Jump to content

Talk:Harassment consultation 2015/Ideas/Blocked indefinitely

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Global appeals are an even bigger issue, and are needed for all editors


I don't see this solution as within the scope of this harassment consultation: It is bigger than that.

Every project should have a meaningful way to appeal blocks to someone higher than a "sysop/administrator." The English Wikipedia has several methods, ultimately ending in the arbitration committee, which is an elected group of editors (historically, these have all been administrators, but there is one serious candidate this year who is not an administrator). The English-language Arbitration Committee does not always take the administrator's side in disputes that amount to "admin vs. non-admin."

Editors who are sincerely here to work on the project of smaller Wikipedias which do not have a meaningful way to appeal an administrator's decision should be able to appeal to a global group of uninvolved editors who can act as an "appellate court." This goes for brand-new editors, not just those with years of experience and thousands of edits.

The most expedient way to handle this on disputes where language is not an issue would be to have a group of editors who know a language used by all participants in the dispute and which has a majority of Stewards or other high-level cross-wiki elected functionaries to act as an ad-hoc "appellate court" for that dispute. Prior to taking on the case, the editors would of course have to familiarize themselves with the local rules and history of that Wiki, so in practice, this means the non-functionary members would be editors of that Wiki on all but the smallest of projects.

I don't have a solution for disputes in which where there aren't enough functionaries that know a language that all disputing parties also know. Davidwr/talk 19:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I speak as the projects, where there is no Arbritation Committee. Where is the main law, who will be a loud scream. Where the participant said, I agree with your terms and conditions, but administrators can not do anything because the issue should be solved president of Wikimedia-X country.--6AND5 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree this is a serious problem concerning small wikis. I myself was banned indef for only posing a question on sites rules in a polite way. The ban caused an outcry, the admin was asked by several editors to resign or have his adminship confirmed but he simply ignored all of it and stays an admin. I started a RfC here on meta, several users supported my claim, but it lead nowhere. Stewards are either too lazy or too scared to interfere. I'm still banned indef for just posing a question on site rules!!! And there's no defence, no appeal, I'll probably stay banned forever and there would be no consequences for the admin who banned me. --Auvajs (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

And people wont help you. In such environment of fear, they are afraid to support you openly - including me. I was blocked there by the same admin for 14 days, just for polite disagreement with the name of WikiProject. So Meta AC would help here for those cases admins abuse their rights and the local community is scared to push them away.--Juandev (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Meta arbitration


Well, I think if the project does not have structures, Meta arbitration shoule be available.--Juandev (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's why - Hier wird wieder einmal ein Vorschlag gemacht, um kleine Sprachprojekte zu schikanieren. Der Benutzer (ist auf cs.wikisource unbefristet gesperrt worden) hätte gerne ein Meta-Schiedsgericht, das über unbefristete Sperren in kleinen Sprachversionen richten soll und diese im Zweifelsfall dann natürlich auch aufheben kann. Holder--6AND5 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

+2 [1], [2] and so on...--6AND5 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Comment Comment And what is your problem with that? Elections und votings on wikipedias are usually announced (see banner steward elections above).
-jkb- is a very experienced admin, not only on small wikis, if he blocks someone, there will be other reasons than mentioned.
And if not, everyone can do a "request for comment" here on meta, if you think something is wrong on your wiki. And if you don't find enough supporters there, its definitly your problem.
--Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
And what RfC can change. People blocked remain blocked.--Juandev (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
And what do you think, a meta arbitration would change, if the local community doesn't accept it. I'll tell you: Blocked users remain blocked. If unblocked, they would be reblocked again. --Gschupfta Ferdl (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gschupfta Ferdl: You are evidently some -jkb-'s buddy from the German Wikipedia. You may have a long-time positive experience with -jkb- there but you evidently don't know his dark side as well. Do you know the details about how he aggresively drove away the founder of Czech Wikipedia from the project? Do you know the real reasons why he stopped being active there? (And I can assure you that if the reasons were known to German Wikipedians he'd probably never be voted a member of ArbCom there). Do you know details about his long time conduct on small wikis, most notably cs.wikisource? He was never confirmed to be an admin by the cs.wikisource community itself. Now he totally ignores all requests to either resign or have his adminship confirmed. He even ignores community consensus (more cs.wikisource users are for lifting the ban than for maintaining it). And he's openly lying about it. I never did any sockpupping on cs.wikisource (and it can be easily proven) and yet -jkb- keeps telling this is the reason for me being banned indef. In fact he banned me because I'm his personal enemy. (And this is not the first time he banned his personal enemies despite they never did anything wrongful to the project at all. Some made no edits to the project at all!) So to sum it up, there are no ways to prevent a small wiki to turn into a kind of a concentration camp where admins harass users they don't like. This is a violation of the founding principles. Unless we want wikis that allow admins to harass users we must do something about it. --Auvajs (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

