Proabivouac's question, (split from "hi") Options

[FT2]

This is big enough for a thread to itself. It's split from "hi", into 2 posts.

FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history.

This seems to be a big one for you. For me, it was something I had no stake in, nor a big deal. It was a routine admin action as you say. You were not just "warning people" as your post suggests, though. if you want to look at the case though, for anyone else this is the link.

Uninvolved administrators routinely get asked to look at difficult or contested matters. I was asked in your case for two reasons - I have no prior "history" and had never heard of your name, and, it was a delicate situation and I tend to be very careful to review those for myself and not assume. My full post is linked above.

Reviewing your edit from almost a year later, I would probably say that it was trying to make a point disruptively, and also, that underneath there was something valid to it. In other words, it is worth saying, "we can't guarantee stuff wont happen thats bad". But you were making edits that together, were disruptive on that general theme, rather than collaborative, and you had a specific sanction because of past disruptive actions, to the effect of "don't do it any more". You know well that introducing a "well by this standard I think wikipedia is X" into a policy page is at best, [[WP:POINT]], and at worst plain disruptive and poor judgement. Whether or not it is factually so, the edit was uunhelpful and that is what I reviewed for. You may want to help newcomers, but not by making disruptive "POINTy" edits. My regrets on the block notice were genuine, if that means anything, but the assessment was neutral and would have been the same for anybody else who made edits of that kind when they knew better and under sanction. That's why you were blocked. I'm sorry it's taken nearly a year for you to feel able to ask more, but I'm glad you have, and if this doesn't satisfy then at least maybe it says "it wasn't malicious".

The page deletions are much easier. I was asked to look at those, and indeed we do have a policy on them. My post to you is here. You'll see this was a case where in July/August 2007 you prepared evidence pages for cases, but they weren't used as at April 2008. We have a standing norm that userspace pages like this are aimed for imminent use, you weren't editing or showing any signs of using them, and they were so old as to be doubtful if the events they showed would have been evidence for any current matter. Even so you'll see I didn't delete them. I blanked them - that is, added a "blank revision" which you could easily undo via history to get the version you edited, if you ever needed it. I also explained it on your talk page (slightly wrongly as you didn't need help to get your text back). Again, I'd have done the same for any very old "evidence page" I was asked about in anyone's userspace, including my own. It wasn't personal, and didn't delete it if ever needed again. But keeping it hanging there endlessly, for no reason, with no likely usage - not a good use of userspace.

Hope that helps clear it up a bit, if not completely reassures.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

This is big enough for a thread to itself. It's split from "hi", into 2 posts.

FT2, per your earlier comments, there is much here to discuss. However, since you mentioned a lack of appreciable interaction between us, I believe I first heard of you when you showed up out of nowhere - presumably solicited from IRC - and, without warning, blocked me for a week for attempting to warn contributors that if they use their real name, they are likely to be attacked under that name on Wikipedia. Perhaps just another routine meatpuppet/adminpuppet block for you, but it made an impression on me. The second interaction between us was your and JzG's deletion of my very detailed and accurate sockpuppet reports (Oldwindybear, Orderinchaos, the first resigned, the second still an administrator) and subsequent indefinite block of my account - immediately overturned, but leaving a very false charge of "harassment" in my account history.

This seems to be a big one for you.

Um, duh? ... times a hundred ... you blocked him for a week, then deleted a bunch of his stuff, then blocked him indefinately. That would seem to be a big one for anyone, don't you think FT2?

For me, it was something I had no stake in, nor a big deal. It was a routine admin action as you say. You were not just "warning people" as your post suggests, though. if you want to look at the case though, for anyone else this is the link.

I looked at this link and even spent a couple of minutes skimming to find the 'warning people' information. I missed it. FT2, why are you wasting people's time giving links like that? Do you think with your vast wiki experience you might take the effort to be a little more precise? When you give a link as evidence, you are requesting others attention. Don't waste out attention if you can't even harness your own by identifying a precise link.

OK, that's where I quit reading. Not worth the effort. Perhaps it would be more comfortable for you at Wikipedia, FT2, where people don't seem to attach as much meaning to words.

[FT2]

So, two more questions for now:

1) Given that you're so protective of your pseudonymity, why did you join in violating mine, and in ensuring that Wikipedia doesn't fairly warn new volunteer contributors of what can happen there?

Glad you asked. If you feel I have unnecessarily given publicly any information about you that I shouldn't have, please let me know. You don't say so above, so the first point kind of hangs in the air unattached to anything. And no, I'm not specially careful of my pseudonymity. It's a website, not the CIA. I just don't much feel an obligation to agonize over it, or to correct others' assumptions or mis-assumptions.

As for the second point, you probably don't realize this; I'm one of the more active users in the area you name. I just don't make a big noise about it. Ensuring Wikipedia informs users of important matters, is a major area of mine. A few sample contributions related to privacy/harassment/blocks:

• Created account creation warning - added this text to warn newcomers what can happen, at the point of account creation:
  [...] All edits to the encyclopedia are permanently recorded, and publicly visible in the history of any page you edit, as well as on discussion pages. If you use your real name, or a username that you go by elsewhere, people looking you up on the internet may see your username and others' comments on your editing. If your editing happens to cause concern, there may be discussion linked to your username.
• Created emailuser logging warning - link
• Independently proposed __NOINDEX__/__NOSPIDER__ request - link
• Added the header and section on "dealing with harassment" - link (and also the similar section for admins being harassed)
• Proposed the email footer that covers privacy and anti-harassment issues - link
• Added the project page instructions how to deal with email harassment and ensure email privacy - old new
• (With Jayvdb:) talk page discussion and edit to [[WP:BLP]] concerning default to delete if no consensus - edit (talk page post)
• Wrote the first help page for BLP subjects to understand how to get a problem changed and get Wikipedia on their side and not get blocked by mistake - link
• Wrote the block information page that actually tells people how to appeal a block effectively, as well as the block message - eg, MediaWiki:Blockedtext

2) What benefit do you see in covering up evidence of administrator sockpuppetry and dishonesty?

It can depend. Cases vary tremedously on what handling might be best overall. For example, in Archtransit's case I was the arbitrator mostly responsible for ensuring full open disclosure was made. I judged the user would try again and was not prepared to have another "runcorn drama" due to Arbcom not providing the information to the community up front. When I saw that work, I did the same again on the Poetlister unblock - ensure the case background was provided to the community to show why the socking was felt to be "compellingly shown" and why the unblock was being done (although to my mind this would have been better if explained in 2007, I understand why it was not.)

By contrast in the JoshuaZ and the recent admin password sharing cases, I endorsed a quiet approach since our aim is what benefits the project most, and in those cases the users were visibly willing to accept there was serious evidence, and to request a desysop voluntarily. (Also in the JoshuaZ case, there were some who felt puzzled despite the evidence, that socking was highly unlikely and that more investigation would be good; interim removal of the tools without a loud noise is fine, while such inquiry is continuing). Obviously some will feel that everything bad should be "publicly shamed with banners and trumpets", but I don't always agree with that as a philosophy.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[FT2]

(Snip)

Um, duh? ... times a hundred ... you blocked him for a week, then deleted a bunch of his stuff, then blocked him indefinately. That would seem to be a big one for anyone, don't you think FT2?

(Snip)

I looked at this link and even spent a couple of minutes skimming to find the 'warning people' information. I missed it. FT2, why are you wasting people's time giving links like that? Do you think with your vast wiki experience you might take the effort to be a little more precise? When you give a link as evidence, you are requesting others attention. Don't waste out attention if you can't even harness your own by identifying a precise link.

OK, that's where I quit reading. Not worth the effort. Perhaps it would be more comfortable for you at Wikipedia, FT2, where people don't seem to attach as much meaning to words.

Apologies, that post was more for proabivouac than anything. If he finds it a problem, he'll say.

1/ The post you criticize as not being precise was labelled as being the general discussion thread for anyone who wants to read more, not "evidence". I also cited the evidence separately, and it was indeed one specific diff link.
2/ Proabivouac's posts were not "deleted" by me. They were blanked per userspace guideline NOT #9, which is completely different. He was easily able to get back to them by clicking the "history" tab as I told him.

I try to use words accurately.

[Update] 3/ I did not block him "indefinitely", at the time, nor have I done so at any time since. I think you have assumed, or got the wrong person. log


This post has been edited by FT2:

[Proabivouac]

Uninvolved administrators routinely get asked to look at difficult or contested matters. I was asked in your case for two reasons - I have no prior "history" and had never heard of your name, and, it was a delicate situation and I tend to be very careful to review those for myself and not assume.

This is your typically roundabout way of saying you were meatpuppeted from admins IRC, which you virtually run, to block someone you'd never even heard of. Don't like quarrels? Don't start them.

[Kelly Martin]

This is your typically roundabout way of saying you were meatpuppeted from admins IRC, which you virtually run, to block someone you'd never even heard of. Don't like quarrels? Don't start them.

