Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister und Margarita

< Requests for comment

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus for the proposed global ban. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statements

edit

Statement by Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly

edit

I hereby propose that Meister und Margarita (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) be globally banned from participating in Wikimedia projects according to the global ban policy for continued harassment of other editors, abuse of sockpuppets and repeated attempts to continue conflicts on other projects.

The formal conditions for implementing a global ban are met:

  1. The main account of the user has been indefinitely blocked on four projects:
  2. There is an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse:
    • The indefinite block on frWP was implemented after the user went there to continue his conflict because he had been temporarily blocked on deWP.
    • The indefinite block on enWP was implemented after the user went there to continue his conflict because he had been temporarily blocked on deWP. It was later amended after continued block evasion using sockpuppets.
    • The indefinite block on Commons was implemented after the user attacked and harassed another user.
    • Several sockpuppets of the user have been globally locked after a check on Meta.
  3. The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems:
    • His block log on deWP is extensive, mostly for editwarring and personal attacks. The user has been repeatedly informed that such behavior is incompatible with the community rules. In the end an arbitration case was conducted on deWP. Following that, the user was blocked for 18 months. After a short time the user began using sockpuppets and IPs to evade this block. After a checkuser request on deWP that confirmed the block evasion, this block was extended to an indefinite block. Since then there have been four more checks on deWP and five checks on enWP.
    • After several sockpuppets were discovered during a checkuser on Meta, he was informed by a Steward to cease abusing sockpuppets.
  4. Since then he has continued to evade blocks using many more sockpuppets and by editing under IP. See this (probably incomplete) list of sockpuppets, most of them confirmed by CU on deWP or enWP:

Meister und Margarita is without a doubt a prolific author, but continues to engage in disruptive behavior on multiple projects. This has caused significant disturbances not only on his home wiki deWP, but also on other projects where he frequently exported conflicts.

To give some examples of personal attacks:

On multiple occasions he was asked to stop this behavior, to no avail. Instead, after having been indefinitely blocked on several wikis, he continued to ignore community sanctions and increasingly uses sockpuppets to continue his disruptive behavior.

After a long arbitration case involving Meister und Margarita among other users (myself included), he was eventually blocked for 18 months and was the only user which was blocked. Here are some excerpts of the reasoning of the arbitrators for this block:

  • "Durch seine Art und Weise, durch sein Vorgehen und Handeln trägt er Konflikte in zahlreiche Projekte hinein. [...] Unter Zuhilfenahme von Dominanz und Uneinsichtigkeit versucht er diese Themenbereiche zu übernehmen um ihnen seine eigenen Regeln aufzudrücken. Solch Vorgehensweise ist nicht in Einklang mit einem Gemeinschaftsprojekt, wie die Wikipedia eines ist, zu bringen. Wie wenig ihn Gemeinschaftswerte interessieren stellte er unter anderem eindrucksvoll unter Beweis, als er kurzerhand während seiner eigenen Sperre in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia seine Aktivitäten auf andere Sprachversionen verlagerte, welche allerdings von den dortigen Administratoren mit unbefristeten Sperren honoriert wurden."
    (rough translation: "By his manner and his actions he carries conflicts into numerous projects. Using dominance and lack of insight he tries to take over these subject areas in order to impose his own rules on them. Such an approach is inconsistent with a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. He impressively demonstrated how little he cared about community values by relocating his activities to other language versions during one of his blocks in the German Wikipedia. This was however promptly honored with indefinite blocks by the local sysops there.") Helfmann
  • "Der Konflikt [...] hat meiner Meinung nach in der Ursache, dass der Account Meister und Magarita in allen Bereichen in die er vordringt seine Vorstellung über Artikelarbeit aufzwingen möchte und dies auch versucht mit allen Mitteln durch zusetzen. Dabei verfolgt er, wie auch in dieser SG-Anfrage gezeigt, eine massive Kommunikationsverweigerung wenn es darum geht das Problem zu lösen sondern die Wikipedia-Welt in seinen Augen in Gut und Böse bzw. Opfer und Täter aufgeteilt. Sein Verhalten in der kompletten Anfrage und in den Artikeln zeigt deutlich, dass er entweder nicht willens oder nicht fähig ist sich in einem kollaborativen Projekt wie der Wikipedia konfliktfrei zu arbeiten."
    (rough translation: "In my opinion the conflict is caused by Meister und Margarita, who in all areas in which he edits tries to impose his ideas of encyclopedic work on others and tries to enforce these ideas by any means. As shown in this arbitration case, he refuses to communicate with others to solve these conflicts, but instead divides the Wikipedia world into good and evil and victims and perpetrators. His behavior in this case and in articles clearly shows that he is either unwilling or unable to work in a collaborative project like Wikipedia without engaging in conflicts.") codc
  • "Meister und Margarita (MuM) hat sich wiederholt und teilweise schwerwiegend in einer Weise verhalten, die nicht mit dem Regelwerk übereinstimmt. [...] Das grundlegende Problem dahinter ist die Auffassung oder das Gefühl von MuM, alleinige Herrschaft über bestimmte Artikel oder Themen ausüben zu dürfen. Diese Verhaltensweisen werden sich auch in Zukunft nicht ändern:
  • MuM hat ein langes Sperrlog-Register.
  • MuM hat den Konflikt in weitere Themenbereiche (DE) weitergetragen und ist in zwei weiteren Sprachversionen (EN, FR) gesperrt, für Handlungen, die mit [der Schiedsgerichts-Anfrage] zusammenhängen.
  • Es hat sich keine belastbare Einsicht in das Fehlverhalten gezeigt."
(rough translation: "Meister und Margarita (MuM) has repeatedly and sometimes seriously behaved in a way that is inconsistent with the rules. The underlying problem behind this is his view or feeling to be allowed to enact sole control over certain articles or topics. These behaviors will not change in the future: *MuM has a long block log. *MuM has carried the conflicts into other subject areas (DE) and is blocked in two other language versions (EN, FR) for actions that are related to [this arbitration case]. *He has not shown any credible insight into his misconduct.") Ziko
  • "Wie sein Sperrlogbuch schon zeigt, ist die von ihm angewandte Rhetorik anderen ehrenamtlich zu Wikipedia Beitragenden gegenüber in nicht wenigen Fällen schlicht jenseitig; hinzu kommt, dass ich den Eindruck hatte, dass er an einer einvernehmlichen Lösung des Konflikts nie Interesse zeigte, sich an Vermittlungsversuchen nicht oder nicht ernsthaft beteiligte, und null Einsicht in eigenes Fehlverhalten erkennen ließ. Hinzu kommt außerdem das Verlagern des Konflikts in andere Sprachversionen, was auch dort zu einer unbeschränkten Sperre führte [...]. Zum Gesamteindruck zählt auch, dass es scheint, als würde Meister und Margarita, egal wo er auftritt, in Konflikte geraten [...]. Auch in Anbetracht dessen, dass Meister und Margarita nach allem menschlichem Ermessen unter einem anderen Benutzernamen bereits infinit gesperrt worden zu sein scheint, komme ich für mich zu dem Schluss, dass eine finite Sperre nicht mehr als zielführend gelten kann."
    (rough translation: "As his block log shows, the rhetoric he uses in contact with other Wikipedia contributors is often unacceptable; additionally I had the impression that he was never interested in an amicable solution to the conflict, and has shown no insight into his own misconduct. On top of that comes the transfer of the conflict into other language versions, which has lead to an indefinite block there as well. Part of my overall impression is that Meister und Martarita seems to get involved in conflicts no matter where he shows up. Also, in view of the fact that Meister und Margarita seems to have been blocked indefinitely under another user name, I come to the conclusion, that a finite block can no longer be regarded as effective.") Man77


