Requests for comment/Libellous information of User:Dubicko

The following request for comments is closed. Closed as inactive. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC statement by Juandev


Since I came to Czech Wiktionary a few weeks ago, I am under continuous pressure of personal attacks from user Dubicko. The local administration does not looks to be helpful. Two of the recent personal attacks include libelous information about my person. My opinion is that such information should not be hosted by WMF servers. It breaks Terms of Use, point 4. Refraining from Certain Activities.

I’ve tried to propose constructive cooperation to Dubicko and spoke to her several times about her behavior. Her response was mostly aggressive: "stop trolling". After releasing the first libelous information, I have requested steward Hoo man to oversight that edit. He responded to me that I have to ask local administration, like Danny B. So I have contacted him as recommended, but after seeing no response, I have contacted other two admins of cs.wikt: Zdenekk2 and Tchoř. I got the answer just from user Tchoř. He was arguing that such "critique" could be seen elsewhere and it’s not hided, or that I should ask Dubicko, for here measurements.

Since I still don’t agree with Tchoř and I resist it is a libelous information, which should be removed, I come to you, Wikimedia community to ask, for your point of views and recommendations how to solve the conflict. For an easier evaluation I have paid a professional interpreter, to translate Dubicko's last statements.

Statement 1

“I am generally against the fact that people, who were proven guilty of serious misconduct on other projects, and furthermore, whose contribution to content is only marginal, should claim the right to draw up rules (and in a critical tone). This applies to both Juan and Auvajs. If they can stick with it here for some time and if they properly and usefully edit... the situation will change. --[[Uživatel:Dubicko|Dubicko]] ([[Diskuse s uživatelem:Dubicko|diskuse]]) 22. 2. 2015, 12:01 (UTC)” (source)

Statement 2

“Reaperman, don't even let him waste your time. A person, who almost isn't active on any wikiproject and who even wants to get through with his hatred to Danny B. and others to wikimania[1], , is just not worth any reaction... ... --[[Uživatel:Dubicko|Dubicko]] ([[Diskuse s uživatelem:Dubicko|diskuse]]) 5. 3. 2015, 16:04 (UTC)” (source)

More examples


Recently I had a look for Dubicko's/Lenka64's contributions to cs.wikt. I have identified 101 comments done by her during the last 5 years. These comments, I would characterise as personal attacks, libelious information, bad will, bossing, wrong information display as fact, uncivility, driving users out, social segregation, trolling, provocation etc. 24 of these, I would characterise as libelious and another 5 as bordering. So these should be oversighted also. I am a target 21 times, Kusurija 1 time, user X1 5 times, user X2 2 times, user X3 1 time and 1 time wp community is a target. (I dont disclose details (user names, links) not to do more damange than necessary)

Simillar evaluation was recently done by user Auvajs. He found 59 comments of user Dubicko (2 years back), which he think to be wrong/PAs. There was a long discussion about that, unfortunatelly non of the admins involved (Tchoř, Zdenekk2) think her edits are problem. Another 3 local admins (Danny B., Milda and JAn Dudík) didnt show up, even 6 active contributers think it is a problem.

I am not saying Meta or stewards, should work on this problem. E.g. on cs.wv, this problem is managed locally. Lenka64 does not have any edits in main namespace there, since she showed up about 4 years ago. Many of her comments (thats what she was doing there) were found as personal attacks. 37 edits were identified to contain libelious informations. She was given 30 days to come with proves to here statements. Instead she continuted with using Wikimedia servers to distribute libelious information. It was proposed and agreed to hide all of her comments including libelious information (and this is still ongoing). Now Czech Wikiversity has a policy that libelious information, cannot be on the project and must be hided/oversighted. What I am trying to say, that there is no room for libels on WMF projects. It is prohibited from ToU, there is an Overight policy. It demage the reputation of project contributors and it push them away from projects.--Juandev (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of Dubicko


Views by users


You cannot stop it, can you. -jkb- 09:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick and short reaction: I do not consider statement 1 libelous, because Juandev was proven guilty of serious misconduct on other project.--Tchoř (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a prove.--Juandev (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it proof. I can only hardly imagine better proof in the wiki environment and not even you have tried to present some plausible alternative explanation. --Tchoř (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Juandev was proven guilty of serious misconduct on other projects --> in the link above you are saying On the balance of probability, you are not certain, its not 100 % clear
    2. Juandev's contribution to content [on other projects than cs.wikt] is only marginal --> reality is different, I can help you and pick something:
      • 11 500 uploads to Wikimedia Commons - is that a marginal contribution?
      • 51 quality images - is that a marginal contribution?
      • thousands of articles on cs.wp and 2 quality - is that a marginal contribution?
      • VisualEditor user debugging
      • hundreds of MediaWiki messages translated
      • was administering Czech Wikipedia and English Wikiversity
      • etc
    3. Juandev isn't almost active on any wikiproject --> GUC shows my activity (mostly Commons, Wikiversity and Wiktionary)
    4. Juandev wants to get through with his hatred to Danny B. and others to wikimania --> The topic of the proposed presentation will gain me scolarship to Wikimania. Thats a nonsence, that is not how the process works. More over Dubicko, does not know if I applied of if I go there. Dubicko and noone knows, who is the content of the proposal. The content of this proposal si a sociological POV. I dont want to talk, about any names, just sociological dynamics.
All the statments above I consider as libells.--Juandev (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically if somone comes with negative statement about other person, he or she need also a prove. If there is not a prove, than it is libel.--Juandev (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from kusurija


Proposed solutions