Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mackeriv

Description
User:Mackeriv used the administrator privileges to block User:Mateusc (me) about my last editions in orkut article, ignoring the Edit Summary. He's involved on the dispute of Brazilian Invasion section Talk:Orkut. After duly reported, Mackeriv speaks lowering the user, claim cynicism acusations and promissing "watching the user" after all.

I ask for the Administrator status be revoked, for everything of bad and ackward that the admin made me to pass, and for abusing authority being involved. --Mateusc 21:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (Mackeriv | talk | contributions)

Synopsis by TenOfAllTrades

 * The key events of the dispute appear to be as follows. I have tried to present them in a neutral manner, and hopefully all parties can agree on these basic facts.  This synopsis may be endorsed separately from my opinion in a later section.


 * In mid-May, Mateusc added a substantial amount of text to the Orkut article, relating to a "Brazilian invasion" of that service. (Article history).
 * Concerns were raised on Talk:Orkut about the presentation and neutrality of that section by Mackeriv, among others. Mackeriv was the first editor to comment on the additions:.
 * A sometimes heated discussion involving Mackeriv, Mateusc, and a few other editors ensued.
 * Mackeriv declared the matter closed on Talk, and things were quiet on the Orkut article.
 * On June 22, Mateusc made the following changes to Orkut:.
 * Mackeriv substantially (but not entirely) reverted those changes: Mackeriv's edit, net diff.
 * Mateusc reverts Mackeriv's changes:.
 * Mackeriv reverts Mateusc's changes:.
 * Mackeriv blocked Mateusc for 24 hours:, and left a notice to that effect on Mateusc's Talk page: . The given reason was
 * "User disrespected the consensus reached in the orkut article, regarding the adding of biased content. Was warned many, many times, yet insisted on reverting"
 * A complaint was lodged on WP:AN/I regarding the block:
 * Mateusc was unblocked about ninety minutes later by CesarB: . Stated reason for unblocking was
 * "Innapropriate block"
 * A discussion followed on WP:AN/I: here.
 * See also
 * User_talk:CesarB
 * User_talk:Mackeriv

Users who endorse this synopsis

 * 1) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --cesarb 28 June 2005 05:13 (UTC)
 * 3) --Mateusc 20:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

CesarB's addendum to TenOfAllTrades' synopsis
You forgot User talk:Mackeriv.

Users who endorse this addendum

 * 1) --cesarb 28 June 2005 05:18 (UTC)
 * 2) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 28 June 2005 15:48 (UTC) (Good catch; I missed that one.)

TenOfAllTrades' opinion

 * The following section represents my opinion of the situation. It may be separately endorsed from the (hopefully) strictly factual section above.

Neither Mackeriv nor Mateusc have distinguished themselves in this encounter.

I strongly suspect that language issues have played a role in this conflict, and should not be discounted. No doubt communication has been more difficult than usual. Nevertheless, neither party was diplomatic on Talk:Orkut, and both should be encouraged to recognize that assuming good faith is particularly important when language problems may be at work.

With respect to the content added by Mateusc to Orkut, the material needed some serious cleanup and NPOVing. I note that an appreciable part of it remained following the May dispute, however, suggesting that it certainly wasn't vandalism or a hoax.

Mackeriv has erred seriously as an admin by using blocking tools in a dispute in which he was an active–indeed, a leading–participant. I await Mackeriv's explanation of which part of the blocking policy permitted his block of Mateusc.

This appears on its face to be an isolated incident. A quick review of the Block log indicates that Mackeriv is generally quite light in his use of blocking:. Under the circumstances, calling for desysopping would seem to be a bit overblown. Mackeriv would be well-advised, however, to refrain from using his admin powers where he is party to a content dispute. I strongly caution him that another such lapse in judgement would be very worrying, though I'm sure it won't come up. I would also urge him to take the high road, and offer his apology as a gesture of good faith.

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) David | Talk 28 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)
 * 3) Looking at the page, Mateusc might originally been at fault, but Mackeriv didn't help when they came running in cursing. humblefool&reg; 01:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Humblefool rewrite and actual revision it's good for me, because keep the same facts that I wrote in the article. Now, I see Mackeriv just can't nothing because has other member who endorse the facts that him want hide. Mackeriv act was abuse and coward, because him saw that few people observes the situation. I thank the community for having intent members on barrack duty who this citizen made of the Wikipedia land of its personal authority. Special Thanks to User:Humblefool to rewrite and fix some POV from me and User:CesarB to show Mackeriv who He is. --Mateusc 21:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Mateusc
My problem with Mackeriv it’s him words. He use it with elitist vanity when talk with me, try to be superiority, lowering and intimidating me.

My proposal of revoke admin status isn’t because the Talk:Orkut dispute, but the acts of Mackeriv as a Administrator. Exactly when displayed in Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard, Mackeriv doesn’t give up being one proud face and lowering me many times.

Mackeriv for me, passes an bad image of the Wikipedia Administrator’s Team, because him behavior doesn’t repestect the users and your opinions, contributing to friction the authoritarian superiority Admin using the force instead of the talk.

My final comment, everything know: I’m offended with Mackeriv behavior, because he look for measure forces with me, being apparently provoked with all the colloquy in Talk:Orkut.

My proposal
Administrator status of Mackeriv revoked. He shown in this episode what an Administrator can’t make and can’t be.

Users who endorse this summary

 * 1) Mateusc 28 June 2005 15:26 (UTC)

CesarB's opinion
I stand by what I said on User talk:Mackeriv:


 * Gente, vamos evitar fazer uma tempestade em um copo d'água. Errar é humano.

(loose translation: "People, let's avoid doing a tempest in a teapot. To err is human.")

Users who endorse this opinion

 * 1) --cesarb 28 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

Comments by Mackeriv
I will add my opinion because I was asked to do so. The accusations on my person are two. Taking actions in a dispute I was "involved" with, and blocking a user for not warning him at his talk page. These are the only accusations that were brought onto me, and they are the only ones for which I will respond. Other comments are just to illustrate my point of view. If these so called rules were broken by me, then yes, I've failed with the policies. Plain and simple like that. Nothing can be said to help that. I am enough of a man to admit it, instead of running away. Everything that is to be seen is there. I've never deleted evidence. I've never taken anything away from the eyes of other users. There is nothing to hide.

TenOfAllTrades mentioned the possibility that the language issue might have played a large role on this situation. He is right. However, that does not apply to me. I've chosen to edit the English Wikipedia not only because I'm more comfortable with it, but also because I do speak English. I have no problems in communicating at all. I do understand everything that is said, and nothing prevents me from replying in the same degree. Also, I prefer to communicate in English, whether in article talk pages or user talk pages. That way, everything will be more than well clear. The other user, however, doesn't seem to be well into the language. Evidences are many. He also sometimes fall back and starts conversations in Portuguese. It's something that should be noted, because it was on that language that he mentioned something very important. Something he said he will do here in Wikipedia, and I will get to that later. That, unfortunately, cannot be understood by users that don't speak such language, so it pretty much ceases to be an argument. But I'll get into it.

Now, my motives. For anyone that took the time to really look into the whole issue to actually understand what happened, what keeps happening and what is about to happen, without taking unthinked measures, certain things are very obvious. Very obvious. The only user that did that, in my opinion, is TenOfAllTrades. Only someone that gave a good look into the whole problem would have been able to write such a summary, which is neutral and shows only and exactly what happened. This whole problem began near mid-May, and it involved this content. It can be seen right at the left part. The content in red. When I saw that, I understood that it had no place in Wikipedia. Right away. I also assumed that anyone else would have thought the same. Clear show of POV. Racist, biased info, based on personal assumptions, full of non-pertaining details that were put there as a backup of those same assumptions.

I ask each and every of you who are taking the time to read through this RFC page to think about that. Think of that article, and of Wikipedia as a whole. Not much needs to be said to understand what I'm talking about. When I saw that, I didn't feel good, obvious. What I did was to rewrite that section (right field in the link) in order to remove the POV and all the other issues on it (a version that was judged to be the best to remain there, by more than one user, in the talk page of that same article). Seeing that not only felt bad because it's everything Wikipedia is not supposed to be, but also because I'm Brazilian. If you people think that is a personal bias of me, tainting me forever when it comes to this problem, cool. However, before thinking that, think of what I said before. I believe it pretty much erases anything that could be said about me. I was enraged, yes. However, that didn't prevent me from doing my job. What I did, on that article, until the official end of the dispute, was nothing but two things. I commented on the subject and brought more people onto the article. During the dispute, I've only edited the article once. The very same rewriting I just mentioned.

As the discussion went on, several other users posted their opinion. In the end, user:Mateusc was alone, sustaining his point of view. Exactly 9 days passed between the first and the last comment on that discussion. That means there was a long wait for a clear consensus to show up. I mentioned several times that, as soon as the consensus was reached, the article would be reverted to the version that was judged to be the best, by those users. In the end, user Mateusc reverted the article to that version himself, claiming "I'm just out of this". When that happened, I declared the case closed. Nothing happened on the article for a long time. My general feelings towards the issue is that, people weren't really seeing the article. As if it was completely invisible to them. I remember listing it at two different places. One of them being this one. Requests for Comment. I can't recall the other. But yes, the dispute was solved. I am an admin, and I was involved on it. In the end, it wasn't necessary of me to take measures. I ask, now. Did I do wrong? Of doing what I did? And most importantly, would I have broken a rule if I took any actions other than commenting? Until the recent events, those questions never passed by my head. Honestly.

June, 11. User Mateusc came back to the orkut article once again for edition. It was nothing that looked like his previous contributions, so nothing was done about it. Nothing wrong on the edition. Ten days later, that user would come back, removing half of that section, adding two of the links that were debated over the talk page as being empty in content for not showing really nothing (less even, of Mateusc's previous claims). Other details were changed on that section as well. His comment: "some rewrite, redundant information (blogs, folog.net) should be writen in Brazilian Internet Phenomenon article". When I saw that, I reverted the article. His action qualified as a disrespect for the consensus that was already established at the talk page, long ago, too. While reverting, I said so in the edit summary. With the clearest words possible. Thought that was enough for a user to understand it and leave the section alone.

Did not happen. In the next day, the same user came back to the article, reverted it once again to his favored version, stating only "Revert to last edit by Myself". After seeing all that, I thought of how many times that user was warned. Countless times. None of which on his own talk page, sure, but it was in a page he DID read, and until day 11, did abide by. I don't know about you people, but that sounds like a hell-load of warnings to me. Said user risked his stay in Wikipedia by doing that. I tried all I could not to do that, but in the end, I just couldn't help. I blocked him for 24 hours. Standard duration. After doing so, I posted this message at his talk page, explaining exactly what led me to do what was done. That is also another standard proceeding when dealing with such situations. The summary I left in the blocked user's log was "User disrespected the consensus reached in the orkut article, regarding the adding of biased content. Was warned many, many times, yet insisted on reverting", as already said by TenOfAllTrades.

However, 38 minutes later, I saw something interesting in the orkut article. Anonymous user 203.197.239.218 added this content to the orkut article. It was much–though not all–of what user Mateusc had added, and which I had previously removed. When I saw that, I suspected something, so I went to check that user's contributions. There were some contributions dating back to mid-June. The large majority of them qualify as vandalism. That does not mean anything. However, I still keep that fact in mind, and thought perhaps you people were interested on it, too.

Besides all that, yes, I suspected there was a large possibility of that user being Mateusc, editing now under an anonymous account. I went ahead and looked into his IP address. The address points to Gurgaon, in the state of Haryana, India. The same info I saw can be seen here. That obviously didn't match user Mateusc situation, which is of a Brazilian user. Now, I do know about the unreliability of checking IP addresses through such tools, even if I know a lot of admins here in Wikipedia do so. I did so, because I wanted to confirm my suspicion.

Anyway, if that anonymous user proves to be indeed Mateusc, that means he was editing under outside his regular account. An account, by the way, that was blocked. As it is known, according to Wikipedia's blocking policy, it is against the rules of blocked users to exceed their block, no matter what are the circumstances. No editing should come from an user in Wikipedia if the same user finds his standard account to be blocked. If it's the user's wish to express his disagreement with the blocking, he can do so, but not by editing Wikipedia itself. Blocked users must accept their blocked status, and their Wikipedia situation of read-only. Disagreements can be vented by emailing administrators, or by waiting for the blocking period to be over. Keep in mind, however, that user Mateusc was not banned, as he claims. He was blocked. Prevented from using Wikipedia for 24 hours, simply. That shall never be forgotten.

After re-adding that content to the orkut article, user 203.197.239.218 started posting this request at the Administrator's noticeboard, just 14 minutes after, as an attempt to free user Mateusc from his blocking status. After he was done with that, he posted this message at my talk page. A message that talks about a controversy that didn't exist, at least, until that moment, and also referring about the way I supposedly ignored his edit summary, which I didn't, when he himself ignored mine, which was something that granted him a blocking period.

What happened after was very simple. User:cesarb, after seeing the anonymous user's pledge, did what he asked for. Unblocked user Mateusc. If what user TenOfAllTrades said is true, that happened 90 minutes after I had blocked that user, and just 24 minutes since the first edit by the anonymous user on the Administrator's board, and user cersarb's unblocking. What was completely forgotten by everyone involved on this, but me, is the fact that said anonymous user might be Mateusc himself, and if that is true, he should have received punishment. Regardless of anything else. That is trespassing of blocked status. Instead of that, the user got everything he asked for. I'd like any of you to go and look into Wikipedia's official policy pages and find me where is that part that says anonymous users are allowed to exceed their blocking boundaries to fulfill their plans.

What ensued after that, consisted of discussions by me, Mateusc, and cesarb, on each of our talk pages. An interesting detail to be noticed, is that no information was removed from my talk page, or cesarb's. It was removed from Mateusc's, however, claiming it was because it "generated constaint ackward" to him. The notice I posted at his talk page right after blocking him was removed as soon as he was unblocked by user cesarb. User cesarb also told user Mateusc to avoid removing messages from his talk page, stating the reason for that. That message can be seen here. A small discussion ensued between both, which resulted on user Mateusc asking administrator cesarb for authorization for removing content from his own talk page.

What happened after is also very simple, and can be summed up: I dared user Mateusc to ask for my sysop rights to be revoked. I gave him my support. Yes, I did that. He mentioned more than once that I am not suitable for an admin position, and that my rights should be taken away from me. The reason for why I asked such a thing is very simple. If such a user, for some reason, manages to take away administrator rights from someone like me, to stay in Wikipedia, contribute to it and move efforts into turning it into a better encyclopedia, along with everyone else that shares that wish, completely loses its sense, and hence, I'd leave it. Right away. You all might think saying something like this makes no sense and might be actually childish, but I'm not alone on this thought. Each and every kind of user is experiencing it, lately. The kind of situation described here is the one that drives new users away, as well as long time ones.

However, I will keep my promise. I'll explain exactly what is it that user Mateusc said that is interesting. It was posted right at my talk page, by the way. However, it's in Portuguese, so I'll translate it so that the information will be accessible to everybody:


 * Yes my friend, because I will now speak in plain Portuguese: what I have witnessed in orkut and in Wikipedia are acts that bring shame to the country I live in, of people that simply ignore basic concepts of democracy and respect to rules, in the name of vanity and pride.


 * Do not hesitate. You know very well what happened to orkut. And you try hiding it to the last consequences, like in the act you committed today.


 * ''Yes, I'm Brazilian. But contrary to you, I don't hide what my country is, I don't hide what the people of my country do and take no offense.


 * I'll still expand that section. It's still not complete. It won't be with so many "Trolls" references as before, but it will bring the clear reality of what happens in the Brazil-Orkut, not even if I have to spend my entire life taking screenshots to prove that what I say true and not POV.


 * No more, and thanks.


 * --Mateusc 02:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will ask of you people special attention to the last paragraph. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds like someone saying he'll come back with the same, old, content that was judged to be inappropriate to Wikipedia, on that same article's talk page. I'm not sure if anyone here still cares for that. Me, it annoys me that someone is able to think and act that way. That someone is contributing to Wikipedia for so long and still has no idea of what it is. Of what is allowed staying here, and of what isn't. Of what is asked of every contributor, and of what's stated to be racism.

There is something that is worth commenting about, too. Mateusc's complaints regarding my adminship. My actions as an admin. As stated by him, "He use it with elitist vanity when talk with me, try to be superiority, lowering and intimidating me", regarding my powers. As soon as he started posting under that anonymous account (by the way, I'm almost without doubts now. It has to be him. No one would have come to him, to help him and whine for him, as fast as that, and in that same way, just to abandon such account right after Mateusc was unblocked), everything looked very clear to me. The way he said he is "scared". The way he said I'm "intimidating" him. Yes, he was counter-attacked with sarcasm. I did not, however, ever insult him. Insulting users, as a direct disrespect for norms seen at Wikiquette and No personal attacks is a common practice seen by many other users are Wikipedia. I've dealt with that before, not to say very recently. But sometimes, nothing is ever done about that, and the simple removal of messages from one's talk page seem to clean that user's reputation magically, as if nothing ever happened. That was not my case with Mateus. If people here think I've failed with the respect to him, well, I think not. I think I did much less than anyone else that would be involved in this dispute would do. I did contain myself so much, nobody has any idea.

You asked for my motives. Here they are. If blocking a user for not warning him on his talk page and acting in a dispute I'm involved with (instead of crossing my arms and let everything go to rubble), I'm guilty. In that case, I apologize for going against the rules. I will also apologize if it looks as if, instead of responding for my accusations alone, I talked about the user that is accusing me as well. While it might sound like an act of cowardice to you, I had no means of explaining my motices without doing so.

I will also ask something to everyone that might come across this. Someone did something. Someone was punished. That punishment was halted. That someone is free. That someone also said he will keep doing what granted his punishment in the first place. If any of you is still interested in making encyclopedia a better place and free of inappropriate content, I suggest to keep an eye on that someone. Because I sincerely doubt I will ever raise a finger to that person again. I might, but it'll be harder. Not because I'm afraid, but because I'm tired of fighting. I am not the one who is afraid in this dispute. Not the one with bodies buried down his backyard, either.

Thank you.--Kaonashi 28 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)

It has been 8 days since I posted my opinion on this page (10 days since the request was made). Since that, nobody else cared to comment, and no actions were taken either. It would be a good idea to stipulate a time for this discussion to end. Until now, no consensus was reached and nothing was decided.--Kaonashi 7 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)


 * Although all your elitist and mocking words, seems that nobody wants to comment its words. I see you as one very badly example in the Wikipedia, extreme vanity, of a proud person and without character to deal with its proper errors. Moan for you to possess this position. It is so strong that it even though intimidates some commentary on about your words. --Mateusc 16:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)