Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Content deleted Content added
Line 125: Line 125:
*Huib's block interfered with his legitimate work with LangCom. It is possible to unblock him on the condition that he only use the account for LangCom business, violation of that would result in immediate reblock, until the restriction is formally lifted. Our communities tend toward black and white solutions, and people are more complicated than that. Whoever unblocks Huib should be willing and able to monitor and supervise subsequent activity to ensure that it satisfies conditions set by the unblocking administrator. If nobody is willing to do that, he should not be unblocked.
*Huib's block interfered with his legitimate work with LangCom. It is possible to unblock him on the condition that he only use the account for LangCom business, violation of that would result in immediate reblock, until the restriction is formally lifted. Our communities tend toward black and white solutions, and people are more complicated than that. Whoever unblocks Huib should be willing and able to monitor and supervise subsequent activity to ensure that it satisfies conditions set by the unblocking administrator. If nobody is willing to do that, he should not be unblocked.
*I'd be willing to monitor, but I don't have tools here; nevertheless I'd agree to report a violation to this page for action. I do regularly look at meta and I'd make a point of watching Huib contributions. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
*I'd be willing to monitor, but I don't have tools here; nevertheless I'd agree to report a violation to this page for action. I do regularly look at meta and I'd make a point of watching Huib contributions. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
** '''Comment''': While I am definitely in favor of removing Huib's block (LangCom has some problems because Huib doesn't have access to Meta; as well as I am in favor of giving the second chance to anyone who promised to change behavior); having in mind how the issue was complex, there is no need to build theories about CU's and stewards' behavior. Those who were the most involved in this task have counted all important issues and they concluded that they are not able to give private data because ''some'' of them are inconclusive. If Huib wants to get those data, he should ask [[Ombudsman commission]], as their job is to consult WMF lawyer about possible issues related to the privacy law(s), as well as to take that responsibility. --[[User:Millosh|Millosh]] 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': It has come to my attention that some people are using my comments on the previous RfC about Huib as foundational "proof" that the WMF supports this block and the other similar ones. That is not the case. The Foundation officially has no position on issues of community governance. I personally do, but it appears I didn't clearly separate the two, so I wish to clarify my previous statement. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 21:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': It has come to my attention that some people are using my comments on the previous RfC about Huib as foundational "proof" that the WMF supports this block and the other similar ones. That is not the case. The Foundation officially has no position on issues of community governance. I personally do, but it appears I didn't clearly separate the two, so I wish to clarify my previous statement. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] 21:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I have no opinion on whether or not to unblock Huib, but I personally don't understand why he is still on the LangCom after all of this. Perhaps a better action to take would be to find a more suitable candidate, rather than one who has been desysopped and blocked on multiple wikis. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. I have no opinion on whether or not to unblock Huib, but I personally don't understand why he is still on the LangCom after all of this. Perhaps a better action to take would be to find a more suitable candidate, rather than one who has been desysopped and blocked on multiple wikis. [[User:Ajraddatz|Ajraddatz]]<small> ([[User Talk:Ajraddatz|Talk]])</small> 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:19, 1 September 2011

Shortcut:
WM:RFH
<translate>

Meta-Wiki has a small active community. When a normal user requires the assistance of an [[<tvar|sysop>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Administrators</>|administrator]] or [[<tvar|bureaucrat>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Bureaucrats</>|bureaucrat]] for some particular task, it is not always easy to find one. This page helps users find one when they need one; asking specific admins directly via their talk pages is one way to elicit a fast response. It is only for assistance required at Meta-Wiki, help for other wikis needs to be requested at those wikis.