Since this pattern of disruptive and abusive editing has been ongoing for a long time, extends across multiple projects, and could not be adequately managed by local blocks alone, I hereby propose that he be globally banned from participation on all Wikimedia projects.

I have tried my best to inform the communities in which the user has recently participated at their appropriate venues. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The account Meister und Margarita itself was used to evade the bans of his previous accounts Goleador (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) and Psychoanalyse (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) on deWP. The account Christian Michelides (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser) (see list above) was created to (unsuccessfully) appeal the ban. The reason for these early blocks was editwarring, personal attacks and repeated copyright violations. --Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes & Comments

edit

Support

edit

(start your !vote with "# {{s}}")

  1. Support Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Support -jkb- 16:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC) (working in the branch "Stolpersteine" since about 2007 / cswiki, dewiki / Stolpersteine Gunter Demnig) - - - Reading some votes & comments down under :-) I added there my comment as well ... (add by -jkb-)[reply]
  3. Going by despiction and customary check of the block logs on various wiki, the user had it a long time coming. In particular, harassement is a no-no. We can't afford to lose editors because of him. DarkoNeko (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Support --Rschen7754 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it astonishing that a user can get blocked independently on four large Wikimedia wikis and people think that it is an injustice perpetuated by dewiki ArbCom. --Rschen7754 23:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Support --Mirer (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Support Saloca (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Support based on my knowledge of the now-redacted harassment in the English Wikipedia and the German Arbitration Committee case on the Stolpersteine. Indefinitely blocked in several Wikipedias. --Pudeo (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Support TonyBallioni (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Support It's literally been years of cross-wiki trouble. Popo le Chien (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Support --Sewepb (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Support One of the biggest rule violations is to evade a block for the purpose of continuing the behavior that led to it. This user has been doing that cross-wiki. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 00:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Support MiguelAlanCS (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Support --Kenny McFly (talk) 07:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Support -- Martin Bahmann (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Support --Ghilt (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC) i share Mautpreller's opinion, except for the last three sentences. Meister und Margarita was not the sole malefactor, but imho that is no reason against a global ban. He has shown highly uncooperative, rule-breaking, escalating, unfriendly, insulting and self-centered behavior and is not fit for a collaborative project. Hence there is no compromise attainable. He made other wikipedians (in his area of editing) cry on several occasions, and productivity (especially at an often low-quality level of sources which causes unreliable articles) does not increase tolerability ad ultimo.[reply]
  16. Support Support.--Vulphere 10:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. per Ghilt. M&M causes so much anger, frustration and so much more work for others, actesd so often destructive, I can't see, why and how he can longer be part of our project(s). And a second proof that a ban would be the right thing is the wide support by others who should be banned too due their destructive acting at the projects. Ofcourse they hold for each other, because they could be the next. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Support --Nicola (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Support --Tönjes (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Support --SRuizR (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Support -ArdiPras95 (talk) 06:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Support --L736Etell me 07:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Support Natuur12 (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Support --ɱ 11:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Support too much noise, whatever the quality of edits. Cordialement, et Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Support --Cimbail (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Well, the Stolperstein conflict is not about a personal feud, or about harrassment, it's about proper sources, truth, reliability and stuff like that. M&M and a group of perpetrators want to shape Wikipedia into a shrine for holocaust victims and for Gunter Demnig, the artist behind the stolpersteins. A shrine that incorporates poorly sourced hagiographies instead of quality content, a shrine that prefers prose over critical journalism and encyclopedic content. M&M and his collaborators, most of them in the 'oppose' section beneath, want to take command over the stolperstein topic in the German Wikipedia and to dominate any other person working in this field. As a consequence, the stolperstein topic and anything related to holocaust remembrance is poisoned for decades, at least for the average reader. Whenever I come around a stolperstein article, I start with having a look on the list of contributors - an option far out of reach for an average reader. Just to be informed whether it's reliable or M&M stuff. Yes, indeed, the German arbitration committee did a poor job, by blocking M&M as the only perpetrator, instead of blocking or topic-banning the whole bunch of his supporters and most of his opposers. But here the question is whether M&M deserves a global ban: yes, for sure![reply]
  26. Support Support --Gugerell (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Support  — Elvaube ?! 07:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Support Per all… -GeniusWorkbench4622 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello GeniusWorkbench4622, welcome to Wikipedia. But you are still very young and inexperienced with your 5 edits here, no content edits. It seems to me you should probably use the sandbox, or your main account? Best regards - Bernd - die Brücke (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Support --Hemeier (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Support --Nuhaa (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Support --Hæggis 21:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC) per Ghilt, also agreeing in Mautpreller for the past. M&M acted unfair, and was treated after all – afaik after reading too much of this – partly even unfairer. He's sadly a strong example for turning users, i'd even say depraving, by this conflict culture – of course with a specific personal potential for this process. I guess surprisingly many users would act similiar in the face of this conflict culture. And it's pretty good & important they won't get the "opportunity". But: In this case, with this person, it happend. To make a crooked, but vivid comparison: M&M completed the Walter White way, with more external influence. The person may change his mindset in long-term (sorry to speak from above like that). But with this accounts and in this setting, he imho has gone too far, developed a too bad attitude. A global ban would be a clear signal for this, bringing a bad end to a worse process ... but as a matter fact better than the worst continuing. Not every unfairness can und should be healed, regarding other goods. This vote is based on the assumption, that a new acc with better acting would in ~2 years not be blocked just because of identifying "the old M&M", and that there is a forgetting curve in case of light misbehaviour. This vote is also obsolete in case of an un-block in de-wp. --Hæggis 21:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Support. Complete inability to resolve conflicts in a social acceptable manner. --Arabsalam (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Support. IMO, Meister und Margarita shows no insight in his problematic behaviour (sockpuppets, crosswiki harrassement, etc.) and styles himself as a victim of a right wing cabal (see recent comments below). I can't see a viable solution exept a ban from WP, even if his contributions seem valuable. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jergen (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Support. Wikipedia does not need him. Nobody needs him, actually. --134.100.40.170 12:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Support. Clearly too much of a time sink and has out weighed any aspect of possibly being considered a net positive to any project. Just because De.Wikipedia finds them to be a valuable content creator doesn't mean the editor should be allowed to abuse the communities on en.wiki, commons, and fr.wiki. And the opposed who are saying "the original block was bad", "he was antagonized" etc... does that honestly excuse their sock puppetry across multiple projects and an oversight block? Lets be logical here all this user is going to do is keep socking, get blocked on de.wikipedia again for something and then come harass others using other projects for his own goal. And HOW DARE YOU think that what he called other uses is justifiable because he was upset. That makes me sick to my stomach. --Cameron11598 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Support -20:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiBayer (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Support Nach einigem Überlegen bin ich dazu gekommen, das dies das beste für alle währe. Zunächst zu dem Argument, er hat enzyklopädisch viel beigetragen. Klart hat er das, und ich bin mir sicher, das einige von denen hier das auch getan haben. (U. a. INeverCry, er hatte Adminrechte auf enwiki). Bei ihm ist mittlerweile der Punkt erreicht, wo ich denke, das es zuviel ist. Da währen zunächst die Sockenpuppen auf dewiki, welche 5 Nachfolge-CUAs erforderlich machten, dann ein Oversight-Block auf enwiki, wieder für Persöhnliche Angriffe. sein Sperrlogbuch auf dewiki spricht Bände. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Support --Diorit (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Support --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Support --Schniggendiller (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Support --Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC) The problem with MuM is, that he sees himself as above the rules, because he is on a just mission (that is more or less his personal vanity). He doesn't even tries to abide to the rules, he's using wrong, misinterpreted, untrustworthy, plain useless "sources" just to create more text, without any regard to the correctness of this texts. And he's a malicious puppeteer for his own vain.[reply]
  42. Support Support --Pass3456 (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Support --BuschBohne (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Support --JTCEPB (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Support --Label5 (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Support (I have been a member of the German arbcom and voted for a total ban of MuM, see my statement here.) Ziko (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Support --Morten Haan (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Support we may just need 21 more supports to let this approve, I think. --117.14.250.62 07:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Support --Karim (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Support --Jocian (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Support ----Hachinger62 (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Support --Wistula (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Support --Kanisfluh (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

edit

(start your !vote with "# {{o}}")

  1. Oppose Oppose ihm wurde von mehreren Benutzern übel mitgespielt. --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose +1. --Icodense (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Oppose--Lemure Saltante (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Oppose I was a member of the German arbitration committee and delved deep into this case. In my opinion, the decision was one-sided and over-hard (and I voted against a block). It is definitely true that Meister und Margarita is a "problem user". He contributed much valuable content to the German Wikipedia, especially to the so-called en:stolperstein lists, but very often in a problematic way, including poor and flawed sourcing, personal attacks, and other breaches of Wikipedia rules. However, the main problem was a personal feud with other users (mainly one other user) which was pursued by both sides in a relentless way. In my reasoning as an arbitrator, I wrote: "To be sure, the blocks executed by admins for concrete breaches of rules were usually justified. However, a block without concrete occasion is not justifiable in this conflict. It could only be a last resort, meaning that actually the user himself were the problem and that it would be better if he could not participate in the project at all. This is not the case, as I see it. Although the conflict is dominated by a personal conflict, all conflict parties have acted highly motivated for the project benefit and delivered valuable contributions. For breaches of rules, blocks can be executed on occasion. I see no indication that anything would be better if one or more users were excluded from the project." ([1]) Another arbitrator agreed. The committee in its majority voted for a 18-months block for Meister und Margarita but no blocks for anyone else although we all agreed that a personal conflict is at the heart of the matter (see the case presentation subscribed by all arbitrators). In my opinion, this was a grave mistake. There was very much criticism in de.wp concerning this decision, amounting even to an (unsuccessful) attempt to overthrow the arbitration committee decision by means of community vote. It is true that the user resorted to multiple sockpuppetry after this block. I don't want to excuse this behavior but it is manageable by CU and blocks and is actually managed by these means. There is no indication that a global ban is necessary or even useful for our projects. The whole case only shows that our project is poorly equipped for the management of personal feuds. The tendency is to identify one malefactor and treat him as a scapegoat. This is wrong for more than one reason: It not only deprives us of valuable contributors but, more important, damages the Wikipedia conflict culture. An orientation towards "total victory" in conflicts is boosted by such measures, not towards compromise. This is destructive.Mautpreller (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Oppose Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly has a very big conflict of interest in this case. meister und margarita was giving a lot to wikipedia. no one is free to fail, but he did not fail so much for beeing fined this way. he gave nearly 5.000 photos to the wikipedia (until today). about 52% of this pictures are in use in wikipedia. this ban would not be fair. Donna Gedenk (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC) all the infenit blogs are caused of german wikipedia only. so it is not really a cross-media thing. en wiki was caused bei sense amid (he changes his accounts every few years), who was and is following and did not liked, that it is known, from which country he comes from (was well known because of pictures he uploaded and obviously because of this). this information is oversighted. fr. wiki was caused by a rightwing user from german wiki who tried to write a lie in an article about a demonstration in vienna against a right wing event, commons was because of de.wiki too. so it is only a german wiki prob, not a cross wiki prob.--Donna Gedenk (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Donna Gedenk afraid that would be unable to edit (or upload) having ban for Meister… in force? Otherwise it would be good to stay on topic. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Who namely “gives” photos, indeed? There is a huge upload log by Donna Gedenk, not by Meister…. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As for “52% of pictures are in use in wikipedia” – these are mostly stolperstein photos, which are almost trivial. Not so many educationally useful pictures (photos or otherwise). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Oppose I think, that's the wrong way. Greetings, --Snookerado (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Oppose Full ACK to Mautpreller (thanks a lot) regarding the interpretation of the sentence of the arbitration committee and the consequences for the German Wikipedia in general and especially the Stolperstein topic. The idea of "total victory" is toxic to both. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Oppose --Fiona B. (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC) The applicant Sense amide Madness, Wit Amidst Folly was as CorrectHorseBatteryStaple participant in Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Konflikt um Stolpersteinlisten. In 2016 he acted under the account Schulhofpassage in conflicts around Stolpersteinlisten and had at least one other account before or parallel. The acting of the applicant is not transparent. It should be checked whether his application for a personal conflict opponent's Global Ban is trustworthy.--Fiona B. (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Oppose A sickening witch-hunt against a user and a one-sided acting and obviously incompetent arbitration court. (Ich hab jetzt einfach mal den Google-Übersetzer bemüht.)--Steigi1900 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Oppose --Stobaios (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) A ban would be more appropiate for Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly.[reply]
  11. Oppose Oppose --JosFritz (talk) 05:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC) As Mautpreller and Herzi Pinki above: The idea of "total victory" is toxic to both. Maybe there are toxical users among the supporters of ban, too. Those seem to be more interested in banning and persecuting certain users through all chapters than in solving problems.[reply]
  12. Oppose Oppose Sense amid ... has a big personal conflict withe the person, for whom he wants a global ban for Wikipedia. I ack fully the words of the „arbitrator" Mautpreller above. Many pictures of Meister und Margherita are very useful, because he travelled round Europe for make these pictures. He made as in other cases for example pictures of Stolpersteine at the Lake Maggiore in Northern Italy, which were not existing before. --Orik (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Oppose --Belladonna* (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Oppose. Strong Oppose. The applicant Sense amide Madness, Wit Amidst Folly leads a personal conflict and campaign against Meister und Margarita. This is a fact, which can be retraced in a duration of many years. Ironically, the applicant itself is a working account or sockpuppet. And has, in de:WP, used many different accounts to disguise his person. It's a dirty campaign against a user, who wrote many articles and donated Hundreds of pictures to the German Wikipedia. MfG, Brodkey65 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Oppose Da spielen sich einzelne Benutzer zuerst in der de-WP und jetzt overall wie Halbgötter auf und glauben ihnen gehört die WM-Weld - das kann es nicht wirkclih sein. --Karl Gruber (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Da ihnen die Rechtschreibwelt ja anscheinend nicht gehört… --95.116.93.147 08:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Oppose --Sonichead (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Oppose --Hardenacke (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Ban the delator.[reply]
  18. Oppose Oppose --Bernd - die Brücke (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC) wie Ralf Roletschek, Mautpreller, Karl Gruber; MuM hat fleißig, engagiert und kompetent die Wikipedia bereichert. Andere, die ihm übel mitspielen, können ihm das Wasser nicht reichen. Diese gehörten verbannt.[reply]
  19. Oppose Oppose He was found a precious and missed outcast in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Oppose After serious consideration per Mautpreller. There is never any excuse for personal attacks, but in this specific case banning one side but not the other would be a grave mistake. —viciarg414 08:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Oppose I do not defend on this place the user in question, although we cooperated satisfactorily a lot. This abandoning I am not able to understand, why the abstinence from his technically perfect pictures of rare photographed objects would be good for our project. In contrary: wantonly we would lose many precious images with no benefit. --Machtjan X (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Oppose I concur with User Machtjan X et al. A global ban is totally wrong instrument and woulds also damage the project at a very sensible field. --Jensbest (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose It would be better to ban the account "Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly" or "CorrectHorseBatteryStaple". We don't need such informers. --Schlesinger (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Oppose I have cooperated fruitfully with this user and see no reason to ban him. His pictures and lists are a valuable addition tot Wikipedia. Kattiel (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Oppose in accordance with Mautpreller Gouwenaar (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Oppose Some persons have a Problem with the User at german Wikipedia. But that's no reason to ban him forever. Especially as the other side has set his ban to the goal. --Sik Imarg (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Oppose I agree with user Mautpreller. The proponent attempts to overrule the German Wikipedia's Arbcom which is not due.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Oppose Agree with Mautpreller.--Cabeza2000 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Oppose Agree with Mautpreller.Wagner67 (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Oppose I agree with Mautpreller. Martinvie (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Oppose I also agree with Mautpreller. --Haeferl (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Oppose I also agree with Mautpreller. --Summer ... hier! (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --Cuatro Remos (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Oppose - no case of cross wiki problems, so no reason for a global block. Dqfn13 (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --Syrcro (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strongly Oppose Oppose like User: Mautpreller (#4), User:Donna Gedenk (#5) and User:Steigi1900 (#9). Rather, M & M should be honored for his idea and for endless efforts to get the project Stolpersteine! It is shocking with which sneakiness M & M is pursued by User:Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly across Wikipedia and which users participate in this hate. Exactly because of this hating and hounding M & M was not only locked in the German Wikipedia, but also in the English and French Wikipedia. A global ban for User:Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly aka User:Schulhofpassage for this personal harassement would be better! --Steindy (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Oppose Wie Mautpreller. Ute Erb (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --Hinnerk11 (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --HW1950 (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Oppose this user is constructively editing NL Wikipedia, no need for a global ban. Ellywa (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --Rodomonte (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --User:Dritte von links (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Oppose ----Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. Melquíades (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. --Heinrich Reuhl (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller. -- Miraki (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Oppose --Hubertl (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Oppose He shouldn't be banned. First, all that was said sounds a lot like prejudice, like this is an attempt to harrass him out of the wikipedia. And second he isn't given a chance to speak up himself. And third, I've seen things go very wrong about bans in the German wikipedia. For example, bans are often imposed so quickly that the person in question has no chance to speak up in his own behalf. Oh, and by the way, if you look at the people who support the global ban: They have no arguments. They just put in "support" without any comment and give no reason why they support it. And I agree with Mautpreller: It is not all right that such a motion is startet by the person who is his worst enemy an who has long tried to harrasss him out of the German wikipedia. --Maxl (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Oppose global ban, support global lock of account and sockpuppets. Crosswiki socking to evade blocks is crosswiki abuse. I don't care if they're a content editor. Vermont (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vermont:… what a proposal from hell. Global lock for all accounts belonging to an easily recognizable user makes this user de facto banned in most active Wikimedia wikis. Moreover, such admins’ conduct in fact encourages socking and lies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The conduct of administrators encourages someone to make a few dozen socks to evade blocks on multiple projects? This user is responsible for their own conduct, which classifies as crosswiki abuse. I am not saying the administrators involved are not at fault; they may very well be, but the subject of this global ban discussion is at fault as well. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Oppose Bunnyfrosch (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Oppose The statement does not convince me. Sock investigation on en.wp was pushed along by en de.wp users and the user had no prior blocks there. The user does follow some rules, according to his contributions. There is not enough here to go on.--Snaevar (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Oppose Valanagut (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Oppose VC10 (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Personal animosities alone must not be a reason to make such a blocking request, especially since the applicant apparently did not find the decision in the German-language Wikipedia sufficiently far-reaching and is now seeking an extension of the ban here. A renewed ban in the same matter (the main reason in this application is that the user is already blocked on three major Wiki projects) would also violate the legal principle of «Non bis in idem».[reply]
  54. Oppose Oppose Only a Witch-hunt. --Informationswiedergutmachung (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Oppose he is not a man for easy going but this is to much -- Michael.Kramer (talk) 9:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  56. Oppose Oppose per Dqfn13 -- feuerst – talk 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Oppose --MarcelBuehner (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Oppose --Flyingfischer (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Oppose --Brainswiffer (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Oppose --Methodios (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Oppose --Agathenon (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Justified sanctions? Yes. Double jeopardy? No.[reply]
  62. Oppose Oppose - irgendwann issma gut mit dem Jagdeifer! --Elop (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Oppose Enough is enough. --Elmie (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Oppose I do not agree with MuM's action and communication style. But he is blocked on de-WP (and other projects), where he misbehaved. No need to chase him or block globally. --h-stt !? 19:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Oppose --Der rausch (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose Oppose to this action and request for an immediate STOP of the procedure.
    A request like the above should not be submitted by a personal enemy of Meister.
    Even the judgment of the German Schiedsgericht is not backed up by the German community. --1rhb (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose Oppose --Sternrenette (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller and Brodkey65. --Khatschaturjan (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose Oppose --Reiner Stoppok (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC) PS: Global ban is a new singing game for a special 'inner circle' of German Wikipedia.[reply]
  70. Oppose Oppose global is to hard.--Kriddl (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Oppose Ich war nicht immer einer Meinung mit MuM, empfand ihn aber nicht als unangenehm und frage mich, warum er von der Mitarbeit in Wikipedia ausgeschlossen werden sollte. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Oppose per Mautpreller and Brodkey65. Melekeok (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Oppose there is no reason why he should be banned. -- Schmeißfliege (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Oppose when I check some of the pro voters, I am really confident that it is correct to say no --SlartibErtfass der bertige (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Oppose He is a bad German-French user yes, but he helped Italian users a lot more also yes, such global sanction should only happen if one day he is hurting more than 10 languages' communities. --117.14.243.208 03:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose Oppose --V4venture (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Oppose The underlying conflict is a two editors' one. I reckon, that banning/blocking only one editor would not be fair. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Oppose While I did not intend to participate for a lack of interest and detailed knowledge (and even may be sympathetic with the ban): This eternal global ban vote without a deadline rather serves as naming and shaming and bullying of the person. Stop it. --KnightMove (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Oppose I've analyzed the case and think that this person has made good contributions to Wikimedia projects (Except for the personal attacks). I think that indefinite blocks are not good in this case but temporary. Also, the plaintiff committed canvassing in the spanish Wikipedia, where he hadn't done anything wrong. I don't know why am I here. I just noticed that the global ban policy requires to inform in all wikis where the user has edited--SRuizR ¿Need something? 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)--SRuizR ¿Need something? 05:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Oppose. Not enough for a global ban per he is still having some positive contributions in cs/itwp.--Cohaf (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

edit

(start your !vote with "# {{abstention}}")

  1. I refuse to vote about persons. Habitator terrae (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ø Abstention Abstention I shouldn't vote about someone I don't know. --SRuizR (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Personal attacks are, of course, forbidden. But Wikimedia doesn’t ban users for merely shouting that someone has shit in the brain. Where is real cross-wiki abuse comparable to abuse by known “outlaws”? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This was explained by the original poster. See their block log in the English Wikipedia. After he was blocked in the German Wikipedia, he went to attack and harass the editor they had a feud with in the English Wikipedia. This had had to be oversighted. Normal personal attacks are not oversighted. He then continued the same behauvior with multiple sockpuppets in the German and English Wikipedias and Commons. See sockpuppet investigation pages: de-WP, en-WP. Sockpuppeting has continued since April 2018 to this day. --Pudeo (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Incnis Mrsi: compared eg. with Avoided, Avoided was harmful (I blocked him several times, but... ...); even Messina didn't produce more shitty problems like Meister. -jkb- 22:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    you blocked him just 1! time, not several times. this 1 time for 12 hours. so your writing above is obviously not true.Donna Gedenk (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an editor make other editor(s) flee our project because of harassement, then it's a net loss for the project. That is all. It doesn't matter how many good articles he supposedly write. DarkoNeko (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an editor makes other editor(s) flee our project because of any reason, then it's a net loss for the project. I have reduced my contribs due to many things I think are wrong, among them the Stolperstein conflict as urged by -jkb-, Oliver S.Y, and Sense Amid Madness, Wit Amidst Folly alias Correct Horse Battery Stable alias Schulhofpassage. Not because of the behavior of Meister and Margarita, which is annoying, but because of the behavior of those mentioned before. On deWP, any IP in Stoperstein context is locked without CU because someone insists all IPs in Stolperstein context to be Meister and Margarita (which is not true, or at least does not follow AGF). Repelling new users is a net loss for the project. IMHO arguing with the net loss is a dangerous option for bans. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't defend Meister und Margarita's behavior. He never was an easy Wikipedian and has always had a very big degree of stubbornness and self-opinionatedness (if this word exists). However, he had the bad luck to get into a conflict with one of his opponents in 2007 (!!). For all the following years this conflict smoldered, occasionally breaking out, through various account changes. It is true that Meister und Margarita did and does make enemies very easily because of his extreme assertiveness. But this long-time feud is unusual for him and, in my opinion, is mainly due to the other side's intransigence. "Never forget", seems to be their motto. It is obvious that both sides cannot cooperate, but I cooperated fruitfully with both of them in different articles, as in de:Hanni Lévy with Meister und Margarita. This is definitely possible if you don't insist on "having it out", looking only for faults and flaws in order to strike the opponent down. My explanation why it was usually Meister und Margarita who was blocked is that he is not so capable of hiding his feelings behind a wall of pseudo-objectivity. He tends to get openly abusive when under pressure. Of course this can't be tolerated and blocks because of this abuse are fully justified. But the other side of this feud should not be overlooked. In my opinion, it is simply not right to make Meister und Margarita the only scapegoat.Mautpreller (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      i agree to your conclusion, that he should not be the only one sanctioned, but imho that's rather a reason to stand up against intolerable behavior, wherever it happens. --Ghilt (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Mautpreller. Thanks for trying to understand how I function. IMHO three aspects are missing in this discussion:
  • No one speaks about the political motivation that led my opponents to delete and to destroy hundreds of biographies of Nazi victims, in German Wikipedia as well as in English Wikipedia.
  • I politely disagree about the conflict. There is no conflict between two or more equals. There is simply cross-Wiki hounding of my work and me as a person. I have never ever edited in articles created by these people, but they run after me wherever I am. All blocs were Made in Germany. If I am writing about photography, they oppose. Then I turn my attention to opera, they follow. When I dedicate myself to the description of Austrian food, they follow. When I write about Nazi victims, they follow. When I wrote in English Wikipedia, they follow. When I write in Czech Wikipedia, they follow. SA... has become a master in blocking my articles and in scandalizing my personality. That's what I call hounding.
  • I have never harassed anyone in English Wikipedia. I have requested due procedure and asked the ArbCom of English Wikipedia to reopen the case. Unfortunately I did not get a response to all my eMails. By the way: The user calling for my global ban is the same user who instigated my bloc in English wikipedia (but he used another identity then; CorrectHorsse...).--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SA? Really? I fear you totally have lost proportionality. 2A04:4540:6503:7100:198F:50D8:4AE2:1CCB 11:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
shortversion of the username Sense Amid--Donna Gedenk (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Used by someone who is interested in Nazi victims? Disgusting. Really. 2A04:4540:6503:7100:198F:50D8:4AE2:1CCB 11:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio in his fight against Meister und Margarita and Donna Gedenk, for example, was discussed and determined here. To be fair, Sense Amid ..., then CorrectHorseBatteryStaple, apologized later. Of course there is no request that Sense Amid ... be banned, I think that no user should be globally banned in this conflict. (By the way, the main opponent of Meister und Margarita I mentioned above was not Sense Amid ...; however, he was a party to the conflict under the CorrectHorse... name).Mautpreller (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to readjust some incorrect statements above:

  • first, as I can see, a lot of the Contras never have been in contact to the "stolperstein conflict" in dewiki (partly as some of them registered later: Wagner67, 2017; Snookerado, 2017; Sik Imarg, 2018) - I wonder how they can judge this...
  • As I noticed in my vote above, I've been working in the topics stolpersteine, holocaust victims, resistance to the nacis since about 2007 in both wikis (de, cs); about 2015 started Meister a Wikipedia project (in the Wikipedia namespace [!]) on stolpersteine in cs (etc.) [3] and started list of users who may participate (he and some never very active users), he consistently removed [4] all other users; this was a serious point in the de arbcom case 2017
  • Meister's assessment of the de.wiki is as follows: de.wiki consists from undercover paid editing by political parties and highly organized right-wing network (see here); this opinion is already older, even before 2017 he compared me with Nazis, anti-Semites, Goebbels (see the arbcom case); the cross wiki hounding (see his statement above) is just another personal attack

Howgh, I lost some four years of my live with this conflict. -jkb-

  • -jkb-, my view is that you hardened youself to a staunch enemy of Meister and Margarita, which is an altogether sad development since your ideas are actually not so far apart (o.k., now you will both turn on me). This hardening (I see it on all sides of this conflict, including Meister und Margarita) is the main problem of this case. Again and again I am really stunned to see that competent and highly motivated users see the only solution in a total downfall and global (or even universal?) ban of the opponent (and vice versa).Mautpreller (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that regarding the content we are not that far away. But there is so much hatred again me. He wants to expel me forever at any cost. It was -jkb- (former administrator and then member of the German ArbComm) who explicitly requested a complete ban for me. He got me banned for 18 months, later-on for ever. I have never ever requested a ban for anyone. I do think that banning someone is more or less the same action like expatriation. I have only asked to separate the fields of activity (as cooperation became more and more difficult).--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@-jkb-: I'm reading enough on the metapages of the german wikipedia to have a point of view. And because this took later than in autumn 2017, I heard about the conflict. Greetings, --Snookerado (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Meister und Margarita was blocked indefinitely on dewiki because he evaded the time-limited arbcom block by editing anonymously and using sock puppets. The block evasion has since continued on dewiki and enwiki. In my opinion the continued cross-wiki block evasion and sock puppetry are the main problems and warrant a global lock (not a global ban). --77.243.183.203 08:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen blocks done on the German wikipedia, and often the rules for blocks aren't adhered to. I've seen people blocked within seconds of the complaint so that the person in question had no chance to speak up on his or her own behalf. And I've seen unblock motions being thwarted by ruses played by German admins. In one case a German admin piped up claiming that am IP had been used by the user who had requested a lift of his block. The admin did not bring any proof at all that the user had indeed used that IP but the other admins "believed" him without any examination of his claim which makes it clear that this was a ruse to prevent the user from being unblocked. That's the way it runs in the German wikipedia. To me it sounded like a planned ruse to prevent his unblocking. And no it wasn't Meister und Margerita. Anyway, what the above IP says is not a reason for a block anyway since edits are done anonymously as a rule. So of course you use an IP if you're banned or you get yourself a new account (which is NOT a sock puppet if your prime account is rendered useless by a permanent block. It's a restart!). --Maxl (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cimbail: I appreciate your article work but what you wrote above is pure nonsense - and unfair. Your accusations are not based on facts and they are false. Step by step:

  • My participation in the article de:Gunter Demnig is virtually ZERO: [5]. I never put him on a pedestal.
  • The German Stolperstein lists have not been invented by me. They are based on a community decision from 2012 (in German: Meinungsbild). I did not even participate, neither in the discussion, nor in the voting.
  • When we started to create the Austrian lists in 2015, there were already the Berlin lists (today about 8.300 Stolpersteine), the Hamburg lists (today about 5.500) and the Cologne lists (today about 2.300). We copy/pasted the structure of the Berlin lists and followed their example. They used Yad Vashem, holocaust.cz, geni.com. We used Yad Vashem, holocaust.cz, geni.com. Compared to the bigger brothers and sisters the Vienna project was much smaller and is still much smaller then Berlin or Hamburg.
  • Every monument in Austria is listed in German wikipedia. I do not see any reason why Stolpersteine should be excluded. In Germany there is even a Monument Cup furthering the writing on monuments: [6]

I'm very sorry that I have to stop here, for now. My job requires my presence for the next hours. I will continue this statement tonite.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't read your comment, but I will just give my 2cts with drawing an account of my stolperstein work: in 2017 I realized that there is a strong interest in the stolperstein topic in the wikipedia community of Cologne, Germany, just 40 km from my home town Euskirchen. Moreover, the city archivar of Euskirchen puts lots of efforts into her personal and professional goal, documenting the history of Jews in Euskirchen, and having a stolperstein in her city for every Jewish victim of the holocaust. I agree with her and with the work of those wikipedians who wrote the lists of stolpersteins for most parts of Cologne and its surroundings. It's not difficult to write wikipedia articles about Jewish history and holocaust victims in Euskirchen, because of the gorgeous work of local historian de:Hans-Dieter Arntz. Unfortunately, Mr. Arntz' dewiki account has been blocked indefinitely by User:Ne discere cessa! for some quarrel about literature spam. As a consequence, it is wise not to use the W-word in correspondence with Mr. Arntz or the city archive. OK, his books are available in the library. But he is to be cited with caution, because the Helios publishing house is marked as "right-wing" by weirdos like anarchists rioting at Frankfurt book fair and dewiki User:Jens Best. In fact, the publishing house is active in military and WW2 history (definitively without gloryfying Nazi ideology), but also in local and regional history, with a number of excellent titles about Jewish history in the region. Well, I started anyway: de:Benutzer:Cimbail/Liste der Stolpersteine in Euskirchen and c:Category:Stolpersteine in Euskirchen (images of all 180+ stolpersteins in Euskirchen, leaving out 2 missing/not found). But I didn't continue the work from early 2018, because User:Donna Gedenk and a number of other weirdos criticized stolperstein images from other photographers, for not cleaning and polishing the stolpersteins before taking photos. In Donnas world, stolpersteins must be cleaned and polished before taking photos. Any other approach, e.g. taking photos from uncleaned stolpersteins, constitutes a humiliation of the victims!!! Well, I removed a cigarette tip and a bubblegum in two or three cases, out of 180+. But I won't even think of turning my wikipedia work from authorship and photographing to janitor work. No way! I didn't visit last weeks' placement of another 28 stolpersteins in Euskirchen. I won't take photos of these 28 stolpersteins. I won't continue working on the list started in 2017. Because I don't want to quarrel with Jens Best about forbidden literature, with Donna Gedenk about humiliating images, with M&M whether wikipedia is a shrine or not. To work with these guys is unbearable, and I will take refuge in other topics. There is plenty of topics without the danger of running into trouble with people who shape wikipedia into their own property and with their own rules. M&M and the whole bunch around him is free to contact any web service provider and to start their own website. --Cimbail (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I wonder, if a RFC is an invitation to wash dirty laundry.--Fiona B. (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (Unot
... and the initiator of this RFC does not reveal that he himself had no clean fingers in this conflict, and as Mautpreller noted [7], therefore no realistic picture emerges - Bernd - die Brücke (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The real question in place is whether or not the purpose hallows the means. Many users follow the arguments of Mautpreller, yet I wonder why the other members of german arbcom did not when they decided to ban M&M (and only him). If it wasn't for the topic of holocaust victim commemoration, this would be a clear case. This Behavior can not be tolerated. --95.90.218.17 05:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Actually it's the other way round: This long-time conflict, mainly between two users, could have smouldered for a long time without resolution as so many low-level conflicts do, with occasional local blocks. But it escalated because of this highly emotional and political subject of holocaust commemoration. This is definitely a problem but it cannot be solved by a total ban of one party. In this context, I want to quote the global ban policy: "A global ban request must only be accepted when a user presents a clear and current danger to all Wikimedia communities, a decision is backed by a broad and clear consensus that fairly represents the vast majority of Wikimedia projects," etc. I can't see that anyone here has showen a "clear and current danger to all Wikimedia communities" by this user. Most particularly, I cannot see anything like a "broad and clear consensus" for a global ban.Mautpreller (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering why there are 17 users voted oppose with a simple reason like "per/agree with Mautpreller", are they 17 humans, or one with 17 socks? Should I RFCU because of those? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they simply follow my arguments? You see that supporters Ghilt (whom I know personally from ArbCom) and Haeggis also quote me (following my arguments up to a certain point). I have no sockpuppets (never had) and most of the users from de.wp that voted (for and against) are longtime active users.Mautpreller (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
well.. this is a RFC about a sock master. What do you expect?--94.134.80.146 11:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, i guess that the "as per" is due to a misconception, that there is a vote on this page - voting is the usual procedure on de.wp in contrast to the RfC procedure used on other wikis. --Ghilt (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. M&M was talking about a "Trias" following and stalking him in the arbitration case on de.wp and you called jkb a "staunch enemy" just a few lines above. This is no regular conflict between two users but more or less with everyone involved in the "Stolpersteine" complex apart from Donna Gedenk. And this was reflected by the decision of german arbcom. The toxic behavior did not change in the meantime. I do agree that it is highly questionable whether or not the requirements for a global ban are fulfilled. --95.90.218.17 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, -jkb- was a member of the ArbComm. He did not take part in the discussions of two cases (he was not only involved in the Stolperstein case but also in another case). But he knew most members of the ArbComm personally. The ArbComm had a conference with another guy opposing my work, but neither with me nor with Donna Gedenk. In his introductory statement -jkb- requested that I should be banned. He got, what he asked for. The whole investigation was ridiculous right from the beginning. Imagine a trial, where the judges listen carefully to the accusers, but refuse to listen to the defendant … North Korean Justice!--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm: the opposing Users from German-speaking Wikipedia are known to me as longtime regulars.--Fiona B. (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the usual set-up: accusations over accusations, some explicit lies, very personal attacks (perpetrator, toxic), lots of noise, some IP's (all on the side of the enemies), one sock puppet voting against me, Much Ado About Nothing. When creating the Liste der Stolper- und Gedenksteine in Prag-Josefov I had to drop the introduction because of all the fuss made up by people who cannot accept German crimes. The English version did not cause any problems. If Wikipedia succeeds in stalking and mobbing and excluding me from this community project, it is mainly the problem of Wikipedia.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This can happen to everyone, being demonized just because one's supposed political point of view is not liked by another one. It is UTTERLY UNFAIR that the ArbComm in the English Wikipedia does not look at my case. I did not do any harm to anyone there (or anywhere). Yes, Donna Gedenk and myself were making some jokes in German. I regret, that we used the German language. Should not have happened. But what we wrote does NEVER EVER merit a lifelong block in the English Wikipedia. None of my eMails has been answered. By the way, the guy who instigated this case there is the same guy who requests a global ban for me now (but he uses another name now).--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt

edit

Dear colleges,

on 14 September 2017, I got blocked by DeltaQuad. I do not agree with this operation at it was instigated by someone who fights my work in German Wikipedia since many years.

I do not think that I merit a block at all.

Yes, I used the German language [in a talk page] and this was wrong. I will never do it again in English Wikipedia. This was caused by the fact, that the partner of this discussions, Donna Gedenk, prefers the German language. I regret to have used the German language.

But nothing I wrote was of any harm to the accuser. I not even mentioned his name. Please ask neutral bilingual users to procure a neutral translation.

Please re-open the case, take a hard look on it and unblock my account.

Unfortunately, this case plays a major role in the attempt of the same user, who got me blocked in English Wikipedia, to achieve a global ban against me, see: [8]

This user is now using a different name.

Yours sincerely,

Meister und Margarita--Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any chance of you being unblocked in enwp or dewp any time soon. You used way too many sock puppets for block evasion after being blocked. See e.g. en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meister und Margarita/Archive: --185.16.85.155 18:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If injustice is done, someone has to ask for foregiveness! It was UTTERLY INJUSTICE to block me from enWP. Let's discuss this foremost and first. By the way, why do you hide yourself. Sometimes I have the impression, that most of my enemies are pitying cowards....--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you are technolagically very advanced, but it is so ridicoulus to use IPs to support your point of view and its is even more ridicoulus to use SOCK PUPPETS for voting. Shame on you. I have NEVER EVER used a sock puppet for attacking others ... not to talk about VOTING!!!!! You should be banned.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
you used en.wp for some harsh comments that needed an oversight er action on Donna gedenks talk page and now you are standing here and saying the block was injustice? You want to be unblocked? Change your way of handling things and accept the mistakes you made on en and de instead of praying you didn't do anything wrong. You did many mistakes. --2A01:598:9283:F11E:B533:4769:8FB1:5300 07:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. How can you speak of "some harsh comments" if you don't even know what I wrote. "You want to be unblocked?" Yes! I think, injustice was done. The lady, that blocked me, does not speak sufficiantly German to be able to understand what I wrote. She relied on crazy accusations only. She did not ask me. I did not have a voice in this trial. The principle of Western justice is based on (a) a trial in public, where the defendant can defend himself (!!!!!), (b) the possibilty to appeal the verdict, decided by another judge. I was denied both. I am still denied justice. This procedure puts Wikipedia in a very strange light. I really do think, that this very weird procedure is endangering Wikipedias claim of being democratic. First of all, I want to know what I have been accused of ..... Only thereafter I can decide, if I did something wrong. But one thing I can be sure of: My statements do not merit a lifelong ban! Yes, I made some jokes, but WITHOUT naming anyone! I already admitted, that it was a big mistake that I wrote there in German language. But the content of my writing was NEITHER insulting NOR of any danger to Wikipedia and its contributors.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can have a look at what I did in English Wikipedia. I have never participated in disruptive behavior. I have never before been blocked. There was no warning, there was no edit war, there was no harassment! [9] [10] I have created several articles, have not done any harm to anyone! I want justice.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've got it now. The stupid oversighters on enwiki deleted some harmful fake jokes you made. Claro, stupid as they are. -jkb- 18:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
harmfulless fake jokes … This is, what I meant. And I did not call anyone stupid!--Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Question for you @Meister und Margarita: will you agree to confine your issues with other editors to de.wikipedia? Your sockpuppet case on en.wikipedia and oversight block there are of your own doing and the whole "I must right great wrongs" mentality appears more like you are throwing your toys out the pram. --Cameron11598 (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't have a real chance to respond before you decided what was best. The answer nevertheless is Yes.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: somebody is talking about you here, -jkb- 21:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long should this accusation last?

edit

Or should I call it hunting? --Wagner67 (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stopp now. 2 month and the community is clear. This voting is clear. The longer it will run the supporter starting this request will becomed blamed by themself.--Michael Kramer (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Es steht euch beiden frei, sich an Stewards zu wenden anstatt hier zu pöbeln. -jkb- 21:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Meister_und_Margarita&oldid=24929031"