Requests for comment/Severe conflict involving problematic sysop on pt.Wiki

The following request for comments is closed. This is a local content dispute. There is no cause for Meta to overrule the autonomy of local wikis here, regardless of who is right on that content dispute. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 03:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

---

I need help solving a serious problem that currently occurs on Wikipedia in Portuguese. I don't know if this is the most appropriate place, but I need to draw attention somehow. At this moment, a Wiki-pt sysop is submitting several articles with references and sources for deletion by community consensus. Even if users point out that there is an explicit conflict of interest in their actions, administrators do not want to take any action. Some even want to do something, but they can't because it is quite problematic and has already caused several problems.

A few years ago, this administrator already committed editorial harassment by stalking all my edits and apparently this behavior has not stopped. I try to demand explanations, but he ignores everything and still acts mocking my arguments.

Please, I ask for an urgent collaboration to solve this case. can't go on like this! wiki-pt has become a very hostile and toxic environment. .J. ^tlk 12:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Please submit all relevant links, like which edits, logs, etc. Or we may have to close it as lack of clear evidence.--Jusjih (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

There probably isn't any. All of the decisions of which Jardel appears to be talking about were based on a consensus on the Portuguese Wikipedia. As the user literally said above, the sysop is submitting for a deletion by consensus, and there are problems with the articles — even though they probably will not be deleted, as you can see here, it has eight votes for keeping/merging and only three for deletion. Considering three people sided with the proponent, there's clear evidence that he had a reason to nominate the said article for deletion, as happens with most, if not all, of the nominated articles.

And is quite hypocritical for a user that was banned in a block discussion for literally calling a sysop/CU a bastard, another sysop trash and yet another very respected user in the community, ex-sysop, a worm, including another attacks. This RfC was opened erroneously by a user whose reason for opening was personal and for self-fullfillment, not really to solve any problem. Eduardo Gottert (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Having taken note of who the "accused" sysop is, my message remains the same. All of the articles about radio stations are in a extremely precarious state, not complying with the verifiability principle in the slightest, and a great amount of the articles does not meet the notability principle either, for its recognition being too regional. Most of the articles uses as sources databases of radios or primary sources, thus not complying with the principle. Adding to that, as I said above, every single elimination of radios had a consensus where at least one person agreed with the proposer, as it's stated in our AfD (EC) rules. Simply put, an article can only be eliminated if at least two users agrees with the proponent and, if there is major support to keep the article, then it is, and if there is good arguments for both sides, it is put to a vote. You can see, as an example, that eliminated radio article has atleast two people's support here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

There are no monocratic decisions when it comes to deleting articles, especially considering AfDs/ECs. The sole problem is that, again as mentioned above, Jardel is (correctly) indefinitely blocked from any discussion within the Wikipedia namespace, where AfDs/ECs take place, for attacking other users, breaking wiki.pt rules, and other things you can check here. Their intentions with this RfC are purely personal, for revenge against a user and self-fulfillment. Eduardo Gottert (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Jardel is a user permanently banned from discussion namespaces in Portuguese Wikipedia for wreaking havoc and insulting other users, including the ones involved in this case. I've already talked about it in enwiki AN/I, so I think it isn't necessary to copy and paste the message here. Eduardo Gottert (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jusjih: Probably, he is referring to Sturm, who has been submitting low-quality articles for deletion for quite some time. There are a few points that could spark some discussion, such as the high number, but nothing that justifies the accusations made by Jardel in this topic.

As Eduardo Gottert pointed out above, Jardel is a problematic editor who frequently expresses his frustrations with Wikipedia, sometimes in an aggressive manner, and, most notably, exaggerates his editorial conflicts, treating them as serious abuses by administrators. In reality, they are not. They are simply community decisions that diverge from his beliefs.

The case in question is quite clear in this regard. Sturm has already proposed the deletion of hundreds of articles about musicians, religious entities, and now he is proposing the deletion of articles about radio stations, one of Jardel's areas of interest. It didn't take long for him to start expressing his frustrations again.

Perhaps he is trying to get permanently banned from the Portuguese Wikipedia, as he is currently in a situation where few people take his claims seriously. If he continues to cause problems, such as accusing an administrator of harassment in such an irresponsible manner, it's possible that the Portuguese Wikipedia community will start to realize that his presence on the project is unproductive, compared to the "damage" he has caused and continues to cause. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 08:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Edmond Dantès. Jardel's intentions with this RfC are purely disruptive. These intents could, and if it stays the same, probably will lead to a permanent block from all namespaces, after which they'll come back here with the same "justifications" for opening an RfC, saying that the "community is toxic", when in fact it is they who are acting in bad faith. Eduardo Gottert (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I would like to issue a retraction, as I initially thought the topic was recent. My mistake in this assessment was due to Gottert's comment and the fact that the same issue that apparently led to the creation of this topic is still being discussed, with Jardel making provocative comments 1 e 2. Edmond Dantès ^{d'un message?} 07:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice it either. Such a coincidence that some altercations with this used happened to be in the same period of the year, I saw "18 December" and thought it was 2024. But yeah, the issue still remains (and isn't a issue, honestly). Eduardo Gottert (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Shit, that was bad. Vanthorn (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)