User talk:Platonykiss

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


Please have a seat, take a fruit or what you like, and after some repose tell me something, whatever comes into your mind...

Copyright problem with File:Platonykiss.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Platonykiss.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at this page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Consider also if it is more suitable to upload it at commons instead. -- Dferg ☎ talk 11:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Protocol about irregular activities by administrators of Italian wikipedia[edit]

Remark: Vituzzu tried to change this title with the note I was "faking messages".Platonykiss (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Grazie per menzionare questa pratica scorretta e spero che va bene per te che lascio "tuo soggetto" come sottotitolo. Ma mi hai forzato tu spostare il protocolo a questa pagina (e sei molto bravo di fare questi guai dagli altri utenti come ho visto), quindi lasciamo qui il vero contesto come un provisorio per adesso, prima che mi preoccupa di voi in una maniera giusta. Devo ancora pensare e raggionare con altri utenti come si fa nel vostro caso che mi sembra abbastanza grave e pesante.
Come ho visto da voi, mi sembra più una strategia molto comune da certi utenti che non hanno ancora capito che wikipedia non è il campo da gioco per i ragazzini che hanno un problema svilupparsi o che pensano che una enciclopedia fatta da tutti è un ottimo posto per fare giocchi di civiltà (passando dal fascismo personale) con altri utenti. Neanche è uno strumento per propaganda ufficiale che vuole censurare articoli che parlano di certi problemi in Italia.
The difference between me and you is that I do not cancel your signature behind your comments, that your message looks like one of mine. This was just one of many irregular activities which I could observe within a very few minutes, because I was simply interested to see what is going wrong at the Italian wikipedia. I strongly recommend that you read my protocol more carefully, before you burst into certain unreflected activities, although you do know already that it might harm yourself. You already did enough in this direction! I can assure you... Platonykiss (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Research talk:Anonymous mobile editing in Italian Wikipedia[edit]

The page above has nothing to do with your complete misunderstanding of your interactions with which quickly turned into trolling. There's indeed a language barrier. For example your long rant contains a "conspiracy" off-topic: "One further note on the administrator Vito: I understand from this discussion that he needed very elaborated arguments to block a user together with the IP address. He even went so far to declare that this was done on the territory of the United States and not by him." which sounds pretty laughable since it completely mistakes a message which dealt with an user caught by a proxyblock while using an infected PC in a public library.
But apart from language barrier I see a strong tendency to judge anything with very few knowledge plus a strong attitude towards ignoring a minimum set of rules. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

So abbastanza delle "regole" per dirti che non c'è nessuna regola che permette le cose completamente irregolari che ho visto da voi (e solo là!!!). Nel vostro caso dove la "barriera" consiste in escludere utenti senza annuncia in avanza, non si tratta di una "barriera di lingua". La maniera come qualche utenti occupano la lingua italiana da corrisponde a una dittatura. Ti prometto che avrà le conseguenze.
Posso solo dirti che non tratto nessuno in una maniera come ho visto là, il problema non è solo che è senza gusto (nessuno lo dubbia), ma la mancanza totale di una cultura democratica. Dall'origine wikipedia è nata là, e che cosa mi dici? Dove siete arrivati?
Perché ti devo scrivere qui? Perché neanche sei ingrado di rispondermi faccia a faccia da Ti posso solo chiedere che cosa fai là? A me sembra che sei al posto sbagliato!
Stiamo là che mi avete escluso per il motivo che avevo fatto "una blasfemia"! Ma chi sei? Dio in persona? Manca solo che mi scrivi che hai creato tu wikipedia! Platonykiss (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you felt so confident to delete my protocol which you liked to call a "pile of trolling". Of course, I do understand your real motives... The context was that anonymous editing via the mobile interface was provoked by authoritarian and very suspicious efforts by certain users with too much administrative power who did abuse it. Of course, your case merits a discussion of its own with a more current date. There I do agree with you.

My personal experience can be read here (Vituzzu tried to delete it for very obvious reasons):

Why I am not surprised![edit]

My experience with the Italian wikipedia can only be compared with those of few other countries. I think the simple reason is that the mobile interface was recommended in related discussions here with the intention to undermine rigid administrator behaviour or attempts of the government to censor the Italian wikipedia as a whole within the territory of the country (the latter assumption seems to me rather unlikely since Italian students do copy and paste in great frequency from, such a direct censorship would have been instantly remarked and caused reactions, but why not doing it within the community by users with administrative competences). Other rigid forms of censorship were documented in research studies here as well.