See, this is the real problem. Proabivouac didn't need to be blocked for that edit. At best a "Dude, that's maybe not the best way to discuss this" is in order, especially as he does have a point. But, no, you come slamming down on his head with a week-long block, and proceed to sanction further harassment culminating in chasing him off the project. Sounds like picking a fight to me, which makes you a bully, FT2. Such a great example you set.

[FT2]

This is your typically roundabout way of saying you were meatpuppeted from admins IRC, which you virtually run, to block someone you'd never even heard of. Don't like quarrels? Don't start them.

Unfortunately, despite anger, there are several errors in that. Not least that

1/ In reality, I had zero and less than zero 'say' of any kind regarding en-admins in September 2007. I was "just another admin", and focussed on complex AFDs and disuptes, and peacemaking between admins, and helping on delicate cases where wording was needed to help resolve disputes. I had a reputation for dispute work, but no standing - not even channel ops - in an "IRC" sense. That was pure assumption. If you weren't sure if I was active there, ask.

2/ The actual prompt was most likely the thread at ANI, which was reasonably well enough developed at that time. If there was anything at IRC, which I can't be sure, it would most likely have been a heads-up that an admin was needed to review the thread there. I usually ask for the on-wiki link if someone tries to get my attention for a matter via IRC or email anyhow. It's reasonably likely; I don't have a log showing anything, but that's my guess. It already had significant on-wiki posts. Too long ago.

See, this is the real problem. Proabivouac didn't need to be blocked for that edit. At best a "Dude, that's maybe not the best way to discuss this" is in order, especially as he does have a point. But, no, you come slamming down on his head with a week-long block, and proceed to sanction further harassment culminating in chasing him off the project. Sounds like picking a fight to me, which makes you a bully, FT2. Such a great example you set.

Some quick answers. Proabivouac was not someone just blocked at random. He had a probationary sanction at the time, suggesting past matters had been sufficient to need Arbcom intervention and a prevention of habitual "edit warring" and "disruptive behavior" (link), a recent 24 hour block, and was posting blatantly disruptive content, of which this was not the first - content that he knew could not be other than disruptive - on the wiki. Talk had clearly not worked as the same user had been blocked recently too. Sorry, but we run an encyclopedia. I'm very willing to give possible reformers and well intentioned users chances if I feel it's viable. I do look to users to edit with the basics, that's the other side of the deal of "anyone can edit". Other editors shouldn't have to put up with many things, pure disruptive editing being one of them, even for decent motives.

Your personal view beyond that is appreciated, and ignored, for this reason.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Carruthers]

See, this is the real problem. Proabivouac didn't need to be blocked for that edit. At best a "Dude, that's maybe not the best way to discuss this" is in order, especially as he does have a point. But, no, you come slamming down on his head with a week-long block, and proceed to sanction further harassment culminating in chasing him off the project. Sounds like picking a fight to me, which makes you a bully, FT2. Such a great example you set.

Your personal view beyond that is appreciated, and ignored, for this reason.

My, you're starting off on the right foot here, Mr. FT2. Kelly's opinion is not ignored here: it is respected by the majority of the contributors. The fact that you are posting here is enough evidence that Kelly's opinion should not be ignored. As a matter of fact, you should to try consider just why she made the statement you link to above; you might learn something.

Please remember that this is not WP and that assumptions which are routinely made on WP are not the rule here. Users banned from WP and those in positions of power there are treated as equals here. So, your opinion here remains....your opinion here.

This post has been edited by Carruthers:

[Proabivouac]

2/ The actual prompt was most likely the thread at ANI, which was reasonably well enough developed at that time. If there was anything at IRC, which I can't be sure, it would most likely have been a heads-up that an admin was needed to review the thread there. I usually ask for the on-wiki link if someone tries to get my attention for a matter via IRC or email anyhow. It's reasonably likely; I don't have a log showing anything, but that's my guess. It already had significant on-wiki posts. Too long ago.

Blah blah blah… short form: you were meatpuppeted from IRC. Come now, "if there was anything at IRC, which I can't be sure , it would most likely have been…"? This ain't epistemology 101. You were there.

How on earth was this "disruptive", FT2?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160401912
Be specific.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Carruthers]

How on earth was this "disruptive", FT2?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160401912
Be specific.

After reading that diff, I would like an answer to that question as well. I can't for the life of me see anything remotely disruptive there.

[Proabivouac]

"…it would most likely have been a heads-up that an admin was needed to review the thread there.

So who gave you this "heads-up", FT2?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[FT2]

My, you're starting off on the right foot here, Mr. FT2. Kelly's opinion is not ignored here: it is respected by the majority of the contributors. The fact that you are posting here is enough evidence that Kelly's opinion should not be ignored. As a matter of fact, you should to try consider just why she made the statement you link to above; you might learn something.

Please remember that this is not WP and that assumptions which are routinely made on WP are not the rule here. Users banned from WP and those in positions of power there are treated as equals here. So, your opinion here remains....your opinion here.

I wasn't proposing to speak for others. I was speaking for myself. That should have been clear. There are users here who want actual dialog, so I responded to Kelly's first point. The rest - someone who states proudly their main activity on wikipedia has been trolling... uninterested. I don't argue with people making such claims, on their claimed opinions, if avoidable, and she's welcome to the final word. Apologies but my opinions will exist, and be stated at times; it may be best to ignore them when they don't match yours.

[Proabivouac]

[Update] 3/ I did not block him "indefinitely", at the time, nor have I done so at any time since. I think you have assumed, or got the wrong person. log

You think I'm stupid? You blanked my reports on admin socking, I restored them, then JzG indef blocked me without warning. You were in contact with JzG, and with WJBscribe who endorsed it on ANI, and you know it.

[FT2]

Blah blah blah… short form: you were meatpuppeted from IRC. Come now, "if there was anything at IRC, which I can't be sure , it would most likely have been…"? This ain't epistemology 101. You were there.

How on earth was this "disruptive", FT2?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160401912
Be specific.

Of course I would have been there. But I don't have a log showing a request to review the page. So the rest is presumption and guess, which is precisely what I have stated. if someone else has such logs I would appreciate it, if it matters.

Your use of "meat-puppet" is very inaccurate. Meat puppetry is not merely asking for a second opinion - the entire project uses second and further opinions widely, and for the most part legitimately. Asking on-wiki is no guarantee of good faith; asking off wiki doesn't mean bad faith. You have to look at the actual evidence of the matter, not just assume.

And last, I'm being direct and straight with you. Return the favor. If I link to diff A as the one I referenced at the time, don't reply by asking what's wrong with diff B.

Not said in any way harshly, but it would be nice to resolve this, and I have shown willing to do so. Meet me halfway?

[FT2]

You think I'm stupid? You blanked my reports on admin socking, I restored them, then JzG indef blocked me without warning. You were in contact with JzG, and with WJBscribe who endorsed it on ANI, and you know it.

Not stupid. But grasping at windmills. The quick answer is "no". Plus if that's what you think, you need to ask some trusted friends who edit on Wikipedia, if they really think that idea's got any sense to it. I dealt with the admin chore, left you a message what to do if you wanted the content and why I'd blanked it, and it was forgotten 5 minutes later.

I see on review you unblanked it with the comment "do not blank, or will be publicized", and you're surprised the admin who saw it (and another who reviewed it) felt that was unlikely to herald a positive appropriate use of the material you had been told was inappropriate for userspace? Duh.

What the heck (pardon me) did you think would happen ther first time any admin saw it? I gave you clear information what the wiki-issue was, and that these kinds of material shouldn't be recreated on the wiki unless in preparation for some actual and imminent case. You restored them saying "do not blank, or will be publicized" and "restored historic and classic sock report - please do not blank."

If you see inappropriate content has been blanked, and you restore it, clearly not in order to "do anything" with it but just because you want to keep it there despite being told you can't..... then don't start justifying that the block was due to a conspiracy, and not at all due to just your own action and your own wish to do something you knew (from the guideline) wasn't okay, namely unblanking to keep pages like that hanging round without imminent plans to use them. If you have an issue with JzG then ask JzG. I'm assuming you did. I wasn't even aware any of that happened. It was a 10 minute admin chore almost a week before.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Peter Damian]

This refers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proabivouac#Blocked

PB is claiming he has evidence of admin socking, that he published it on-wiki, and that the pages were blanked. My experience of PB is that his research is thorough, and that if he makes any claim, it is likely to be backed up with solid evidence (see for example his evidence on the User:TBP sock which is very convincing). His complaint on the talk page is that he was asked to take it off-wiki.

Which (as well as being a serious issue in itself) raises an in-principle issue of why a site like WR has to exist at all. The reason it exists is that it enables claims to be made, and sourced, and discussed without fear of blocking. I would like to ask FT2 what his views are on that.

[FT2]

This refers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proabivouac#Blocked

PB is claiming he has evidence of admin socking, that he published it on-wiki, and that the pages were blanked. My experience of PB is that his research is thorough, and that if he makes any claim, it is likely to be backed up with solid evidence (see for example his evidence on the User:TBP sock which is very convincing). His complaint on the talk page is that he was asked to take it off-wiki.

