Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Abuse of power by sysops in Spanish Wikipedia

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. This is inactive for years and not leading anywhere. Meta is not generally an appeals court for single-wiki issues. If there is in fact a systematic issue with the Spanish Wikipedia, then you can file a report with the U4C instead. * Pppery * it has begun 04:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know how this works to be honest, but I hope someone can help me. I'm a former Spanish Wikipedia user who was banned for "sockpuppetry" in August 2022. I'm not here to ask for my accounts to be unblocked, but to expose the blatant abuse of power that some Spanish Wikipedia administrators engaged in. In November 2022 I created the account Fek' al vi with which I made 405 edits, most of which were later reverted, and I had also created 12 articles, 11 of which were arbitrarily deleted just yesterday giving ambiguous and imprecise reasons. Below is a list of these articles:

If you check the technical logs of those articles you will notice that the articles had been in the encyclopedia for a while, but it wasn't until they realized that I was using a puppet account that they started deleting practically all the articles I had created. Most of these articles were translations and even a veteran user objected to the deletion of one of them but was not heard. I want to point out that the main administrator responsible for most of these arbitrary deletions was Jaluj. I mean, who would even delete a scientific article about CRISPR gene editing. Not content with having deleted those articles, she also reverted all my edits in the article about the Mexican city of Kanasín, which made all the information in the article outdated and on top of that she put a biased "fact" in which she states that it is an unsafe city when, in reality, that city forms an urban area together with Mérida, Yucatán which is literally one of the safest cities in the whole American continent. It is quite obvious that sysop Jaluj acted out of revenge by abusing her power. I hope that this will serve to take action and that justice will be done in this case. Hunab 21 (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Question: what was the reason for using a sock account? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Question: per SHB2000, you have honestly revealed that you have socks, but you haven't revealed what those socks were for. Also note that having alternative accounts is not prohibited on Wikipedia, unless you use them for other purposes that are not allowed such as double voting, edit warring, invading blocks, etc. So, why were your alt accounts called sockpuppets? --- Tumbuka Arch★★★ 22:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Question: : Don't want to request your unlock? You can edit on your discussion page and once unlocked start editing in other articles 95.143.193.15 16:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, Tumbuka Arch, 95.143.193.15: According to the Spanish Wikipedia sysops my sock accounts were created to evade my block (nota bene: my account Hunab 21 is blocked indefinitely). Nonetheless I never used my puppet accounts for anything bad, but used them to make contributions to the encyclopedia. That is the reason I was able to edit and create articles until they realized the accounts were mine. I recently created another account (Putinido) and was blocked again. Also the administrator Taichi reverted all my edits (54 thousand bytes of information) on the article about the Mexican city of Kanasín, which had academic sources even from Harvard University, and Jaluj deleted the article about es:CRISPR/Cas again without a good reason. just hope they don't delete all the articles about scientific matters I created too. This is not fair. I can't even request my account to be unblocked because they also prevented me from editing my own talk page. Hunab 21 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment Because the user pinged me, I explain the real situation about Hunab 21 (called from now "the user"):
  1. The user was blocked several times specifically by 4 sysops: Pólux, Eduardosalg, Antur and Geom.
  2. The main reason is about etiquette (disparaging various comments against feminism, and attacking to Jaluj with antifeminism rants), but the user preferred to evade the blocks and eventually was expelled from Spanish Wikipedia. This diff is decisive and I ping to LuchoCR (local checkuser) as part of the probe.
  3. But, the user created several sockpuppets including the most recently Putinido, blocked today some hours before of the most recent comment of the user here. The user doesn't have any intention to retract his stances and this request is a clear probe of constant harrassment, in special to Jaluj.
  4. The user argues in a convenient way, showing that we are the bad guys, when clearly he has broken the rules of local community since 2019 and the user does not stop with it, for which I ask that this request must be dismissed and set the guarantees of protection to Jaluj and other female Wikipedians from harrassment. Taichi - (あ！) 21:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't think anyone here knows Spanish, I will state what really happened. It is clear that both Taichi and Jaluj resent me. I never said obscene swear words to anyone, these administrators simply felt offended by my way of expressing myself and can't stand I am right. In the article on feminism I engaged in a debate because Jaluj and other editors wanted to make all men look bad by claiming that "every man in the world perpetrates violence against women", so it was not a question of gender, it was a question of objectivity. Anyway, It should be noted that I am not against feminism nor am I a misogynist, in fact it doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, it is totally despicable to delete articles just for revenge, regardless of what happened. People like that should not get to be a sysop anywhere. Once again, I am not against anyone, I am against wrong and arbitrary acts being committed by people who have been here for years and do whatever they want at the end of the day without being sanctioned. Hunab 21 (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment So zero diffs but ad hominem response? Now, its time to add more info and diffs:
  1. Modelo HEXACO was deleted by Ruy (not Jaluj), Fotografía de desnudosdesnudos and Dalú by Eduardosalg (not Jaluj). But your inital statement only mentioned to Jaluj. Why? Because she's the female sysop?
  2. In this diff, you as sockpuppet attacked against the user Roblespepe with more antifeminist rhetoric.
But, I'm a resent or a dinosaur in your vision. Sorry, but without diffs your reaction is very volatile. This is my last comment in this spurious request. Taichi - (あ！) 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so let's see. My exact words were "the main administrator responsible for most of these arbitrary deletions was Jaluj", which implies that obviously there are other sysops who are responsible for the arbitrary deletions. In addition, the title of the requests is "abuse of power by sysops" (and you are one of them btw), not "abuse of power by the female administrator Jaluj". I remind you that Pompilos was one of the veteran users who opposed the deletion of Fotografía de desnudos and Linuxmanía was the one who put the deletion template to the article about HEXACO several days after I created it, although it was to be expected since we all know that he is that one user who, from the beginning and as you can see in my talk page's archives, did that kind of things against me, even so, I'm almost sure that even he would not agree to delete such important scientific articles. It is simply unbelievable that administrators incur in acts of novice users. And I didn't know "dinosaur" was such a serious swear, even more than the f word. Someone please do something about all this stuff. Hunab 21 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Hunab 21, I don't understand why you named me.
Our first and almost only exchanges on wikipedia include a couple of insults you directed at me, on one occasion trying to hide it behind an IP, which led to your first block after verification.
After that, for more than a year I avoided mutual communication, but your disruptive behavior was repetitive and directed at other users, at the slightest dispute, which ultimately led to your blocking and subsequent expulsion for insisting on the use of puppets.
In additioen, well, you have found a good straw woman in poor Jalu... it's clearly obvious that your main interest is not to be reinstated but to sow discord. Better stay out, thanks.
PS: sorry for my bad English Linuxmanía (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment: This has gotten so out of control that last month someone even posted on facebook that the article on the city of Kanasín was vandalized (even though it is supposed to be protected), what they don't know is that the vandalism was committed by the very administrators of Wikipedia. Sad but true. Hunab 21 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment: I did not expect to write again, but in this situation of defamation against Jaluj, I'm obligated to expose with diffs from Wikipedia (nothing from Facebook or social networks):
  1. Checking the article history the sysop Jaluj reverted firstly to a this version in January 9, but she was editing the article until January 11 in this version. The last edition of Jaluj was stable for 1 month until the apparition of the new Hunab's sockpuppet.
  2. But, suspiciously the Facebook user captured a screenshot of an intermediate edition (this in special) for polemic reasons. But that version was avalaible few hours and doesn't exists in the actual version.
This situation reinforces the goal of the user of destroy the Jaluj's work as sysop, but he doesn't get any help, he's come to accuse of inexact facts. Taichi - (あ！) 23:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't try to twist the truth, just as Jaluj did, you blanked all the information in the article, 54,336 bytes to be more exact and left it with only 8,507, you outdated all the information and removed all the references, including one from the University of Kansas and another from Harvard University. And the version of the article does in fact exist, it's just that the biased fragment where it mentions that it is an unsafe city was simply moved to the demographics section because Jaluj knew what she had done and wanted to hide it this way. The Facebook post is just a proof of the negative repercussion that this whole case is having on Wikipedia readers. That is the truth. Do not manipulate the facts to suit your convenience. Hunab 21 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comment: Again the "zero diffs but ad hominem strategy". Please show any diff or weblink in Wikipedia revealing that "truth". Sorry Hunab, but if you don't reply with any diff, this situation becomes to a non-sense in your way. You defame the labor of an important sysop as Jaluj (also the work of the 1 checkuser, 7 sysops and 1 patroller) with this weak report. This is my final comment, and please diff your probes. Bye. Taichi - (あ！) 23:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What cynicism. Here is the evidence
Are you going to say this arbitrary blanking is an "ad hominem" too? The only thing you did was to revert all my edits to the last blanked version of Jaluj. I also want to add more articles created through IP 187.184.167.214 that were deleted by Jaluj without a good reason, here are the proofs:
Do not be shameless. Hunab 21 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I forget a one more thing: one of his sockpuppets is called hidden name who means this insult in Esperanto (the user knows Esperanto), and he foughted against Ontzak (another patroller) and blocked by Marcelo this diff is important too, because the annotation of Marcelo reveals the behaviour of the user as saboteur. Also, coincidently with this report in January, your sockpuppet was fallen in Spanish Wikipedia against the local checkuser verification and also Jaluj pointed this annotation from January 11 (I used Google Translator for this quote):

Let's go for part, because we don't think we want or can understand the norms of Wikipedia. The articles created were deleted because they were not encyclopedic and were not in condition to appear in the main space, or for any other reason. Wikipedia has official policies such as Verifiability, Reliable Sources and Primary Sources.

What makes an article relevant is that it is well written, in encyclopedic form, not promotional or advertising, that has significant coverage of reliable sources, that complies with our style manual and the grammar of the Spanish language. Many of the articles that you created did not respond to those criteria and were deleted for that. Doesn't deleted, for example Cantharellus coccolobae, although the information is also doubtful already from the two supposed references that you put, one does not count and says nothing about Cantharellus coccolobae and the other is unverifiable because we did not manage to find it. The only sources I found on Google were the info from Wikipedia.

The problem with the thousands of bytes that you collected in Kanasín is that they had no reference, so they were reverted. The articles that he wrote about psychology were not only poorly edited, but the sources did not validate the information. As a professional in the subject I agree with the books that they wrote that were original research.

It is not enough that a topic is relevant to be published, the article has to be well done, it is not an original investigation and has reliable sources that verify what is stated. From the CRISPR/Cas article that you wrote, for example, I took the trouble to go and read the three references (of which one was a blog) that you put up and I found that most of the information that you wrote did not appear in none of the three Thousands and thousands of bytes backed up by sources is not acceptable. One of the sections was a plagiarism. The Classification and Class 1 sections did not have a single source and the History section had 4317 bytes without sources. Of 9853 bytes only 945 were referenced and this part was almost textual. This is not how you write an encyclopedic article.

In the case of a Bachelor's Degree in Teaching Mathematics, it turned out that the supposed sources did not speak of a Bachelor's Degree in Teaching Mathematics. Of the supposed 4 sources that you put, reference 1 did not talk about any part of Mathematics Teaching, reference 2 was a blog that did not talk about Mathematics Teaching, reference 3, which was another blog "Aprende en línea", we don't even exist (this website is unavailable) and the reference 4 also didn't talk in any part of Licenciatura en Enseñanza de las Matemáticas, the 5539 bytes you wrote, I would say that it was 100% original investigation, copy paste of the materials of some career in some university (Mathematical Thinking and Algebra Calculus and Elements of Analysis Algebra Linear Calculus of Various Variables and Ordinary Differential Equations Learning and Teaching of Algebra Learning and Teaching of Calculus and Differential Equations Analysis, Evaluation, Desarrollo y Planación Curricular Materials Didácticos, Tecnologías Digitales y Computo, etc.) (failed to put it in the class schedule) and your opinions.

The article must document, in a non-partisan way, what reliable third-party information sources have affirmed on the subject of the Mathematics Teaching Degree. You must have a significant coverage of reliable sources that deal directly with the Degree in Teaching Mathematics in detail without requiring original research to extract from the content or invent something that the sources do not say.

In the case of what you published as Rejuvenation, an article deleted 6 times for 6 different sysops to be a primary source, you wrote it with a single reference that when the law in no way talked about rejuvenation but that it talked exclusively about aging. Everything else was invented by you. The contained 3 sections without any source. The only source appeared in the Intro and was to support "aging".

In the case of Nude photography there are 3 sysops to explain. A very long article with only 2 references that belong to the same person, one Jesús León that publishes in Xataka an article that explains to you that it is never too late to start in the artistic photography of the human body and how to take nude photos and another that explains in what occasions send nuestras nude selfies and how to do so sin poner riesgo la privacy There is a photo that you placed enormously in the first place of a erect penus in the first plan uploaded by yourself in Commons (a selfie?) I suppose that was what you learned in the article that explains how to start the artistic photography of the human body, from a problem it is that this photo is not artistic. Of the rest of the sections, Educational, Commercial, Erotic Photography, Glamour, Publicity, Entertainment, Artistic, we had no single source.

Actually, the blogs are not acceptable sources above all in terms of opinions or analysis of the treated topic. Anonymity and the lack of verifiability in a source, as well as the use of information that is not legally authorized, causes a lack of credibility in the information it provides. The news coming from the press agencies or media of contrasting reputation do allow correct referencing of current affairs but not for articles with scientific pretensions. The sources must directly support the information as presented in an article and must be adequate to the statements made. The editors of articles must avoid carrying out original research, especially when making statements of scope based on the synthesis of information from diverse sources. To say that something cures cancer without a reliable source that backs it up is very important. The conclusions must come from the sources, and not from the editor of Wikipedia. The lack of reliable sources available for a topic can be a reason to dispense with the corresponding article, following the usual boring procedures. That was what happened. The sysops that deleted the articles that they created did nothing more than comply with official regulations and policies.

Please read the local policies of Spanish Wikipedia and stop to victimizing you. The strange thing is that several articles were deleted, three sysops denounced you and one was blocked before knowing that you were a puppet of an expelled user.

This large quote means that the user is aware of the situation that he created but still generated a fabricated idea that Jaluj was some kind of enemy that needed to be destroyed, and that is why the user has come to Meta-Wiki for his goal. Curiously, the user has fought with a dozen users of different levels in Spanish Wikipedia. Taichi - (あ！) 01:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a saboteur. I have created dozens of articles and made thousands of edits for the sole purpose of improving Wikipedia. I myself have even reversed acts of vandalism on many occasions, I have never done any wrong against the articles or at least I have never done so on purposd, on the other hand these sysops who accuse me of being so bad did indeed engage in serious acts of vandalism and removal of information, worst of all, they do it deliberately. Now, in order to answer all the points that Taichi has pointed out, I will go step by step.
  • Thirdly, to claim that Fek' al vi is an insult in a little-known language would require one to be truly obsessive-compulsive. Wikipedia's algorithm already does a good enough job of prohibiting offensive terms from being used as nicknames. Besides, the rest of the usernames on my other accounts are totally inoffensive.
  • Fourth, I am sick and tired of the nepotism that permeates Hispanic culture. I don't know what the point is in defending a person who has not even shown up for the discussion. I can refute Jaluj's arguments and I'll do it in the next points.
    • She claims that the articles I created did not meet the requirements, however, they remained in the encyclopedia for quite a while because they actually did comply with the rules since most of them were translations mainly from the English Wikipedia, it was not until they reallzed that I had created them that they deleted almost all of them and only left the one about the fungus specie Cantharellus coccolobae because it would have been extremely shameless to delete that one as well. Curiously, it is only 999 bytes long.
    • To claim that I uploaded a photo to Commons with bad intentions is an obvious ad hominem fallacy and a clear breach of the presumption of good faith, demonstrating that she simply wants to impose her will at all costs regardless of the damage she does to the articles or the deletion of valuable information she makes.
In conclusion, it is clear that these administrators no longer know what more lies to invent because they have run out of valid arguments to justify their wrong way of proceeding. This should be totally unacceptable on Wikipedia. Hunab 21 (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little mistake in your last response:

Thirdly, to claim that [username hidden] is an insult in a little-known language would require one to be truly obsessive-compulsive. Wikipedia's algorithm already does a good enough job of prohibiting offensive terms from being used as nicknames...

The username ironically violates the username policy in Esperanto Wikipedia: "provoka nek vulgara", also in any Wikipedia the violation of username policy is sanctioned with a block, doesn't care if is written intentionally in English, Spanish, Esperanto, Swahili, Swedish, Japanese or Javanese... Taichi - (あ！) 03:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the funny thing is that Fek' al vi is not blocked on Esperanto Wikipedia. Hunab 21 (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Two of the sockpuppets of Hunab 21 are now globally locked because violated the username policies: [1] and [2], both blocked by a steward (not a Spanish speaker sysop). There's a third sockpuppet with a backwards insult in Spanish, still waiting for steward evaluation. With this situation the "thirdly" and "fourth" point of Hunab 21's argument is now void, because the case is under another instances. Taichi - (あ！) 07:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about my usernames, and it is funny that if you had not reported me I would not have been blocked. You are hopeless. I take this opportunity to say that a few days ago -sasha- reversed my edits again on the article about the Mexican city of Kanasin and other articles even though they're totally correct. Also, my Hunab 21 account is blocked forever on es:Wikipedia when at no point does it say in the policy that someone who does not comply with the rules of etiquette will be blocked forever. This is just an extreme case of authoritarianism and personal vendetta. Hunab 21 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you miss the ping to the steward that locked your sockpuppets, his name is Superpes15. So the locked socks are a "funny" thing for you... Taichi - (あ！) 22:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Yes, just for knowledge, I can confirm that the username were - also for my translator - grossly offensive in Experanto. There's no need to have a local block to proceed with a lock (also because a local block generate another log and then it should be hidden too). We can lock in these cases according to global lock policy ("Accounts whose names are offensive or abusive are also eligible for locking, and may be hidden from logs as well"), and I choose not to hide the local edits on eswiki, since the username is not abusive in Spanish! Thanks Superpes15 (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Abuse_of_power_by_sysops_in_Spanish_Wikipedia&oldid=27951986"