I tried to find out what is wrong, so I removed a tag which preceded an article about a Sardinian novel of the collective Mama Sabot about the scandalous activities of the so-called Poligono Sperimentale di Addestramento Interforze del Salto di Quirra. The latter willingly poisoned the local population. The whole article was claimed to be irrelevant which basically means that it was recommended for deletion. Immediately it was reverted by the user Equoreo who was clever enough to report me as a "vandalist" before I could do so with him!

His justification was that I did not explain my action, but I was about to do so at the discussion page, but my call to wait was not only ignored but deleted without any trace. Instead he asked another user with administrative rights Dimitrij Kasev to block me in order to prevent any editor activity for two days (including my own user page). My first thought was he might actually be a puppetsock of the former.

The latter justified his action that I removed the welcome banner at my discussion page with the remark that I did not feel welcome here (the former did not delete this comment, but he inserted an own above and deleted my signature after mine which is higly irregular). The interaction of both, if they were not simply one, was remarkably aggressive. Fortunately, I have never experienced something like that before at wikipedia! You can check the changes for the entry Perdas de Fogu, not only the blanking of its discussion, but also of the whole edit history of this discussion. It was obviously needed to declare the whole administrative procedure as an automatic one, so that they had to eliminate all traces which made evident how intended it was.

I checked their activities and I was astonished, how many similar interactions in front of other users had been registered only within a few minutes, almost about the same time. With respect to the topic here "anonymous mobile editing", I recommend to have a look here. This means that the observation by Nemo (see above) is right, the obstacles provided by administrators (without communicating in any way restrictions against new users which is actually a rule!) provoke additional activity, but it is a fight against administrators who suffer a lack of democratic culture! Something is rotten there!

First of all, despite of the need to point at problematic users, I was astonished, that administrators were given so much authority to take actions against other users and also to remove traces which remain usually transparent in other wikies. I do think that the generous access to provide yourself with such authorisations simply invites all kinds of abuse which I have never seen elsewhere, and I was amazed, how they managed to block me first, and then, in a second step, posted warnings at my user page. I have read many arguments at wikipedia, but in my case it was simply impossible to exchange even with one of them. One sentence I posted at the discussion, I asked them to wait for my explanation before reverting my actions, was not only removed, this action could not even be retraced. Quite scary and I actually wonder, how they did manage this!

The argument that references are not quoted can hardly be abused to suggest an entry for deletion. There are plenty references concerned with the current continuation of the occupation history of Sardinia reporting about genetic deseases, medical statistics and death rates in this area. I mean everybody knows that public media are full of it!

I should mention here that there was a protest against censorship in 2011, when there was the weired suggestion to block Italian users by their IP address (exactly what did happen to me, although I was not logged in from Italy!). But it gave me an interesting insight what could be the way of censorship for the next future, when censors establish among the users and provide themselves generously with administrative competences. To be on the safe side I made a screenshot of this post, because they realised to turn wikipedia into an efficient tool of censorship.

My advice is to react very prompt (I usually avoid that) and also to have a closer look at the activities of certain users with administrative rights. Such a study could be very useful to provide some further measures against such a profound abuse. Platonykiss (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Another user Vito blocked me again on 14 March (12:38 GMT), after I dared to report the manipulation at the discussion page of Perdas de Fogu. Interesting enough, he approached me from the very beginning in an open aggressive tone telling me that my Italian was made by an automatic translator, but his behaviour left absolutely no doubt that he understood precisely what I tried to report there. I emphasise that I did none of that kind which could provide him with a justification of his action... But you should just read the discussion there, it tells more than volumes could that we have a fine example here of how users with administrative competences should not behave!
I will let you know here, as soon as I get some more news.
Platonykiss (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
One further note on the administrator Vito: I understand from this discussion that he needed very elaborated arguments to block a user together with the IP address. He even went so far to declare that this was done on the territory of the United States and not by him. If you would like to question his blocking activities, he has deactivated such requests by blocked users, and on his behalf he did not warn me before doing so. I start to believe that the Italian wikipedia needs some more observers, because these guys do not understand the difference between to troll and to patrol. According to this very flexible definition a "troll" is simply someone they do not like or do not trust for some reason, which provides hardly enough justification to block anyone. They also left a mark that the discussion needs to be verified. I expect certain users with administrative authorisations will delete it without leaving any trace as they already did some days ago.
As far as the verification is concerned, I fully agree.
Platonykiss (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Verified! I did not expect that it was so easy to find exactly those I was looking for... Their way of mobbing is not very impressive (I expected a little bit more phantasy!). It is obvious that they try hard to prevent me to touch articles there (sa far I did only some modest improvements).
Platonykiss (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Next action followed by the next block (as usual not announced, before taking place, as it should). Nobody tries to communicate anything there. Only the last reason by Ruthven did not fail to amuse me: "Blasphemy!" If these guys are not from the government, they play their role up to perfection. The right actors to do a nice parody about the GDR or any other authoritarian and obviously stupid régime which has a problem with democracy and to face users on a reciprocal level face to face. You can see here, what the administrator tried to hide by my exclusion. Platonykiss (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Some other news, earlier edits of mine at Italian wikipedia had been reverted and I got a message that somebody tried to log-in on my account at the English wikipedia, illegally with a password! I was adviced by a security bot to change it. It is time that certain cicci at should learn a lesson, because it is evident that they got too much used to do things which are not correct. Platonykiss (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Intended obstruction of a protocol about irregular activities at Italian wikipedia[edit]

Dear Nemo, I moved the discussion back where it belongs. I thank you for your kind understanding. Platonykiss (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

At least this is the first time during the last days that I see something done by someone from which is not completely out of order. You should teach the others, how to do that.
Nevertheless, I am very sad that you did not appreciate my contribution within the discussion of your investigation, because there was already a discussion in 2011 (in connection with a strike), when some users of explicitely mentioned the possibility to do anonymous editing via the mobile device. It is a clear indication, that some users already faced problems with a certain abuse of privileges caused by administrators. If I compare it with my experience, I would say some administrators do force regular users to do so, although I never did try it. But what I saw was enough to realise that there is number of users who should be suspended from administrative responsibilities, because they are unfit to bear them. Am I right in my assumption that you neither like to exchange about these problems, although it is obvious that they are related to your investigation?
It is the reason, why also you should read carefully my report, you can do so on this page, if it is the way you prefer it. But it does not offer any justification to delete my contribution from the discussion of your research. I hope that I made myself clear that also your edit was a second attempt to obstruct things which are going on at I will ask more users to have a close eye on administrators there.
This time it is me who kindly asks you to roll back your own vandalism, although it would be more correct, if I did already report you for censorship on your research discussion. It could prevent that I have to report you elsewhere. Anyway do rather read than edit (especially, if your intention is to move or even to delete something). But for this we have a history, the real heart of the wiki which keeps transparent, what others try very hard to hide! Platonykiss (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Your commentary is about your own experience with the Italian Wikipedia in general. There are several venues on Meta-Wiki where one can post such content, although some may find it an unproductive rant. That research page is just about the effects of some specific interface changes on and it's most definitely not the most appropriate page for it. And users interested in wiki research surely don't want to see edit wars. Thanks, Nemo 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I read you very carefully, but I do not think that your arguments provide any justification for what you have done. It is in your responsibility, as you might know very well. The link there was just for possible readers who might ask themselves about the blanked page (if there are any, they are most likely those involved in Italian wikipedia like Vito). Their stupidity did really surprise me, because they even tried to hack my user account obviously with the intention to do something stupid in order to blame me for that (please have a look at my last entry at the protocol). It fits very well to a long row of other irregularities which I had to observe before.
There are such fools that even the most neutral person possible cannot any longer let them go with just an admonition. I already told you that you do better to stay away from them (and do not try to act as their right hand, because I already saw that you know each other). Just consider it well... there are worse things that can happen than these infantile edit wars among a certain kind of users with whom we obviously do deal here. The real problem is that this fastidious kind (of a certain age and a certain sex) keep better users away for very obvious motives usually after their typical way of welcoming (like a natural expression of their disgrace), that is why we have to get rid of them. Your research was interesting for me, but it hardly hit the nail on its head. Platonykiss (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)