Which (as well as being a serious issue in itself) raises an in-principle issue of why a site like WR has to exist at all. The reason it exists is that it enables claims to be made, and sourced, and discussed without fear of blocking. I would like to ask FT2 what his views are on that.

I encountered proabivouac twice only as far as I can tell - in September 2007 (to review a block as someone who didn't know the user or have any history or views), and in April 2008 to blank (but not delete) draft evidence pages that didn't seem likely to be imminently used, and explain why. Hindsight's easy, but if Proabivouac really did have good evidence, then in any particular order:

* Present it in August/September 2007 when it's fresh and relevant. (Not easy to retrospectively arrange)

* If it was still relevant in April 2008, then read the note and realize that it's like the (uncivil?) saying, "s*** or get off the pot". You either needed to decide there could be a case and you're working on collating current, relevant evidence to build it, or there was a case and might still be and ask Arbcom or another user to look into it, or post at ANI that you prepared some old evidence that concerns you, it's out of date but may be relevant, can someone else check if there is a concern... or you drop it if you aren't going to do anything.

* What you don't do is just restore three pages that are collections of diffs making negative claims about users, that you apparently don't intend to do anything else with other than keeping around to make a point in userspace, when you were told that's not ok less than a week ago, and have a prior reputation for disruption already. That's always a risk of some kind of action by the first admin to see it.

[Proabivouac]

Please stop flooding the thread. I asked a question here:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125327

"…it would most likely have been a heads-up that an admin was needed to review the thread there.

Who gave you this "heads-up", FT2? Who meatpuppeted you to block me?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[FT2]

Please stop flooding the thread. I asked a question here:

(Snip)

Who gave you this "heads-up", FT2? Who meatpuppeted you to block me?

Re-read this. Your belief isn't something I can change, but so far as I have a relevant answer 1/ to your question, and 2/ to your inaccurate understanding of "meat puppetry", it's half a dozen posts up the page.

[Proabivouac]

Re-read this. Your belief isn't something I can change, but so far as I have a relevant answer 1/ to your question, and 2/ to your inaccurate understanding of "meat puppetry", it's half a dozen posts up the page.

Quit beating around the bush. Who told you you to block me/take a look at it/however you want to put it? I'm not interested in these semantic games. I want a user name, which is very obviously what you're trying to avoid with these "the map is not the territory" type distractions.

[Peter Damian]

Re-read this. Your belief isn't something I can change, but so far as I have a relevant answer 1/ to your question, and 2/ to your inaccurate understanding of "meat puppetry", it's half a dozen posts up the page.

Quit beating around the bush. Who told you you to block me/take a look at it/however you want to put it? I'm not interested in these semantic games. I want a user name, which is very obviously what you're trying to avoid with these "the map is not the territory" type distractions.

I would also now like an answer to the same question.

I hope PB will forgive for butting in again (tends to cause endless prevarication by FT2), but this becomes a lot clearer with some details around the September 26 2007 block (which I have just reviewed for the first time). Here is the order of blocks

11:17, 26 September 2007 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Proabivouac (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Disruptive editing - see users talk page.)
12:14, 26 September 2007 Slrubenstein (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Proabivouac (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (it isn't dsiruptive if it has not even violated 3RR)

The question is why previously uninvolved FT2 makes the block, since it is clearly undeserved, witness

1. The subsequent unblock (above)
2. PB's good-humoured, if occasionally abrupt edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160448667

and the host of editors rushing to defend his conduct prior to the block:

Now is there any evidence that Proabivouac has been disruptive or at least are there any users, not counting banned editors, who think Proabivouac has been disruptive? The community is wiping its feet at a great contributor with a spotless block log, who helped, for instance, to expose Oldwindybear's sockpuppetry. If Proabivouac leaves, as seems most likely now, Wikipedia will be able to congratulate itself for driving away another dedicated volunteer. Beit Or 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no one has pointed out one single bad thing Proabivouac has done, and the incredible amount of good work he has done is being ignored. It is very sad. John1951 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. - Merzbow 07:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, too. See my comments above.Giovanni33 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This rather supports the idea of blocks orchestrated in IRC, does it not?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Carruthers]

This rather supports the idea of blocks orchestrated in IRC, does it not?

You wouldn't be refering to tag-teaming, would you Peter?

There seems to be quite a lot of that going around....

What was the old expression? Healer, heal thyself! or something like that???

[FT2]

Quit beating around the bush. Who told you you to block me/take a look at it/however you want to put it? I'm not interested in these semantic games. I want a user name, which is very obviously what you're trying to avoid with these "the map is not the territory" type distractions.

Read the above, slowly:

1/ "I don't have a log showing a request to review the page. So the rest is presumption and guess, which is precisely what I have stated. If someone else has such logs I would appreciate it, if it matters."

and

2/ "Your use of "meat-puppet" is very inaccurate. Meat puppetry is not merely asking for a second opinion - the entire project uses second and further opinions widely, and for the most part legitimately. Asking on-wiki is no guarantee of good faith; asking off wiki doesn't mean bad faith. You have to look at the actual evidence of the matter, not just assume."

Read both and understand I mean it. Nobody "tells" me to do any action. This is not the answer you want, but I think the evidence I've listed above will make sense to many users who don't have an axe to grind. If not, I lack a simpler way to say it, and will concede the last word since your question would then become "why did you do <something not done>" and unanswerable (sorry).

I would also now like an answer to the same question.
I hope PB will forgive for butting in again (tends to cause endless prevarication by FT2), but this becomes a lot clearer with some details around the September 26 2007 block (which I have just reviewed for the first time). Here is the order of blocks
11:17, 26 September 2007 FT2 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Proabivouac (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Disruptive editing - see users talk page.)
12:14, 26 September 2007 Slrubenstein (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Proabivouac (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (it isnt' dsiruptive if it has not even violated 3RR)

The question is why previously uninvolved FT2 makes the block, since it is clearly undeserved, witness

1. The subsequent unblock (above)
2. PB's good-humoured, if occasionally abrupt edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160448667

and the host of editors rushing to defend his conduct prior to the block:
(Snips from Beit Or, John1951, Merzbow, Giovanni33

This rather supports the idea of blocks orchestrated in IRC, does it not?

No. It shows (sorry) that you're selective and have difficulty with confirmation bias when it comes to "finding FT2 iz evilz". Did you notice Slrubenstein's talk page, for example? Or that the ANI thread was not 4-0 on the issue as the above might suggest?

For example, you notice that Slrubenstein did the unblock, but you haven't done the research beyond that. You conclude somehow it's IRC, and not anything to do with Proabivouac's own difficult conduct. So let's look at that unblocking admin's posts. (Slrubenstein doesn't use IRC.)

Slrubenstein did indeed unblock on the basis he couldn't see evidence of a problem.

• He unblocked because he felt a week was over zealous and 3RR wasn't breached, and expressed the concern (possibly having read others comments?) that it was perhaps because "some editors want him blocked", and asked for more information. Unusually for Slrubenstein, he didn't review the case carefully first.
  
• He then got it explained and comments on his talk page (fairly critical) by other admins, and became aware 3RR wasn't the issue, but WP:POINT and disruptive editing was the reason which he hadn't realized. My first comment sums up "[Y]ou have unblocked, and I don't have an investment in the situation. I was asked to review, I have done so, you have viewed otherwise, and that's your right (as indeed it is the right of any admin)."
  
• He posts to me that "I just left a stern warning on the user's page. Please let's just see what happens in the next 24 hours..."
  
• Finally he posts to Proabivouac "This is an example of a violation of wp:point, and it ''is'' disruptive editing. Do not do it again. If you don't understand why not, ask me.", citing the exact difference I blocked for and agreeing it was a disruptive edit.

I rather think this tends to strongly support my statement.

* The unblocking admin himself, who also started by believing the view you support, actually changed his mind when he saw the actual edit and issue.
* He cited to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt
* He himself gave Proabivouac a further warning not to repeat.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Kelly Martin]

Your personal view beyond that is appreciated, and ignored, for this reason.

Your comment above is one of the main reasons you are so widely reviled, FT2.

[thekohser]

Your personal view beyond that is appreciated, and ignored, for this reason.

And your personal view beyond this, FT2, is appreciated, and ignored, for this reason.

[Peter Damian]

[FT2] Read both and understand I mean it. Nobody "tells" me to do any action.

My understanding is that you wanted to come here and explain and sort out certain misunderstandings and 'myths'. Answering PB's question might help dispel these. Remarks like this do not help.

[FT2] It shows (sorry) that you're selective and have difficulty with confirmation bias when it comes to "finding FT2 iz evilz". Did you notice Slrubenstein's talk page, for example? Or that the ANI thread was not 4-0 on the issue as the above might suggest?

Please don't be so defensive. I was simply saying the evidence that 'PB iz evilz' was not clear cut, either. I did follow the link to SLR's talk page, and did find the post by you, copied below. I didn't see any evidence of disruptive behaviour apart from your own claims.

[Dzonatas]

And last, I'm being direct and straight with you. Return the favor. If I link to diff A as the one I referenced at the time, don't reply by asking what's wrong with diff B.