  • Before posting to this page, make sure your comment doesn't belong at one of these specific request pages:</translate>
    • <translate>

[[<tvar|rfa>Meta:Requests for adminship</>|Requests for (translation/central notice/interface) adminship]] on this Meta-Wiki</translate>

    • <translate>

[[<tvar|rfcu>Meta:Requests for CheckUser information</>|Requests for CheckUser information]] on this Meta-Wiki</translate>

    • <translate>

[[<tvar|os>Meta:Oversighters</>|Requests for oversight of edits]] on this Meta-Wiki</translate>

[[<tvar|import>Special:MyLanguage/Help:Import</>|Import]] is currently enabled in this wiki from some projects. From other wikis, you will need to copy and paste your materials by hand but please remember to add a link, as a permanent link, and the history of the page being imported in the edit summary to avoid copyright violations.</translate>

  • <translate>

To report [[<tvar|vandalism>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Vandalism</>|vandalism]] on Meta: please click [<tvar

Meta-Wiki maintenance announcements [edit]
General maintenance announcements:
(as of 28 March 2024)

Discussions:
(as of 28 March 2024)
(Last updated: 2023-11-09)
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

<translate> Please find answered requests in the [[<tvar|archives>Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives</>|archives]] ([[<tvar|current>Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2024-03</>|this month]]).</translate>

114.232.95.219

Special:Contributions/114.232.95.219 please take care of that guy, maybe check global edits. Thx. I'd suggest spam blacklist of the link they added, but I don't know how to use that Spam blacklist or even the talk page of it. --თოგო (D) 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Blocked for 31 hours. Can't check global edits, Luxo's tool is not working. :/ — Tanvir | Talk ] 09:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skate Rojo

Please consider blocking Skate Rojo (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser), which is a spam/advertising-only account. --Striker talk 21:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian central notice link

The Hungarian central notice's link brings us to Image filter referendum/en instead of Image filter referendum/hu. Please create MediaWiki:Centralnotice-pifreferendum-readmore-link/hu with the text "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/hu" (similarly to MediaWiki:Centralnotice-pifreferendum-readmore-link/de). Thank you! – Hunyadym 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Dferg 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone change the last <center> tag to </center>, so that everything doesn't get centered whenever people edit Talk:Image filter referendum/en? – Adrignola talk 03:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ruy Pugliesi 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My profile

I entered/sent my vote correctly and notice now, afterwards (some hours), it has been accepted under the name RobSchop. But about 1,5 months ago I returned to my global original user name Dartelaar on the nl.wikipedia.org and several other projects. I guess you will see the same IP address. Please modify also on meta-wiki my login in Dartelaar (meta-wiki must have been overlooked at the time of turning back to Dartelaar). This url was delivered as a proof that I have voted, but I am not let in now, being "not recognized", haha. --RobSchop 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the Hebrew Image filter referendum "vote interface"

hi, can anyone update the interface of the referendum with the translation from this page: Image filter referendum/Vote interface/he? for some reason the Hebrew voting page still appears in English. thanks, Neukoln 12:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see it in Hebrew. Try to empty your cache. Bináris tell me 12:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something weird is going on. I tried that. I've also tried other browsers and no good. Other users also complained about the same problem (while others can see it in Hebrew as well). 14:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably a problem with language you use in your preferences? -Barras 14:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in my wiki preferences? I'm set on Hebrew as default interface language. it doesn't make sense for me (with heb pref) to see English while you're seeing Hebrew. Neukoln 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All good after all. The request can be archived. Sorry for the trouble. Neukoln 18:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don'tEvenBother (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser)

  • Obvious harassment SPA. See contributions 04:11 to 20:46 today. No legitimate purpose. Please block indef. I considered warning, but ... Didn't Even Bother. --Abd 22:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Béria Lima msg 22:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahodovn

This user page is a pure commercial ad. Bináris tell me 06:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, thanks for reporting. You can propose a page for speedy deletion by tagging it with {{speedy}}, by the way. Jafeluv 06:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, we don't use this template in huwiki for user pages, since they are not to be edited by anyone, but I will remember. Bináris tell me 06:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps calling other users pedophiles and also shows a bad behaviour outside of that. The user is apparently known for being a really big vandal and already banned on the English Wikipedia indefinitely, but still vandalizes discussion pages on Meta Wiki like this (just look at the long discussion surrounding it... he was told to stop calling other people pedophiles, but still went on with this!). Could you do something against this, please? At least taking back those accusations and a public apology would be in order. --93.129.35.41 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have indef blocked him, as he should know better. He has been blocked on meta before and the same happened now again. Now he is blocked for three days. -Barras 20:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the indef, Barras, second time down the personal attacks road, our patience should be at an end. Courcelles 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not his first such action. There is still the same behavior so i support a indef block. --WizardOfOz talk 20:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would likewise support an indef block, as after multiple chances he still seems to be unable to interact with people without insulting them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with indef blocked because repeated personal attacks on other people should not be tolerated in any Wikimedia project. Once he has been blocked on meta before and the same just happened again... Ruy Pugliesi 20:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Beria, you can block indef ;) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vandal" was excessive polemic, and this decision was unseemly quick. What was the hurry? He was blocked for three days. Be that as it may, I'd seen the problems and tried to warn Ottava, he removed my comment. Two days ago, I made a self-reverted edit to his Talk page, addressing issues, warning that, in the end, he was heading for a block, hoping he'd take the hint. I saw the stuff he was blocked for, it was beyond the pale. He's not banned, he's indef blocked, and his Talk page access remains open, as it should, unless he abuses it. I and others will be watching that page, in case he comes to his senses, and can realize what he did, such that we could feel safe in supporting unblock. He's passionate about certain things, and he loses balance and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of being ... something awful, it varies with the issue. He's been a highly productive user in the past, and seems somewhat bewildered by the response he gets. But, as I wrote in that last bit, enough is enough. --Abd 02:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that he still removes posts on his talk page without comment. In my opinion, this is nothing but censorship on his side. I do see that vandalism on talk pages may be removed without comment, but that? That is abuse of his talk page right there. Don't know if it is wise let him use that talk page, since he apparently only leaves comments that he likes, but (as usual) no criticism. --11:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)--178.201.100.215, note by --Abd 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users have the right to remove comments without response. I've mentioned removal because it might be better for Ottava to respond to criticism, even uncivil criticism, by trying to understand what might be meaningful about it. Such a removal, in itself, is never an offense. If there is removal with incivility, maybe. [1] was complicated. The question asked by the probable sock puppet was legitimate, even friendly. However, Ottava ran with it as vandalism and a threatened outing. In fact, the reference to his dissertation was legitimate, because it was covered in what he had linked from the Talk page.
  • There are people attempting to harass Ottava. I have attempted to offer Ottava some good advice. He might not take it well, and he has the right to reject it civilly, which would include removal without comment. It's still his Talk page, and I fully support leaving it open if he does not abuse it to attack others. He should be protected there. Semiprotection?
  • An account was registered with an abusive username for the purpose of harassing Ottava, that's been RevDel'd.
  • 93.129.35.41 filed this report. We should generally be careful about anonymous users who seem to have a sole purpose of trolling a user like Ottava into excessive response. This IP seems to have edited here only to provoke Ottava, and then to request sanctions.
  • 178.201.100.215, who made the comment above, was provocative with Ottava from the first edit. Notice that this user is really asking for Ottava to be banned from his own talk page.
  • The harassment should not be tolerated. It is my hope that Ottava can come to understand his part in all this, because when he does, and can state it, he would then be unlikely to continue to repeat the problems, and he could safely return to being the fantastic content creator that he was, the helpful administrator on Wikiversity, and the rest. --Abd 22:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that I am not in support or opposition of the conduct of Ottava himself as his conduct is not presented in a neutral and unbiassed manner. I just do not see the evidence either way as indef block gun was reached FAR too quickly.
I am sorry but indef blocks are reserved as an extreme action generally to deal with vandalism. Has there been any discussion where the accused was allowed to defend him or herself from the accusations? You should not be indef blocked so casually. People have called me all sorts of names, none have been indefinitely blocked over it - at least not for that reason alone. There is no point for us to have meta wiki if people are not going to make community decisions on matters such as this. I am under the belief that indef blocks for cases aside from obvious cases of vandalism would be more fruitful if based on discussion. If the rationale is sound enough the discussion would reach the same conclusion. One concern I have before such a discussion even starts is the possibility of canvassing - that is something we ought to look out for.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 16:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, could you please tell me what exactly in my first edit is provocative? I asked a sincere question and presented my point of view. I agree though that asking for Ottava to be banned from his own talk page is too extreme; I was still a bit furious when I wrote that since I am deeply opposed to censorship. Sorry. :/ --178.201.100.215 09:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks as though there is a denial of natural justice here, and a quick declaration of guilt, evilness and execution, without a discussion with the editor. That is neither the role of an admin or a steward. To my look at the link, it does not seem that was the claim it was a generic statement about the statements that child abusers do make, so while it may be a careless statement, it is neither an accusation nor factually wrong. Plus when there are two parties going at each other, one should look at both sides of the arguments made, especially when one is an IP address. billinghurst sDrewth 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the other direction, Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. I was, from different causes than the Ottava comments that led to the block, preparing to add new material to that RfC. There is no question, for me: Ottava was baited in the subject discussion. However, there is also a long-term problem. This may be why this discussion went so quickly to indef block. --Abd 00:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment With all due respect to my fellow community members here, I would suggest reconsidering their opinion on an indef block. Ottava has had similar issues elsewhere, he can be a bit too passionate while debating but there are ways he can be reasoned with. There wasn't a warning given in this case and he might have listened. The other facts of this case also need to be considered, the complaint came from an IP address, whose sole contribution was commenting and then asking for a block against Ottava, I don't want to go as far as calling it baiting, but it does have to be taken into consideration. Since Meta is non-content project, and has no internal dispute resolution/deliberation body, I would ask for a bit more leniency than an indef. block against him. We still have our fair share of issues, looking at the evidence and comments on the issue below with Huib, Ottava doesn't have as much interaction and support on Meta (like LangCom work) but still deserves a chance and his voice to be heard. Indef. block should be reserved for really problematic users, we should not use it for users who are rude, and argue aggressively. With all that said, I do have a condition that Ottava apologize(which he sort of did) and give his word, to avoid polemics and an aggressive debating posture on Meta. Theo10011 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Theo. From a fundamental standpoint, there are very few reasons to indef block people on meta, mostly limited to blatant vandalism and spamming. The OP's characterization of Ottava as a vandal shows a lack of research, and perhaps good intentions, and I'm not comfortable banning someone on such flimsy grounds. A few days to get the point across, sure; indef is excessive for no good reason IMO. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To say that there was just a comparison of Ottava - saying that my viewpoint was the same as that of pedophiles - is utterly untrue. Let me just quote this sentence: "without any logic or reason behind you, you bad mouth and attack in hopes of bullying people into letting their guard down so you have access to children. That sickens me." Ottava explicitly writes that I take part in that discussion so that I have access to children. It's right there, an accusation that I want to groom children. So stop saying that "it is neither an accusation nor factually wrong", Billinghurst! That is a lie and you know it. Don't protect Ottava by trying to interpret his accusations much more positively than they are. I also want to add that I warned Ottava about his accusations way before. He knew that he should watch his language for a while.

Additionally, I am sorry for using strong language myself; it definitely did go out of hand, but I felt very, very stronlgy provocated by Ottava as you can guess. Note that the first accusations came right after the very first post I made: Ottava wrote that I should be banned for my opinion (!), although I had just joined the discussion and stated a completely non-provocative opinion.

I wanted to take part in a discussion here on Wikipedia and didn't know Ottava before *at all* (nor any other participants of the discussion). This was not baiting, although I think the block is the right decision since the discussion really seemed like a dead-end with the kind of extreme overreactions and ignorance Ottava was showing. During the whole discussion, Ottava completely ignored all facts that were thrown at him, and just kept making his claims and accusing others - implicitly and in the last case, explicitly - of being child molesters. Even when assuming good faith, you can only come to the conclusion that accusing people with a different viewpoint than his was all that he did, and now that I read a bit about the problems people had with him previously (also surrounding warnings and bans on the English wikipedia), this seems like it is very much "his style" of discussion. Such a style of discussion is unacceptable absolutely anywhere, wether it is on the internet or not. In my opinion Ottava must learn that he is not the least bit welcome here if he keeps going on with this style; but all warnings and past bans seem to have hit deaf ears. So the indef block is justified. Also, I still await a real apology from Ottava for his accusations; I doubt I will ever get one, however. --178.201.100.215 09:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huib Laurens is a member of the language committee and does good work. It is really welcome for this and one other reason for him to be unblocked. We found at Wikimania that there was activity that was to indicate that he was sockpopping. This was not possible as he was not at even close to the Netherlands; he was in Haifa. As a consequence he asked at the time for a check user. Consequently these facts have been established. Given that the block on the Dutch Wikipedia happened when Huib was not active there for the last year, it is quite clear that some people are creating mischief.

For all these reasons it makes sense for him to be unbanned on Commons and Meta. Huib indicates that he does not care for the Dutch Wikipedia any more... Thanks, GerardM 12:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... Huib was contributing with 81.218.88.83 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST • lwcheckuser) from Haifa (see here) and therefore he was evading his block here. The sockpuppetry before happened when he was still in the Netherlands. See this RFC for all information about the blocks, when he used sockpuppets and what the evidence is. Also this is something I think it's strange and I can't explain it. Personally I strongly recommend *not* to unblock him. He has done way too much harm to the projects and the evidence has proven he committed sockpuppetry. Imo it's his own fault he can't do his work for the langcom well anymore. Kind regards, Trijnstel 13:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See this recent checkuser report to show that impersonation is taking place, including impersonation that was at first strongly assumed to be Abigor. That IP has not been checkusered, probably, and, given that it was a massively shared IP for the Haifa, it's pretty meaningless. If it were important, I'd ask Huib if it was him. It's not important. I don't see any disruptive edits from that IP. If it was him, so what? We block socks to prevent disruption. When the pursuit of sock puppetry becomes disruptive, in itself, we've lost the purpose! Abigor definitely made some mistakes and may have done some harm, that's a very complex judgment, but he also did some good, rather obviously. Our goal here should always be helping the projects and the communities. It is properly up to LangCom whether or not he's useful there, but we need to think about how we help LangCom. LangCom can decide that Abigor is not useful there, and can remove him from the Committee, or the WMF could do that, since LangCom exists as liaison between the WMF community and the Board. We could ask that he be removed, but we have not done so. And it is probably not worth the effort to even discuss it, absent some specific problem, and I haven't seen any allegation of such at all. --Abd 23:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose: I agree with Trijnstel. His block on nl.wikipedia is essentially a local issue and should be discussed locally (please note that the Dutch arbitration committee has stated here that she believes there is enough evidence that Abigor was evading his block on that project by using the account "Delay" and that this was later confirmed by Abigor here). The block on Commons is a local issue as well. In my opinion, for as far as Meta is concerned (see RfC), Abigor has caused way too much disruption and has had way too many second chances to justify an unblock of this sockpuppet. Mathonius 15:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delay: complicated issue. Apparently a shared account. Bad Idea. But people make mistakes like this. Second chances? Abigor went from trusted administrator to blocked or banned user, very quickly. That process may have been "helped along" by certain Dutch users, that's what it's looking like. I've seen, in investigating certain cases on nl.wiki, that someone who was, indeed, having a problem there, was "assisted" by the appearance of mysterious sock puppets that were *not* the problem user. And the existence of those sock puppets, even though they were clearly different from the user having a problem, were then tossed in the pile of "evidence" that this user was beyond redemption. And, all too often, nobody looks back and sees what actually happened, unless it's that crazy Abd from meta. --Abd 23:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose as well, really, the RFC shows ample evidence of his disruption of this project, which continued by his sockpuppetry while in Israel. Quite frankly, that a proven sockpuppeter is still on an official committee like Langcom surprises me, whatever the quality of his work internally, being indefinitely blocked on three large projects does not demonstrate the global level of trust commensurate with holding such a seat. Courcelles 07:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that he abused the system from Haifa is impossible. He did not have a laptop with him at the conference. Also I am not asking for anything on the Dutch Wikipedia, I am asking for Commons and Meta. Consequently whatever happened on the Dutch Wikipedia is hardly relevant. Consequently the opinion of Dutch Wikimedians based on the Dutch Wikipedia is hardly relevant.

It is essential to accept that the guy has been proven to be framed; other persons have demonstrated to create sockpuppets in his name. Thanks, GerardM 09:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've not followed this closely and don't have the time to do so however it amazes me that folk can leap to conclusions about accounts created from IPs anywhere in the world and it is all down to Huib. I've posted off wiki the fact that I do not see that CU work is not about jumping to conclusions as a general rule which folk seem prone to do in this case. The behaviour on Commons was not wonderful but many folk get second chances whose background of behaviour to the project generally seem far less useful. --Herby talk thyme 09:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@GerardM, It's not impossible he evaded his block in Haifa. As you know (and that can be seen here) Abigor attented Wikimania 2011 and this proves it was him. There were also more edits of that IP related to the Langcom, so I'm pretty sure it's him. Apart from that, it is proven he has abused sockpuppets, not only per checkuser but he also admitted it several times, for example here. I'm not saying this all because I'm Dutch. I don't know much of his wrong behaviour on the Dutch Wikipedia, because that was before I became (highly) active there. I know him because of the sockpuppetry on Meta and Commons (see for instance the sockpuppetry during his desysop on Commons). It's enough. I don't trust him anymore. He got enough "second changes" already. Trijnstel 10:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is prove you consider him way more stupid then he actually is.. Putting his name on a list is PROOF? That is when people are actually doing what they can to damage his reputation?? Really, I wonder how you can come up with the notion that it is prove!! Thanks, GerardM 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are saying is that because he didn't have a laptop in Haifa (according to his own sayings I guess) it is proven that he is framed by someone else in Israel at that moment? I also respect his good contributions to 'the cause' but that doesn't seem a more reasonable explanation to me, sorry. Especially considering all the other facts from the past discussions Wiki broad. Is there any proof or reasonable argument that can be considered a good argument against the facts he has been blocked for or is this faith of hart the only thing we can go by? Wkr, Fontes 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just making a note here: We can't decide for commons (and I honestly don't care). As for meta: This is a checkuser block, and if a non-checkuser overrules this, the admin may lose their right. Just to make this clear. And this also means, that it doesn't matter what the outcome of this discussion will be. -Barras 10:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am an admin and I can override. I doubt sincerely that the checkuser block is correct. As far as I know there is no policy about this and I do like to be shown that the checkuser is correct. Thanks GerardM 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there are three(?) checkusers confirming this result. And if the data of the users is not too old, feel free to get Patho, Tiptoety and Drini to confirm it as well. I'm kinda sick that this gets now again blown up. Either trust us (and non of us had much interaction to him in the past, so we are not biased) or go to RFA and propose us for demotion. And for the rule, just read {{Checkuserblock}}. As you see, I'm not in favour of this as I know the checkuser result. -Barras 10:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that there is proof that other people are making the life of Sterkebak difficult. Consequently the question is to review the findings as they do not take into account that he has been abusing the system from Haifa. This has nothing to do with trust in people doing the checkuser, it has to do with the assumptions that are the reason for this block. Thanks, GerardM 14:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • To review the findings...Gerard do you want to accuse our checkusers of abusing tools? As first, three of them have confirm the result. As second, Huib is not a newbie who don´t know what he is doing. As third, he created a sock, even if he is a sysop elsewhere and knows the conseqences. And as last, he is not blocked because of nlwiki, but because of his behavior. And even if this is Huib, there will be no exceptions. You can overrule the decision, but as Barras wrote above, this could have consequences, and in my eyes it would be a decision against the whole community and not just against the blocking sysop. --WizardOfOz talk 19:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Besides that. "I didn't see him with a laptop in Haifa" is hardly something to call proof. Wkr, Fontes 22:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Courcelles: being indefinitely blocked on three large projects does not demonstrate the global level of trust commensurate with holding such a seat. MADe 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support with conditions. I paid close attention to this matter and have correspondence with Huib. The preponderance of the evidence was that Huib did violate some policies. The most serious evidence, however, was gross vandalism involving an abusive username. The checkuser evidence appeared conclusive. From this point of view, Huib was properly blocked. However, there is a possibility that there was some fairly sophisticated straw puppet creation, possibly involving some sophisticated hacking. Huib requested that he be provided with the actual checkuser data, but this request was denied, on spurious grounds that it was allegedly against privacy policy. Policy does allow disclosure of checkuser data on user consent. It remains possible that Huib was framed. It seems clear that there are those with the inclination to do that.
  • First things first. That checkuser data was obtained and was requested quite some time ago. If checkuser data on which the RfC blocking Huib was based can still be obtained, it should be provided to Huib. That's a matter for a steward or possibly a local checkuser. This should be done as a courtesy to Huib and in case that what is involved is some serious security breach at his end.
  • Huib's block interfered with his legitimate work with LangCom. It is possible to unblock him on the condition that he only use the account for LangCom business, violation of that would result in immediate reblock, until the restriction is formally lifted. Our communities tend toward black and white solutions, and people are more complicated than that. Whoever unblocks Huib should be willing and able to monitor and supervise subsequent activity to ensure that it satisfies conditions set by the unblocking administrator. If nobody is willing to do that, he should not be unblocked.
  • I'd be willing to monitor, but I don't have tools here; nevertheless I'd agree to report a violation to this page for action. I do regularly look at meta and I'd make a point of watching Huib contributions. --Abd 20:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I am definitely in favor of removing Huib's block (LangCom has some problems because Huib doesn't have access to Meta; as well as I am in favor of giving the second chance to anyone who promised to change behavior); having in mind how the issue was complex, there is no need to build theories about CU's and stewards' behavior. Those who were the most involved in this task have counted all important issues and they concluded that they are not able to give private data because some of them are inconclusive. If Huib wants to get those data, he should ask Ombudsman commission, as their job is to consult WMF lawyer about possible issues related to the privacy law(s), as well as to take that responsibility. --Millosh 10:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It has come to my attention that some people are using my comments on the previous RfC about Huib as foundational "proof" that the WMF supports this block and the other similar ones. That is not the case. The Foundation officially has no position on issues of community governance. I personally do, but it appears I didn't clearly separate the two, so I wish to clarify my previous statement. Philippe (WMF) 21:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no opinion on whether or not to unblock Huib, but I personally don't understand why he is still on the LangCom after all of this. Perhaps a better action to take would be to find a more suitable candidate, rather than one who has been desysopped and blocked on multiple wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want what the community wants. I'm hardly ever "the second chances guy" notwithstanding I tend to agree to Herbythyme but I understand the opposers as well. Leaving nlwiki and commons away (because meta is a different project) Abigor's behaviour in the past months in meta was not wonderful as Herby says but before I think he did good work in the LangCom/Spam area. I think that folks are most concerned regarding a vandal account created at meta. I said in the RfC (or at least tried to say) that given the nature of the tool and the technical data obtained for that very case it's not possible for me to make a definitive conclusion on what was the operator of that account (falacy #1: editor A and editor B shares the same IP so A and B are sockpuppets → error).

    I've been chatting with Huib on IRC: he's said he's sorry for all that happened and that he wants to do constructive work w/o dramahz and so on. I don't kwow if he's lying or he's saying the truth. I'll AGF. If he's finally unblocked he has the opportunity to demonstrate he's capable of doing good work w/o disrupting. If he's not, we can block again for betraying a possible community trust.

    I don't neglect the bad things he might have done in the past however he also did good work. Today I don't want to take a personal part in this case and as such if the community wants him to continue blocked, so be it. If the community finally accepts and wants Sterkeback unblocked, so be it. In this second case their editions can be restricted to LangCom work.

    My personal advice is to evaluate all this case as a whole and ponder what weights more. I repeat: I'm not taking part in this process, just commenting. Not supporting or opposing.

    Best regards, -- Dferg 08:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Support As per Dferg. If user is given a second chance, he should be immediately blocked on doing disruptive work again. Email Vaibhav Talk 11:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMHO we can give him a second chance. "Be a good guy" should be sounds like "forewarned is forearmed" --Melos 13:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this pretty much the same way as Dferg & Melos. I see real issues with nl wp and they have been there for years. However, with the exception of some silly behaviour recently, this user has always seemed to be a net positive to the project - there are folk who have been far less helpful/useful who seem to get away with it. If there were to be an unblock any repaet of the recent bad behaviour should result in a total block with no further discussion. Just my 0.02 --Herby talk thyme 15:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose - some people really deserve second chances, some people even deserve a third chance. This person has had numerous chances and every time blew it big time in the process harming the community, harming and deceiving people and harming the build of the encyclopedia. The funny thing is that Huib is telling sad stories what other people did to him, without giving notice of what he did to other people. Both cannot be proved and both should not be used as an argument to unblock him. - Brimz 20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Comment - I think it's wise to stay to meta related issues. If people on meta want to give him a second chance, I'm not against it. I would warn them though. If a second chance is given I personally would like (but who am I?) it is made clear this doesn't mean he is proven innocent on earlier stated cases, it doesn't mean he's framed, wrongfully blocked or anything like that. Not making this clear will lead to illusions and blaming. Wkr, Fontes 20:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Comment Properly, we look forward, not back. Given that Abigor did make some serious mistakes, as he acknowledged, an unblock should be forward-looking, not any kind of "exoneration." That's a separate matter. I've requested, before, that the actual checkuser data be released, because Abigor gave his consent to that, and policy allows it (with the user's consent). The very odd argument was given on one side that the evidence was supposedly absolutely conclusive, and, on the other side that it would be, if the vandal was not actually Abigor, a violation of the vandal's privacy. This seemed to me to be a complete misunderstanding of privacy policy; in effect, Abigor was made to suffer a humiliating identification with a serious vandal, but on the other, had no right to see the evidence, even if he requested and consented to release. That's grossly unfair, and poor process. Privacy policy does not protect clear vandals impersonating someone else.
      • Abigor must bear some responsibility for what happened. From my contact with him, he does. In theory, wikis do not punish, they only protect. We can protect the wiki without punishing Abigor. Where are the "numerous chances" that Brimz refers to? block log. I see one sequence here, not more than one. It happened over a week, and the block in the end was not based on continued offense. It was the original charges that led to the result.
      • Abigor was an active administrator. Administrators often make enemies, and often come under attack. Sometimes they respond inappropriately. We need to correct the inappropriate behavior; however, we also need to understand that administrators, in general, have been positive contributors. I had "issues" with Abigor as an administrator. So what? He lost his privileges here for non-use, not for misbehavior. I've argued that he should be allowed to be unblocked under some kind of mentorship. A mentor would agree to monitor his editing, and would report any problems for administrative action, if they were not resolved by discussion with Abigor. The mentor would be someone agreeable to both Abigor and the community. It is not that I expect he'd be a problem. The proposal is to satisfy the legitimate concerns of those who expect him to misbehave.
      • This is the paradox: if Abigor were really inclined to sock again, being blocked would certainly not stop him. Blocks, unless they become massive range blocks, which cause collateral damage, don't deter socking. Indeed, blocking the primary account can make it harder to detect socks. There is some very strange thinking behind how we block people, sometimes. In spite of all this, I see no sign that Abigor has done any serious socking; the edit from Haifa, even if it were his -- which is far from proven -- was harmless, not disruptive in itself. I suggest that any closer here attempt to maximize consensus. That is, seek a solution that, as much as possible, satisfies the concerns of all sides. --Abd 23:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opposing unblock, apparent home wikis (from global contributions):
      • Only one of those opposing unblock is not from nlwiki, so far. I've observed this kind of pattern before. A block on meta should be based on behavior on meta. --Abd 00:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasper's Dong - block?

Looks like a vandalism only account.... someone want to investigate / block if necessary please? QU TalkQu 22:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of him. Just one of those long-term abusers. -Barras 22:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Barras, I restored the user and user talk of Jasper Deng. Jasper's Dong. was an impersonation of the first (respected) contributor. Trijnstel 22:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, fail. What shiny 's can make... Sorry and thanks for the fix. -Barras 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]