User talk:Fr33kman

Welcome to my talkpage on Meta

You can also talk to me at: w:simple:User talk:Fr33kman

Hi fr33k. Apparently you did the check on the latest request for ptwiki earlier today. Could you please publish your findings? Cheers, PeterSymonds 21:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Peter, actually I had not done that request, I had changed to checkuser@ptwiki to give a second opinion on a prior request from ptwiki that the requester needed clarification on. I forgot to remove the bit until now because I got distracted by a neighbour who became ill. Since I still had the flag I have now down that request as confirmed. fr33kman 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Heh, sorry. I went to do it this morning because there was nothing to suggest it was in progress, and Brian yelled at me because you were on it. :-) Best, PeterSymonds 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lol :) fr33kman 21:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just found your votes at Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Old_English_Wikiquote, one oppose and one support. A neutral vote is missing XD -Aleator (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

True, but surely it'll come along at some point. :) fr33kman 00:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Fr33kman. About that, I guess that account was renamed twice on s:pt (they have local crats) and on w:pt (they don't have local crats). I'm not sure but it appears to be a duplicate request... partially. Regards.” T_ele^s (T_alk @ C G) 02:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A fella can't hold more than one opinion ;) fr33kman 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for volunteering to join in playing the Game of Police State. What level do you like to play at? —Moulton 13:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"xwiki banned, betawv is unattached, but him, new edits seem problematic" <-- "new edits seem problematic" <-- There is no emergency and you acted without community consensus. Please remove the bad block you imposed. --JWSurf 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw a globally locked user make an edit to a WMF owned wiki. After reading the page, and seeing that it was Moulton (locked from editing WMF) and as an elected steward I blocked the account. I believe firmly I did the correct thing, it certainly was not a "bad block"; however, if you wish him to edit at beta.wv then that's your lookout. I stand by my block but shall undo it. fr33kman 18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, does that mean you don't want to play the Game of Police State with me? Oh well, whatever makes you happy. By the way, did you ever discover why Jimbo ordered the global site-lock? It's quite a fascinating story. —Moulton 22:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Moulton, I'm sorry to say, but I actually don't know who you are or what your story is. Sorry to burst the bubble! :( fr33kman 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It never ceases to astonish me how people with power tools love to exercise them whilst operating from a position of ignorance and obliviousness. —Barsoom Tork 15:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Ooh! The Game is Afoot! —Gastrin Bombesin 17:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Deutsch | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | Nederlands | português | Türkçe | русский | العربية | Tiếng Việt | edit

Fr33kman, congratulations! You now have the rights of administrator on Meta. Please take a moment to read the Meta:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat, and Meta:Requests for deletion, but also Talk:Spam blacklist and Talk:Interwiki map), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings, or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care.

A tip: add this page Meta:Administrators' discussion index to your watchlist, it tracks the latest activity to various sections of many of the important pages.

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-admin @ irc.freenode.net. You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading although it doesn't always completely apply here at Meta.

Please also check or add your entry to Meta:Administrators#List_of_administrators and the Template:List of administrators.

Tiptoety ^talk 20:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Congrats :D --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! :) fr33kman 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I signed the admin request.--64.47.84.194 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

fr33kman

— Please be civil, "not thanks to you" seems a tad rude to me

Hello, fr33kman. This is not the first time she abuses of request pages to post personal attacks on meta. Please, check this prior warning. That's exactly the reason why I and a large part of ptwiki community have voted against her (verify). Please, I'd like that you remove this edit from SRP and/or, at least, warn her about this unaccaptable behavior everywhere. I always treat people with respect, and I hope being treated in the same way :D

Kind regards, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 01:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can always respond with civility. It works in all situations :) fr33kman 01:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can always respond with civility, but we can't never allow that incivility is perpetuated on the other part. :) Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

So I ask you again: if an user has been warned about not making personal attacks and repeatedly ignores this advice, what is the minimal action to be taken? Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 02:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll say here what I said on IRC, if I see anyone violating policy I'd act on it. fr33kman 03:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I came across this, Fr33kman, and was curious, who had written what, it wasn't obvious. Finally, I found this discussion, where "a tad rude" was your comment. Reading the discussion, "not thanks to you" might be read as "no thanks to you," which would be mildly uncivil, implying that the person being commented to was somehow unhelpful (which could possibly be consistent with Beria's comment, hence your response), but it could also simply mean "not 'thanks to you'", i.e., not as a result of your suggestion, which is also consistent, or even more consistent. That would not be an uncivil comment.

Generally, assuming the worst meanings for what someone has written, instead of assuming the best, can be a characteristic or type of incivility. Pointing out the incivility of others is itself at least a weak incivility, particularly if it is not necessary.

To put this another way, strong intolerance of weak incivility is itself uncivil. By itself, I have no clue what Ruy means by "we can't never allow that incivility is perpetuated on the other part." However, what precedes that points out possible incivility in the past, yet there is no necessity here for that notice, i.e., whether or not Beria has been uncivil is almost completely irrelevant here. Her requests and comments here will be treated fairly, I expect, regardless, and only if serious incivility were shown here would this start to fail.

So the answer to Ruy's question is: no action. None at all, at least not here. I would suggest to Ruy that if Ruy has a complaint about Beria, that attempts be made to resolve this on pt.wiki. If simple discussion doesn't work, get some help from a neutral editor, preferably someone trusted and respected by both parties. Or, I suppose, you could waste years in useless bickering. Your choice.

Fr33kman, I hope you don't mind my butting in! --Abd 02:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is why I said it seemed rude, I'm open to convincing otherwise. fr33kman 03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I understand why it looked rude. Whether it was intended to be rude or not is not completely clear, I think I gave an argument that it wasn't rude, but that isn't certain either. What is clearly rude, though, is jumping on your comment and belaboring this as if it were a major offense by the user, making a "case" out of it, but really all this is up to pt.wiki. Incivility usually has to get really awful to result in a block on meta, I could point to some doozies. I do appreciate your effort to encourage civility, that's needed and often neglected. Now, was I affected by the photo? Damn! There I go again, biased as hell! --Abd 20:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The stewards de facto policy has been not to grant temporary 'crat access (there was one exception for a matter of hours). In the past, (and re-affirmed realtime by the stewards on IRC) the consensus of all the stewards also was that the access should not have been granted. We'd be happy to continue the discussion, but please forgive me reversing your granting of the bit for now. I in no mean wish to impugn your judgment; only, that it goes against years-long consensus. If that is due for change, it must be agreed upon on wiki. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi 17:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no issues reversing the action, but I also say it was the right thing to do given the circumstances. I feel the issue here is that stewards are making "policy" for wikis very much without the wiki's contributing. The granting of local flags should be a technical switch on/off. Even we ourselves could not agree on the draft even, let alone policy. And as for discussing it on IRC I am 100% against making onwiki decisions offwiki. fr33kman 17:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've added you name here. Please check your details there (the babel, IRC nick, and active from section), and include if any of the information is not included yet or added wrongfully. Thanks for your help. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not a request for you to change your !vote on my request. That being said, I am just curious if you have any additional concerns with me other than my lack of content wiki experience. You've supported candidates with no content wiki admin experience before, and so that makes me curious to know if there is another reason for you having concerns with my request. Since you didn't post them there, I assume that any such concerns would be ones that you'd prefer to not make public, so we could talk on IRC if convenient. Again, this is not a request for you to change your !vote, but if there are more problems at hand I'd like to know them in hopes of fixing them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :), i normally fight vandalism at big wikis, but Savh told me to go to the channel of the small wiki monitoring to see how it was and i liked it :). Greetings!--Jcaraballo 02:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't work on projects where it's not installed locally cfr. glk:Special:RecentChanges & glk:Special:ListGroupRights :-) Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw that after I turned it off. I take it the best way to avoid flooding would be temp bot flag then? fr33kman 02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, as the bot flag is present on all the projects. Best, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 02:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!! Finally!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Hello Freekman, I answered in my talk page.--Darwinius 02:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep, sometimes clichés are the truth ^^ --Vituzzu 20:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lol, the thing is his hands did most of the talking. He claims this is normal and that it's impossible to speak Italian without at least 16 hand gestures per minute. But my God could he make the best Calzones! MMmmmm ....... calzones ... ;) fr33kman 03:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

He also taught me to make the BEST thincrust pizza and giving me hints on genuine toppigs (squid, pork, ottopus, bacon, 10 types of cheese and my (YES, my) perfect base, garlic, , cracked chillis, fresh anchovy and bacon bit & cracked pepper and extra virgin olive oil, and and did I mention extra cheees? NO TOMATO SAUCE (Grrrr) fr33kman 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I am Lithuanian Wikipedia administator, in that project my username is Snooker.

We have an extraordinary situation here. One of our administrators and bureaucrats Vpovilaitis has been found guilty of sock-puppeting 1. He was using two account - Vpovilaitis account has sysop and bureaucrat rights, the other accoount Žaibas (old name Tigris) was used to to create illusion of support, edit project space and what is the most astonishing vote on his own behalf in his 2 bureaucrat election (Tigris is the old name of that account, the name was later changed in order to escape suspicion). Voting on his behalf twice is inappropriate, having in mind that he was administrator at that time, and that using his bureaucrat rights he disrupted the project multiple times.

I as a representative of other Lt.wiki administrators am confused about the situation, and we would like to ask what to do, because to trust Vpovilaitis votings related with is user is useless because of the past votes counterfeiting. Maybe there is possibility for this user to lose his bureaucrat rights as far as the user was cheating by using two accounts to vote in favor for his candidacy which is illegitimate.

What can you say about the situation here? Thanks for the reply in advance. Tomreves 11:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Firstly I feel that you should follow your local policy on sockpuppets. This, on most projects, means that the sockpuppet account gets blocked by an admin and there is then usually a community discussion about what to do with the offender. Normally during this period the main account (Vpovilaitis) would not be blocked and not emergency desysoped unless there was dire danger of abuse of the tools in the short term. The community would then normally decide sanctions and/or blocks and/or desysoping. When the community has come to a consensus about what to do, then the appropriate person can take action. This might mean a local admin or it may require the aid of a steward such as myself on SRP. Let me know if you have more questions, need help or need emergency action. Thanks for your question. fr33kman 20:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm was in holiday on from 2011-06-15 to the 2011-07-31. I has only very limited access to the wiki projects at this time by using my phone (international calls) and Mini Opera browser. At this time I was accused as I use additional accounts and speedly was removed my bureaucrat and administrator roles in the lt.wikipedia. I mostly edit wiki projects from my work network. All workers are rooted to the internet through one IP address by the policy of our company. So all 1000 workers can work by this one IP address. In addition I'm use phone with Mini Opera browser witch route me throug dinamic IP adress range. --Vpovilaitis ^apt. 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Vpovilaitis, Fr33kman is unavailable temporarily, see [1].

