User talk:AFBorchert
FYI[edit]
I haven't had contact with any of the members of the CU-team off-wiki. This also means none of the members of the CU-team ever reached out to me off-wiki. Other than that, please see the top of my user page here. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Vermont: I see you had a related question, so ping. There hasn't been any communication off-wiki and as far as I'm aware nothing has been (revision) deleted. Besides c:User:Alexis Jazz obviously, but that hadn't been edited since.. two weeks ago I think when I added a pink babel. So whatever anyone is talking about, they should be able to give you a diff. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 01:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Alexis Jazz, I found the recent comment by Krd quite concerning: Commons checkusers were forced to make thoughts about their physical safety during this case after personal threats. I do not have the full background of this but I am aware of this notice where you asked the CU team to go quietly or go in a firestorm in conjunction with a couple of threatening messages at Meta: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. All this in the context of a provocative comment by your sock where you knew that it was interpreted as a death threat by the CU team. I am aware of the removal of your notice addressed to the CU team and your recent statement where you stated: I have changed my mind about a bunch of things. Interesting to hear but this doesn't make a real difference now for your status at Commons. You worked hard on going down in flames and succeeded. Farewell, AFBorchert (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I added another bit to my user page. Alexis Jazz (ping me) 19:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Alexis Jazz, you are stating on your user page that you were blind with rage and incapable of self-reflection. This is indeed correct but you are still assigning fault to the CU team by complaining that an indefblock was dropped without prior notice, without even trying to hear my side of story. As I told you before on your user page ([6], [7]), this is standard practice in case of CU results that uncover an abusive sockpuppet. Anyway, I do not see how I can be of help here. Jameslwoodward stated that confidential information was relevant to the decision of the CU team: As Checkusers we are not allowed to reveal a wide variety of confidential information that we come upon in our work. That is a factor in the present case. My attempt to resolve this case was based on the assumption that all relevant informations (with the exception of the details of the CU result) are public. This assumption was based on the initial comments by two CU members ([8], [9]). But this assumption appears to be wrong. Another factor is that when I made my proposal, I wasn't even aware of all relevant public aspects of your rage. I noticed your statement at Meta only after I made my proposal. I refered to it in my first response on your talk page but you chose not to take it down at that time. Instead you labeled the CU team as corrupt. Only later, when I went through all your edits since the block, I found that you had already speculated about the CU team taking bribes in the DMCA case. All this in combination is really bad – even without considering any private information of the CU team that I do not know about. You are already in the territory that could warrant a global WMF ban. In summary, I do not see how a return to Commons is possible. And if you ever intend to try this direction, you have no choice but to come to an agreement with the Commons CU team. I cannot play a role here no matter what you are going to add to your Meta user page. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)