Requests for comment/Checkuser abuse on the Spanish Wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. Out of scope for Meta RfC - refer to the OC. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time a checkuser in the Spanish Wikipedia falsely accuses me of using sockpuppets to edit in the Spanish Wikipedia. Bernard falsely acuses me, again, of having a sockpuppet, this time Atón. More than one year ago, Bernard did the same and I asked for an independent review by an involved checkuser (BTW, I'm permanently blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia, even if every time I've asked to return, the community has voted overwhelmingly for allowing me to return, but Bernard, among others, has opposed and invented sort of "consensus" rule that, in practice, means unanimity), with no result.

As with the case of Pelayo Calderón, I haven't got the slightest idea of who Atón is. I can't edit in the Spanish Wikipedia and therefore ask, again, for an independent review. I do have plenty of editions in commons, meta, and a lot of wikipedias. As sometimes I review the source code of articles in the Spanish Wikipedia (I've actually set up an alternative project with compatible license: Wikiexilio for creating new articles, so that friendly users move the contents to the Spanish Wikipedia) and the automatic blocking feature catches me, there are also plenty of "tracks" of myself in the Spanish Wikipedia in the last months.

I'm very, very, very tired of this rogue checkuser (with a personal grudge against me) inventing false positives and therefore I ask for help and for comments on how I can get an independent review (as Atón and I are different people, it's really straightforward to prove there is no relationship). In the past, I asked the Ombudsman Commission to get such an independent CU verification, to no avail.

It's really frustrating that the very same admin that, among other issues, prevents me from participating regularly in the Spanish Wikipedia (after years blocked) at the same time plainly lies when claiming a positive relationship that exists only in his imagination. On the other hand, the Wikimedia system does not provide the means for preventing rogue checkusers from creating false positives.

I'd like to know how to get an independent review of a rogue CU verification and simply compare the editions of Atón and Discasto. No more than that. Hopefully, Atón will agree with me to such a verification. Best regards --Discasto (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I do agree. I'm shocked by the abuse of CheckUser tool by Bernard. It's not the first time I've had problems of abuse with him, I feel my privacy is being violated by someone who is not trustworthy at all. To the point that his last statements about me being Discasto/Ecemaml make me afraid. Please, what I want to know is (1) to whom is Bernard accountable for his (ab)use of the CheckUser tool and (2) where can I make a formal complaint so he won't have access anymore to my personal information. Of course I agree to any verification if that would help, but what I want is that he stops "playing" with my location, my IP address or any other of my personal information for his own purposes, please, it's sickening. Thank you in advance and kind regards. --Atón (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Atón: I do agree with your concernt about the careless privacy management by Bernard. He's used to it and takes advantage of the lack of accountability mechanisms to deal with rogue checkusers. Mind that if this match is bogus, no previous verification can be regarded as honest. With regard to the actual privacy mishandling, you can contact the OC. My previous experience with it is realy disheartening, but you possibly should try the predefined path (mind that when the OC makes a decision, the logs have expired and... you know). On the other hand, I'm going to contact some administrator in the Spanish Wikipedia in order to make them validate our (different) identities. You can suggest it also to the OC. I've already provided private information to the OC and it should be enought. However, the fact of proving beyond any doubt that we're not the same person does not change the fact of checkusers sniffing private information without any reason and making rogue verifications. The sad case is that, as you know, it's just another piece in the witch hunt against another user. As Bernard is not able to find any policy violation by Mar del Sur, he turns to rogue verifications to build a case against a user he simply doesn't like. Sad. --Discasto (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Discasto and Atón: Ever since the Spanish Wikipedia's ArbCom dissolved in 2009, there are is this report and another report, Requests for comment/Spanish Wikisource needs help (2012). Can you prove that the Spanish Wikipedia violated Wikimedia's Terms of use? If proven that the admins did, this might be something that the Foundation would deal with. Otherwise... I don't know. --George Ho (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... I mistake "Wikisource" as Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place for this would be contacting the OC in private. Otherwise I recommend that this be closed because the community cannot review the technical data. --Rschen7754 15:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think they know. One of them mentioned the OC. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]