Talk:Stewards/Elections 2012/Votes/Elfix

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

Comments on vote of Suprememangaka[edit]

Suprememangaka (Verification pending)   The multiple missuses of the CheckUser tools at fr.wikipedia and the constant violation of the privacy and checkuser policies really prevent me from supporting you. Indeed you've many time published sensible informations, even when clearly not necessary. There are dozens of recent exemples : 11 January 2012 (diff), 9 January 2012 (diff), 26 December 2011 (first handled correctly, but the IP is finally published without any reason), etc. -- SM ** =^^= ** 00:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you already contacted the ombudsman commission, didn't you? Otherwise we cannot believe your accusations at all. --Vituzzu 00:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently a little clarification is needed here:
  • 11 January 2012: There are anonymous contributions from this IP; contributions from a banned user.
  • 9 January 2012: Same reason. The second IP is a shared IP from a school which should be blocked (CUs from frwiki normally don't perform blocks themselves).
  • 26 December 2011: Same reason. You will also notice that many sockpuppets have used this IP; don't you think it should be blocked?
If there is no need to reveal the IP, I don't reveal it.
You have been suggested at many times to report my so-called abuses to the Ombudsmen commission. Why do I feel that you will never do it? Elfix 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You are also talking about dozens of recent examples. Please link all of them here and I will give you an appropriate answer for each case. Thank you. Elfix 08:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, since there seems to be a little misunderstanding: I didn't reveal the IPs, the users in question revealed them themselves by contributing anonymously (= logged out). Since there were either troll or vandal edits from these IPs, I revealed their respective bonds with the blocked accounts. Elfix 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For your information, I have submitted the case to the Ombudsman commission. Elfix 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Elfix. I will answer here because I feel concerned by these privacy issues too. When I saw that people even called this comment as a "defamation" (which is a bit aggressive, but that's not the question), I think there should be a misunderstanding somewhere. Because, in my opinion, there is really something wrong with at least one of the two requests quoted above. I may be wrong, but in frwiki IP adresses are displayed almost in every requests, whereas I never saw one on a result here at metawiki. I don't see where it's written in the privacy policy that checkuser have the right to reveal private info in this situation. You've said that it helped to target blocks, but the IP you revealed has not been blocked. There is something wrong in it.
The case has already been submitted to the Ombudsman Commission. I hope they will answer before the end of your election because of two reasons : the first one is that would be a mess that somebody who is not clean regarding policies is elected as a steward (what I fear, quite frankly) and the second one because I know you're somebody really helpful and that won't be fair if you're not elected for a wrong reason or a misinterpretation. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The IP wasn't blocked, because no one had blocked it. As every CU from frwiki, I usually don't block IPs myself if they have been found thanks to the CU tools. I've just requested the block of that IP, which has just been done by another admin. Elfix 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment from Égoïté[edit]

It's not easy for someone who speaks only French to edit here in English. This is probably one of the reasons their votes have no comments, because they do not know if those votes and their french comments will be really understood ... and appreciated (or not) at their fair value. I think it’s essential to say it because comments are important in this type of vote. And not only for negative comments ... Sorry for the quality of my English. Thank you in advance. --Égoïté 22:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)