I've had a look at this and it is true that Vpovilaitis and Žaibas are the same person, but I can't link any other accounts to the user. I think CUs of smaller nations may sometimes be problematic given the small population (sometimes the size of a small city) and the fact that the small number of ISPs are going to be used by a lot of people with short DHCP leases. fr33kman 03:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

We had discussions about Stewards overstepping their authority and acting unilaterally. This is rather troubling. He claims that 1. Stewards are not supposed to act on their own then 2. Claims the lock of Abigor was "pressured" (i.e., implying someone outside of the Stewards asking for it) and overturns the lock based on that. 2 contradicts 1, and is the only abuse of what Stewards are not supposed to do. It is also a unilateral decision which does not have any community or historical basis. Locks were developed for the banning of those who were cross wiki destructive individuals, which vandals do not rise to that level. The original people locked were those like Greg Kohs. Regardless if individual stewards disagreed with individual locks, that is what the original locks were therefore, and claiming that wasn't what locks were intended to be for is to deny history as a way to validate one's own opinion (which is prohibited for Stewards to act on). This is a severe breach of acceptable Steward ability use, especially when those from the WMF (who Stewards are intended to be following and upholding the standards of) made it clear that Abigor was of a high enough threat to warrant the original action. Millosh was involved in similar anti-WMF activism before, and in this light it is hard to think that any of the actions from Millosh can be seen as appropriate or reason. Please talk to them and get them to stop going down such a destructive path as it is only harming and can only harm the WMF projects even more. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now he is threatening to block me because I pointed out that Locks were created so that Jimbo and the Foundation could ban cross wiki users that were not Vandals (Greg Kohs, Moulton, etc). This is really, really inappropriate behavior. Please deal with Millosh. A normal person would have been blocked for acting in the way he is doing. He claims others are disrupting, but has completely misstated the truth, is acting opposite of what Stewards are allowed to do, and is trying to bully anyone who contradicts him. Even the Foundation believed that Locks were meant to be used in these situations which is why they asked for it. Locks are the Foundation's tool, not Stewards. Stewards were created by the Foundation. They have no right to challenge the Foundation and to intimidate those who point out the real history. Millosh has always been friendly with Abigor on IRC and worked with Abigor there. It seems that Millosh is inserting personal feelings and is doing whatever to attack those who point out the obvious. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

At the moment the issue is very much still ongoing. I'll monitor it and if there are actions of any person(s) that need further discussion it is properly raised after the final decisions have been made. That's the fairest thing at this point. fr33kman 22:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comment Now that the event had occurred and is over, it's a more proper time to have this discussion. I don't see Millosh's removal of the block as abuse of the tools because Millosh is correct, we never have formally implemented a global blocking policy for established users that have gone "bad". Remember I only consider a rule a rule if it exists onwiki somewhere, somewhere in a public mailing lists or similar. Nor do I see a problem with those who enact a global ban, cause we do have a de facto rule. What we really need are general global principles that are binding on all projects. It's ludicrous to think that the legal owner of a set of websites or their community representatives from being able to block a username globally. There have to be some rules that are truly global. fr33kman 18:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you keep an eye on [2] and [3]. Abd has been making many personal attacks, being tendentious, demanding evidence that was already provided many times, etc., in a desire to "win" by wearing down people who see an obvious problem by flooding them with pointless text and challenges. There is no legitimate reason for his behavior, and people doing far less have been shown the door quite quickly. This, for example, is completely inappropriate especially considering that the Stewards and the CUs for WS had 3 sock puppets used to email myself and others during a short period while he was using the Longfellow name. Abd doesn't like the reality of the situation so he wants to harass everyone he can to distract from it. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've seen no evidence for these "3 sock puppets used to email." I spent a whole day looking. I did find an off-hand comment that might have been a basis for a rumor. Obviously, I can't look everywhere, maybe I've missed something.

The above is vintage Ottava, see Requests for comment/User:Ottava Rima. He suspended participation in February, and his entire activity here, this July, has been attack various users, such as Abigor and Poetlister, based on old grudges (right or wrong). Fr33kman, I'm sorry to see this come to your Talk page. --Abd 19:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interesting that you claim to have looked for the emails but couldn't find any, when you participated in the threads at WR that posted up the emails in regards to Pathoschild and John Vandenberg not acting on the matter. I also find that your claims are highly incivil and lack any good faith. It is also interesting to note that as a party who was subject to inappropriate behavior from the two people that you say I have no right to mention any of that. You treat everything like a trial where you are the judge but you don't allow any witnesses to testify that there was abuse. You cater everything to your own bias, and then you attack people. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have closed the RfC as banned and frankly think that there were quite a few issues of behavior that shouldn't have happened. This includes all sides. I think the best thing now is to give this issue a break for now, try and avoid more arguments and get on with project work. fr33kman 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much on SRCU#Sdee@zh.wikipedia, but I have a little question there: Are there proxies involved among those users? I wished that you could tell me at least "yes" or "no" (because last time checking Sdee, the CheckUser had mentioned about proxy). Thank you! --CDIP No.150 repair meter 06:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done I'm sorry but known of the IPs show as active proxies. fr33kman 16:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comment I'll inline comment here because if I don't I'll end up losing track of what I'm saying and end up sounding like an idiot. :) fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the close of Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister

In the discussion of the RfC, I suggested a compromise to increase consensus. The global ban implemented by you with a lock prevents Poetlister from using any SUL under that name. This user remains free to use other accounts, there is no way to prevent that; to remind you of his history, he was an administrator on several wikis, including Wikipedia, and was a checkuser. However, in general, the wikis are safer from the kind of disruption he allegedly represents, if he has an identified account that he is using regularly.

• Of course there is no way to stop socking, but that's the nature of the game and we really shouldn't be basing policy upon whether or not it increases problems. fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given that he does have an account, and that he has been editing Wikiversity with it non-disruptively for six months -- notice there was no complaint at all from active Wikiversity users in the RfC, the opposite, and there exist no allegations of disruption on Wikiversity -- it would be my intention to do what was done previously with other globally-banned users, request local delinking, a 'crat renames the account and names it back, thus exempting that account from SUL lock. The precedent on Wikiversity is very strong that users not disrupting Wikiversity, nor using it to attack other wikis and users of other wikis, are not to be blocked or banned.

• No comment on IRC? To bad! If you want to partake, it's onwiki that matters. fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The compromise was that the closing and implementing steward globally lock, but delink the Wikiversity account, immediately. That still leaves a local block possible, and, in fact, easy, because it can be done by any administrator. This was the apparent consensus solution before, with the ban/lock of User:Thekohser; Pathoschild unlocked and went around to all the local wikis, blocking "per ban." It was an undocumented action by Mike.lifeguard that reinstated the lock, thus temporarily defeating prior local decisions to unblock and making Pathoschild's work useless. That did not stand, because local wikis delinked, and Mike resigned, with the timing indicating a connection. The events on Wikibooks were highly disruptive, with wheel-warring by Mike.

• We can't base out decisions based on whether or not it makes more trouble; we have to what is right. fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

You did not, in your close, address the suggestion.

I request that you use 'crat privileges at Wikiversity to delink the account through renaming it to a temporary name, then naming it back, because if you do delink, there will, very likely, be no further global disruption on this issue, and probably no disruption on Wikiversity, either.

• The reason is I'm not a crat on enwv. It would be an abuse of my tools if I delinked. If enwv wishes to delink, they can do that and we can respond at that time. fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you choose not to delink, then there will be action at Wikiversity to delink locally, or, alternatively, to support a new, disclosed sock account with no SUL connection, but if you delink, you will be, yourself, taking a stand for local independence.

From the history of discussions involving Poetlister, if there is a local WV discussion, there will be some level of outsider drop-in, there are obviously people with a very strong agenda to exclude him completely, some of whom have no respect for Wikiversity traditions and needs. That's why I'd prefer to avoid local discussion unless someone has an active local complaint!

The ban here may be construed positively as an attempt to protect wikis with inadequate local resources, by default, from a user considered dangerous, but it may be construed negatively as an attempt to control those wikis from outside. The paradox, of course, is that the ban protects nobody. Whatever Poetlister did in the past could easily be repeated if he desired that. He doesn't, and hasn't, for a long time, as far as anything visible in the record.

Your close, as far as it went, was correct. There was what we call "rough consensus" at a high level -- not genuine consensus -- for a global ban. If you were to look more closely -- which I don't think is necessary -- you'd see a high level of drop-in, users who showed up only to support the ban, who do not ordinarily deal with meta, and who are not actually involved in the current situation at Wikiversity, the only wiki seriously affected by the ban.

You may wish to see a request from Poetlister. Ask for it, and, I'm told, you will receive one. Even though Poetlister has free use of email, he is expressly holding back from any Poetlister ban violations, but he will respond on request from a steward.

I am making this request based on your status as closer of the RfC, and I'm making it publicly for transparency. Thanks for considering this. --Abd 17:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The English Wikiversity would need to be the one's who have a local voting and a local bureaucrat can delink if that is the will of the community. That's the reason I didn't delink the account from SUL. I did read everything about this RfC both here and elsewhere and it was clear to me that a ban is the will of the community. Drive-by !voting is always going to exist, and it makes sense on metawiki that new users would have no or little edits here. Likely the word got out and people felt obliged to comment. Remember this is a global ban, so users who have never even heard of Poetlister might come along and vote. I took some time reading and rereading the debate, and I think I've come to the right decicion. I knew this was a controversial issue in many ways. Items raised were autonymy of projects, and the limits to such autonymy. I can see your point about small wikis not having a say although they are welcome to talk to me about it. When closing this there were multiple factors and arguments that I read. Was/is there such a ban type in existance in policy? The visibility of the event shows that there were enough people asking for a global ban that such an entity must exist. What is the likely disruption to come out of my pressing the ban button? I felt it would be significant in the short term and hopefully tapering off long-term. I'm sure Poetlister will continueing to edit under different accouts, or as an anon. It should however be stated that this community ban is against the person themselves, not just there counts. The community has decided not to allow him to work globally. If enwv wishes to delink the account, they have their own crats and they can be requested to do so. Regards, fr33kman 16:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

P.S.: Any user can contact me at any time for advice, help, etc... So, yes Poetlister can talk to me; email is fine so is IRC. : fr33kman 16:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, Fr33kman, local 'crats may act, and that's where I'll go next, but I don't think you understood why I made this request here first. However, your response does satisfy part of the purpose of my request, you clearly have the opinion that local wikis may, indeed, delink, and that your close was not designed to prevent that, and did not validate the position that meta decisions should control local wikis. The RfC itself was unclear on that, and your close did not clarify it, even though arguments both ways were presented, as I recall. (The background to the ban proposal was a mailing list complaint that Wikiversity was allowing Poetlister to edit, as if this were reprehensible and to be prevented).