And he has long periods (several month) of inactivity on cs.ws - thats why he need his rights there, to block everbody, who coins the idea to desysops him. I got 14 days from him for trying to openly discuss the name of the wikiproject. Is this and experince admin behaviour to block people, who participate in a disscussion to find a concensus? No it isnt, it is a missuse of admin rights. Because he wanted other name for the wikiproject and he didnt want to respect concensus, so he blocked the oponent POV.--Juandev (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some points just fort he record (might be for my „buddy“ @Gschupfta Ferdl: (whom I don’t know at all):

  • point one: voting for bureaucrat 1 on cs.wiki, voting for bureaucrat 2 on sourceswiki; if somebody thinks it wasn’t enough so please contact @Yann: who was a steward at that time and gave me the rights
  • point two: calling users to be a „buddy“ in this way would be enough for a block on the German WP, more over if the user, who does it, is known as notoric sockpuppet player since more years. But nevertheless: to say, me or somebody else established in one project a „concentration camp“ would be enough for an indef block; the user here did it, as I can see, three times now: [3], [4], [5].

Slowly we are comming to the point where a global block for this harassing could be done - for both users beeing involver here. Regards -jkb- 17:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  1. So you were voted by cs.wikipedia and wikisource.org communities, none of them is cs.wikisource, is it? So I was indeed right that the cs.wikisource community itself never confirmed you as an admin. Quite on the contrary, several users asked you to either resign or have your adminship confirmed last year. You ignored them all.
  2. I was a problem user in 2006, I was punished for it back than and never did it again. But were'not dealing with a 10-year-old history here, we're here because you banned a user who did nothing bad to the wiki at all, you're unable to admit you made a huge mistake and you're constantly lying about it. Shame on you. And about that links, it's funny that you're taking them personally but you're were not mentioned there. And I really maintain that a wiki can easily turn into a kind of concentration camp if local admins harass local users. Consult a dictionary for the term "buddy" btw. It's not a derogatory word. --Auvajs (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. Support of the wikipedia editors is not a support of wikisource. Moreover, this was done about 10 years ago and today there are different contributors. Do you have their support?
So definitely Auvajs behaviour was not trolling. Moreover as a skilled admin, you should know, how to deal with trolls and you should know, that it makes a conflict to call someone a troll. So why you do that?--Juandev (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Quite apart from this case: If people think that an admin should resign they can start a voting in their project. If there is a majority pro resigning they can make a request for deadminstration on meta. Then stewards will take away the admin rights. If people think that there are problems with specific decisions of an admin they can start something like an arbcom in their project. That's the way in big Wikipedias and in small Wikipedias. No need for an international arbcom. --Holder (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Holder::Non sequitur (for small project only): for example (e. g.): Why two Czech, not Slovak editors was added among slovak wictionary administrators, btw. one of them (Zdenekk2) he himself him? 19:36, 31. júl (July) 2012. Soon after it Danny B. places new regulations for administrators: Ak správca neprovede po dobu pol roka zaznamenanú správcovskú akciu, môžu mu byť práva odobratá./ If administrator within half of year does no registered editation, which he could do only with administrators rights, he can be desyssoped/deadminstrationed. 12:06, 22. september 2012. Btw. Danny B. is Czech too, not Slovak. Why not after two years - as it is small project? Finally JAn Dudík (also Czech, not Slovak admin) removes all Slovak adminnistrators after only 31 hours:37 minutes and adds one more Czech admin: the same Danny B., so remains only Czech administrators, all of them being opponents of Slovak editors, also oponents of Slovak mode of editing their own wictionary! After it, no Slovak editors edited that occupied Slovak wictionary, nor (almost) any editors of other nationality, who opposes this politics of these ...(autocensored)(that is why there was Dan Polansky blocked by JAn Dudík indef., although explained as/by different cause). Yes, many editions made Czech editor Lenka64, who all over the wikiworld strongly agrees with wikipolicy of these editors, mentioned above (also with ex-admin on cs.wikt Milda) and harrases against their opponents. The very same people acts/acted on other small projects - e. g. cs.wikisource, cs.wictionary, cs.wikiversity, and so on, in manner, which goes against opinion/willings of these communities. (I did not mention the situation about Auvais's indef block on cs.wikisource as I hope You are familiar with it. --Kusurija (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kusurija, I think you're wrong.
These new admins have been regulary elected on Slovakian Wiktionary, see wikt:sk:Wikislovník:Žiadosť o práva správcu.
They got the sysop rights after a regular rewquest on meta: Steward_requests/Permissions/2012-07.
The other sysops lost their rights due to long inactivity, see Steward_requests/Permissions/2012-09#inactive_sysops.40sk.wikt.
Palica was inactive since 2006-04-09
Zdislav since 2007-04-05
Atomique since 2008-07-03
Neuromancer since since 2008-07-03
Maros since 2008-08-24
Kandy Talbot since 2011-03-25
So five of these admins have been inactive for more than two years when they lost their rights, except for one who was inactive for one year and four months.
I don't think that there is any problem to be discussed.
Best regards. --Holder (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi Holder. You are one of the persons known to have engaged in or having been part of harassments of users in small wikis. So your arguments are not taken seriously. This is to be on the safe side, at least. They may be pro domo. --
??? I'm sorry, but could you please give an example where I've been "part of harassments of users in small wikis"? --Holder (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Kusurija, you probably reverse Holder with somebody else, Holder is working mainly innot one but more small and very small wikis. -jkb- 18:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
To enhance Holder's reference list, the mentioned change of the policy was suggested and agreed to in mid 2012 (cf. Automatické odebírání práv v případě neaktivity). The only remaining opposition was placed mid 2015‎ (cf. Diskusia k Wikislovníku:Správcovia: Rozdiel medzi revíziami).--Manuae (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Holder::Is that your believe or personal experience. My personal experience is that these basic mechanisms does not work on smaller projects. Why? Becasue some admins, there really want to have the rights there and thus there are able to lie and play folse games to stay in their possition. On example, where it did not work: User talk:PeterSymonds#Rights removal. It is an example, when local power holder (admin) decieved steward. And stewards tend to belive admins, rather than common users.--Juandev (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Juandev: I think that's a good example why a global arbcom wouldn't work. How could a member of such an arbcom unterstand the details of your conflict? Most discussions in small wikis are written in languages that probably none of the members of a global arbcom unterstand. So the arbcom always depents on users who translate the discussions and therefore on their opinions of the conflict. I'm very sorry, but you have to solve such problems locally. --Holder (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, I dont think that is a problem. Meta is an international community, so AC members would cover some languages. More over requests to Meta's AC would be provided in English. I dont think so it would be a big problem to translate those few cases for AC to English. If it works now for RFC, why it wont work for AC?--Juandev (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
If you are saying "you have to fix these problems localy" I am asking you, how. You said the same way as on big projects, but I have provided you with one example, where it didnt work and I can come up with much more. The problem in small projects is, that due to the small number of its members mechanisms we know from big projects does not work or are harmful.--Juandev (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
BTW, regarding issue from sk.wikt. Inactivity is some Meta's rule to desysops? I know projects, who desysops for inactivity, but I also know projects, where inactivity does not matter.--Juandev (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia arbitration


There are worries that Meta arbitration wont work. There are worries about language barrier. So what about to use a nearest AC. E.g. Wikipedia's AC, may somehow via Meta cover also cases from other projects?--Juandev (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply