Jump to content

User talk:Zezen

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Guy Macon Alternate Account in topic Evidence, please

2016 Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassment[edit]

{Dear Visitors: please note that this image to the right ->, seemingly inserted by a bot run by "I JethroBT (WMF)@metawiki", does not lead to the displayed "File:NounProject Leaves.png", nor to its source: https://thenounproject.com/search/?q=peace&i=220868. It leads to an external site: https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/ for "resource" tracking ("Uncover the products, services, and experiences that customers and employees [us?] want next", as per Qualtric's blurb on their main page), and was sent to thousands of users with the tracking cookie identifiers and the "campaign" (are we at war?) "SID=SV_bpwtax5WbOwBf3D", "using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire/Users/Addressing_harassment&oldid=15896218" as declared in the tag. I leave it for archival purposes. Do not click it. Zezen (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)}. Reply

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey [same note to visitors: same site, same ID: "SID=SV_bpwtax5WbOwBf3D, Do not click it], to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Opt-out instructions)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]


You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

JSTOR account redistribution (The Wikipedia Library)[edit]

Hi - according to our records you received a free account for JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. Because we’ve used up all of our allocated accounts, and it’s been some time since they were distributed, we want to redistribute any accounts that aren’t being used to users on our waitlist.

If you’re still using, or plan to use, your JSTOR access, no problem! Simply head over to the Library Card platform, log in, and request a renewal of your account. You should be able to do this from your user page, or the JSTOR signup page. If you can’t find the renewal button, or have any other issues or questions about this, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. We’ll begin redistributing inactive accounts in September; if you request renewal after then we will only be able to reactivate your account if we have spots remaining. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply


Dear Zezen, you page User:Zezen/Draft has been deleted. Please do no recreate pages with such content. --Krd 11:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

RE:About how I can help now[edit]

Hello, Mr/Mrs Zezen of MetaWiki! thank you for coming to the Chinese Wikipedia to research this topic. I can tell you that the two motions were originally initiated by me and were originally the same motion, namely "Motion to compel the dissolution of WMC and the removal of its series of related URLs, internal or external links on the Chinese Wikipedia".
Subsequently, after some consideration by myself and the enthusiastic suggestion of user Itcfangye, I have split this motion into two separate motions. At the moment the second motion, barring the sudden emergence of 27 votes against it (and of course we will ask the Foundation to intervene if the shenanigans do occur again), should be passed by the end of voting on 22 September.
As for the first motion, the opposing side questioned more about the procedural aspects of the proposal and the need to compel the dissolution of the WMC, and as the initiator of the proposal, I have now given my response and argued for the need to dissolve the WMC.
I am currently distracted by the task of coordinating these two motions and providing help with a DRV case, and I may not be able to go to MetaWiki and participate directly in the discussion, at least for now. But I can try to answer any questions you may have in this thread if I can.——WMLO (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dear @維基百科最忠誠的反對者
I am so glad that you replied to my query in Chinese, and that - in spotless English! We may continue it here, or else return to your zh Talk.
I have been somewhat aware of what has been happening in Chinese WM projects (and related ones: I will not mention them here, also for brevity's sake) since around 2016 and even wrote a draft essay (see my Talk above) with further analysis and strategic predictions. Here on purpose I will not concentrate or ask you about the zh WM projects themselves.
As a non-zh Wikipedian (apart from the minute content fixes therein over the years), I and my colleagues are interested in the impact of such project-specific "institutional/community capture" (the term I had used in this essay and then employed in the WMF's announcement Office actions/September 2021 statement) on the other projects and then on the "WM Movement" itself, as a meta topic.
I will thus get more specific below:
Please (re)read the URLs quoted in my recent vote and maybe also its arguments, if you have time. I hope that you are also aware of the decades-old mid-level systemic problem of Conflict of Interest (COI) commercial campaigns, which partial list thereof can be found in enwiki or e.g. the Gibraltarpedia controversy, or the higher-level ACLU and WM court challenge to active surveillance. As we are talking of state actors in this case, the knock-on effects are more serious to the integrity of the Movement itself and these disparate commercial COI cases.
1. Do you know if this WMCUG campaign, apart from organising the local events: Wikipedia 20/Events/Beijing etc. and engaging in the "WP loves (the right) China" 'cultural exchanges', also has mass uploaded doctored photos to Commons and then coordinated creation of CCP-friendly articles, similar to the one in the Portuguese wiki I quoted?
2. In my Meta vote I translated and gave a link to this sample comment I found in zhwiki: [user A] 使用了analytics . wmcug . org . cn這個域名,字面上(analytics)收集IP、UA等信息,連接到站內頁面。—[user B](talk) 2018年4月14日 (六) 02:42 (UTC)
Can you elaborate or give me further related examples in the past zhwiki discussions? Do you think that the efficiency (cost per click, return on investment, etc.) of such WMCUG sponsored campaigns (see Point 1) or maybe the pattern of Wikipedians' edits themselves have been thus analyzed by e.g. AI network analysis or NLP tools? (Or should I contact that user B about it?)
3. Do you have tips on how to detect, tag and maybe mass revert the effects of such COI pseudo 'cultural exchanges' Commons uploads and the resulting POV edits, likely initiated and then monitored by WMCUG over the years, across the non-zh wikis?
深弓 Zezen (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello, after a long and tiring week of discussion, please let me answer as many specific questions as I can.
1.On this issue, as I have not been a member of the Chinese Wikipedia for very long... strictly speaking, there have been various "conspiracy theories" about this user group since it was formed in 2017 (of course, most of them have been proven now), and as for the tampering of images into the Commons, our It's strange that our community hasn't mentioned or discussed anything like this in the last few years, because if it was known, the discussion about WMC would have been brought up earlier. The only possibility I can think of as to why such a scandal is breaking at this time is that our community has not been particularly "concerned" about the WMC - at least not until it was confirmed that they had threatened the Hong Kong Wikipedians—And our community had dismissed him as "just a problematic user group that didn't know how to improve", and few had thought about the state manipulation behind it. Of course, the actions of the Foundation have made us even more wary of such behaviour. This is why I am bringing up the issue of disbanding this organisation, as it would give them no reason to promote their so-called "activities".
2.On this subject, I could say that there are some definitions of WMC links, but as I am not 100% sure that I understand the specific issue you are trying to address, I would welcome your pointing out if there is anything more you would like to know.The specific example of removing the WMC link is mainly to prevent further "influence" by management before they reorganise (i.e. before those blocked users are confirmed to have been expelled) (which is pretty much what you said), and we are aware that the Foundation has a provision for this before we launch this proposal.I think there are a few specific examples of specific link removal schemes.Chinese Wikimedia sites that are associated with the WMC, such as Qiuwen (the same WMC media that has openly "declared war" on the Wikimedia Foundation, and which we believe is still under the jurisdiction of blocked users) and offline social media that are associated with the WMC, such as links to the WMC QQ group on this site. As for in-site links, we intend to remove all links or contact details relating to WMC and its sub-pages (this is still under discussion)It is also our intention to legislate to prohibit WMC members from using "short links" to circumvent this prohibition.
3There may be technical issues that need to be explored if this problem is to be substantively stopped (e.g. monitoring images in the cloud, etc.). But as I am not very strong in Wikipedia technology, my immediate suggestion, as an ordinary user, would probably be to forcibly disband the WMC at this stage, as then they would have no reason to upload the doctored images. And even if they still do so, apart from the fact that they will be characterised by the Foundation as a different kind of general LTA group, the WMC will not gain any benefit in the sense of "publicity" and will make others more wary of them.
If I have misunderstood your question, I hope you can point out what I have (forgive me, but since I started learning Latin, my thinking may have been a little confused.). I will also answer the question you mentioned in my Chinese forum later on.

Thank you for your question.---WMLO (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

亲爱的 @維基百科最忠誠的反對者,
  1. So it seems that I got wind (= "I became aware of") such campaigns earlier than most of the zhwiki community itself. If the topic crops up (="is mentioned") again in a zhwiki forum that you know of, then you may e.g. mention these weird professionally staged photos or these coordinated meta edits, some as early as 2013 and 2016 that I had advised you of, and maybe ping (alert) me there.
  2. "I am not 100% sure that I understand the specific issue you are trying to address," - these WM links are related to further off-WM links, and I observed an interesting pattern possibly revealing nature of this coordinated campaign. It is a bit technical, so -> if you knew of a "technically minded" experienced zh admin, I would like to research these with them, possibly offline, as they affect meta.
  3. "My immediate suggestion, as an ordinary user, would probably be to forcibly disband the WMC at this stage". I do not want to advise you guys about "WMCUG and zhwiki" on purpose or get involved there - I only voted in Meta against that mass automatic removal of their links outside of zhwiki, as would be counterproductive, at least at this stage.
  4. "If I have misunderstood your question" - you have understood for the most part, it is fine. Just some (technical, "forensic") parts of my questions were meant for an admin like the one mentioned in Point 2, and I decided not to ask it in the open at the first or second stage, for a couple of reasons.
Thank you for collaboration and 如果我能反过来帮助华人社区,请告诉我。
一旦你在你的时区阅读它,祝你有美好的一天! Zezen (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
In fact,and i have a tentative idea that the WMCUG-related links should not be removed from the META at this stage - at least until the discussion on WMCUG is over.There are a number of administrators on the Telegram group and I can find time to ask if they can technically work with you on this issue.I'm off to be a Wikipolitician in their eyes again
Thank you for what you do for our community and for the wiki community as a whole, and I hope you have a great day.
Feel free to contact me again if you need to :)——WMLO (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


It seems that you have hit upon an abuse filter. Lemme help you check whats going on first. Will update you here.--1233 T / C 14:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Update: the issue seems to be due to my talk page using flow and that it seems to have prohibitively disallow some characters related to a now foundation-banned user. This set of characters from what I have seen is rarely used within local issues, but brings very unnecessary limits to non-Chinese speakers. Also, pinging me on meta would work at the same time.--1233 T / C 14:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I got it and thanks @1233: the occasional zhwiki blacklist filter itself is not a biggie.
Now, can you reply one day to the subject matter itself, as per my query on your Talk? After reading these past requests on zhwiki Talks, let me know if anything is unclear, so maybe I rephrase it for you. As per my previous comments there, some of the results my amateur research into these "national" campaigns would better be discussed off-wiki and a native zh speaker with some IT Web server knowledge would help, too.
PS. See also the related discussion with a zh colleague just hereinabove.
Bows, Zezen (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
As far as what I know the accounts from other summarise up what had happened on zhwiki (on-site).1233 T / C 14:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
再次感谢您与我联系 @1233。As per above, if you (or somebody else) wanted to investigate together what had happened (or is happening still?) OFF zhwiki (at the Meta level, at other wikis, and off-WP itself) - 再次联系我。
谦卑的鞠躬, Zezen (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

2022 JAN: Private Message from WMF revealed[edit]

TBD (to be pasted), please wait... :

In January 2022 I received a curious message from the WMF Office itself. As I prefer to keep any trials and tribulations in the open (no Star Chambers, no Secret Laws: ius honorarium or like), thus opting for an open trial (if any) by a jury of peers, I am posting it in the open, unchanged, with a short initial reply, also as it may affect other Wikipedians.

Authentication-Results: mqgmx025.server.lan; dkim=pass header.i=@wikimedia.org Received: from wiki-mail-eqiad.wikimedia.org ([]) Subject: Warning regarding your conduct on Wikimedia projects From: Meta <wiki@wikimedia.org> Reply-To: WMFOffice <ca@wikimedia.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:01:19 (etc.)

Hello Zezen,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety Team was recently asked to look into some things you have done and said on various Wikimedia projects. We have reviewed that behavior and we would like to now share with you our conclusions.

The reports we received alleged that you were editing in ways that could be interpreted as homophobic, antisemitic, or sympathetic to Nazism. Our review has shown that you have indeed written in ways that make you appear sympathetic to these ideologies. Below are some examples of this:

  • Describing "pedo" as an aspect of being homosexual: in multiple edits, largely in your userspace drafts, you have written in a way that associates being gay with being a pedophile.
  • Multiple references to the "gay agenda" and the "homolobby": these phrases are commonly used derogatorily, and your use of them makes it appear that you are intending to be derogatory.
  • Weakening the wording of article content about antisemitism in a way that makes antisemitic sentiment sound more acceptable.
  • Adding content to articles that attempts to "balance" issues by likening modern left-wing topics (e.g. LGBT+, affirmative action) to aspects of the Nazi regime.

We understand that you may not have intended harm with these edits and comments. You may be expressing yourself in a way you believe is acceptable or even neutral. However, statements that are reasonably read to suggest that homosexuals are pedophiles, anti-semitism is acceptable, and leftism is like Nazism create an unsafe and unwelcoming environment on our sites. As we're sure you know, these sentiments often lead to violence in the real world, and your fellow editors have no way of knowing if you expressing yourself in a way that appears to agree with these sentiments means that you will commit that type of violence - physical or psychological - upon them, and even if you yourself would never intentionally do so, permitting such content on our sites may lead others with worse intentions to assume that such behavior is tolerated here.

We would like to ask that you take care in your approach both on-wiki and at events to make sure that you are not expressing yourself in a way that appears to be homophobic or antisemitic or that create a hostile environment on our sites for others. All fellow editors and movement participants must feel they may safely participate. For the same reason, we strongly suggest that you remove all of your content on all projects that could be read as homophobic, antisemitic, or sympathetic to Nazism - even if you don't personally think you hold those values, content that can be read as having those values presents a problem.

We value your contributions to the projects and all the work you do, and we have no desire to stop you from contributing further. However, if you continue to engage on-wiki or at events in a manner that indicates or supports homophobia or antisemitism, we may be forced to remove you from your participation in movement spaces for the security of other contributors without further notice. Please consider this note a formal warning to change your behavior.

If you have any questions, we are at your disposal. You can get in contact with us at ca@wikimedia.org.

Regards, Trust & Safety

-- This email was sent by WMFOffice to Zezen by the "Email this user" function at Meta. (etc.)

Zezen (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now, here is my initial reply:

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement
Webcomic xkcd - Wikipedian protester
  1. Who are you? My nym is Zezen. What is yours?
  2. "You were recently asked to look (at me)". Who asked you? Who is my nameless accuser? Or do you act as the investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury and then warden, all wrapped in one?
  3. Please see this hierarchy of argument for the terms and reference. I feel that in your mail you resort to "responding to tone" and "name-calling", to wit "in ways that make you appear (as X)", "something is read to suggest", "the [imputed] sentiments lead to violence", "[I am] expressing [myself] in a way that appears to agree with these sentiments means that [I] will commit that type of violence" etc. Do you indeed use them?
  4. I have quickly checked my 2021 and 2022 edits in the many WM projects I have been active, on and off, for the keywords you mention and I have not seen proofs of these generic accusations, granted: after a cursory glance. Thus, the obvious: "Citation needed", as per my local wiki profile and common decency.
  5. What are the exact T&S, ToU or other public regulations that you rely on? (Yes, I read the upcoming UCoC: in fact, I was somewhat involved in shaping it over a year ago, do see my Global contributions also for these details.)

NB. Should I be blocked also here (as it had happened and as I expected in enwiki and as per the other non-en wikis where I went on vacation in mid-2021 with a more detailed notice about the same), mostly further to this years-long affair, here is my off-wiki new topical public (and empty for now) blog.

Waiting for your initial answers with these missing details, o yet-nameless WMF! I promise to reply in more detail (if not fully blocked) once I know who you are and what you are about. Bows to you and all the readers,

(Ver. 1.1 - Fixes of the small typos only plus cosmetic to the structure.)