Your close in itself is not disruptive. However, there may be some disruption, now, on Wikiversity. The request to you was designed to avoid or reduce that. Unless you are willing to consider delinking as requested, I see no reason for Poetlister to contact you. Thanks for considering this, your response is helpful, and, in itself, may somewhat reduce disruption. --Abd 17:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do understand why you brought it here for me to delink, it's just not my job. fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I acted because I was uninvolved and felt ok I should close. I think that when/of he returns he should if he outs himself then the banhammer comes down on the need account; if he make a new account and plays totally by the rules and avoids prior topic areas, they chances are we won't find him. But you have to realize that any account he uses (if continuing to sock) without CU it'd be impossible for regular admins to find him. I actually do not like the idea of splitting from the SUL, but at the same local crats can; just don't ask me because I don't believe in it really. Yes, I indeed closed the case with the express intention that a few things need publically defining. Any editing restrictions would be better in an unban request. What we need to define is discussions of global bans, discussions about the limits of project autonomy. (I'll think it'll be an interesting few weeks to come) fr33kman 18:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd hoped we could avoid that "interesting few weeks." There are still some options, I will follow them. The problem is not Poetlister and the regular Wikiversity community, the problem is what happens when others who obviously hate Poetlister, who don't care at all about Wikiversity, come there to "participate." It already happened, with repeated request for deletion of his major project, and with some vandalism. But that would blow over.

Poetlister has been, for a long time, playing by the rules, it seems. He's been "globally banned" in spite of that. That this can happen on meta is bad enough. If it reaches to Wikiversity, well, my hopes for the future of Wikiversity will be badly dented. It's not Poetlister, that's just one account. It's that more will come, the door will have been opened, and I can easily predict what else will come through it.

My hope is that clear precedent will be followed. In any case, thanks for your close and your service of the community. --Abd 22:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could you link or point to the precedent please? fr33kman 12:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, this is long, even though it's not really complete. It is the very nature of bans that they can be highly controversial on meta. However, there are two prior cases. I don't know of any other previous "global bans." Both of the prior bans were declared by Jimbo Wales. My time is short today, so I'll write this from memory, with some of it not backed with links. If you have any question about any specific assertion, it can all be made verifiable.

• Moulton. The circumstances of the ban, in 2008, were highly controversial on Wikiversity, and Wikiversity lost users over it. Last year, a declared sock was created on Wikiversity to allow Talk page access. Moulton is quite disruptive and frequently uncooperative even with people who have seen some value in his contributions and who have tried to help him. He was unblocked by Ottava Rima (without discussion or reason given), who was being desysopped. I would not have done this unless I wanted to stir up trouble, because there were no agreements and no sign that he'd not repeat prior behavior, and he had, in fact, been banned with, at least, the general consent of the community. Once he had an unblocked account, general opinion had become that it would be better for him to be using his original account name, by which he was more widely known, so a discussion was started on delinking. There was very little comment, it was approved and a 'crat acted. He was relatively nondisruptive for a time. However, old behaviors returned and, because there was a lack of custodial attention at the time, there was a fair amount of disruption before he was finally indeffed and range blocks were applied. There was, this time, very little dissent. The delinking also occurred on beta.wikiversity, long before, and Moulton was disruptive there as well, and the 'crat who had delinked was ultimately desysopped. Again, no ongoing dissent, the community obviously supported these actions. Moulton almost certainly prefers being blocked, because he then has more justification for his rants about abusive administration. But he actually offended almost the whole community, the last time.
• Thekohser. Thekohser was banned by declaration of Jimbo Wales in 2010, in a comment on Wikiversity, under circumstances that, again, divided the community. Ultimately, an RfC was started on meta, over this incident, that, when combined with other superuser actions at Commons by Jimbo, resulted in a very strong consensus to remove the Founder toolset from Jimbo. Jimbo voluntarily relinquished the "intrusive" tools, keeping those that allow him to see what's going on, and this appears to have quieted the discontent.

• To implement the ban declared by Jimbo, a steward locked the account. However, it appears that private discussions led to a more open solution: Pathoschild went to all the involved wikis and blocked the account, per the ban, and the account was unlocked. (record of account locking/unlocking). This appears to have been done to explicitly allow local decision.
• Some wikis then unblocked.
• Mike.lifeguard then locked the account again. Asked about this, he cited unspecified discussions, not disclosing with whom it had been discussed. Here is his response to my questions. Steward policy requires that the basis for actions be in public discussions. This is frequently violated, in fact. Sometimes there are good reasons, but much damage is done to transparency. If Jimbo and the WMF had actually been behind Mike.lifeguard's actions, I'd assume that this would have been made clear. That it was not made clear leads me to think that Mike was mistaking the private agreement of a few users for a general consensus. It's obvious that there was no such consensus.
• On Wikiversity, having established that Thekohser was a positive contributor, I requested that he -- his declared sock account, set up for the purpose of authoritative communication, -- be unblocked. We were unaware at the time that email still worked with locked accounts. Ultimately this led to a clear discussion with a close by a 'crat (that's a link to the final subsection of the previous link). The main account was delinked, and no disruption has ensued. There have been no threats, no cross-wiki disruption over this, no further wheel-warring. If Thekohser were to abuse his Wikiversity account, he would not last long. He's quite visible.
• On Wikibooks, a discussion led to a 'crat delinking and unblocking. Mike.lifeguard reblocked the account. Ultimately a new discussion resulted in a strong consensus to unblock. It could be a coincidence, but Mike.lifeguard resigned immediately upon the reversal of his action. No further disruption has taken place at Wikibooks over this, to my knowledge. The Wikibooks discussions: this includes some information about the locks from Pathoschild, and this is another long discussion where the final decision was made. As a reflection on those events many months later, see RfB for QuiteUnusual, re his close of the unblock discussion.The specific comment.
• Thekohser was also delinked and/or unblocked on other wikis, see CentralAuth, showing five wikis where Thekohser is not blocked. On Commons, the account was never attached, block log. On Commons, Pathoschild reblocked and unblocked immediately when it was realized that a local decision was being overturned, making precedent clear. Renaming and unblocking was done on Wikiversity, Wikibooks, as described, plus Wikinews.renamingblock log.
• In no case did stewards attempt to directly interfere by blocking the delinked accounts.

A global lock establishes a presumption of banning for all SUL accounts on local wikis. My sense is that if global blocks were implemented, a local whitelist would be part of the mix, maintaining local autonomy, as is done with other global functions, such as the blacklist or IP blocks. If a local wiki truly abuses its autonomy, causing damage to other wikis or the WMF, direct action would be in order. The WMF has the authority and the power. Using that power, however, could result in some harm. It would be opening a huge can of worms. Signs are that the WMF doesn't want to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

In the case of Moulton, local autonomy led ultimately to the same conclusion as Jimbo had made. In the case of Thekohser, a global lock has been locally overturned. In both cases, however, the discussions involved were contentious, with a vocal minority standing for respecting the global ban, in spite of the lack of local disruption. This is why I suggested considering a delinking for Poetlister, on Wikiversity only, because it's clear from precedent that there will be substantial support for his editing there. However, I can understand why you might decline, you'd be doing something which many users here on meta might dislike. You can avoid this by deferring to local 'crats, who don't fear meta disapproval.

Even on meta, though, there is division on this, as you might notice from prior steward comment on the Poetlister lock and ban. Ban discussions are almost inherently disruptive, they should be avoided if possible. It takes one administrator to block, and it's a Wikipedia thing to declare bans, with extensive discussions, to attempt to close an issue, which is, after all, an attempt for the present to control the future by making decisions which are difficult to undo. Structurally, it's a bad idea, a failure of the wiki vision. But that's a huge subject, eh?

The issue is whether or not any decision on meta is binding on local wikis. There is no precedent for it, beyond decisions about closing wikis which don't have adequate participation. Some global decisions are made, as with the global blacklist, for example, to protect the wikis, but they may sidestep these at their own discretion (and risk!). Global locks are like that. --Abd 01:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well then

I think the way forward is to have enwv do their action and then we can all have the global/local discussion. fr33kman 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm proceeding slowly and carefully on Wikiversity. One step at a time. --Abd 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I feel the way forward here is that we need to define three things;

1) Does such a thing as a global block of a respected user exist? 2) Can individual wikis bypass the global ban of a user? 3) How do we decide upon a global ban, who is "required" to enforce it?

