This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index Watercooler De-adminship of Jorge Queirolo Bravo on es.literatura
FANDOM's forums are a place for the community to help other members.
To contact staff directly or to report bugs, please use Special:Contact.

50px-Replacement filing cabinet.svg

Note: This topic has been unedited for 897 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

De-adminship of Jorge Queirolo Bravo (talkcontribs) on es.literatura.

Moved from Wiki adoption requests

I'm sorry for opening this request here, but I couldn't find anyplace better to do this. I'm requesting Jorge Queirolo Bravo (talkcontribs) de-adminship from Literatura Wikia based on the following violations of Central Wikia policies, GFDL, and sockpuppetry to sabotage community decisions:

It's important to note that Jorge Queirolo Bravo (talkcontribs) is administrator of Literatura Wikia by adoption, not by election of the local community.
Violation of GFDL policies.

Jorge Queirolo Bravo it's deleting the {{Wikipedia}} template from several articles without basis. Although I've explained this in this talkpage, and tell him that a derivative work must always quote the source of the original document in order to respect the GFDL license; he isn't willing to accept this. In addition, he has full-protected the article Federico García Lorca, víctima de la intolerancia because he says that he is the author, and he has full copyright over it (the intellectual property record #148.015 in Chile). And therefore, no one can edit the mentioned article. I've mentioned that by publishing the article in Wikia he agrees to release the content under GFDL, but he's not willing to accept that and unprotect the article. It's clear that the user doesn't understand the GFDL license and Wikia policies correctly, one of the most important things an administrator should understand.

Arbitrary full-protection of his articles.

This not only violates Central Wikia policies of w:c:Help:Common mistakes and w:c:Protection from where I quote:

Thinking you own the wiki Even if you requested the wiki be created, you do not own it. The wikis are owned by the communities, not by any one user.

See Ownership.

Protecting pages unnecessarily

The majority of pages on all Wikia should remain publicly editable, and not protected. Pages may, however, be temporarily or permanently protected for legal reasons (for example, license texts should not be changed) or in cases of extreme vandalism or edit warring.

And from w:c:Protection:

The majority of pages on all Wikia should remain publicly editable, and not protected. Pages may, however, be temporarily or permanently protected for legal reasons (for example, license texts should not be changed) or in cases of extreme vandalism or edit warring.


  1. Do not make the common mistake of protecting pages unnecessarily. For example, do not protect a page simply because it is the main page.
  2. Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page except to add a notice explaining the page is protected.
  3. Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over. Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only act as servants to the user community at large.
  4. Avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism.
  5. Temporarily protected pages should not be left protected for very long.
  6. Talk pages and user talk pages are not protected except in extreme circumstances.
  7. The protection of a page on any particular version is not meant to express support for that version and requests should therefore not be made that the protected version be reverted to a different one.

But also violates wiki spirit. Jorge Queirolo Bravo (talkcontribs) has full protected without a proper reason every article that makes reference to him or his work. The articles are: Novela negra, Jorge Queirolo Bravo, Moscú sin visa y Federico García Lorca, víctima de la intolerancia. Those articles are full protected with the reason of "very likely to be vandalized". It's important to note that all the articles in question has references to Jorge Queirolo Bravo. His biography, his first book (Moscú sin visa), his essay (Federico García Lorca, víctima de la intolerancia) and a paragraph about his work (Novela negra).

Doesn't hear community opinion

Me and Davichito (talkcontribs) who's also administrator on Literatura Wikia repeatedly tried to tell Jorge Queirolo Bravo (talkcontribs) that his actions aren't right. You can find this discussion in here. The response of Jorge Queirolo Bravo (talkcontribs) was to arbitrarily rollback a community decision. The community decided that his protections were unnecesary and he re-protect the page without explanation.

Uses sockpuppetry to force community discussions

After the unprotection of the article Novela negra, he used and anonymous IP to vandalize his own articles. You can make a checkuser verification on this, and you'll find that the anonymous user and Jorge Queirolo Bravo are related. In addition, he was blocked from Spanish Wikipedia for the same reasons: sabotage and sockpuppetry to support his point of view. You can find information about this here, here and here. Also, the IP that edited his article in Literatura Wikia at the same time also edited the article Ecuador in Spanish Wikipedia introducing a similar information that Jorge Queirolo and his sockpuppets made there before the expulsion. Previously, another IP of a similar range tried to force a community discussion into Jorge Queirolo Bravo's point of view. That IP has also made editions in Spanish Wikipedia, where he harass the user Juancho100, who was in a dispute with Jorge Queirolo Bravo at the time he was expelled from Spanish Wikipedia.

He's not building a community.

The last user who create an article in Literatura Wikia was frightened away by Jorge Queirolo Bravo. The new user's edits has a couple typos and grammar errors, and Jorge Queirolo Bravo protected the page the new user was editing to prevent further editing and eliminated the new content. The other administrator of the site, Davichito (talkcontribs) noted this, and reverted the protection, restored the deleted content and presented apologies to the new user, but was already late the user never edited again. Davichito (talkcontribs) asked Jorge Queirolo Bravo for an explanation about the issue, and he responded that the grammar errors in the editions made by the new user provoked the rollback and protection. Davichito (talkcontribs) counted and solved the grammar errors, counting only 10 small errors. Jorge Queirolo Bravo clearly failed in presuming good faith and abused with no reason of his administrator rights.

If any spanish speaker read this, there is more information about this issue in Foro:Politicas, Usuario Discusión:Davichito, Usuario Discusión:VálvulaUno and Usuario Discusión:Jorge Queirolo Bravo. If any clarification is needed, please ask me or Davichito (talkcontribs) for confirmation of my story. Regards. VálvulaUno 20:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


I add that everything said by VálvulaUno is true. I might mention that the 10 errors were a rounding I made, in another post I realized they were exactly 3 of them. I summarize JQB (Jorge Queirolo Bravo, for short) behavior and what we have tried to do to solve the problem:

JQB behavior and our attempts to gain consensus

1. JQB decided that wikipedia templates to inform the source of articles copied from there were not needed. (I agreed with him because I had not read the GFDL. As soon as VálvulaUno entered the wikia, he clarified things for us.)

VálvulaUno told him he was wrong and he thought VálvulaUno has a "special interest on him" and accused VálvulaUno to be an administrator with animosity towards him, from Wikipedia-es. VálvulaUno replied he had no interest on him but on GFDL.

2. JQB reverted changes by user Tatiana Misluka with the reason: too many errors and low quality editions. He then deleted the talk page, without valid reasons and then protected it against creation. After that, he protected the page itself, also.

I reverted his arbitrary measures and apologized the user but it was too late. We lost a new user.

3. He protected all the articles he is mentioned because he was "sure they would be vandalized as his articles were vandalized in Epistemowikia".

I told him it was something like autopromotion and against wiki way of things. It's absurd to protect articles because I am mentioned there. I proposed something different: to link his paragraph from another page, a template, so we would only have to protect it. He said nothing. So, I tried another approach, to make a fork of pages, something like w:c:es.literatura:Novela negra and w:c:es.literatura:Novela negra, versión JQB. So, I renamed actual article to the second, referencing his name and then I created Novela negra from Wikipedia. I edited the article, added several paragraphs, fixed some errors, added a picture. But JQB ignored everything I had made and deleted my page, then restored the original name of his version. The result: he wiped all of my changes, completely overwrote my version with his. And I had created a fork, to prevent this. I wanted to have a general purpose article: Novela negra, which would not be protected, for obvious reasons. But he never asked me or contacted me; instead, he just deleted everything I had created. So, my solution was to delete Novela negra, while we get consensus. But I know he will just restore it again, bypassing the community and the other administrator, me. He does not like to search for consensus, it seems. But I may be wrong. He has not commented on any of his arbitrary measures. Besides, it is completely absurd to protect a general purpose article only because a person is referenced in only one paragraph.

4. VálvulaUno decided to fill this request for removing administrator privileges to JQB. I was trying to propose something different: I said to JQB that we needed new admins, that I would be glad to have my administrator privileges removed and his too. That way, we could discuss and vote for new admins. I even requested a bureaucrat to a staff member, for that purpose: to create a new discussion and votation for adminship. He replied he did not like that idea because the wiki would be without "head".

5. Sock-puppetry. JQB has used sock-puppetry 3 times that we know of. First, to vote in a forum, thrice, using 2 different IPs and his main user account. Second, to make vandalism against his own article, using vulgar language to refer to himself... The reason I think he did that was to "confirm" that his pages were going to be vandalized... He did not think we could confirm that fact, that he is the same user, maybe. So, we know he vandalized his own article and insulted himself, to prove a point. I think it is not a policy any administrator should follow. I read at wikipedia:wikipedia:Sock puppetry that it is one of the reasons for the removal of an adminiship. And, as we have seen, he had gone against wikia policies in other cases too. And he has behaved that way many times, not only once. And he has not listened to us; rather he has completely ignored our comments; has wiped our information and acted unilaterally while we thought we were discussing.

My summary is a bit long, but it is shorter than the discussion at w:c:es.literatura:Foro:Políticas. That discussion did not get to consensus, because the user used sock-puppetry to trick the community, by making self-vandalism.

As VálvulaUno decided to create this request, I agree with him because it is the only choice user JQB has left us. I contacted a staff member first, to serve as mediator, but User Zuirdj has not replied to the moment (more than 2 weeks and no reply). I hope this request is examined carefully. Everything we say in here can be read at Literatura Wikia; all of it is provable (except JQB user talk page, which he deleted after he did not like a suggestion I made. I think that is not polite, but he can do whatever he wants with his talk page...)

--David 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of sockpuppetry to force community discussions

VálvulaUno says that I use sockpuppetry to force community discussions. There is no proof that that is true. He accuses me without any valid reason or real evidence and is requesting my dismissal. Why? Is he trying to become an administrator of es.literatura? What does he want?--Jorge Queirolo Bravo 01:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

He claimed that your IP address matches the one of the vandal. If that claim is checked and truns out to be true, he does have proof. Ose TalkContribs 01:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


VálvulaUno talks about a community. Which community? es.literatura only has two real and permanent users: Davichito (administrator) and me Jorge Queirolo Bravo (also an administrator). VálvulaUno came some few days ago. Since that he didn´t make any real contributions. It seems that he has only one real goal: to bother and harass me. It´s the only activity that he had in es.literatura.--Jorge Queirolo Bravo 01:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I said something about not trying to see personal interests in here.

>VálvulaUno came some few days ago. Since that he didn´t make any real contributions.

Real contributions are pointing our mistakes, like he did about GFDL. That's a real contribution to me. Besides, he has suggested many things JQB has ignored. The fact that he sees them as not real is an opinion, not objective. He has an edit count.

>It seems that he has only one real goal: to bother and harass me. It´s the only activity that he had in es.literatura

Now I have to talk to JQB, directly, after I said I would not. Paste or link the exact sentences with which he has harassed you. Do it. Take your time.

I can paste another thing, when JQB accuses him of being a wikipedia administrator with bias towards JQB. That's offensive and maybe harassing. VálvulaUno has never harassed JQB, that I know of. I will add that JQB still lives on the past, on his blocks on Wikipedia. I repeat again, this is NOT wikipedia. This is Wikia. Other people, another situation. Right? See, we said you used sock-puppets and have some data to back that, to certain extent. Show us the exact data you have to know that he is a biased admin from wikipedia, that he has a "personal interest" in you rather than the wikia. Prove it in such a way that everybody who reads your links can think the same. If you are unable to do so, it is your opinion, not a fact. Let's try to talk about FACTS instead of emotions or opinions. Assume good faith, I might add, again, about VálvulaUno intentions. Just discuss what he or I say rather than what you think we are trying to say. Else, we will get nowhere.

That said, I can talk about the accusations VálvulaUno and I did to you about sock-puppetry. We did not make that up. Although there can be doubt, we can tell where we got our thinking about that. It is everything iníteres. I recommend you read it again, specially in the part we unmask your other IPs. It is a cross reference. See, we did whois and found out they are on Chile and one of them in the same city you live. It is not a proof; it may be just a coincidence. The IPs we think he used to do sock-puppetry.

That contribution is clear vandalism and personal insult towards JQB. We wondered why his predictions about vandalism came true. And the answer is here:

Those are the contributions of the same IP in wikipedia in Spanish. It could be random, assuming the IPs are dynamic. But that may not seem to be the case. Because JQB asked me once (in pages he deleted) to go to Wikipedia and change an article (since he was banned). It's hard to say these things but he put them in public talk pages, so, everyone can see the contents of this proposal in his talk page (if he does not delete it now). He wanted a proof I must say everything. So, he proposed me to change something about an airplane in Ecuador; I did not accept since I don't do that kind of things. He proposed to forget and delete all traces. So, in that diff we see exactly the same case we were talking about. So, the IP is not randomly assigned, that IP belongs to JQB. Is that clear? I talk facts, not opinions or impressions. Also, the things he wrote at wikipedia may identify them; about the percentage of Catholics, the airport matter, etc. So, we are not making this up. It is a fair accusation, based on several sources, mainly whois, checkuser and wikipedia. I know JQB cannot answer to this.

So, we see the IPs are the same, both are JQB's IPs. It means he vandalized his own article, insulted himself too. Why? Because we were discussing exactly about that article he vandalized. The question was: "should we protect that article, pre-emptively (it has no vandalism)?". So, everybody can see he created that vandalism, to be right. The article was vandalized... by himself.

It says much about an administrator, the fact that he goes vandalizing pages to "win" a discussion.

Tomorrow, when I have more time, I will put the proofs of the 2 times JQB voted with IPs. It means, he voted thrice in the same forum. And he never accepted it was him. The method is the same, looking the same IP at wikipedia and in Literatura wikia. The proofs are already on Literatura wikia, at the forum and in this article: w:c:es:Títeres. People can read it from there, for me not to repeat this here. But for English speakers, I will put it tomorrow.


Those 2 IPs edited at, as can be seen. If we read the content and compare to what JQB did on Wikipedia, it is the same subject, arguing against an airport and about the percentage of Catholics in Ecuador. It is clearly the same person.

Now, JQB, try to reply to those arguments using a rational approach and using facts too. Emotions won't help prove your innocence in this matter. It will make things worse, I guess. --David 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


The only real saboteur in es.literatura is VálvulaUno. He doesn´t contribute in any way.--Jorge Queirolo Bravo 01:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

JQB, you are insulting a user, you are harassing him by calling saboteur. See, the vandalism made to your page, very likely by yourself, was a sabotage. Notice I don't say anything about you. About that fact. That vandalism made to Novela negra sabotaged our discussion because we had to close it, due to cheating. The reasons are above. Please, can't you talk without insulting VálvulaUno? Let's discuss it without attacks, premonition, personal opinions, etc. Let's talk about things everybody can confirm. Like that links to contributions I pasted. Else, we will get nowhere.

>The only real saboteur in es.literatura is VálvulaUno.

Nobody has said you are saboteur, that I know of. I know you are the most prolific user in that wikia. VálvulaUno proposed your privileges were removed because you are against some wikia policies, that of sock-puppetry and vandalism, a very bad thing for admins to to, IMHO. So, the sabotage does not exist. He made a suggestion. I did it too, remember I told you that we both should stop being administrators for some time and that we should choose other administrator(s). Because we failed consensus. No matter what you think about VálvulaUno, I think you agree we both and the community failed in consensus. So, what's wrong with new adminships? If you are desysoped I would add that I be desysoped too. Discussions with you made me repent asking for admniship by adoption once. I think I will quit the wikia. So, it would be just you and VálvulaUno. I think he will quit too. So, it would only be yourself, being an administrator of an empty (without users( wikia. Would you like that? See, VálvulaUno asked me several times what we should do. But... what you did by vandalizing your own page and then deleting my changes done to Novela negra, you can't deny that fact, ate his patience. Mine too. See, how can I ever try to talk to you if you deleted my contributions for no reason? If, after I proposed unprotecting a page, you protected it again? If, when I proposed 2 forums, you cheat in both of them, using sock-puppetry, and in the last example, vandalism? VálvulaUno and I discussed this endlessly, proposing many things. But you ignored us, completely. Examples:

1. I proposed Foro:Políticas to discuss about protection, deletion of pages and revertions. You never agreed with us neither found alternatives to your actions. You always ignored us and did your will, bypassing what I had unprotected or done. The example is when you protected Novela negra and the last time when you renamed back Novela negra versión JQB to Novela negra, clicking the Delete Novela negra. I assume you did not read my version of Novela negra; you overwrote my work, the paragraphs I have added, the pictures I had put. You ignored my changes and deleted them. And the summary for the deletion: empty. You never learned that administrators should include summaries for all deletions, for instance. So, if I were like you, I would say you are personally attacking me, as you claim VálvulaUno is attacking you. But I assume good faith and just think you did not read my changes and so, you deleted them blindly.

2. I had proposed but you voted thrice. The proofs are the IPs are the same as those you used in Wikipedia. Argue against that fact, not against me. You clearly cheated.

So, I conclude you don't listen to us. You did not listen to me, when I proposed renaming files because, instead of discussing, you just wiped my work. What did I do? I did not restore it because I respect others. I don't wipe other people contributions, as you did to user Tatiana Misluka, for your own opinion, not an objective one.

I hope that your replies are not filled with emotion. Take your time and try to back your opinions with facts, as VálvulaUno and I have made. Notice we don't insult you, we have never done. And you have insulted VálvulaUno calling him "saboteur" and by implying he has a personal interest in you. What's next? Vulgar words, as the ones used in Novela negra, against you? Please stop insulting VálvulaUno. I feel insulted too because I agree to some of this opinions. So, next time you insult VálvulaUno, you are calling me saboteur too.

Besides, think how many people will read this. I don't want others to think we are just teenagers fighting. We are adults trying to find a solution. VálvulaUno and I decided this page was the solution because you did not listen to us, you gave us no choice.

I propose the last alternative, in case nobody mediates in here, as I think it will happen. I quit the wikia and you keep there as the only administrator. Maybe VálvulaUno quits too. Would you be happy? It is the only alternative I see if you don't try to make consensus with us. We 3 are the small community, although small, we ARE the community. --David 02:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that a consensus between the involved parts can solve this problem (because the community is small), but if the problem persist, a help and/or mediation from one of the community team can be useful (I saw that this was made), preferably an active member; at last, if this problem continues to afect the normal activity of es.literatura, the voice of this small, but significant community needs to be listen in this appeal. — Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko (Talk) 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, we need someone who helps mediate in here, from the community team. See the last thing JQB did:

He blocked user VálvulaUno! Now, how can VálvulaUno reply in the wikia or collaborate? It is completely biased. I replied to JQB this way:

I said to him that he cannot block a person with whom he is discussing. It is not fair; it is an abuse. Besides, JQB called him saboteur, harasser, etc. I don't know what to do now. I thought that the end of this matter was close but... I see it is not. We need a mediator because I am tired of trying to argue with him.

Besides, he blocked a wikipedia user, just because she gave me a link to something related to this. Which is clearly unjust for her. I think I will unblock them, but I know JQB will block them again. That is why I put this here, to have a log. Because JQB is clearly mistaken blocking VálvulaUno just for personal reasons. He did not provide an objective reason for that. So, if he blocks them again, everybody can know he did not listen to me. --David 03:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

We been trying to reach consensus for weeks. JQB just don't want to accept some basic Wikia policies. We need mediation for solving this. Now, he blocked me for noticing his behaviour. VálvulaUno 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


I read many pages on es.literatura before decide what to do. Jorge Queirolo Bravo has full protected many page in that wiki and has violated GFDL policies on some articles. I decided to remove his administrator privileges in es.literatura wiki. I can't confirm that he used sockpuppets to force community discussions or decisions, so I will not block him now, but the community on that wiki will decide what to do in the future. Please try to find any GFDL or copyright violation in the wiki and please contact me in my talk page there to help in your cleanup work. --Zuirdj@fandom (talk - mensajes) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Tuve que leer una buena cantidad de páginas en el wiki es.literatura antes de tomar una decisión sobre esto. Jorge Queirolo Bravo efectivamente ha violado políticas sobre GFDL en algunos artículos y ha protegido muchas páginas cuando las políticas lo desaconsejan. He decidido remover sus privilegios de administrador en el wiki es.literatura. No puedo confirmar que ha utilizado usuarios títere para forzar discusiones o decisiones en la comunidad, así que no lo bloquearé, pero la comunidad de ese wiki deberá decidir qué hacer en el futuro. Les pido que traten de encontrar cualquier violación de derechos de autor o de la GFDL en el wiki y que me contacten a través de mi página de discusión en ese wiki para ayudarles en el trabajo de limpieza. --Zuirdj@fandom (talk - mensajes) 17:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)