Zezen (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

You deserve it. And stop spreading FUD about UCoC. Wargo (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Well, whatever happens, you can't say you weren't warned. This is a pretty direct message that some of the ways you have expressed yourself are unacceptable and you should change your behavior. Demanding to receive more information than what they supplied to you won't change the fact that you've been warned. Liz (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Dear @Wargo
Fancy star received for my repeated criticism of WMF and their UCoC in a relevant wiki forum in early 2021
Fancy star received for my repeated criticism of WMF and their UCoC in a relevant wiki forum in early 2021
Thanks: you may be on to something about this UCoC. Indeed, as per the links above, a year ago I was much involved in formal analysing, criticising and then spoofing the UCoC and WMF and similar WM bodies and past failed initiatives, as per the invitation of the local "facilitators" to discuss it.
FYI: I even received a nifty star in a appreciation from the moderator:
which I promptly tinkered with therein, as well. (In very short: the "serious" part of my analysis was much similar to Open Letter (or Warning, should I say) from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees, which I also mention there.) So let me put this as:
Theory A: WMF Office is unhappy about that (year-old by now) UCoC related criticism and satire, so I/we "deserve" retaliation
Did I get you right here?
If so, do you think that all the de-, pl-, cs-, en- etc. Arbcom members who signed it there will also receive such a rebuke, each of them by such private message, under the divide et impera tactic?
Now, since you mentioned Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - let us turn the tables. Do you agree that such Kafkaesque and anonymous message one receives from such a body is meant to create Fear ("formal warning"), Uncertainty ("but we will not provide details, i.e. diffs or regulations") and Doubt (about their social and organisational competence mostly)?
If you have further inside tips about this "deserving" or UCoC: do provide them here or in this virgin topical blog, anonymously, as e.g. Signpost may be interested in your knowledge, as well. Zezen (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for this explanation @Liz.
  • Are you part of that secret body or do you know how they work? Do you thus also know which of "the ways" are "some" then, that is the actual diffs vs ToU items? (I still do not know, even after more days' quick self-research, as per Point 4 above, but a colleague suggest UCoC discussions themselves, see my separate answer to him above).
  • What do you think of my general criticism of the "Star Chamber" nature of their operations, that is can you answer Point 3 and 2 above? Why are they incompetent (see this "Graham's Hierarchy") and totalitarian even in this very message?
  • Speaking of this "demanding": do you think I will be SanFranBanned soon by enquiring further here (and there), as even this is not allowed nowadays?
For now, apart from here, I will remind them of my public query about the same posed directly to the "non-Trust and un-Safety" (as I will be calling them from now on), as they avoid the answer after two days' wait.
And before this potential ban, while I can still post anything, here will be the slightly more likely:
Theory B: WMF Offices were contacted by (years-old by now) high-level trolls, LTAs and Globally Banned users (or their representatives) and is being unwittingly weaponized thereby
[Details and diffs forthcoming...]
Zezen (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
As promised:
Sample victimized Wikipedian: WP:PROXYING for a globally banned editor? Accusation of violence? Result?
Zezen, 2020 Yes, list of socks 1a, sample sock attack 1a, sample public false flag (joe job) to engineer Global Ban (there were more, without onwiki traces). Implied, sample 2: "You are a NAZI!" (by a kamikaze sock IP). Blocked on sight by gullible (?) admins. See the 2021 self-quote and more info below* or on that old Talk there yet again.
Nableezy, 2021 Yes, mostly the same socks, list 1b. Again see this detailed Signpost about this professional tag-team who have been (and will be) behind it for all these years. Yes: sample 3, sample 4 (a personal attack disguised as an accusation of personal attack): "you have an announcement of support for Hezbollah and an endorsement of violence [on your page]..." Boomerang: ArbCom resulted in the accusing admin losing the toys, and chastised some. Yet another ArbCom looming, alas, to wear the victim down...
Zezen 2022 Suspected hereby: WMF's misTrust itself bullying this time, as same methods: repeated anonymous accusations, resorting to systemic FUD, JTRIG and more (details of their PsyOps methods forthcoming below). Yes, e.g. here new today in plwiki by misTrust and unSafety, translation: "Jewish and LGBTQ members must be protected (against Zezen)". Hopefully Boomerang against these anonymous (and clueless?) WMF bullies so as to block them and save the project.
Nameless account who had a psychological breakdown in early 2022, after a Real Life sustained campaign
etc. - a years-looong list, sapienti admini sat once again.

These colleagues may also wish chip in, if only via an URL to their relevant essays or press reports about their cases

"I ("we" actually, do check) had told yous [in 2019] it would happen, then I told yous [in 2020] it was happening (in the few hours I was given back then, at night) and then I told yous it had happened. Then I told (some of) yous it would stop happening (see my quick note mid-2021 on Mr El C's meta) sooner or later, so one just waits; [until these socks are revealed]. Then even more has been happening now and then, also with my enwiki account itself, over the last year or so; see my Talk and its admin log for details, so I finally decided to put an end to it [by filing this failed unblock request]"
Theory C: Zezen and a number of these victimized Wikipedians have been researching such high-level insider project capture for months or years, in cooperation with outside experts and academics, so the WMF got wind and retaliates quick to silence them, because they are afraid to retain their jobs and position as a systemic bully and malign agent
[Details and diffs forthcoming... Hint1, Hint2, for now.]

Zezen (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Dear @WMF Office aka misTrust and unSafety!
I have learnt today indirectly that I had received a conduct warning after all. Let me WP:BOOMERANG it to you, as the systemic bully or, and that WP:AGF - a clueless "investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury and then warden, all wrapped in one":
  • “People [whole projects] have been made to feel uncomfortable” by your unprofessional totalitarian actions (details forthcoming below). Do you mean it?
  • “People [whole projects] have been made to feel threatened” (see again my old "UCoC ver. 2.0" semi-satirical warning of the resulting project capture for starters, alas with lots of reference to the Radio Yerevan jokes and original zhwiki propaganda: you will be probably too young and always living in first-world countries to understand our OpSec situation). Do you still threaten us? (And "Who are you?" yet again.)
  • “People [we] have been made to feel hounded” - see the sample table above. Do you hound us, cross-wiki, digging out any dirt half-created by socks of banned professional LTAs?
Should be enough.
To sum up: you act as a totalitarian, inept bully. You drag the old WP:5F idealistic rules down the drain of malign active measures. Stop it. If you are forced to act like this: reflect and leave your position quick with a goodbye notice. Remember of command responsibility aka Medina standard.
Below (if you let me/us) I will sum up how you and your ilk operate, quoting some from my upcoming research paper and your recent attempt at yet another divide et impera, using ugly base racism and nationalism as a bait this time ....
Zezen (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I don't think using words like "totalitarian" and "bully" will not help you at all. You have been warned. You have been shown what is unacceptable. Stop making up stories about some external forces or whatever hunting you. Try to explain your actions or just stop doing what you were politely asked to stop doing. Maybe (if you can) try to say you are sorry. Because honestly, you should be sorry. Nux (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
WMF misTrust and unSafety has still not answered in public, so I have pinged them directly also here: My public advice about WMF, Cryptocurrency, monies, Human Rights, 1984 all at once to some enwiki colleagues with even more diffs, o gentle @Nux.
Turning the tables yet again: "Because honestly, the WMF should be sorry."
Yours, amazingly still able to type it (bows to the WMF and the many-eyed institutions for that, appreciated) and offline again for some more days due to RL tasks. Zezen (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Evidence, please[edit]

Re: [1] and [2]: on User talk:Fram:

Evidence, please. I would be most interested in any actual evidence supporting your claim "WMF’s lacking care for the physically disabled Wikipedians during e.g. wiki conferences".

As for the rest, this block looks like a good block, and I agree that this block appeal was "Nonsensical", "Rubbish" and "cryptic". I will repeat the advice given to that appeal: I’d recommend explaining in achingly clear and straightforward language what you plan to do on WP that isn’t adding antisemitic or anti-LGBT WP:POV material.

I would also note that I was contacted by the Code of Conduct Committee in technical spaces, while Zezen was contacted by the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety Team. Two quite different W?F groups with quite different goals. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

As the person who made most of the cited remarks I’d personally recommend a global ban due to the utter lack of remorse and self-awareness mixed with w:WP:CIR demonstrated both here, on WP and on commons (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:The_user_against_the_promotion,_justification_and_propagation_homosexuality.jpg And https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zezen#Are_you_by_any_chance_the_same_Zezen_who_was_banned_from_enwiki?) Dronebogus (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Dronebogus, create a steward request with evidence of disruption on multiple wikis. It is unlikely that a homophobic Nazi is only be disruptive on enwiki. You may need to use Google Translate if some of the comments are in other languages. In your steward request, reference the following:
Previous steward requests:
Global blocks don't affect Meta-Wiki, so to request a block on meta, go to Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat with evidence of disruption on meta. Make sure to include the posts on Fram's meta page.[3][4]
Another possibility is to ask Trust and Safety for help. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply