, I do want my admin work to be properly controlled.
--Purodha Blissenbach 06:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Talking about admin/beurocrat power abuse - that is exactly why I started a vote for your dismission here. I think only the local users can decide on that issue. Dbach 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My claim is that I started a vote to dismiss you before User:Peterretep demanded de-sysoping me. That is easily proven :) The rest is explained there. I am not going to comment upon your accusations and allegations here unless other meta users ask me to do so, since we have a lengthy discussion about all that in the local project. Dbach 23:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

joh dann lossens jonn!--Peterretep 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I asked you already to prove your claims there, too, or remove them. Your answer also was, you were unwilling to. You are asked to correct your errors, here and there. Be warned. Defamation of charater is illegal, and I shall not let you get away with it. --Purodha Blissenbach 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

illegal - shall not let you get away with it - what might that mean? Dbach 20:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)