Requests for comment/fi.wikipedia and community action missing in problem solving

The following request for comments is closed. The case is closed. No action was requested, so no action was taken. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google fi-en translation has all translated diff-links.

Stats available here [1]

This rfc is about Finnish language Wikipedia ([2]) and community action missing in problem solving. Otrfan (admin), Lax (admin), how I rendered it, D100a (user) supported taking the problem on meta. [3]

Finnish Wikipedia is unable to solve problems even through comment requests. [4] stays for searching consensus neutrally, but some users (usually administrator) change comment request to a poll, and censor discussion. Problem was signed for "too disorganized discussion, oppose" and even [5] was even tried to change as a poll (User:Gopase+f & User:). User:Ochs (rollbacker) formerly commented to agree the issue (or agree starting a discussion).

Administrators Otrfan and Quadriplegia have had their own comment requests, where first proposal was "immediately remove sysop rights and block 1 month"; comment request had some comments like "problems exist of course, but proposal is exaggerated" and discussion was closed (same user closed former comment request about Otrfan). [6][7].

User:Lax tried to change this rfc to a poll.

[offtopic] I asked one user personally for his opinion and answer was "agree but not going to comment because Otrfan uses to block "protestors".

--Juhko 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest issue & history

fi.wikipedia has a strict personal attack policy (comments about user's intelligence, or non-WP-related issues).
discussion is originally about a change to the rollbacker policy (to automatically give rights after certain prerequisites are met)
The whole discussion
[8] User:Ulrika: "Unsuited people can be chosen as admins and bureucrats too if they manage a successful election tour [for collecting votes] before the election vote."
[9] User:Otrfan comments: "Yeah, but only elected by the community, not automatically."
[10] User:Otrfan, after Ulrika comments "just think about that": "I'm thinking mostly about that this policy change is supported by the same people who stood for allowing open proxies so that everyone would have equal opportunities for disruptive behaviour."
[11] User:Ulrika replies, referring to her earlier accusations of "special rights of the administrators" to employ multiple accounts: "As of now, only those who have technical ability or automatically possess the suitable technology may behave disruptingly. In one of your comments you stated that evading blocks/using multiple accounts is easy (or something like that), but 'teaching that is not relevant here'. Because of that it isn't hard to imagine how many technically able admins, with not many article edits, uses multiple accounts. But that of course is allowed, as we've heard before. I'm thrilled to see when you'll tell this most secretful secret to us common editors."
[12] Otrfan: "I agree, there's some connection between these two polic change requests. The Internet isn't a secret. They even teach [using] it at schools. It pays off to visit one sometimes."
[13] Ulrika: "You're reading wrong, administrators have a right to read wrong, common editors don't have any rights of interpretation at all. I also don't go to school anymore, so too bad. Would you teach me?"
[14] Otrfan: "I think we have a policy that tells you not to tell bad ideas." (see en:Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose)
[15] Ulrika: "They taught it to you somewhere, and many seem to employ that "bad idea" and don't appear to think it's bad at all."
[16] previous "go to school" comment by Otrfan marked as a personal attack
[17] Otrfan replies: "I was taught at school ([schools]), but apparently it's not allowed to advise you to go there."
[18] Otrfan's comment reverted
[19] Otrfan reverts the revert, edit summary "Well this is ridiculous already"
[20] Ulrika continues the discussion: "I've been to [nonsense "school names"], but they didn't teach. I've finished my compulsory education and cannot return to school except by special application [explanations why it wouldn't be a good idea]; the same information could be given publicly on this page or as private tutoring, whichever suits you better."
[21] Otrfan: "If you're at [meeting place] in an hour, I can tutor you."
[22] Ulrika says she isn't able to make it there, but that her "email works just fine".
[23] Proxy discussion moved to Ulrika's talk page, is later removed
RFC was opened, and one admin (User:Lax, who has also used personal attacks against Ulrika, changed it as a poll with (block Otrfan / don't block Otrfan) and User:Gopase+f

please clarify with diffs

User:Albval closes rfc because voting has had result "Otrfan will not be blocked and emergency desysoped", for reason "Otrfan's actions don't have any problems on them."

diff?

Another

[24] User:Lax calling User:Ulrika a "poor little thing"
[25] User:Lax calls editors Ulrika, D100a and S. U. T. (apparently) "a beautiful trio".
[26] diffs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6; very strange "sarcasm" provoking to disrupt Wikipedia

please provide exact diff links

[27] trusted user's edit summary: "go play somewhere else, 'Youth for National Coalition Party'"
see discussion
[28]
- [29] Former admin (currently active hate speaker) openly recognizing [their] systematic harassment against another contributor. "About the purposefulness [of my actions]: I aim to clean up [what you've left behind]. I hope [your editing] calms down little by little."
Fiwiki user proxy socking 213.214.155.10 in Meta to censor RFC. --Juhko 13:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D100a story

Olen pahoillani että en ole ehtinyt työ esteiden takia nostaa asiaa tänne. Pyytäisin että tapausta ei oteta tarkempaan tarkasteluun ennen kuin olen tehnyt sen kunnolla ja yksityiskohtaisemman selvityksen mitä oikein tapahtuu suomalaisessa versiossa Wikipediassa ylläpidon ja tavallisten muokkaajien kesken. Tällä hetkellä ylläpito vainoaa tiettyjä muokkaajia kuten minua ja nimimerkki Ulrika ja muutamaa muuta.15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Earlier translation: I would ask that the case does not take a more detailed review before I've done it properly, and a more detailed report on what's going on in the Finnish version of the navigation and maintenance of the ordinary among the editors. Currently, the maintenance of certain moderators, such as persecution of me and modifier Ulrika and a few other.D100a 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that due to work issues I haven't been able to bring up the matter here. I'd like to request that the case would not be dealt with in detail before I have prepared it properly, and provided a detailed debriefing about what is going on in the Finnish Wikipedia between admins and ordinary editors. As of now, the admins are persecuting certain editors such as myself and Ulrika and a few others. Pitke 09:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Just to clarify: the above text was translation of D100a's comment. First time I read it I thought it was Pitke's and wondered why she was feeling persecuted. –Ejs-80 10:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, I'd collect some diff's more during await. --Juhko 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems in the Finnish language version of Wikipedia

Finnish Wikipedia has been treated on a number of maintenance requests for comment. Most have focused on the former administrator who gave up his duties as an administrator username is Joonasl tasks during afoul of the arbitration committee with members when they refused to take one of his conceived to examine the case. So, he resigned from office, but an administrator during a mission, he was later designated for certain operators and editors with the ordinary led "crusade" at least two well-known editor and Ulrika and Klassikkomies Recently, the editor of Ulrika point is derived from a number of recommendations of the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the inhibitions. Mostly obtained by Ulrika inhibitions are due to such edits in which he has defended himself against personal attacks in which he was even invited to the maintenance side of the roughly train. Here is an example in maintaining the well-known nickname Otrfan Answer:

It too, that the connection between the two practice exists between the proposal. Internet does not have any secrets secret. It is even taught in schools. Sometimes in favor of such a visit.[30]

Ulrika has had to side with certain editors at the center of a strange campaign. Whenever she is back in weeks' duration, even after the closure of certain back later designated as Editors, have started a negative conversation and thus maintenance has been closed while the cause of re-Ulrika out outside the Wikipedia community. Maintenance of this is currently involved in name brands Otrfan, Lax Former administrator of Joonasl, Aulis Eskola, Höyhens and one of the top commented on Gopase+f. Now, therefore, is to slightly raise the debate on the maintenance of the Finnish Wikipedia style bridles or not to obstruct even the serious personalities degree of blame in any way. At some point, administrators have been strangely apathetic to address these deal so has become even raised that the maintenance would be a sort of secret agreement might be a good brother type which does not interfere with other operators of activities than is strictly necessary or action has gone too blatant a former administrator of Joonasl has received one text block career period. So I would like the Meta Wiki into a position on this request for comment because the Finnish can not take a position on the maintenance of fear of retaliation. Although maintenance has also been requests for a comment a few times so they have fallen in the voting where the result is a snowball in hell style, but they are not attracted commentary or substantive discussion, and is thus closed. Currently Otrfan point is going to request for comment, as usual, so many would not see any contradiction in his actions It would be good if even here to be able to deal fairly and get the first two named in the owner out of his duties, and even called off Nironen and Quadriplegia. D100a 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[31][32]

This is the opinion of the ongoing Joonasl administrator Otrfan the Functioning of the comment request: [33] The vast majority of more "do not see anything that Otrfanin issuing warrant the denial of the adoption of.

According to one editor's opinion of operators behavior towards others:[34]Strange argument. The vast majority of more "you're too lazy to take a position hardly even read the Wikipedia internal good brother agreements of texts, polls, polls. Many of them have a conscience, for various reasons, may shy away from public contributions, especially if the approach differs from that of active power users opinion.

Ulrika edits history

Administrators Quadriplegia, Nironen Otrfan and are often the innocent are often a personal vendetta towards the new moderators, or those that they have put pressure on them as the destination of the address requests from revelation, and these are the points I raised objections.

Quadriplegia: Are you the same user as ((User | D100a)) and / or ((User | T1J23))]?
[35] Admin Nironen

Ulrika User pageAulis Eskola :Ulrika does not get removed about Wikipedia than in patches.

Hyöhens:It may be that others who would like to close out Ulrika.
Ulrika: [36]Earlier this year, Ulrika teased so much that he had to ask "Give me already finally be at peace"
One editors :Understand bullying. Stop and let sit undisturbed Ulrika.

Nironen's comment

English used by D100a is quite hard to understand (not that mine is that good either), but as my user name has also been mentioned, twice, it seems that I have to comment this. I have been accused of being often on a personal vendetta against new users (or, as D100a wrote, "Administrators Quadriplegia, Nironen Otrfan and are often the innocent are often a personal vendetta towards the new moderators, or those that they have put pressure on them as the destination of the address requests from revelation, and these are the points I raised objections"). I find this accusation totally false. The only "proof" against me given by D100a is one request for checkuser [37]. In that request I suspected that users T1J23 and D100a are same person, which, according to CheckUser, wasn't the case. I seriously don't understand at all that making a request for checkuser would mean being on a personal vendetta against some particular user. During last few years I have actually made only two requests for checkuser and in that other case ([38]) I was actually right. User D100a, who accuses me of being often on a personal vendetta against new users, has actually made exactly as many requests for checkuser himself [39] [40], and in both of those cases he was wrong. Double standards, I would say. After all, as mentioned before, I find D100a's accusations against me totally false. I have never been on a personal vendetta against anyone, not as an administrator nor as a regular user. Nironen 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, D100a has also requested that my administrator rights should be removed (he wrote: "It would be good if even here to be able to deal fairly and get the first two named in the owner out of his duties, and even called off Nironen and Quadriplegia"). If this is actually the case (I have asked him what he meant by his comment, but he hasn't answered), I really don't understand, why this should be done. I have never been accused of any rule breaks in the Finnish Wikipedia, I have never been blocked there [41] and no one has ever even made a request for comment on my actions there, so it is quite hard to believe that only one user's strange accusations would lead to removing my administrator rights. Nironen 16:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment administrator Nironen

Nironen claims administrator by side in a commentary in its chase. He actually follows the user submits the following page T1J23 me because he suspects and accused of using the user directly to the two new user-poor thing, although actual evidence does not exist. This is not a direct translation of the Finnish version. But this is a slightly edited to make grammatical mistakes and turn out better in the English language:[42]User does not have yet a lot of edits, but already a few give the impression that this is D100a's sock puppet. It is very strange that an entirely new user archive only comment about the request, which has become in recent days about new comments, last comment, only less than an hour before closing. The user's first couple of edits in turn affect my opinion lie editing explicitly attempts to create an image that is not the same person. In the first case the user makes D100a's lots of editing to edit the article, which D100a bit later set aside. and in another case, "an entirely new user" makes it perfectly bushes sock puppet, the suspicion that D100a only a moment later commented on I might indeed be wrong, but when you have doubt about the practical Wikipedia: Multi-user name ("more than one user secret simultaneous use Wikipedia editing is prohibited ") violation, especially so for the benefit of the user himself (user comment on the request for closure), but I have to Address unveiling a request.

[43]My answer to the user T1J23 site administrator Nironen accusations: I'm Nironen asked for the closure of issue in the request for comment on the first day of August 2010 17.59 through the site sent an e-mail. I thought it was just a few name brands playground. Administrators could invalidate the comment request archives if they had seen it fit. I do not sock puppet for, I do not even bother to do so low.

T1J23 answer administrators( maybe Otrfan and Nironen same time?):[44]Wikipedia lumps are the administrator of genius have found a new tempted, when there is no other conclusion. Comment on the request filing is not so difficult that it can learn fast. If the requested value of the owner and the arbitration committee members to close an unreasonable request for comment and it did not intend to intervene so can not help but wonder what are the motives.

[45]My reply address discovery request:Okay so that you do. Hopefully find something not to be unfounded suspicions. D100a 15:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

A comment from an uninvolved user at Finnish Wiki:

I have a difficulty to grasp what is the point of this RFC. I agree that situation is far from perfect at Finnish Wiki and that dispute resolution has not been as successful as it should have been, but in my opinion the issues raised by Juhko are not very relevant:

First of all, Juhko's views biased due to his earlier clashes with Otrfan and other admins. He is currently blocked and still continues to disrupt Finnish Wiki using sock puppets.

Juhko complains that some administrators and users change comment requests into polls. I find that to be an odd accusation, because it is not against the current policy to gauge support of the community for solution proposal(s). In fact, it is expressly encouraged in the example RFC template (which has been in existence since 2006). Having people to sign whether they agree or disagree with a proposal seems a quite sensible way to summarize and it does not exclude discussion in any way. If someone disagrees with current policy, he/she can always start a discussion for changing it. There is no point in complaining if users follow current guidelines.

As for "censorship", I don't see how moving bickering unrelated to topic of RFC to a more appropriate place or removing personal attacks is a bad thing. Point of RFC is to try to resolve the issue in a hopefully constructive manner and unrelated squabbling makes finding solution more difficult.

Lastly, I find the complaint about missing community action quite odd since huge majority of the community agreed that no action is needed in RFCs mentioned by author of this request. That basically saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

I also have a difficulty in understanding what has actually been proposed. Is Juhko or D100a requesting removal of someone's admin status? If so, why hasn't there been a proposal to remove their admin rights in Finnish Wikipedia. Especially it seems peculiar to accuse Nironen of personal vendetta and harassment here without initiating a RFC or suggesting removal of admin status at Finnish Wiki. On the other hand, if removal of admin rights is not the proposed action, what is it that you would like Meta to do?

To me, it seems that one of the problems in Finnish Wiki in general is the unwillingness of some users to accept the opinion of the community in RFCs or the decisions of arbitration committee. If the community disagrees, cabal of admins is blamed. I would gladly welcome any idea that would heal the community spirit a bit, but I see this request as an extension of ongoing differences between certain users, not a serious attempt to find a meaningful remedy. --Jusb 09:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to the periods. I too think that the heart of the problem is only a few users with problematic attitudes. If the regular contributor base of fi.wikipedia was larger, and the community stronger, they probably would have been dealt with with way less lenience. That the most involved users are valuable contributors (when not crossing blades with each other) should not be of any importance when dealing with their behaviour in the community. When an ArbCom resolution instructed a central involved user to keep on good behaviour, it almost seemed that the issue was manageable. I cannot say whether the problem is that there are other users taking sides or not...

What is the point of this RFC indeed?Pitke 08:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Otrfan, D100a, Lax (how I rendered it) 'n some others said better take this on meta so I did it. I'd not use to remove anyone's admin rights because they also have lot's of good work.. other users harassment and policy evasion for someones favor should end? Could someone justify why this request is unnecessary after community agrees fiwiki is unable to solve it's problems? That's because I opened it? Someone had to? --Juhko 09:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A correction to the lie above (I don't waste time to comment other lies mentioned on this page): I have not recommended to move this case to Meta; actually I have not said a single word of any kind about moving or not moving this case to Meta. Lax 10:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[46] , your comment was a affirmative reply to the section. Main thing this was not the purpose. I'd correct it. --Juhko 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems in fiwiki, but disagree on your assessment that "fiwiki community agrees that it is unable to solve its problems". As I said, I'd welcome any idea that would make things better, but I just don't see how Meta is supposed to solve this for us. I commented on your views on RFC policy above. Otherwise, this request provides extremely limited account of the situation not to mention that even the problem has not been defined clearly instead vague accusations. At the moment, I see very little data for Meta to work with. And yes, in my opinion it does not help at all that you opened this request given your history at fiwiki. --Jusb 10:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otrfan, D100a, and Lax answered affirmatively to propose taking this on meta, and I created this comment request with D100a, and closing this rfc by fiwiki-users would be extremely heavy endpoint to censorship. As I said you may request a diff-link to accusations you see as vague, and they'll be very welcome. Anyone hasn't defined what were fiwiki-problems, and as you see Otrfan-comment request(s) were all closed and he's one of main problems. That he has blocked me doesn't help his case at all.. --Juhko 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature and extent of your actions, I think everyone agrees that an administrator would have been remiss in his duties if he hadn't blocked you.

Lax agreed that there are problems at fiwiki, not to any proposal about taking this to meta (as he commented above). I think these alleged censorship issues should be addressed first at fiwiki and here only after dispute resolution is unsuccessful. I'd like to hear your response to my comments about RFC policy and how would you like meta to act. --Jusb 11:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not take anymore position for trolls like that one who rerender their own comments against what they written.. But evenly, this thing which was supported by D100a and Ochs at some was quited with reason "confused discussion". [47] Set they to not attack against each others (not just me?) --Juhko 11:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been too active in Finnish Wikipedia, but I have roll-back rights and over 1000 edits. While I don't make edits to Wikipedia on regular basis, I "lurk" on discussion and recent changes pages every day. My honest opinion about this matter is, that Juhko was rightfully banned from wikipedia for vandalism, vulgar language and general misbehavior. D100 claims he is being "chased" by a few admins of the Finnish Wikipedia, but ironically, he is the first one to make accusations and start comment requests, and it has reached a point where not many people can even be bothered participating in the discussion. I find this rfc riduculous and suggest closing it. FnH 12:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more. Joonasl 13:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for one of most active attackers in fiwiki. Even attackers fight with themselves and each other. --Juhko 14:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: If people are having a hard time understanding this RFC, it could be partly because D100a's comments were machine-translated from Finnish. (At least that's how they appear.) --Jmk 13:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side Note 2: Why is this cat litter here in Wikimedia-Meta? We have got a Sandbox of our own [48] in Finnish Wikipedia, being regularly cleaned by bots. --Höyhens 20:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well this may be enough vandalizing this page from fiwiki admins.. it should be well known where this is enough. --Juhko 12:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Höyhens! Aku506 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Höyhens said it. If fiwiki was a circus, the two people that have started this rfc would be fitting clowns. Alas, we are trying to do a encyclopedia and this kind of trolling is just sad. There are problem users in fiwiki, but they are not the ones mentioned by D100a. Albval 08:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, fiwiki admins posting personal attacks (could someone remove the one above, please?) confirm. :D I'd not like to collect anymore diff-links, but just ask so I'll do it. Stop disrupting encyclopedia-contributors (Ulrika for example) and no problem exists. Ps. I don't ask for my inappropriate block removed although that's one more proof.. --Juhko 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate block? Actually you demanded to be blocked. Eg. in this conversation you said "But...why all the other vandals get blocked, but not me? This is discrimination".[49] You have twice even started a RfC requesting for an indef block. Both times they were deleted, but fi-wiki admins and stewards can find them here: fi:Wikipedia:Kommenttipyyntö/Käyttäjä Juhko. Otrfan 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't request first block which was made because of removing spam from talk page. After it I have requested indefinite block or block removal.. we have talked about it many times and you know as well as me that you have banned me inappropriate. That's right fiwiki needs stewards control there. I haven't said I've never after that evaded block or being some for disrupt. --Juhko 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want me to collect a list of people who confirmed fiwiki community doesn't work and comminity can't solve problems self? I see it's hard to talk constructively with people you hate but please answer to questions above. --Juhko 12:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, collect the names, but please provide better proof to back your claims up. Calling random people "attackers" in this discussion is in fact, an attack made by you. FnH 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per request I'll do it today. --Juhko 12:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ochs's comment Lax's afformative comment Gopase+f saying rfc for a voting after Ochs and Quadriplegia removed Krook's comment which supported blocking Otrfan (see former message)This discussion with former admins requested rights removed without they want to fix anything + User:Henswick's many appeals of fiwiki community and messages leaving slowly fiwiki. Enough, required? --Juhko 12:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For "attackers" see open message of this rfc. --Juhko 12:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see... My point of view is this: While it is true that a few members of the Finnish Language Wikipedia have stated their dissatisfaction with the Arbitration Committee, I can't help but feel that you and D100 are using this to your advantage, and giving a one-sided view of the situation. To me, it looks like you're trying to turn the situation upside down to serve your purpose of vandalising and causing trouble to our Wiki. The real problems are NOT what D100, for example has stated. This is like taking a completely different issue and turning it to a personal vendetta. FnH 08:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm pushing up a view that fiwiki community is a monarky which systematically disrupts some users. What problems fiwiki would have if problem of admins who act like fiwiki was a monarchy did never exist? I never fick answer to that question. --Juhko 12:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true you have right to vanish, but silence / repeated rfc closing requests are very clear examples of admin problem censorship. :);) --Juhko 17:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin anywhere, so really do not see where you're getting at. FnH 21:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't interpreted you as a problem user. Still recommend don't start to be one. Donot? --Juhko 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view #2

(Disclaimer: I am an uninvolved administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser and Oversighter at fi-wiki) This RfC, in its current form and place, is frivolous. MikkoM 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should say it's ludicrous. --Jmk 14:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in this RfC anyway, users in question just keep fighting here just like they do in the fiwiki? --Sovereign92 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I'm disappointed for seeing fiwiki admins and standard users posting personal attacks and disrupt messages here. Meta-Wiki has no opinion censorship as fiwiki does, but fill posts like "People who started this would be clowns" would be removed.. --Juhko 10:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view #3

I am an uninvolved (as far as I can see) administrator at fi.wikipedia. I have seen this "Admin Cabal vs Persecuted Users vs Admin Cabal Supporter Cabal" issue go on and on, most often repeating a familiar pattern: 1) involved user A makes a comment, any comment, on any topic, anywhere 2) involved user X makes a more or less provoking comment 3) the discussion, whatever it was about previously, soon includes a long string of carefully not-quite personal attacks, reheatings of previous quarrels, and accusations. Many others have seen it. It would seem that the only way to solve the case, as multiple requests for arbitration have failed in doing that, and I'm probably the first one to say this, is that the most involved users who seem to constantly be at each other's throats would be blocked for an extended time for years in any case), or infinitely, despite the fact that outside this issue the involved users are very valuable contributors. To me it appears that whenever extended blocks for any of the involved users are discussed, the discussion is withered with the "but they're such [a] valuable contributor[s]" card.

Moreover, to request a block for an involved user, or even expressing opinions about the issue, has a strong possibility of stigmatising the requesting user a part of a pro or anti-[involved user] cabal, thus spreading the issue. I have a feeling that some users, after feeling they've been pulled into it, have deliberately chosen to take a side. I feel that to keep uninvolved, one has to take especial care and most ideally to never enter a discussion between involved users to even request that they'd stop provoking each other.

Another possibility to solve the matter, though I represent it here only as a dry remark, is that the community would enforce the involved users to keep their quarrels in a specifically created "User A vs User X" sandbox with subsections for each of their frequent topics. Pitke 10:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Fiwiki arbcom is mainly used to hound one user there and it even uses it's interpretations against it's former resolutions:[50]. Arbcom work is deliberatery fully hidden and so called "problem users" have been took immediately there because arbcom resolutions can't be argued against.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V%C3%A4lityslautakunta/%C3%84%C3%A4nestys_2010/Keskustelu_ehdokkaasta_D100a
[51] Implication to user's comment about "hopeful article" policy was interpreted as "commenting user but content". This is one example which explains arbcom corruption. Ask more if needed.

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Välityspyyntö/Ulrikan_kokemus_vainoamisesta#Osapuolet D100a 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That explains how arbcom doesn't even try to solve problems of other side but another fact is another side... arbcom is fully unable to solve problems and fiwiki needs outern view and/or steward help. If disagree, please justify and leave us clowns alone. :)) --Juhko 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess wikipedians stay silent 'cause? :D --Juhko 18:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I'm quiet because of your comment about "becoming a problem user". It pretty much sums up everything. You've been a blocked user for years, for being a problem user yourself.... FnH 08:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I admit I have been a problem user after a vandal admin blocked me. Please do not make anymore problems by trolling like this. --Juhko 09:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making accusations without any factual basis behind them. I wasn't trolling, I was explaining the reason why I feel there's no need to continue this idiotic conversation, and once again I request that this RFC would be closed. FnH 13:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatly.. I can pass a diff-link or talkpage link to every accusation. I don't see any accusations from me without one. Pass one? My feeling is that this RFC is out of bounds from fiwiki's censorship and following disruptions by administrations in fiwiki could be collected here and I'll do it. During serious attacks like latest issue stewards can help. Note I'm not predicting what will happen on the future, but fiwiki's censorship tryings don't help here. --Juhko 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case administrator Ville Siliämaa

Finnish language Wikipedia has recorded a number of practices that control different functions. I had two by the administrator under the supervision of their current practices when the marker on the four or five items off the vote. At least two of them are already in different practices in other comparable Poll, have been removed immediately or they would have had to go in vain importance of the debate. [52][53][54][55] [56] [57] D100a 22:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC) [58]I had to vote to suspend itself in order to contribute in some way similar practices, although the interpretation Even here, came a new experience on how different footing can be moderators of these two different administrator and moderator of one's brother maintained a good circle. D100a 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC) This is one of the strangest requests for comment a series of Finnish language Wikipedia fi:Wikipedia:Kommenttipyyntö/Käyttäjä Auru Aro and another example fi:Wikipedia:Kommenttipyyntö/Käyttäjä_Samulili Archived Requests for comment fi:Luokka:Arkistoidut kommenttipyynnöt D100a 12:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case Quadriplegia

In these examples, the case provides evidence that some operators are taking some of the editors 'magnifying glass' below and start the blame game. They will be able to operate their own status, which they use to enable ruthlessly exploited.

[59] How do you explain the comment request, brought up the similarities Edit histories? Could you respond to a comment request
[60]This innocent comment editor was blocked according to the call even though he had not participated in any jurisdiction in which he would be able to capture the inhibition to justify.
[61] Blocked for who knows how many of the same troublemaker multiple of the symbol (altter) and on e week later Quadriplegia : Blocking withdrawn. conducted follow-up.
[62] So, you think that I leave at my talk I could respond to the message said. Good to know! Such modifications have previously been repealed although vandalism

[63]I will repeat it. The second prosecution of the unknown / stupid is prohibited personal attack.
[64] At least not from thy son running there. I would have thought that here we can make some heavy accusations towards others. Hopefully, you will lose administrator action den tämäm debate. Quit like that.
[65]Quadriplegia is thus guilty of a number of offensive comments and fears that the public, including User: D100a hobbies include sock puppets multiple accounts. None sock dolls not been demonstrated substantiated. Thus Quadriplegian administrator was to be removed, and give him a month of anti-personal attack and "without substantiating the suspicion of abuse, or user behavior accusations without proof, are prohibited"

He has been asked corresponding to a request for comment, but he did not want to cooperate in the matter, and his friend since the time voted against the request for the closure of this comment which is quite an amazing situation in Finnish language wiki project.

User:D100a targeted comment request, there was no way that user:Jaska 31 would have been in my sock puppet, or anyone else.

[66]"Jaska 31" to prevent someone to permanently clear the user's sock puppet by anti-Wikipedia has otherwise been mostly negative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D100a (talk • contribs) date. -- 95.246.175.94 13:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any problems existing in the diffs you've provided. Your sockpuppet got blocked from wikipedia, and you've been warned several times about your actions, like you should have. That's all you're showing here. Edit: Dif #65 is your OWN comment. --FnH 13:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really have CheckUser-function in fiwiki, which has given only negative arguments against that logic. Quadriplegia is one of the most arduous fiwiki admin. His/her intentional logical fallacies are linked on rfc (which MiPe closed after result that Quadriplegia should not be emergency desysoped because overkills don't fill the "requirements"). That user got blocked for one agree comment for D100a, which was done after accusation about "provocation to disrupting". Quadriplegia's rampaging around user talk pages enjoys very much temper with other admins' strong support. --Juhko 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, AnssiK was threatening to cause trouble (to tease sysops). 83.245.228.34 18:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please link me one diif teasing sysops (doesn't include noticing sysops teasing other people..), so I'd believe that. --Juhko 13:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yourself proved that kind of diff link already. --MiPe 10:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't include noticing sysops teasing other people.." as it doesn't include sysops teasing other users. I don't see the significance of your comment. --Juhko 14:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal indictment by User:Otrfan with no reason

[67], discussion Criminal indictment (see Google Translation) without any reason specified but asked. I'd request at least removing. --Juhko 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[68] User:Jisis blocking IP-address after moving discussion into Community portal; after another administrator had noticed IP-address about the place for discussion, right place would be the Community portal. (edit: and rollback tool misuse when reverting discussion moving to community portal, which resulted content removal) --Juhko 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juhko, You could already stop this nonsense. 87.93.20.72 19:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right when admins stop it before me, I'd stop it. Includes for example criminal indictments..? --Juhko 20:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the present time Finnish language Wikipedia

Two administrators of victimizing conscientious journalists sock doll, or that the use of two ID.[69] and here too[70] Moderator Otrfan level editor D100a this month, accusing the two simultaneously with the use of the logo when he was denied the pretext of "provocation" here [71] Blocking listings D100a [72] Me to be unduly inhibited, although I would not have been found guilty of any abuse. T1J23 two admistors http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keskustelu_k%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4st%C3%A4:T1J23#Sama_k.C3.A4ytt.C3.A4j.C3.A4_kuin_D100a.3F. Administrators prevented him even though this is completely unknown to the editor. Finnish Wikipedia seems to be a problem for maintainers who do not want to follow the rules which others have to bow to intimidation and undue blame. Finnish project, therefore, has become almost impossible to work.