• If "respected" means "respected by one or more wikis," yes. That is, bans have been declared and implemented by a global lock. What is new recently with Poetlister is that there was a large-scale discussion here. However, in the past, had there been a discussion here, probably the result would have been the same, i.e., a meta decision for a lock. Maybe. There was, with the lock of Thekohser, some dissent, it appears, with a decision to unlock and go around and replace it with a pile of local blocks making it clear that local admins could unblock, and the decision to reinstate the lock appears to have been that of one steward. However, because local wikis were able to move around it if they so chose, nobody has been exercised to undo that lock. So Thekohser is globally banned, and may edit a number of WMF wikis, with the expressed consent of local communities.
• Individual wikis have bypassed global bans in the past. There has been no conflict over this, except with that one steward, who made it clear, in his intervention on Wikibooks, that he was acting only as a local admin, never mind the wheel-warring involved. He resigned shortly after his action was overturned with consensus.
• Nobody is ever required to enforce any ban on a wiki. We are all volunteers, and we can sit on our hands. One of the problems with a global ban, if there is an attempt to enforce it against the wishes of a local community, is that the body of users who enforce normal local bans are mostly not going to cooperate, so it will draw resources from meta, requiring them to act locally, contravening decisions made by local administrators. As well, this may create major local conflicts, as we have seen with bans before. This is an awful idea, a nightmare. And then, if a user or administrator at the local wiki assists this "banned user," are they going to be desysopped and blocked? That is exactly what got Jimbo in trouble last year. His action banning Thekohser wasn't terrible, in itself, but his intervention to desysop and block those who protested pushed many users over the edge.
• The issue here is quite simple. Does meta act as a government for the wikis? Does it set policies for the individual wikis? Does meta want its fingers in those pies? Yes, the WMF does set certain overall policies, such as privacy. But the strong tradition is to allow the local communities maximum autonomy, providing only that critical WMF interests are respected. In the ban of Poetlister, it was made quite clear that this was not coming officially from the WMF. So: can a group of users from various wikis assemble here and tell another wiki what to do and what not to do, in matters affecting only that wiki locally? SUL Poetlister is locked. If Wikiversity delinks that account there, it does not facilitate his editing elsewhere in the least. Indeed, he becomes more visible. Consider this: previously, he contacted 'crats on Wikisource privately and arranged a return as Longfellow. He seems to have kept his part of that agreement. Has he done the same elsewhere? How would we know? Remember, this is a sophisticated user, he was a checkuser. He knows how to avoid detection. Basically, detecting his socks will be easier if he has an active account, known to be him. Locking him simply made him less visible.
• There is no basis for the claim that Poetlister's being allowed to edit Wikiversity will harm other wikis. Therefore there is no basis for intervention. If there is a true inter-wiki conflict, it should probably be referred to the WMF, otherwise we have the 800 lb gorilla, en.wiki, able to assemble large numbers of users here. --Abd 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I think you'll find the WMF is loath to get involved with community issues. If you look back I think you'll see that the foundation has been slowly pushing decisions onto the community. I think that we must have global bans, to not have would be a nonsense. Every website that uses logins out there has a way of stopping a user from contributing; I.E.: a site wide block. However, basically I think we need to codify global bans so that we've got something official to rely on. Right now the global ban of an established user is a bit of email, a bit or IRC, a bit of onwiki and some word-of-mouth. For transparency and fairness it needs codifying. fr33kman 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
• It's also tough to decide what to do if a wiki wants to opt-out, can they?, how do they do it?, under what circumstances should it be allowed if at all? It all needs deciding. fr33kman 21:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

We have a system that works, actually. Not perfect, but it works. Global locks were designed for cross-wiki spammers and vandals. They've been used a bit for other than that, which sometimes isn't great. But if there is a declared global ban, implementing it with a lock makes sense. It establishes a global default. It protects allegedly "unsuspecting" small wikis. The kind of ban that doesn't make sense is one that effectively bans the wikis from deciding to accept a user. That has not been done, ever, before. It makes no sense from a structural point of view. I suggested that you delink Poetlister just on Wikiversity because a discussion of Poetlister is highly likely to create a mess, where people show up just to claim he should be totally excluded, which happened in the RfC in at least one case. It was very personal.

Wikis can "opt-out" in two ways: they can delink, it takes a 'crat. They can allow the user to create a local account, with or without identification. Wikisource 'crats allowed an undisclosed account (except to them), and that decision actually caused no harm in itself. Poetlister was obviously not disruptive on Wikisource, the animosity around that was all related to old stuff. Basically, to attempt to enforce meta decisions about this on local wikis is a complete reversal of strong tradition.

The Poetlister ban RfC was disturbing. No recent misbehavior was described. The most recent allegations were supposed email abuse. I asked for evidence, and the question was considered ridiculous, and no evidence was supplied. There was some email documented on Wikisource, on Longfellow Talk there, and it was innocuous. And the weirdest thing is that a global lock doesn't prevent email usage, so if he really were abusing email, a lock would not help at all!

My sense is that Wikipedians are ban-happy. They think they solve problems that way. It doesn't work, but that doesn't stop them! I'm pretty sure that Poetlister is still editing, and the wiki he is editing on has at least one 'crat who knows he's editing, and that wiki is benefiting, just as Wikisource benefited by the last session there with Longfellow. He's decided, I think, to be open on Wikiversity, and, in fact, that makes the situation safer, not more dangerous. I gotta shake my head sometimes! I'll be helping him there, but slowly and carefully. I don't want the place to blow up! I do know how to do this, but one step at a time. meatball:DefendEachOther. --Abd 01:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

A quick question: Why is there a page on this person? It's not as if she has ever done anything worthwhile? I do not understand. + it is completely one-sided + did she write it?

Firstly, this project is metawiki, which is different from enwiki as we do not host encyclopedic articles. Metawiki is a coordination of crosswiki issues and global requests for aid. As such Daphne Guinness does not exist here on meta. There is an article en:Daphne Guinness which (although needing expansion) shows her as notable by passing the inclusion criteria. The best thing to do if you think the article should be deleted is to nominate it for deletion at on enwiki. The template you need to use on enwiki is, to place the tag {{rfd|your reasons for wanting it deleted}}. You should place this tag on top of the enwiki article. It is not required, but it is considered impolite not to inform the major editors that you find in the atricles history page. Let me know if I can help further. Regards, 11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please globally unblock now, because, this is public computer IP adress.--194.8.2.90 11:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not done I'm sorry if you have been caught in a global block on this address. Unfortunately I will not unblock it. The block will expire in 31 hours. fr33kman 11:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please go to the hakka wikipedia, Addition 2 groups:Patrollers,Rollbackers,and They are awarded for Administrator.Thamks! —小躍 02:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

The groups patrollers and rollbackers do not exist on hakwiki. If you wish to become an admin there, please make a request here. fr33kman 03:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you could comment on that too please. Tomreves 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, you got it wrong, it happens. Don't worry about it. :-) fr33kman 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I commented on User_talk:Tomreves#Brox and in the checkuser report. This looks like a weak identification that was misunderstood by Tomreves. It would help if this were confirmed (or if I'm incorrect.) --Abd 20:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Fr33kman, for reviewing the Brox checkuser report. From the data that had been revealed in various places, it looked weak to me. I could understand how the original checkuser might miss that, possibly. Thanks for confirming my suspicions, and for clearing Brox of those charges. There may have been some similar error on nl.wikipedia; I did review the history there and Brox, as Dendrolo, did make some mistakes, but Dendrolo was not a truly abusive sock, as such, Dendrolo just made a mistake, and failed to be responsive, on one day. Then the Lithuanian users with the same mobile provider, perhaps, as Brox and Dendrolo, acknowledged socks elsewhere, were considered to be Brox and the blocks were intensified and this whole flap was created cross-wiki, which was, I concluded, grossly inappropriate.

Thanks for clearing this up. Brox has indicated an intention on my talk page to globally unify all his accounts, and I hope that he can resolve what are obviously problems on lt.wikipedia, and I hope my intervention here was helpful.

Due to the likely error, the WMF might have needlessly lost an active volunteer. This was worth some attention and work. --Abd 06:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I believe you'll now find the nlwiki situation has altered. fr33kman 06:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a sign of that, Fr33kman. Am I missing something? --Abd 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think we both must be because I gave them my findings. They may have found other things. IDK fr33kman 22:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can speculate about one thing. Looking about, I saw that Redagavimas edited briefly after Dendrolo had been blocked. Tthat was block evasion. It's a problem that SUL can create, where a user has more than one SUL. It may have been deliberate, though it certainly was not severe, or it may have been accidental.

I see, now, reference to your information.[4] The editor responded with [5]. It's very simple. You concluded that those specific users were not Brox (Dendrolo). Even though the prior checkuser reports very likely showed the same sort of problem, for all but the 3 acknowledged accounts, they are ignoring that. All they did was remove the additional socks. The idea that local checkusers might have made the same mistake as PeterSymonds (or local admins interpreting the reports) escapes them. Besides, they know that Brox, Dendrolo, and Redagavimas are the same user, and, hey, look right here! Redagavimas socked! He edited while Dendrolo was blocked! --Abd 02:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

fresh research into the account and checkuser history on nl.wiki --Abd 02:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Brox, many edits, no prior problems that I could see, stops editing on 25 April. Dendrolo, two edits on nl.wiki, the second on 25 April, no more edits until June 9, when he starts adding lots of categories. He's asked to stop at June 9, 2011 11:23 (EDT), by MoiraMoira. He argues with this. He reverts MoiraMoira's reversions. This is really a newbie error, it's surprising to see it with Brox, but..... Dendrolo is blocked for 15 minutes at 9 jun 2011 12:04. That's a good example of why a 15-minute block is probably a Bad Idea. He continued editing. At 9 jun 2011 14:38 he is indef blocked, with Talk page access prevented. The first checkuser request was filed 9 jun 2011 14:47 by MoiraMoira, covering only Brox and Dendrolo.[6]. Because there would still be CU data on Brox, it came back positive, as would be expected. But why was this filed? Brox was not editing. MoiraMoira mentions someone had told her about Brox. Of course, Brox had already acknowledged Dendrolo before this, as I recall, on LT.wiki. From the report, the first sock blocks are made, of Brox and the block log for Dendrolo is changed. MoiraMoira asserts prior "compulsive categorization" with Brox. I looked at contributions and found some cats standing, some reverted. Brox had never been warned for this. Looking at the edits by Redagavimas, and the disposition of them, I'm struck that the content positions (right or wrong) are being asserted by the same small set of administrators who are blocking the editor. Again, right or wrong, this is guaranteed to create an impression of bias. 2nd checkuser request, 9 jun 2011 21:24. The result was conclusive for Brox and Dendrolo, as expected. Catbot was speculative. This was still treated as conclusive. Dendroloo was added to this report. Dendroloo and Catbot blocked June 9, 2011 9:42 p.m. and added to the Dendrolo report in spite of the weakness of the ID. (These accounts were disruptive, it seems, and the problem here isn't that they were blocked, it's that they were added to the supposedly proven accusations against Dendrolo.) 3rd checkuser request, filed at 11 jul 2011 11:46 (CEST), based on 8 edits this date by Redagavimas. The three acknowledged accounts are now all there. Catbot and Dendroloo are listed. The report comes back, Probably. Same Lithuanian mobile operator. Redagavimas is blocked at 11 jul 2011 17:58. Of course, Redagavimas is indeed Dendrolo and Brox. 4th checkuser request, August 7, 2011 6:29 p.m., w:nl:Special:Contributions/Notarius Notarius blocked immediately, not waiting for report. 4 edits to Talk pages plus own user page. No warnings. The checkuser came back with Ip is from Lithuania, so probably. No other users on the IP range 78.60.128.0/17 found. Again, this was taken as conclusive enough to confirm the block and to add the user to Dendrolo's list.

Conclusions. Fr33kman, this would be, on the face, nl.wiki's business. However, this was seriously harsh and abrupt enforcement, for what was a minor problem easily handled with sensible warning and escalated blocking, i.e., carrot and stick. I'm aslo seeing lack of checkuser caution on nl.wiki. It's not that the reports were wrong, they were actually about as correct as what PeterSymonds did, but the checkusers are not looking at how the reports are being used, it seems. Out of this came a cross-wiki campaign to impeach the user, with disruption here and elsewhere, as if all these checkuser reports were conclusive and there was massive cross-wiki abuse happening, and Something Must Be Done About It. From MoiraMoira's comments here, (the threats on User talk:Brox, in the request for a global lock on active admin accounts, on the RfC she started on Brox et al, and on her own Talk page, I'm seeing what looks like an admin who took it very personally when a user argued with her. When users are accused on a local wiki of cross-wiki abuse, as Brox was, it becomes our business. We do not tolerate, on Wikiversity, the use of our wiki to impeach users on other wikis. Nor should any of the wikis tolerate this. See the Dendrolo block message, which still claims that Dendrolo is three users which have no edits to nl.wikipedia, and no accounts there, being Savvour, Logos, and SZLT. So I found the checkuser report here, dated 20-21 July. This looks very wrong to me. Behaviorally, SZLT, for example, looks nothing like Brox. Logos would refer to the LT.wiki user with only one recent contribution. Blocked by Snooker, only basis apparently the CU report here. And Savvour, also an LT account, has two edits, which stand. Blocked by Snooker as well. Accounts are being blocked solely on the basis of weak socking reports, with no disruption. Snooker is Tomreves here, who started this section.

Brox made some mistakes, but he did not cause massive cross-wiki disruption. Disruption was caused by administrative over-reaction to a relatively minor situation on nl.wiki. --Abd 02:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Overall comments: It is certainly up to nlwiki what they do about any matters like this. I agree Brox is probably not a crosswiki problem but like I've said, an SUL account would have made all this easier to untangle. Brox has made some mistakes and might have to live with them; just like many others have had to. It's not really possible for me to influence nlwiki, it's a matter that must be taken up with them. fr33kman 17:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to "influence nlwiki," not directly, anyway. I'm asking you to, if possible, clarify the situation with that last CU, you've already done a great job with the other one. I'm not taking anything up with "nlwiki," but I am concerned about cross-wiki disruption, where users at one wiki who have a problem with a user then defame the user on other wikis. It happens in a number of ways, and this is one. Yes, Brox needs to deal with the SUL problem or it may continue to bite him. I'll note that the problem isn't that he doesn't have an SUL account, but that he has three, with edits all over the place, for many years, and he has two different SUL accounts with admin privileges (on different wikis). But that's not the only problem here. One step at a time.... --Abd 18:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

... for speed comments. --Brox 08:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry it happened in the first place. Could I suggest that you SUL it might help things in the future? Take care :) fr33kman 15:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Above, Fr33kman, I point out that there is another recent checkuser report here that purported to find Brox socks. It is possible that this was based on the same kind of assumptions that led to the error you fixed. It may be stale now, some of it, but it's looking like some possibly innocent users have been blocked. The checkuser volunteered the information, the actual request was based on the acknowledged accounts, plus stale socks. I'm a bit worried about that. You are right, if Brox were using a single SUL, it would help. I think that checkusers may see those multiple accounts and then are inclined to identify other accounts as also him. --Abd 02:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Remind me tomorrow :) fr33kman 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comment I think the result of that CU was correct. Nothing can be said about stale data one way or the other. fr33kman 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

• That CU report represents the only serious claim of undisclosed accounts outstanding for Brox. There are some serious consequences from it. Nondisruptive users have been blocked based on it, and charges of widespread socking continue to be asserted. As to what is stale, it's stale, but when you say that the result was "correct," what parts of the result are you looking at? All the results? Or if some, what you can verify? What it looks like to me is that the report was filed with the wrong wiki. As a result, one sock was identified as Brox=SZLT. The judgment there was "likely," which means that IP and user agent weren't seen to match, or this would have been quite positive. Then MoiraMoira corrected the wiki to LT. The checkuser then "confirmed" (Brox, Dendrolo, Logos, Savvour) (though Logos and Savvour, like SZLT, had not been part of the request). From other reports, and from what we know, Brox=Dendrolo. The question is then Logos and Savvour. Do you have any direct information you can see on these? Are all three alleged socks stale? If so, would you think it better that you ask Shizhao, or should I? A preliminary examination indicates to me that those accounts are unlikely to be Brox, they make no sense as such. I suspect the obvious. Am I wrong? --Abd 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

---

about your message.. --kibele 05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

[7] User:Seb az86556 was warned about removing other people's comments and persists. He claims that Millosh closed a closure even though 1. the policy makes it clear that there must be several weeks of discussion and 2. Millosh does not have the authority to randomly close such pages. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seb_az86556#Vandalism_warning Seb az86556 was blatantly warned and persisted in this behavior. Only a block can keep this user from outright disrupting Meta and our processes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not vandalism. I suggest Ottava refrain from disruption. The close was a snow close, obvious consensus, and Ottava revert warred to restore his comment to a closed discussion. (To be sure, that close template is not obvious, it should be fixed to close the whole page, if that is what is desired -- otherwise Seb should be informed that discussion may continue.)

I restored Ottava's comment to the Talk page for the proposal, and Ottava would do well to figure out non-disruptive ways to assert what he wants to assert. Such as adding his additional discussion on Talk. I doubt that anyone will object to that.

If anyone should be blocked here it would be Ottava, his contributions reveal an attraction to fomenting disruption, with tendentious argument. But I don't expect you to make a local admin decision. --Abd 17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are no such things as a "snow close" when it comes to a project close discussion because only the language committee has the right to vote on the proposal. And a "snow" requires no support. Abd, you have shown a constant refusal to acknowledge WMF practices, and your statements have no logical basis. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Almost all WMF practice is based on consensus, you imagine it's about being "right." Let's see what happens, okay? --Abd 20:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not a "WMF practice" to rely on consensus there. It is the opening of a new language project or closing one. The more than a week discussion is only to see if there is interest or lack thereof, or some other reason before the -language committee- discusses for more than a week before it goes to the Board for ultimate approval. Did you not bother to read the page? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fr33kman, you have not responded to any of this discussion. I have no objection if you delete my comments here, as Peter Symonds did with the whole discussion Ottava started, at about the same time he started this. Thanks.

Yes, I've read the policy. Ottava generally does not understand how "policies" apply to wikis, actual practice normally trumps policy, and as a result of actual practice here by Millosh, which has been sustained, so far, the policy is being revised. Ottava also complained on User talk:PeterSymonds. Peter just deleted that whole discussion, no surprise. I'd written a response there, hit edit conflict, so I've now placed it in history only, on Ottava Talk, at [8]. I see no reason why you'd need to read it, unless you are interested. --Abd 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

@Everyone: Due to an urgent issue regarding work I am not currently available. I shall be back in a couple of weeks. fr33kman 19:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not think he is inactive. Ruslik 10:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it was sadly a mistake. Jafeluv fixed it and I apologized. :) fr33kman 03:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Fr33kman,

I responded to your message on fa:User talk:Huji#steward_request. Once again, thanks for referring the issue.

Best regards,

Huji 20:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Replied, cheers :) fr33kman 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

HI Dear Fr33kman . i want post following text in huji's discussion but i face with error mesage ! this is my defence . you believe those usenemes are irrelevant to me . if you can send following text from me.thanks for your Kindness.

These users KOPKOPLOPLOP and Ordake_khoshhal and Karevan20010 and GO0O0O0O0O0O0O0GLE and so on are not relevant to me (miladkhoshtip98) . i joined to wikipedia on july 2009 and i contribute in fa.wiki over 2 years and i have had just one username in wikipedia. i have used the internet from ISP with this name ( Pishgaman Tose Ertebatat Tehran ) since february 2010 and it has this range of IP 212.95.141.162 .i wondered afew days ago when in this edithion i saw a IP very like to my IP but it can occur easily.in that edition 2 IP are different just in third and forth parts! 1000 people maybe provide internet with same ISP.according to this page Truth Sekker use from ISP with this name (Shatel) with this range of IP 94.182.124.241 . i have never had internert from Shatel and i have never used internet of shatel . i am a member in wikipedia over 2 years and if you see history of my connections you will never find IP from that ISP(Shatel) and this is the best evidence i am not (Truth Seeker) . if Truth Seeker use of new ISP (Pishgaman) recently why you don't inform it in Wikipedia?--212.95.141.162 23:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I trust Huji and his abilities as a checkuser. I shall let him know of this edit. Regards, fr33kman 00:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fr33kman. You stated "Admins here on meta are constantly being asked to fix a problem or abitrate a problem on some content wiki somewhere". I believe you are right. Meta admins should help to arbitrate problems on other Wikis. I believe you are the right person to respond my question.

According to this policy "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is canvassing.

This post is a "posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."

Was the above post canvassing, and if not why not?

Clarification: The administrator in question en:user:Gwen Gale was never involved with me before the above message at her talk page, but she has have a very special relationship with en:user:Daedalus969, and responded to at least two other email canvasing by this user or involving him (I could present the differences by request).

The above request resulted in me being blocked by en:user:Gwen Gale. Did she act as a canvased and as an involved administrator?

Thanks --Mbz1 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for placing your trust in me. My answer is that it was not canvassing. The reasons being that you have a past history of being uncivil and contentious with other users and were being reported for another alleged offence. Reporting a user for admin action is not canvassing. It could be abusive if the reporting is false or disruptive, but it's not canvassing. Personally, I feel the correct place to report a user is on AN and not on a particular admin's talk page as there is greater transparancy, however there is more than ample precedent in this area. I'm sorry you're having problems but looking at some of your statements I really feel that a) you need to be nicer, and b) a ban is in order. Sorry it's not the answer you were wanting :( fr33kman 02:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for response. I assure you I am absolutely fine with any response.

First I'd like to clarify my initial question please. It was not a simple request to block me posted to an admin's talk page. If it were, of course it would not have been a canvassing.It was a notification of the discussion the user started at AN/I plus request to block me. So, once again according to this policy "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is canvassing. We should respond two questions:

A) was this post a notification about discussion? Yes, it was.

B) was this post presented in non-neutral manner? Yes, it was.

So, "yes" & "yes" = "yes" (read "it was canvassing") , was it not?

Now, you said I was uncivil, and that's why I was reported to AN/I. You are mistaking. I was not reported to AN/I for being uncivil, but this is a different story, and I will be only happy to present all the differences for your judgment (it will be a very good and interesting exercise to review this block) ,but for now after I clarified my initial question, may I please ask you to explain to me why this post is not canvassing once again.

Also I would like to ask you do not threaten me with ban especially without providing any differences of me being not nice.--Mbz1 02:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was not canvassing because it was asking for an admin to act. I never said you were reported for being uncivil, I merely said you have a history of it. As for threatening you with a ban, I'm not an active member of that project so have nothing to say; that doesn't mean I can't hold an opinion. I've looked at lots of your edits and you can be quite nasty. Calling people "it" is not helpful for a project trying to help humanity. Think about it, because I think some personal reflection would be good. All the best. :) fr33kman 02:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

English is not my first language. I know that babies are often called "it" even after their gender is known, and what in the world it has to do with my question anyway?

I do not say I have never done anything wrong, but I have never started a fight, I only responded, when I was harassed and bullied big.Besides I have never ever ever was nearly as "nasty" as an admin who blocked me. Here are some examples of my blocking admin's rhetoric:

"Anyway I disagree that I ever disrupted Wikipedia or ever had the personal potential or whim to do that. My contribution history speaks for itself. I've been slapped hard by arbcomm for expressing my opinion that among them lurk wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls who coddle their own kind. Wyss 07:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)";Reply

"Too many trolls and fools after all, I guess.There are too many of them for me here, too many role-playing troll admins, too many troll sockpuppet editors. Bye then. Gwen Gale 06:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)"

"# Oppose, an apparent liar who pursues a strictly unencyclopedic agenda. The Witch 15:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)")Reply

Any more examples? Of course some examples got removed, when Gwen Gale misused her administrative tools, and deleted hew own talk page history, but there are still plenty left.

BTW I either have never written an article about myself, as my blocking admin did. She wrote two.

I either never crated a sock account as she did to to violate her topic ban, and to make a false statements about this in her RfA.

But once again, it is not about me now, and even not about my blocking admin and her socks being "nasty", writing articles about herself, and misusing administrative tools, making socks to violate topic ban, making false statements in RfA, and btw not getting blocked for it. My question is a simple question about a simple wikipedia policy, and you are avoiding answering it by talking about me.

In your first response you said: "I feel the correct place to report a user is on AN and not on a particular admin's talk page". When I clarified that this post was a notification about AN/I discussion, you said:"It was not canvassing because it was asking for an admin to act. " Once again this post was a notification about AN/I discussion + asking administrator to act". BTW why was this particular administrator asked to act?

So should the policy be changed like this "posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner is canvasing except when together with a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner an admin is asked to act "?

Listen, I am really sorry for being so pushy, but as you yourself said admins on Meta are here to help to arbitrate cases from other wiki, and I am not satisfied with your explanation why it is not canvassing.

Thanks,--Mbz1 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did not say that meta admins are here to help to arbitrate; just that people come here looking for that sort of thing. There may be such a committee at some point in the future, but it's not here yet. Generally admins on meta are well experienced people that have good experience that can aid some situations; most often in small/medium projects rather than a place like enwiki. You've asked me again the same question; "is this not canvassing?". I have answered it, no. As to what enwiki should do with its policies, that's for them to decide. fr33kman 03:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, you are a Stuart and a global sysop (whatever it is :-))You should be able to explain wikipedia policies, but I still feel you're avoiding the direct response. You did say it was not canvassing, but your explanation why not is not clear, and is missing any logic.

Still I'd like to thank you for responding my questions. It was fun watching you to struggle with it :-) Sorry. All the best.--Mbz1 04:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I had so much fun watching you "to coddle your own kind" as Gwen Gale would have put it :-) that I decided to ask you one more question (the last one) please. Could you please tell me, if this was a responding on being canvassed by email, and if not, why not. Thank you.--Mbz1 06:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, don't accuse me of coddling to my own kind, I have no kind. Ask around, check my edits and you see plenty of me telling admins, crats and stewards off for doing something wrong. I've reported checkusers to the ombudsmen and questioned the use of oversight when it was in violation of policy. I made a promise in my election statement and I've kept it. It's the very reason you are talking to me. Now, to answer your latest question, I really can't say without seeing the email. It is possible that it was a friendly "hey shall we play an MMORPG tonight?" or it could have been canvassing. I doubt we'll ever know. One thing you'll find out about me is I am a total AGF kind of guy, until it's obvious and then I turn into a iron wall. Yes, I am a steward and even though I rarely edit on enwiki these days, I know and can explain most of the policies and the culture there and as I've said already the examples you've shown me don't look like canvassing to me. Have you brought your concerns up to the relevant people on enwiki? A nice manner and a cooperative spirit would do wonders to help you find what you are looking for. All the best! Bon chance! fr33kman 18:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fr33kman, I am sorry, if my words hurt you.

According to this policy any email notification is a canvassing.

Let's please go back to this post. You'll see ping and pong:

Ping!— Dædαlus+ Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Pong! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

What Dædαlus was doing just before he pinged Gwen Gale? He was commenting on the same AN/I thread that Gwen Gale closed just before she ponged. I hope you'd agree that even with all trying hard to AGF this email notification was not a friendly ""hey shall we play an MMORPG tonight"".

Let's try one more time with my first question and your response. We agreed that it was a notification about the discussion that presented the topic in a non-neutral manner. You stated that it was not canvassing because an admin was asked to act, but isn't this asking admin to act exactly what made this notification to be presented in a non-neutral manner? Besides, why gwen gale was notified in the first place? The user opened an/i discussion. Why to scream at the admin's talk page? Because the user knew this admin will respond to his canvasing as she has done on a few occasions before. I have more differences to prove my point.

Yes, I contacted ArbCom about the matter, and presented them with many more differences than I presented here, but they refused to take the case via email. Filing it via email was the only option available for me because I am blocked (self-requested block) on English Wiki. One arbitrator offered to unblock me that I'd be able to file my request, but I refused. I was so much harassed, and so much bullied during my few last months on wikipedia (even after I was blocked by my own request) that I simply do not feel comfortable coming back to English wiki.

You could ask why then I am worrying about gwen gale. Well,she hurts the project that I love, that I gave so much of me to, she is a bully, power-hungry, abusive administrator. She misuses her tools, she responds to canvasing, she blocks editors, when heavily involved, she's vandalizing the most important asset wikipedia has - contributors.

Here what administrator Mike Halterman said about Gwen Gale, when she applied to ArbCom in 2008:

Gwen Gale wasn't even on my radar, positively or negatively, until this week, and then I was involved in an incident with her and her judgment gave me such pause. So for that, I oppose, and suggest she looks into how she deals with disputes. Like it or not, this is the highest community "court" or what have you that we have here, and after what I saw, I don't want her on it, probably ever. Mike H. Fierce! 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Could a user who's described in such a way be a fair-minded admin? Thanks.--Mbz1 20:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seems problematic. Have you considered an RFC? fr33kman 22:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You mean RFC on Meta? I am blocked on English wiki.--Mbz1 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well it's not ideal, but there are loads of RFCs that take place here about someone somewhere else. fr33kman 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just above you said: "Ask around, check my edits and you see plenty of me telling admins, crats and stewards off for doing something wrong. "

That's why may I please ask you yo revert this block by restoring the editor talk page access? Gwen Gale removed his talk page access in a middle of request for arbitration filed in concern about her prior block of the very same editor (please see here). Even before the last block she was asked to leave the user alone because she was involved with him "Gwen, you have gotten too personally involved. I urge you to leave further admin actions with respect to this editor to other administrators. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 December 2009. So, Fr33kman, restoring this editor talk page access is the right thing to do even although I doubt very much he'd ever will use it. Thanks.--Mbz1 21:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not an admin on enwiki and their policy would not allow me to restore TP access. What I will do is inform Gwen_Gale about this discussion and perhaps a solution can be found. fr33kman 22:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

What have enwiki admins said about this issue? Any of them could give TP access if warranted. fr33kman 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I contacted some members of ArbCom for example here's one. Elen was ready to lift the block altogether, if Proofreader77 was to ask for it to be lifted, but not because the block was unfair in the first place. Proofreader77 refused to ask, and I understand where he was coming from.This block should have been reverted without the user asking for it to be reverted.It would have been great, if Gwen understood she misused the tools, when she made this block, and restored the user's talk page access herself. --Mbz1 00:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you can ask Elen to lift the TP prohibition and then Proofreader77 can ask if desired. It's probably the only way it'll happen. fr33kman 00:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did ask Elen about this. I wrote: "Yes, he does not care for asking for an unblock anymore, but, Elen, I care, and I ask you to unblock the editor please, or at the very least, may I please ask you to consider bringing his user and talk pages to the way they were before they were templated, and reinstate his talk page access". She's never responded, but in a long run she was kind enough to respond at all, and you,Fr33kman, were too!

A few days ago, here at Meta, you did the right thing, when an user was uncivil towards you, you did not block him yourself, but instead brought the matter to the corresponding board because you considered yourself being involved. Nobody was uncivil towards gwen, but she acted as a heavily involved admin, and her block was allowed to stand.It's sad... Anyway...

Once again,I thank you for talking to me, and I apologize, if some of my comments towards you seemed unfair.Best wishes.--Mbz1 01:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'd suggest emailing the admin list and asking them directly. I can't use my admin powers on enwiki unless I'm doing steward related activity. Sorry I can't directly act, but I hope I've helped you somewhat. Cheers fr33kman 02:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I never confessed to you or any other lier like Geraki. Because I never denied it was my ip. The relative talk page is there to prove this. Project is abused by beaurocrat dealing with trolls, as your beaurocrat is doing even now. Have a nice day steward --Kalogeropoulos 19:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've said what I feel, you should not be an admin, period. fr33kman 19:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

What you feel? I see--Kalogeropoulos 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Arguing with me isn't going to help your case. I'd suggest you discuss this issue with your colleagues on elwiki. fr33kman 19:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your answer was enough--Kalogeropoulos 19:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

My answer is based on facts seen via CU. You've admitted to breaking the rules on elwiki, end of the story. fr33kman 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notifying user for repeated abuse article is breaking the rules? Reverting article to former status asked already by users with formal messaging is abuse? Or it is forbiten editting as an IP? I see--Kalogeropoulos 20:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have suggested you discuss this with your local community. You can feel free to ask another steward if you wish to provide evidence. I, for one, am not getting dragged into an argument with an admin that unblocks himself when blocked by another admin ((show/hide) 16:48, 5 June 2010 Kalogeropoulos (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Kalogeropoulos (Talk | contribs) ‎ (αστήρικτη)), who has this sort of block log (including a fairly recent block for personal attacks), who calls people "liers" [sic] (including myself). Your home wiki can decide what to do. fr33kman 21:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry I don't create any arguments for your stewardship, you are elected anyway for some good reason. Your answers help me understand the way things are running behind stage. --Kalogeropoulos 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to tell, if im a good editor, do I need to request for premissions such as adminship, basic needs (rollbacker, reviewer, autopatrolled) or breaucrat on Meta. If you say no tell the reason and what time I should apply for request approximately. Please reply at my talk page for the results. I applyied for rollback rights here and it was unscuessful for me. What should I do? Help please. Note: reply this situation to the talk page. --Mohamed Aden Ighe 00:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Здравствуйте! Для развития википедии на языке дзонг-кэ очень важно сделать шрифт большим. Например, таким, как в тибетской википедии.

Если этого не сделать, то, боюсь, википедия на этом языке ещё очень долго не будет развиваться. Я что-то поделал в течение последнего года. Но один в поле дзонг-кэ не воин, если дзонг-кэ не знаешь :-) А участники, говорящие на дзонг-кэ, придут, если тексты будут написаны таким шрифтом, чтобы удобно читать их было. Это не моё мнение (я не могу проверить, т.к. не читаю на дзонг-кэ), а обобщение просьб в википедии дзонг-кэ. Такие просьбы появляются регулярно. Вот последняя: dz:Talk:སངས་རྒྱས་ཀྱི་བསྟན་པ. Решение этого вопроса в тибетской википедии, как я понимаю, способствовало развитию википедии на тибетском языке.

Помогите, пожалуйста, решить этот вопрос. Я не говорю по-английски, поэтому не смогу написать соответствующие запросы.

(Hello! For the development of Dzongkha Wikipedia is very important to make the font larger. For example, such as Tibetan Wikipedia. Please help me solve this problem. I do not speak in English, so I can not write requests.) --Impro 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can make the default font for Dzongkha Wikipedia "DDC Uchen" which is what most people in Bhutan use. It will render larger than Microsoft Himalaya and most other Tibetan script fonts. This font is freely avialble from http://www.dzongkha.gov.bt/IT/download/DzongkhaFonts.zip

CFynn (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just want to come here to say that I'm sorry. I sent a message to Simple (extended sorry note). I hope you can forgive me of my actions. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. All the best :) fr33kman 23:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was also wondering if you guys got the message yet? Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

[9] The 7 days is a minimum. You are 19 hours too short. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I am only a couple or so hours early. The end date was "24 October 2011‎ 05:40 (UTC)" fr33kman 02:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regardless, it is still a minimum of 7 days, with OS normally going far longer than that. The canvassing alone would need to have the matter sorted out, especially when OS require a vast majority and such is not there when at least 5 votes can be dismissed as canvassed. We also require at least 25 votes for an OS or CU election to count. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

At least 5 canvassed votes, Theo not voting (yet some how added as a number) and then mine. That means that we are still at least 2 short for the very minimum required in addition to it closed way too early. That is on top of "votes" not counting, so those who didn't put a rationale would be outright dismissed. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I read the whole thing before closing the RfOS and noted the opposes and the comment by Theo (which was not taken as support or oppose. I read your oppose comments and the accusations of canvassing and the subsequent comments made but without hard evidence (diffs, logs, etc.) it is impossible to make a ruling as to whether or not such activity took place. In such a circumstance it is my policy to assume good faith. It should be noted, however, that there is no written policy on meta that forbids canvassing, although there does seem to be some evidence that it is frowned upon. The enwiki guideline on canvassing does not automatically apply to meta; just like on some projects, AGF or NOR do not exist. Each project should have their own guidance on such matters. As to the slightly early closure, I can understand your concerns but I still consider the closure and promotion to be valid as it appeared very unlikely that sufficient oppose votes would have occurred to alter the outcome given the small amount of time remaining; especially since the last vote took place three days ago. Please ask if you wish any more clarification on anything to do with this RfOS. fr33kman 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Assume good faith does not apply to OS elections. There are very strict regulations since OS is a function that is deeply connected to the Foundation. It requires a large amount of support, which requires people having a background here. There was not the necessary minimum of support. AGF is not an excuse to violate our standards and traditions. 7 days is a minimum and 25 to 30 regular contributors is a minimum. Neither of these were met. That is a serious problem. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

No evidence was given of canvassing so it would be wrong of me to discount those people's supports without such evidence. As said above, there is no actual policy regarding canvassing on meta, but even if there was, hard evidence still must be given; an accusation is not proof. Again, the scheduled closure was a mere few hours away and I felt comfortable in closing it since no one had made a new comment for three days. I understand that you don't want Courcelles to get the flag, but you are only one opinion; more than 85% and 25 people felt otherwise. I have received no other comments or complaints so I guess no one else feels a violation occured. If you wish you may approach another steward to see if they consider the closure invalid. fr33kman 19:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

"No evidence was given of canvassing" There is blatant evidence of canvassing - people with no edits but were part of the IRC came. Multiple people verified that fact. To think that they just happened onto Meta when never editing here, happened onto his OS, and just happened to support a guy while having no background here is more than just assuming good faith. It is putting Meta at a risk that is completely inappropriate. Bureaucrats are required to spot when there is canvassing without needing to have direct proof of it. And 25 people? By Meta's own voting standards, 6 of those people wouldn't have been allowed to cast a vote. 2 people were against. That means 22 of a minimum of 25 to 30. And other people stated that canvassing most likely happened. You can search the page for the term canvassing. I talked to multiple Stewards who were busy looking into the matter before you closed it before the minimum time in violation of our policy. The OS policy is not something you are allowed to violate or believe it is only a recommendation. It was set up under the WMF legal council advice because of the sensitivity of the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Other stewards might have "been busy looking into the matter" but unless they share that information how am I supposed to know it. Accusations and even others saying they believe canvassing took place is not proof. I ignore no policies, ever! If you wish you can ask for the request to be reopened and closed by someone else, but I feel the closure was valid. fr33kman 19:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

First rule of being a steward is that you do not decide. Second rule is to enforce our policies when they say minimums. At least be more careful. Any other small wiki would have had the request rejected as not being open long enough, not having enough people, and not adequately reaching consensus with the canvassing, the blank votes, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't read this section, just came to say that waiting until the expected/declared date and time for closure is bette; there's no reason to close 5 hours before. Nemo 17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fr33kman. I saw this revert of you and in addition to that I would like to point you to this discussion (which was the reason for this RfB). Regards, Trijnstel 19:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

GerardM has been a long standing contributor and admin here. Snow also does not apply. I'm starting to notice a disturbing trend and I am really unhappy. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hoi, in my persona as GerardM I have been an admin for years.. fairly silent because I positively hate much of the politics. Second, I applied as Gmeijssen as I am an employee of the Foundation and it is my job to do outreach for the software developed by the Localisation team. This qualifies me in a second way. Thanks, Gmeijssen 19:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

An explanation when requesting the flag would have helped a great deal. fr33kman 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

His identity was clearly marked on his user page and this is a well known account name on Meta. Simply reverting his request showed a quick to judge without following our procedures. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is up to the candidate to bring relevant information to the attention of the bureaucrats. It's not up to me to do the digging. The request was not formatted in the manner of a normal RFB, nor was there any link to the discussion on the help from admins page. These led me to believe that a mistake had been made, and I brought the matter to the user's talk page, as is fit and proper. fr33kman 19:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You don't edit war because you don't see the relevant information, you ask. And we do not have a "snow" policy nor do we revert people. Furthermore, this adminship nomination did not meet the "requirements" but people would have passed it anyway. You mere commented instead of closing and reverting. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You don't edit war ever actually dude. As for snow, we don't have it? So what. I'm allowed to use that concept in my decision. I saw and misformated RFB, hovered over the user's name, saw a recent creation date, low edit count on meta, no sysop flag, no staff flag coupled with low activity xwiki, and figured it was a mistake. I could have opened up the user page but when I opened the talk page and saw nothing but the autogreet I figured, again, mistake. I made a mistake in believing that. Oh well, everyone makes mistakes you and me included. It would have greatly helped if the link to the discussion of the HFS That's really all I have to say about it. It's been fixed, so carry on. As for what Ajraddatz's RFA has to do with this I do not understand. fr33kman 19:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do know policy, and I know current voting is not enough, that's why it was left it open for a longer period. I don't know who filed a request to close it.

It was clear it wouldn't be OK'd in its current state, but no one consulted me before filing the meta request. es:Magister Mathematicae 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I found out who did, but he came to meta without informing and even though voting was not closed yet. es:Magister Mathematicae 21:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problems at least it's fixed now. fr33kman 16:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given your rights here it would seem common courtesy to folk to provide something of a user page surely? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fristly Wikimedia/MetaWiki requires each user with advanced rights (either a user page or a user talk page; commonly this is done for both pages; most have full user pages, some do not. Am admin type must only have a redirect to their talk page. The same rules for global sysops and steward able who generally just use [[:m:User:Name]] on each. Additionally to these rules is a hard and fast rule that any admin who actually uses the block too must provide a working email unblock requests. I was attempting to use {{wikibreak}} to give me a couple of weeks off.fr33kman 19:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea why you should take the tone you appear to do about my posting. I have quoted no rules or anything - they should not be necessary for users with advanced rights in my opinion anyway. As I said I merely consider it a courtesy to have a user page (& personally think on multi lingual projects that babel is more than useful). If you do not that is your decision. I have always found folk ignore wikibreak notices anyway but have a good one. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Herby! On rereading my post it was a bit snarky, although it wasn't meant to be. fr33kman 17:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at http://sd.wikipedia.org ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My sd.wikipedia.org ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس

Alixafar 01:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Desculpe se não entender minha mensagem, pois sou de Brasil e falo português, embora compreenda em inglês. Me desculpe pela retirada do status, pois não sabia dessa parte. Porém acrescentei novas evidências para verificações das contas e IPs citados incialmente e os mais recente como você citou.
Translate to English: Sorry if you do not understand my message, because I'm from Brazil and speak Portuguese, though I understand in English. Sorry for the withdrawal of status, not knowing that part. But I added new evidence for verification of accounts and IPs mentioned initially and later as you quoted.
Bruno Leonard 00:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The CU request does not meet the proper reasons so it won't get done. fr33kman 00:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Removida ofensas e acusações passadas. Atenção Fr33kman: removi mensagem por conter acusações requentadas que já respondi lá no WP-PT. Não acha muita coincidência que outro usuário me acusar, relacionado à verificação? Tenho dois usuários na lista: Veloster e Maranhense. Já apresentei tantas provas e recusaram a verificar, vai deixar pra lá? Tomara que não.
Translate to English: Fr33kman Warning: message removed because it contained allegations reheated already answered there in the WP-PT. Do not think too coincidental that another user accuse me, related to the check? I have two users on the list: Veloster and Maranhão. I have already presented so much evidence and refused to see, will let it go? Hopefully not.
Bruno Leonard (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

see [10] These requests constitutes abuse of of Bruno Leonard Veloster (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

If there is still a little insight in this community, I strongly recommend that is denied, the user is known puppet user and IPs to prove his point of view, offend users and upload content that go against the license and recommendations of the Wikimedia Foundation. The same has been banned from a related project being blocked again later the same attitude this time taking advantage of puppets which forced us to make a total blockade on the region where it publishes, and as more proof that it does not agree to be upset and not even want to accept any Community decision, after the blocking of their region took the same events occurring in the project to bypass the lock again and post trollices, and that their region blocked by a steward. I hope these facts may help to clarify who is this user and his intentions for the project. greetings -- @lestaty discuţie Veloster (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Fr33kman! How are you? In pt.wiki, a IP complained to me (see) about two blocks: Chaim Jacob Birenhak and Camtasia. Well, who is the creator of these sock puppets? Sorry for my poor english. Best regards. JSSX (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

It is difficult to say who is the creator of the accounts you have asked about. I have performed the checkusers again and can confirm that the two accounts are certainly the same person. There are additional accounts that have been made since the original block, I am able to provide you with the usernames of additional sockpuppet accounts should you wish it. Regards, fr33kman 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

User:chicocvenancio asked via IRC just now for me to publish the whole of the data. The above two accounts are the same user and the following are also the same user; Mário Bubniak, Marcelo Alcantara Serafim, Vladimir Grygorenkos Romanov , Conde Zeppelin, Bruno Diaz, Falda Matildez, Pero Vaz de Caminha, Olimpiano, Filinto Alvez Fleury, Pedro Sintra, Álvaro Lamenha Lins, Percy Bostelmann, Exalclone, Wellintonmoraes. All of those accounts are definitely linked to each other via CU data including XFF header information and editing patterns, times and locations. fr33kman 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your friendly answer, but these sock puppets are students of a same school. The teacher gave us the necessary explanations. In pt.wiki, Ruy said that you ordered the block of these users, but the blocks were wrong. These users are innocent... JSSX (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

These actions were based on this checkuser request. When performing checkusers we depend on the technical data that the database holds. During these checks multiple things are checked such as; the browser being used, the operating system being used and the useragent of the browser along with data such as edit times etc. When checking these accounts I checked the information from the IP addresses and performed a whois check on them. The whois data at no point indicated a school was using the accounts or the addresses. The data also supported sockpuppetry because none of the edits overlaped, which we can expect if a school was editing; there would be more than one user at a time editing. As to whether or not this is indeed a school editing, it's possible, but still not certain. That is a matter for ptwiki to decide but at no point was any "order" to block given. Before asking a local ptwiki admin to block the accounts I had my work and conclusions checked and verified by another steward. Errors happen, plain and simple. If this is an error then it is to be regretted but unfortunately errors do happen. Ptwiki can decide what to do about the blocks, the stewards only became involved, by request, because ptwiki has no local checkusers. I fully stand by my actions but obviously regret if any error was made. fr33kman 21:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Fr33kman. A last question: Do you solicited the block to Ruy? Sorry but I don't understand very well your answer about this... JSSX (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ruy was just the admin I saw first when I went to find a ptwiki admin online. As a steward I could technically have made the blocks myself but we don't tend to do that except in urgent cases. Perhaps someone can translate my above answer for you? Let me know if you need more help. fr33kman 22:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

OK. Thanks for your answer. JSSX (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome. fr33kman 00:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Maybe those blocks (and the future ones) on Wiki-pt should be announced there to the comunity not only asked to via one single adm. Cheers. MachoCarioca (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Fr33kman! You added two supports for the same request on SRGP. I've just indented the first one. Please, check if everything is fine. Thanks.” T_ele^s (T _{@ L C S}) 14:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for pointing that out! It seems old age must be creeping up on me ... :) fr33kman 00:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have not called anyone a racist. If you thought hatred towards any group of people is fascism. Nationalism is when someone loves their own nation and does not hate others. Chauvinism is extreme nationalizam it is only when one loves his nation and not others. Fascism is just like chauvinism that fascists are willing to persecute others. No it's not fair that they are all so rude to me. They all had the support of a privilege not to give anyone. So much of me. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 12:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I cannot speak for what those term mean in serbian, but that is not the case in English, and nobody's out to get you or is being rude to you here. In fact, you're deluded if you think we're racist against Serbians, as the Wikimedia community has elected two Serbian stewards, one currently serving. The Global Rollback tool is given to experienced users who fight vandalism crosswiki. We're talking about users with dozens of thousands of edits, not 700. Most users with this tool are actually administrator on a local project, tho there is no direct correlation between the two, and several GRs are not admins. You clearly fall short of the required experience for this permission, and it's not racist or rude to tell you so. Please relax, take a step back, and realize you're assuming bad faith on the part of so many users for no real reason. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between the steward and the global administrator? -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 23:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! A global sysop is a trusted user who has a global flag added to their account that allow them to act as an admin automatically on hundreds of small wikis. A steward has complete access to the user-rights database, can make any user any right and holds advanced admin rights on every single wiki. See: gs and s for more help. fr33kman 14:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Can you at this Wikipedia to give me that I can give administrator and bureaucrat, because there is not one to administrator or bureaucrat. I saw that it was one of the smaller Wikipedia so I need to help this Wiki project in technical capabilities. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 15:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you recently shortened the global block I put on User:99.56.72.50 to two days. As it has been used by Bambifan for years, and is static, I wonder why you felt my block lenght was inapproriate. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I didn't notice that you had blocked it and I jut blocked for 31 hr as it is my standard IP block. Sorry! :) fr33kman 09:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

My Global IP Block Exemption isn't working on EN. I can't edit now!

Thank you, Colourful Bling (talk - contribs) 12:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Considering Wikis without sysop nor bureaucrats are usually the ones without experienced contributors as well, shouldn't we make it easier rather than harder for that type of requests ? And by making it easier, I mean a clear designated place for that. Thank you for your answer, Amqui (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes I have always thought that myself. I guess GS has, so far, been used by the global sysops themselves at their own behest. We did once discuss a global sysop noticeboard but it failed to go anywhere. I think it was left as "ok if we need one, let's wait and see". fr33kman 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi as you were somehow, let me point you to this RFC.--Juandev (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Someone pointed out to me that this wiki already has permanent admins. Is there a reason you made Steward_requests/Permissions/Approved_temporary#MKar.40or.wikipedia temporary? MBisanz ^talk 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes there was, but since others have perm it'd be unfair to deny this one perm also. I have made the correct changes. My reasoning was that there were fewer than 5 admins. I know this has never actually been decided but each steward can use their own discretion?? fr33kman 14:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that your RfCU will most likely not succeed. Better luck next time. --Meno25 (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was just letting process happen. Ta! fr33kman 17:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me what needs to be able to create a bot? Greetings. -- Velimir Ivanovic talk 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am wondering who drop this comment here, because it was from an IP. Can you confirm ? Is there a log we can see the admin status ? User:Odisha1 also made for 1 year. thank you. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi My Friend.You grant the flag.Justincheng12345-bot(wiki-gag) --E THP (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello , i just wanna say you , why you blocked my account pleaso not was mi intention pleas back me my account

Hello I'm new in wikipedia and i don´t know so much about how to use it, but i made an account because i think that I can help in the music section and also a little in translate or whatever, however when i try to colaborate in any section i can´t because you have blocked me and i don´t understand why, and also another user bolcked me too because he think that i am someone else but I don´t! so, please can you explain to me what is this about, because i really don´t understand why i am blocked, I even used my account! please I hope you answer me, and sorry if my english is not the best, i am learning.

Thank you! Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome. :) fr33kman 15:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You forgot to remove the rights-of Biret (Special:UserRights/Biret)... :-) Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Sorry, done now! :) fr33kman 15:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

:-) Gálaniitoluodda (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please notice that I asked three questions of each candidate at Stewards/Elections 2013/Questions

1. Do you look forward to being an active catalyst for consensus-building, especially in small wiki contexts?
2. Do you see your role as a passive bystander with a few tools?
3. Are you able to make balanced guesses about why, when and how "it is better not to reach than to go too far"?

As you know, you are identified as an inactive steward at simple:Wikipedia:Administrators#List of Administrators. In this context, I wonder if you will accept it as timely and meaningful to pose the same questions. --Ansei (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

These questions are not a complaint. They are forward looking and open-ended. Is it not appropriate and useful to ask such questions from time to time? Is it not reasonable to ask experienced stewards the same kinds of questions which are presented to steward candidates? --Ansei (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. A bureaucrat discussion has been opened to decide the outcome of this request for de-adminship. It is opened for more than three days now and it has only received one comment so far. If you could please pass by and leave your comments over there it would be really appreciated. Best regards.

— Delivered via Global message delivery on behalf of MarcoAurelio, 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Dear Fr33kman,

Your last action as a global sysop was more than six months ago, so I've removed your GS flag, following the inactivity policy. Thank you for all your work in the past!

Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fr33kman, yo no e hecho nada malo en wikipedia solo e contribuido, no es necesario bloquearme, saludos amigo. Estas son mis paginas :

• My Page Of Wikipedia In English
• My Page Of Wikipedia In Spanish

--TheCSRYankee (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Fr33kman. I regret to inform you that, in accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and as a result of your inactivity, administrator (and all other attached) user rights have been removed from your account. Please see Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2013 for details. Kind regards, --MarcoAurelio 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sent via Global message delivery at 15:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)