Not said in any way harshly, but it would be nice to resolve this, and I have shown willing to do so. Meet me halfway?

If admins on Wikipedia actually followed such insight, I would not have been blocked. I bring up an issue of harassment at me, and someone else comes along and derails it completely, which covered-up the original issue of harassment-at-me that I brought.

However, FT2 had [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218745707]this to say[/url]:

* Decline per above; Moreschi has shown that this was not beyond the community's ability to appropriately sort out, hence arbitration (as a last resort) is unnecessary. FT2 10:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you, FT2, really believe the community sorted that one out well, then -- to treat those as they treat others -- you should answer questions regarding diff B and completely forget about getting an answer to your diff A.

It appears also you agree with admins leaving scathing, hurtful comments on a person's User: page, as that is exactly what Moreschi did to mine. Maybe you should practice what you preach.

In other words, no, I don't and won't be going "OMG THEY SAID SOMETHING NASTY SO I WILL FIND A WAY TO HURT THEM FOR IT". Thats not okay, that's not the basis anyone should have who's an admin or arb, and anyone who thought it, can forget the possibility.

Your agreement with Moreschi to falsely accuse me, make hurtful remarks in the commentary logs, and on my user page, shows that you agree to hurt people.

Then you say this earlier in this thread:

Wrote the block information page that actually tells people how to appeal a block effectively, as well as the block message - eg, MediaWiki:Blockedtext

Which does absolutely no good since ArbCom members just ignore the requests of appeal.

Did you know my daughter was harassed on-wiki? Of course you should know, because you are expected to have looked at the evidence. And, you say it was not beyond the community's ability to appropriately sort out.

[Proabivouac]

Quit beating around the bush. Who told you you to block me/take a look at it/however you want to put it? I'm not interested in these semantic games. I want a user name, which is very obviously what you're trying to avoid with these "the map is not the territory" type distractions.

Read the above, slowly:

1/ "I don't have a log showing a request to review the page. So the rest is presumption and guess, which is precisely what I have stated. If someone else has such logs I would appreciate it, if it matters."

and

2/ "Your use of "meat-puppet" is very inaccurate. Meat puppetry is not merely asking for a second opinion - the entire project uses second and further opinions widely, and for the most part legitimately. Asking on-wiki is no guarantee of good faith; asking off wiki doesn't mean bad faith. You have to look at the actual evidence of the matter, not just assume."

Read both and understand I mean it. Nobody "tells" me to do any action. This is not the answer you want, but I think the evidence I've listed above will make sense to many users who don't have an axe to grind. If not, I lack a simpler way to say it, and will concede the last word since your question would then become "why did you do <something not done>" and unanswerable (sorry).

FT2, as you are well aware, the key word is "who?", so please stop trying to argue about the wording of the rest of the question. You need logs to tell you what you've done and why?

[Carruthers]

FT2, as you are well aware, the key word is "who?", so please stop trying to argue about the wording of the rest of the question. You need logs to tell you what you've done and why?

The response to this question would either be a name or a "none of your business"-type response.

The current response only underlines everything that's wrong about Arbcom. This is not promising for future interactions.

[Random832]

Come now, "if there was anything at IRC, which I can't be sure , it would most likely have been…"? This ain't epistemology 101. You were there.

You can't really expect someone to have a perfect memory of something that happened almost a year ago that - for all it seems to have been a turning point in yours - was simply not that important of an event in his wikipedia career.

(I have no comment on the rest for now)

[Peter Damian]

* The unblocking admin himself, who also started by believing the view you support, actually changed his mind when he saw the actual edit and issue.
* He cited to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt
* He himself gave Proabivouac a further warning not to repeat.

I also just noticed the diff below, by the 'unblocking admin'. This was made after he had 'seen the issue', and suggests he not in fact 'changed his mind'. FT2 is certainly the master of the selective quote.

Thanks again. I brought up 3RR because it seems to me to be the easiest rule to break and has the ''lowest'' threshold for a block. I think the accusation of disruptive editing requires a higher threshold to justivey a block. Frankly, I am worried that some editors just do not want to have to deal with him/her and this is a way of avoiding having to i.e. a sign of bad faith. I do not queswtion at all that this editor needs to cooperate more with other editors, but it has to be a two-way process. I don't think he/she is trying to be disruptive, I think at last in the edits I saw s/he was acting in good faith and other editors seemed not to want to discuss it. Also, if someone makes an unpopular dit, and is reverted, and does not revert back, how much of a disruption is that? Can we agree to see how things unfold in the next 48 hours to see whether a one week block really is justified? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=160516103

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Proabivouac]

This rather supports the idea of blocks orchestrated in IRC, does it not?

…
You conclude somehow it's IRC, and not anything to do with Proabivouac's own difficult conduct. So let's look at that unblocking admin's posts. (Slrubenstein doesn't use IRC.)

No one said Slrubenstein hangs out on IRC. He unblocked me, so why would he be part of your plot? You do hang out on IRC - in fact you run it - and you haven't bothered to deny that you were solicited there to block me.

Who asked you to do it, FT2? It's a straight question; give me a straight answer.

[Random832]

Who asked you to do it, FT2? It's a straight question; give me a straight answer.

He's already said, he doesn't remember. Something that's all too easy to lose sight of: For him... it was Tuesday (Wednesday, actually, as it happens). Blocking you was not such an important moment in FT2's wiki career that he would have every detail memorized.

[Peter Damian]

Who asked you to do it, FT2? It's a straight question; give me a straight answer.

He's already said, he doesn't remember. Something that's all too easy to lose sight of: For him... it was Tuesday (Wednesday, actually, as it happens). Blocking you was not such an important moment in FT2's wiki career that he would have every detail memorized.

Yes but he is not being asked to remember which day it was.

[Random832]

Congratulations on missing my point entirely.

[Peter Damian]

Congratulations on missing my point entirely.

No, not entirely.

[FT2]

(Snip)

Did you know my daughter was harassed on-wiki? Of course you should know, because you are expected to have looked at the evidence. And, you say it was not beyond the community's ability to appropriately sort out.

The Arbitration case is here. It opened on 6 June, and by 11 June, the position was that 6 of 6 arbitrators felt the community had dealt with it (5 "decline" and 1 "other", no "accepts"). Every user commenting had endorsed the handling by the community with none dissenting. You stated back then that "my daughter was treated with insolence" - that's now been upgraded to "harassment" 3 months later. Your post of June 7 got precisely no agreement from any other editor on your talk page (section: "Show support:").

Arbitration is a last resort, and I cannot see a single dissenting voice that suggests I might have gauged it grossly wrongly this time around. You will notice from other cases I am unafraid to disagree with other arbitrators if I feel it right. On this ocasion I didn't.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[FT2]

* The unblocking admin himself, who also started by believing the view you support, actually changed his mind when he saw the actual edit and issue.
* He cited to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt
* He himself gave Proabivouac a further warning not to repeat.

I also just noticed the diff below, by the 'unblocking admin'. This was made after he had 'seen the issue', and suggests he not in fact 'changed his mind'. FT2 is certainly the master of the selective quote.
(link)

This is an example of why I said, you don't check facts as carefully as you need to.

The link you quote was at 18:05, and stated that Slrubenstein had concerns and started off believing the view you support (as I said). The two links I cited are after, not before, at 18:12 and 19:25, where he states "I just left a stern warning on the user's page" and cites to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt. He did not repost on any page, his original view, after that.

This would tend to support the summary I gave, and not a view that I was "selective".

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Carruthers]

Arbitration is a last resort, and I cannot see a single dissenting voice that suggests I might have gauged it grossly wrongly this time around. You will notice from other cases I am unafraid to disagree with other arbitrators if I feel it right. On this ocasion I didn't.

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

What we have here is another railroading of a heretic by the Grand inquisition in order to preserve the purity of thought.

Ever hear of due process?

[FT2]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Milton Roe]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been. Why aren't you appalled about it?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[Kelly Martin]

A unanimous voice echoing out of a Star Chamber means nothing except that power has been exerted.

[Carruthers]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

Yes, but his voice is not heard on that page. That's a huge problem. Obviously, you don't see that.

You might have threatened him with the comfy chair, in which case he would have behaved himself, I'm sure.....

[FT2]

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been. Why aren't you appalled about it?

The aim of the initial RFAR ("Requests for arbitration") is for one purpose: to allow arbitrators to assess whether there is a good basis to believe that a matter needs looking into which the community has been unable to resolve.

If you can explain how lack of posting ability and posting the identical statement by email instead of on-wiki, in any way means any arbitrator has less of the information needed to form a view on that one question, then I'd be interested. For myself, I got everything he said, and everything everyone else said.

This post has been edited by FT2:

[FT2]

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been.

Update - If you don't mean arbitration, but you're discussing blocks in general, then users get blocked because (usually) an administrator (or admin consensus) says they use their access to post disruptively. Such a user can appeal that in many ways, all of which are well established and respected. They can

1. post an unblock request,
2. email the unblock-l mailing list,
3. visit the unblock channel on IRC,
4. email the admin directly to discuss,
5. email anyone of thousands of users to ask for a statement to be posted on their behalf, or if banned,
6. email arbcom for review.

Thousands of users employ those methods and they are well established. A user being discussed has many ways to say if something isn't right in the discussion - for example even if they are very disruptive on-wiki, they won't get their talk page protected unless they abuse it, and won't lose access to wiki-based email unless they abuse that, and even if they do there are many people whose emails are public, including Arbcom's and they can still ask to a reasonable response that way. So no, I don't buy the premise.

It's also not as "easy" as you think to selectively allow posting to a page - that capability just doesn't exist (yet). (They may be unblocked "on trust" by an administrator for that reason, but that's down to "any admin" or admin consensus and in this case it didn't happen.)

This post has been edited by FT2:

[Milton Roe]

It would be quite simple to allow users appealing a block to be able to selectively post to any page on which the block is being formally discussed or appealed. Not to do so is one of the grossly unfair things about Wikipedia, and always has been. Why aren't you appalled about it?

The aim of the initial RFAR ("Requests for arbitration") is for one purpose: to allow arbitrators to assess whether there is a good basis to believe that a matter needs looking into which the community has been unable to resolve.

If you can explain how lack of posting ability and posting the identical statement by email instead of on-wiki, in any way means any arbitrator has less of the information needed to form a view on that one question, then I'd be interested. For myself, I got everything he said, and everything everyone else said.

Has it occured to you that many a newly blocked editor hasn't the first clue as to how to email Arbcom? The fact that this one managed it with you, says nothing.

Second, the question of whether or not the arbitration committee has a matter which is worthy of arbitration, is itself a matter which is worthy of public comment. More eyes means generally better ideas. You don't get more eyes if you get nothing but an in-camera discussion of an email, which only a few people get to read. Rather, that's an invitation for abuse. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. A Supreme Court justice said that.

[FT2]

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

Yes, but his voice is not heard on that page. That's a huge problem. Obviously, you don't see that.

It obviously was not a huge problem in any practical sense. Not one person stated that it was appropriate to allow access, and in fact consensus supported removal of access rather than restoration. Any of thousands of editors who felt strongly - or even himself - could have asked for it to be posted, but none did. So with the community actively deciding very strongly it wasn't a problem for them, and arbitrators having full sight of his statement and not needing it on-wiki themselves to assess fairly... who exactly in the discussion was it a "huge problem" for?

(In practical terms, not in philosophical terms I mean - the idea that a notional fly on the wall or every last editor couldn't read it is not an issue; out of him, arbitrators and "the community", it wasn't a practical problem for any.)

[FT2]

Has it occured to you that many a newly blocked editor hasn't the first clue as to how to email Arbcom? The fact that this one managed it with you, says nothing.

Of course it has. In fact you're talking to the admin who rewrote the blocked text that users see, and the "appealing a block" page, precisely for that reason, to explain what blocking is and how to appeal or email, in September 2007.

At the time of this case (June 6-11) he was blocked, not banned. The version of the block message he would have been shown is here. Under "additional information" -> "Emailing us", it exactly how to contact the unblock list by email and ends "Click here to contact unblock-en-l". It could be more visible; I'll edit it shortly.

Separate case - a banned user will usually have a template on their user page linking to banning policy. I have reviewed that and the appeals section links to arbcom but doesn't give the email address. I've added it now.

Second, the question of whether or not the arbitration committee has a matter which is worthy of arbitration, is itself a matter which is worthy of public comment. More eyes means generally better ideas. You don't get more eyes if you get nothing but an in-camera discussion of an email, which only a few people get to read. Rather, that's an invitation for abuse. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. A Supreme Court justice said that.

Agree. (Crossref "more eyeballs".) It's one reason why some arbitration decisions can seem so strangely mild - exactly that factor, which we allow for and take into account.

This thread was only for arbitrators to assess if there was something the community was unable to resolve, or was grossly improper, so to speak. Had it gone further, any evidence leading to actual remedies would most likely have been posted publicly as you say. But the community had rather forcibly indicated it had no interest in seeing the user's posts, there were no dissenting voices in the community asking to see it, and the people making the accept/decline decison had the exact information they would have had anyway and gave their reasons publicly as usual. No net effect.

[Cla68]

If I may interject here for a moment, FT2, could you please go drop some votes, proposals, or comments on the proposed deicsion page of the C68/FM/SV case? I hope it's nearing closure.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Kelly Martin]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

[Milton Roe]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

Well, he's lecturing me on stuff he's done to make it easier for the blockee to contact somebody, which have been in place for a whole year. Out of seven. And certainly since I was temporarily blocked, and experienced this firsthand. So, I didn't know about it. And I guess it's nice, but I really think it should've been done sooner.

Plus, all this stuff done by email just lets you do a lot of nasty things to people under the table, since the community never sees what they say. Asking other editors to post stuff on your behalf requires them to understand the delicate nuances between a blocked user and a formally banned user. Whcih is not the right thing to require, because it takes quite a bit to even explain. (Example: An indef block which nobody is willing to undo, at some point becomes a community ban, but nobody can tell you just WHEN that point is, and thus when the line between indef blocked and banned is. Yet proxying for a blockee vs. a bannee is legal vs. illegal. What am I missing, there?)

Is it only proxying for an arbcom-banned user that is illegal?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

[FT2]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

1/ Because "we" obviously don't, otherwise "we" wouldn't have asked these questions, Kelly.
2/ Because these were specific (ex?) user/s with specific cases, rather than a theoretical debate. I'm fine re-explaining if that helps them or clarifies it. It may, it may not.

[Moulton]

FT2, besides the long running RfAr that is nearing a conclusion, there is an overlapping RfC/ID filed on 10 June 2008 by PouponOnToast to consolidate dueling RfC's and RfAr's previously filed by competing factions.

This consolidated RfC has a curious feature — namely, I am the only respondent actually named in it.

And I am also the only would-be participant in the RfC who is blocked from participating in it by the adversarial editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.

Would it not be appropriate to unblock me for the express purpose of responding to issues raised in RfC/ID?

[FT2]

Well, he's lecturing me on stuff he's done to make it easier for the blockee to contact somebody, which have been in place for a whole year. Out of seven. And certainly since I was temporarily blocked, and experienced this firsthand. So, I didn't know about it. And I guess it's nice, but I really think it should've been done sooner.

Yeah, sorry it took so long.

Plus, all this stuff done by email just lets you do a lot of nasty things to people under the table, since the community never sees what they say.

Arbitrators are fairly carefully chosen. Anyone can self-nominate who has a fairly low level of editing, sufferage is also wide (anyone with a low level of edits), and the process is open. The appointees for the last 3 elections (with minor adjustment for 2 existing arbs standing for re-election in Jan 06) were endorsed by Jimbo without varying the community's views at all. So in effect you pretty much have a committee that the community chose without any distortion, from candidates that include pretty much any editor who wanted to. They get voted specifically to handle privacy issues, about 5 a year. They aren't answerable to WMF's office; they don't get directions what to do from Jimbo. If you're asking them to "do nasty things under the table" in response to an arb-l email, then you're asking about 15 users elected at different times by different people, chosen specifically by open election for experience and trust, who all see the same source information, to all then conspire to "do nasty things" by hiding it. And every last ex-arb (all 15 of them) to go along with it. It just doesn't work that way.

Emails handled by well known groups - unblock-l, arb-l, oversight-l, etc, get a lot of scrutiny. Private emails between users are more likely a risk. But most of arbcom's work isn't done by private email.

(Example: An indef block which nobody is willing to undo, at some point becomes a community ban, but nobody can tell you just WHEN that point is, and thus when the line between indef blocked and banned is. Yet proxying for a blockee vs. a bannee is legal vs. illegal. What am I missing, there?

Is it only proxying for an arbcom-banned user that is illegal?

Way ahead of you - I tried (twice) to get that problem fixed too. I'm still hoping someone will pick up the baton and run with it. You're not missing a thing.

And point of information, it's proxying on any ban, not just arbcom bans. The point is, a blocked user - even an indef block - is part of the community (temp suspended so to speak). Banned users are not, the aim of a ban is removal. Indef blocks are really just "until resolved" - but if they never resolve then effectively (as you say) there's that grey line. It would be nice to eliminate it in favor of an explicit decision.

[Docknell]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

1/ Because "we" obviously don't, otherwise "we" wouldn't have asked these questions, Kelly.
2/ Because these were specific (ex?) user/s with specific cases, rather than a theoretical debate. I'm fine re-explaining if that helps them or clarifies it. It may, it may not.

FT2, actually what you explained was:

You having charges of harrassment is no big deal for me

Blather, blather, bunk, NLP a bit, blather

Hope this helps



Q: Is there perhaps any way you could actually answer a question one day? Perhaps on the diffs that show you generally pushing fringe, cruft, pseudoscience, and trying (here also) to sweep stuff under the carpet?

As it is you seem to have dug yourself deeper into the slime you created for yourself a few years ago when promoting bestiality as a lifestyle, and continue even now to create phantoms and bogeymen in order to keep up the defense of your "crufty" articles. This is my view, and it is certainly shared by others.

Q: Can you please address the actual issues at hand, and especially the material diffs that you created?


If you don't, people will maybe perhaps one day start thinking you either can't or just really really don't want to.


Doc

[Peter Damian]

* The unblocking admin himself, who also started by believing the view you support, actually changed his mind when he saw the actual edit and issue.
* He cited to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt
* He himself gave Proabivouac a further warning not to repeat.

I also just noticed the diff below, by the 'unblocking admin'. This was made after he had 'seen the issue', and suggests he not in fact 'changed his mind'. FT2 is certainly the master of the selective quote.
(link)

This is an example of why I said, you don't check facts as carefully as you need to.

The link you quote was at 18:05, and stated that Slrubenstein had concerns and started off believing the view you support (as I said). The two links I cited are after, not before, at 18:12 and 19:25, where he states "I just left a stern warning on the user's page" and cites to Proabivouac the exact difference I had noticed, as being a clear breach of [[WP:POINT]] and disruptive editing, exactly as I'd felt. He did not repost on any page, his original view, after that.

This would tend to support the summary I gave, and not a view that I was "selective".

1. I had already checked those diffs, please don't accuse me of not checking facts. If you look at the whole series of edits it is clear that SLR has not changed his mind. He is trying to balance both sides of the issue.

2. On not checking facts, you still haven't discussed the misattributed quotation from Lakoff. See the other thread.

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Carruthers]

Why is FT2 lecturing us about Wikipedia? We all know this shit already.

1/ Because "we" obviously don't, otherwise "we" wouldn't have asked these questions, Kelly.
2/ Because these were specific (ex?) user/s with specific cases, rather than a theoretical debate. I'm fine re-explaining if that helps them or clarifies it. It may, it may not.

I believe that you have all of this backwards, FT2:

1. "We" (read, "those who regularly discuss these issues here on this forum") on this know quite a bit about WP policy and have discussed it at length, otherwise we wouldn't have known that the questions were valid.

2. I was under the impression that Milton and I WERE having a theoretical debate. If understanding that makes you frame the question in a different way, then by all means do so. General, rather than specific, remarks are encouraged here, for obvious reasons.

The fact that Dzonatas had a public judgment made against him, one who is part of the eternal history of your site, makes the lack of any public voice of the accused that much more glaring. The comparison to a "Star Chamber" proceeding is made that much more valid.

This post has been edited by Carruthers:

[FT2]

(Snip)
Q: Is there perhaps any way you could actually answer a question one day?
(Snip)

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

[Proabivouac]

Unlikely.

Please stop linking to laudatory opinions of yourself, FT2, as seen in nauseating force on your userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2#Feed...in_the_hot_seat
Is this some NLP technique? Whatever its rationale, its effect appears to be to shield you from things you're doing that aren't working. This map is truly not the territory.

I am however impressed with your newfound brevity. Since this thread is entitled "Proabivouac's question", perhaps it's time you answered it:
Who solicited you on IRC to block me?
Don't pretend you don't remember; I won't believe you.

There is also Proabivouac's other question, still unanswered:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Kelly Martin]

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

More of the shit that you are widely reviled for. Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered. Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.

[FT2]

1. I had already checked those diffs, please don't accuse me of not checking facts. If you look at the whole series of edits it is clear that SLR has not changed his mind. He is trying to balance both sides of the issue.

Er.. No. You don't issue a "stern warning" and tell people emphatically about a different diff you hadn'tr spotted before, saying "this IS disruptive", if you're "just balancing both sides". He was quite happy to say "nothing wrong here", and even "maybe some people are picking on him", and then switched. His messages when he did do not contain any of the sentiment of the former that would show what you feel. he doesn't say "this was minor" or that it was borderline, or anything of that kind. he came down firmly on a completely different view, as did others. The bottom line is even the unblocking admin concluded it had been a blatantly disruptive post.

FT2 - "As an editor with no prior involvement in your circumstances I have reviewed the recent edits you made, at the request of others, for an independent double-check on them. This is my view: It may be that you feel roughly treated by others, or in the past. But... this is clearly a disruptive edit, and its purpose is to make a point ... This isn't a matter of censorship, or attack. It's a clear and simple matter. You know it's inappropriate and unhelpful. You did these edits anyway. You knew that you already had problems... and you edited in an unhelpful manner anyway, based upon your personal grievance, instead of simply settling down and accepting you have made mistakes (who hasn't?), learning from them, and setting the past aside to do better. I take no pleasure from this block, my feeling is other editors working on policy pages should not have to have hassle because you feel upset, or have to deal with knowingly unhelpful edits because you feel wronged. Thats not fair to them. So I am blocking you for a week."

Slrubenstein - "[This] is an example of a violation of wp:point, and it ''is'' disruptive editing. Do not do it again. If you don't understand why not, ask me." (link)

If you think he didn't mean this, ask him, don't assume.

2. On not checking facts, you still haven't discussed the misattributed quotation from Lakoff. See the other thread.

Discussed on-wiki I thought (not 100% sure, I'd have to check). Quick answer - long ago. nested quote, I got it wrong, it got fixed quickly by others in one case, overlooked in another, not habitual, and the few hundred cites that are accurate got ignored to pursue that single one.

Meanwhile have you tried applying the same scrutiny to the diffs on Headley? No, otherwise you'd have some rather more direct questions for him, too, instead. I see none, although in his case the evidence is very great, very well documented, and from many users over several years. Why?

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

This post has been edited by FT2:

[FT2]

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered.

And some of us don't.

[quote Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.

Not really. Are you noticing that people who post in a respectful genuine manner get replies, whether they are banned, hostile, or aggressive, or even whether - like Greg Kohs - they have posted provocatively on other occasions, and it's only 1/ Docknell and 2/ people who post without hope of their post being helpful to dialog, that I'm paying less attention to? As you write to me, is the general rule.

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who - for me - comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)

[Docknell]

(Snip)
Q: Is there perhaps any way you could actually answer a question one day?
(Snip)

From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

Oh joy! You just answered a question of mine! Well, sort of answered…. Badly…and as hillariously as NLP powered zoophilia promotion.

Q: Do you really think a testimonial from a misguided WP editor is going to cut any slack with people who actually focus on the reality of diffs? This is WR not WP!

And you say you are unlikely to answer a question that has been proxied from myself.

Q: Which postees here do you think I am asking to post questions to you about?

This isn’t Wikipedia you know! Postees can pretty much say and ask what they like here (or at least post whatever diffs they like without reproach). Again, it’s very funny that you seem to think WP customs apply here.

Q: Are you stressed over what I have posted?

After your seething reply, well…..I imagine some people can sense it. I would like to imagine you wiping the spittle from your screen, with Detol.

Q: Do you mean rules broken in answering, or not answering?

I think that one got muddled in your spittle somewhere. Never mind! Lets just say, I imagine that’s what Garry Glitter said when he was caught up and downloading “erotica” from the internet. Promoting such stuff on the web got him banned from using the web in the UK. You got promoted to arb despite similarly unethical proclivity. Not aiming to judge btw, its just that what you see as attractive, I suspect others would gag at the thought. Y'know, majority voice and all.

Q: What were the results at Crufts this year btw?


Doc

[Kelly Martin]

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who - for me - comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)

I have a policy of ignoring anything that is explained by referring to anything that begins with "WP:" or is identified by a string of capitalized letters lacking inherent meaning. In general, I think we'd all appreciate it if you'd refrain from using cultspeak here. You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

[Docknell]

[quote name='FT2' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:11am' post='125953']
[quote name='Kelly Martin' post='125945' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:54am'][quote name='FT2' post='125931' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 4:49am']From yourself - unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself - unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.[/quote]
Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered.
[/quote]
And some of us don't.


[quote name='Kelly Martin' post='125945' date='Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:54am'][quote Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.
[/quote]
Not really. Are you noticing that people who post in a respectful genuine manner get replies, whether they are banned, hostile, or aggressive, or even whether - like Greg Kohs - they have posted provocatively on other occasions, and it's only 1/ Docknell and 2/ people who post without hope of their post being helpful to dialog, that I'm paying less attention to? As you write to me, is the general rule.

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who - for me - comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)
[/quote]

Oh yeh! Cos that's just the kind of guy I am!

Y'know! Neurolinguistically programmed to be cool and groovy! Just like all the WPedians that I know must be tuning in to this channel, just for charidy!

FT2

(not really, its me, Doc, or whatever FT2 wants to call me at the pottylical moment)

[Docknell]

Hi FT2, you said:

Snip:

Not really.

Snip:

I like that one! Is that something you learnt at the NLP academy? If so, I would like to ask for copyright from you on that one. I understand you may have wanted to trademark it, but I promise to say "FT2 said that!" every time I recycle that fabulous exclamation.

If I make any money on it, I'll be sure to reimburse you

Doc

(PS, awsome stuff! Don't let me steal your thunder! Its too powerful for me to handle by myself anyway! Dynamite!)

[Moulton]

FT2, I suspect you missed seeing this last night because you posted something else barely a minute after I posted this question to you...

FT2, besides the long running RfAr that is nearing a conclusion, there is an overlapping RfC/ID filed on 10 June 2008 by PouponOnToast to consolidate dueling RfC's and RfAr's previously filed by competing factions.

This consolidated RfC has a curious feature — namely, I am the only respondent actually named in it.

And I am also the only would-be participant in the RfC who is blocked from participating in it by the adversarial editors of the WikiProject on Intelligent Design.

Would it not be appropriate to unblock me for the express purpose of responding to issues raised in RfC/ID?

This forum software has the unfortunate feature that it doesn't present messages that appear in the intervening time while you are writing one of your own.

So I'd be grateful if you would take a moment to go back in time and respond to me.

Thanks.

[Proabivouac]

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

Whom you allow to take credit for your work is completely irrelevant here, FT2. If TBP isn't you, you have wrongfully claimed his work as your own. In the real world, that's a much bigger deal than Wikipedia sockpuppetry.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Docknell]

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

Whom you allow to take credit for your work is completely irrelevant here, FT2. If TBP isn't you, you have wrongfully claimed his work as your own. In the real world, that's a much bigger deal than Wikipedia sockpuppetry.

Go ooooooon! If FT2 throws another wobbler at this one I am going to have another brandy. FT2 is just the most amazing liar I have ever come across on the web. FT2 deserves an Oscar and a half at least! A round of applause for trying so hard with your pants still down, FT2!

Meryll Streep, eat your heart out. FT2 is here!

I wonder about those enactments with FT2's pets. I suspect among the hurt and abuse, there must have been some glimmer of furry admiration and respect (abject fear) (after the bleeding had stopped) (and just before the dispair had sunk in completely).

Its ok folks, this stuff just happens with the most unfortunate deviants, and only when they get access to telephones, satelites, and the web (and Wikipedia).

Normal people can rely on humour to get them through the day, even when a loony is making disturbingly napoleonic noises next door.

Doc

[Peter Damian]

This is beginning to get surreal. FT2, do you have any sense of how many people are reading this? How is this helping your cause, whatever that is?

Discussed on-wiki I thought (not 100% sure, I'd have to check). Quick answer - long ago. nested quote, I got it wrong, it got fixed quickly by others in one case, overlooked in another, not habitual,

Not really. It wasn't a long time ago. You set the page up on 12 August (less than a month ago).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

On that page you say 'had Damian done his work, he would have found the following existing pages that cover the question of evidence and cites'. And then you linked to the page containing the misattributed Lakoff quote. This was part of the evidence you submitted for an AfD process. And there was no nested quote. You clearly attributed it to Lakoff.

and the few hundred cites that are accurate got ignored to pursue that single one.

Oh right. I should have looked to find an accurate citation of yours and pursued you with that? This was the second quote by Lakoff that you misattributed, and the second one I looked at. I looked at the Lakoff ones first because they were potentially significant (he is eminent linguist whose apparent endorsement of NLP would have been big surprise).

But in any case I have a long list of unreliable sources, those two were just for starters. More later.

I am of the opinion that your repeated attempts to steer this issue towards a debate about my style as an editor, and way from the actual content of the article, are designed to change the goalposts halfway through the game. You persist in accusing me of a variety of editorial sins while yourself indulging in long-winded denunciations of my person in a way that can only escalate hostility. You have yet to address the fact that you significantly re-wrote the Health and Safety section without any attempt to seek consensus, despite my explicit request for such and despite Zetawoof's friendly participation in that consensus, and despite Zetawoof's agreement to the look of the section as it stood. So really, you are the one whose editorial style needs careful examination rather than I. I would hope any mediator would be able to see through the logorrheic thicket of words you spin, with your endless invocations of Wikipedia rules and tenets in a manner designed to cloak you in an aura of righteousness. I still await comment on the actual text, and hopefully some will be forthcoming. I suspect you know you are on shaky ground with this, for the text stands up well, hence your refocussing of the discussion with interminable ad hominems. Skoppensboer 05:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Zoophilia Talk page)

Sounds familiar?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

FT2 deserves an Oscar and a half at least!

Not really. Oscars are awarded for good acting. Good acting elicits a suspension of disbelief in the audience. Here, just disbelief. Is anyone convinced by this? I see a number of the audience are here. Or are they just fascinated by car crashes and train wrecks?

[Kelly Martin]

Or are they just fascinated by car crashes and train wrecks?

Ding ding ding ding ding!

[Vicky]

Oscars are awarded for good acting.

Not always. They are often a popularity poll among Hollywood staff. For example, John Wayne got his Oscar on a wave of sympathy for his illness, and for one of his worst films. Some of Hollywood's greatest actors never won one.

[Peter Damian]

Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

I just noticed the link (an endorsement by a user at FT2's election). Let's look a little more closely at that. It's by an editor who when the edit war with User:Ciz (2005) took place was sixteen. She says 'I like to hope I'm more mature than my age would seem' but her stated interest in Horror stories and movies, puns, marvel comix, obscure rock bands 'and of course, editing the Wiki' suggests that no more mature than her age would seem after all. Oh yes and she calls herself a Satanist and has a pink user page so we are really getting away from the stereotype Wikipedian here aren't we.

The edit war referred to is with yet another person (Ciz) who FT2 managed to evict from the Wiki - I exchanged emails with Ciz and he is a nice, retiring guy who is a little bit obsessive, who nearly suffered a nervous breakdown after trying to maintain a more neutral point of view on the Zoophilia article. FT2 claimed it was vandalism and edit warring. Was it? Ciz only made 21 edits to the article. Here are some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8527205 FT2 removes a NPOV tag that Ciz had quite properly placed there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...4&oldid=8475397
Revision as of 01:38, 16 December 2004 (edit) (undo)
Ciz REMOVES "professionals and people who know genuine zoophiles and their partners personally over a period of time (whether knowingly or unknowingly) often find it hard to see abuse..." which is entirely POV and unsourced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8475603 Teh 16 year old Satanist REPLACES the edits Ciz removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...7&oldid=8469920 FT2 REMOVES
"There are others who respect and care for animals but still believe that having sex with animals is abusive, no matter the reason." with the comment “rvt more Ciz vandalism”. Wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...1&oldid=8271423 FT” REPLACES
"Emotionally and psychologically, research suggests that zoophiles have above average empathy. It is unclear yet from research whether this is a cause or a result of zoophilia. In other words, they may be close to animals because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with animals. As a group they have a lower level of psychopathy and need for control than average, and a higher level of sensation seeking and involvement in animal protection than average. They also have an above average level of social individualism, which can be either inhibitive (eg, shyness) or empowering (eg, independence of thought). Other research gives similar findings." With the comment “verified mainstream research - Ciz, do NOT remove information that doesnt suit your POV please. Discuss on the talk page if you feel this is unsupported.” – this ‘verified mainstream research has yet to be cited!

Oh yes and that was part of the first edit that FT2 made to the encyclopedia and which WJBScribe later got oversighted (but I won't bore you further with that). Ciz had no chance because there was a whole group of self-admitted zoophiles editing the article, and he got royally beat up. At the arbitration organised by FT2, they could say things like, everyone is fed up with this user. Also it’s hard in such a situation not to lose your cool, and Ciz did in a couple of places. And he had to face abuse from others. E.g. look at the article talk page here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...a&oldid=7664626

'Steele the wolf' (they all have tags like this) says “This is coming from a rabid anti-zoo, asairs pawn ..” (ASAIRS is a now defunct organisation that campaigned against zoophile sites and got many of them closed down. Ciz replies “I dont like animals being molested. If that makes me an anti-zoo, then fine”. Steele calls him “intolerant and a hypocrite”. And so on. Steele was one of the Zoophiles that FT2 later defended at arbitration. E.g. here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._against_Steele

Later FT2 thanks Steele

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=102133957

for the rFA support. It was well earned says Steele.

[Milton Roe]

I just noticed the link (an endorsement by a user at FT2's election). Let's look a little more closely at that. It's by an editor who when the edit war with User:Ciz (2005) took place was sixteen. She says 'I like to hope I'm more mature than my age would seem' but her stated interest in Horror stories and movies, puns, marvel comix, obscure rock bands 'and of course, editing the Wiki' suggests that no more mature than her age would seem after all. Oh yes and she calls herself a Satanist and has a pink user page so we are really getting away from the stereotype Wikipedian here aren't we.

Indeed user: Premeditated Chaos (former 16 year-old (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) ) seems to be a typical Brit punk-rocker with horror interests. But nothing really stands out. If you want a Brit-pop axis score, you start with the two people I've found who most define it: David Gerard and Sceptre, who have an astounding 1400 articles they've both edited by hand, most of them on pop subjects. Add any third to get a Brit-pop score. For Premeditated Chaos you get:

#1 X-Men:_Evolution - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 Vanilla_Sky - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 The_Matrix - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Tea - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Sexual_harassment - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 Scorpion - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 Rent_(film) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Portal_(video_game) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 Open_source - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 Nupedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 Nirvana_(band) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 Marilyn_Manson_(band) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 Leet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Joseph_Priestley - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Fancy_rat - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Eric_Cartman - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 Computer_virus - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Blog - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 Batman - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 50_Cent - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 2007 - edited by 3 of 3 users

If you instead add FT2 to Gerard and Sceptre, it's a different list but again nothing stands out:

#1 Windows_XP - edited by 3 of 3 users
#2 Wikipedia - edited by 3 of 3 users
#3 Wikimedia_Foundation - edited by 3 of 3 users
#4 Watership_Down - edited by 3 of 3 users
#5 Torchwood_Institute - edited by 3 of 3 users
#6 Time_War_(Doctor_Who) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#7 The_Holocaust - edited by 3 of 3 users
#8 Story_arcs_in_Doctor_Who - edited by 3 of 3 users
#9 September_11_attacks - edited by 3 of 3 users
#10 Robot - edited by 3 of 3 users
#11 Prostitution - edited by 3 of 3 users
#12 Narnia_(world) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#13 My_Bad - edited by 3 of 3 users
#14 Margaret_Thatcher - edited by 3 of 3 users
#15 Lysergic_acid_diethylamide - edited by 3 of 3 users
#16 Leet - edited by 3 of 3 users
#17 His_Dark_Materials - edited by 3 of 3 users
#18 Hal_Turner - edited by 3 of 3 users
#19 George_W._Bush - edited by 3 of 3 users
#20 Doctor_(Doctor_Who) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#21 Diana,_Princess_of_Wales - edited by 3 of 3 users
#22 Copyright - edited by 3 of 3 users
#23 Cole_&_Dylan_Sprouse - edited by 3 of 3 users
#24 Casino_Royale_(2006_film) - edited by 3 of 3 users
#25 Bonobo - edited by 3 of 3 users
#26 Blog - edited by 3 of 3 users
#27 Beatrix_Kiddo - edited by 3 of 3 users
#28 Asperger_syndrome - edited by 3 of 3 users
#29 2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot - edited by 3 of 3 users
#30 2006_definition_of_planet - edited by 3 of 3 users

If you just put in FT2 and Premediated Chaos, it gets a bit darker:

#1 Zoophilia - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 United_States - edited by 2 of 2 users
#3 Torture - edited by 2 of 2 users
#4 Serial_killer - edited by 2 of 2 users
#5 Satanism - edited by 2 of 2 users
#6 Pornography_addiction - edited by 2 of 2 users
#7 Otherkin - edited by 2 of 2 users
#8 Moral_panic - edited by 2 of 2 users
#9 Leet - edited by 2 of 2 users
#10 Jews_as_a_chosen_people - edited by 2 of 2 users
#11 In_Bruges - edited by 2 of 2 users
#12 God - edited by 2 of 2 users
#13 Glossary_of_contract_bridge_terms - edited by 2 of 2 users
#14 Flatulence - edited by 2 of 2 users
#15 Evolution - edited by 2 of 2 users
#16 Closeted - edited by 2 of 2 users
#17 Cindy_(dolphin) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#18 Charles_Manson - edited by 2 of 2 users
#19 Blog - edited by 2 of 2 users
#20 All_your_base_are_belong_to_us - edited by 2 of 2 users


But really not much zoo stuff here, just horror. Nothing like the FT2+TBP combo, which is totally zoophile-oriented:

#1 Zoosexuality - edited by 2 of 2 users
#2 Zoosadism - edited by 2 of 2 users
#3 Zoophilia - edited by 2 of 2 users
#4 Rainbow_Bridge_(pets) - edited by 2 of 2 users
#5 Neuro-linguistic_programming - edited by 2 of 2 users
#6 Mr_Hands - edited by 2 of 2 users
#7 Loss - edited by 2 of 2 users
#8 List_of_unusual_deaths - edited by 2 of 2 users
#9 Kenneth_Pinyan - edited by 2 of 2 users
#10 Hani_Miletski - edited by 2 of 2 users
#11 Great_ape_personhood - edited by 2 of 2 users
#12 Ethology - edited by 2 of 2 users
#13 Enumclaw,_Washington - edited by 2 of 2 users
#14 Emotion_in_animals - edited by 2 of 2 users
#15 Edgeplay - edited by 2 of 2 users
#16 Death - edited by 2 of 2 users
#17 Animal_love - edited by 2 of 2 users
#18 Animal_loss - edited by 2 of 2 users
#19 Animal_cognition - edited by 2 of 2 u

[Dzonatas]

Don't mean to derail this thread about my case, I actually thought FT2 would answer Proabivouac's question first -- given the take on the situation. I just want to respond to the statement FT2 made since it appears there is theme of concern about FT2 here in this thread.

(Snip)

Did you know my daughter was harassed on-wiki? Of course you should know, because you are expected to have looked at the evidence. And, you say it was not beyond the community's ability to appropriately sort out.

The Arbitration case is here. It opened on 6 June, and by 11 June, the position was that 6 of 6 arbitrators felt the community had dealt with it (5 "decline" and 1 "other", no "accepts"). Every user commenting had endorsed the handling by the community with none dissenting. You stated back then that "my daughter was treated with insolence" - that's now been upgraded to "harassment" 3 months later. Your post of June 7 got precisely no agreement from any other editor on your talk page (section: "Show support:").

Arbitration is a last resort, and I cannot see a single dissenting voice that suggests I might have gauged it grossly wrongly this time around. You will notice from other cases I am unafraid to disagree with other arbitrators if I feel it right. On this ocasion I didn't.

Ok, so, somehow you categorized insolence as "not the same" as harassment, as, you, stated above, have said that harassment is an "upgrade" from insolence. I wonder why you didn't even seem to take the concern to heart and not worry about if insolence is a greater expression or if harassment is a more egregious expression as why you would look further in the case or not. Did you ask my opinion of "insolence"? No, you already started to argue (with me or) about it before you even showed concern.

You stated elsewise about hurtful statements, but I see you really don't care if someone on Wikipedia says hurtful things in any way at another Wikipedian or non-Wikipedian. You rather argue if "insolence" is "harassment." Well, lets look at the definition of insolence:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:insolence

Looks like insolence fits in the realm the realm of harassment. Even worse, consider how you now ignored the when, how, and why my daughter was treated such way, and how you rather go with the ad populum fallacy, you have also (en)joined in on the cause of insolence.

As an ArbCom member and your prose, I actually thought more highly of you FT2, but appears you completely ignored the more serious nature of what has happened. I take it you or your family don't have a daughter being outed and harassed on Wikipedia, so you wouldn't have the faintest clue what it is like. I would think as a ArbCom member, you would try harder, but here you clearly showed you didn't.

It opened on 6 June, and by 11 June...

Notice those dates you said, then look at this comment you made:

The voice that I personally fail to see on that ARBCOM case page is one that should have been present: ie that of Dzonatas. I'm willing to AGF in order to consider the possibility that you maybe overlooked this fact?

He submitted his appeal by email, June 7. That's quite common for users who can't post to the arbitration page.

Notice that June 7th does fall before June 11th. No statement on the RfAR indicates any email sent, so this would be the first to confirm any email was sent, and that it has been ignored for months.

I couldn't make a statement on the RfAR because I was blocked shortly after jpgordan made this statement:

This seems almost too obvious; why can't the community take care of this quickly? I'm waiting a bit before I accept, hoping it will become unnecessary. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Which, Moreschi uses that as the reason for his block -- not because of what the community says.

I've blocked this user indefinitely as his contributions contain nothing but trolling and tendentious time-wasting. Two years ago it was [[Joan of Arc]], now it's [[Astrotheology]]. Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=217557162] for further evidence as to why this is necessary. [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) ([[User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5|debate]]) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice, he didn't point to AN/I, an RFC, or any other dispute resolution process. He pointed only to the RfAR right after jpgordan made that comment.

Your statement that that the block was a community decision is false. There are no facts to support the block as a community decision. There is only the admins unwilling to overturn it because, as they stated, they don't want to go against ArbCom decisions.

Your post of June 7 got precisely no agreement from any other editor on your talk page (section: "Show support:").

Here is the last edit on June 7th: link.

The "show support" section (first presented as a petition) got added on the June 10th. The page was protected on June 10th -- the same day! No one could show support on that page since the page has been protected ever since. Your argument about "precisely no agreement" is absolutely wrong -- proven beyond doubt -- and quite unfair . I'm sure you'll hate that fact, as nobody wants to be wrong.

Honor depends on if you can accept being wrong here, and then doing the right actions afterwards. Maybe even show the right kind of fair and just support. I'm sure the ad populum fallacy could be well avoided if you state the facts correctly.

What Durova brought to RfAR is nothing new. She began Wikipedia on the Joan of Arc article, where I was editing and article with other editors. She opened a mediation case pretty fast after starting. Same one she used at the RfAR. She bring stuff up over and over until it sticks (or until someone gets annoyed). If any of the RFCs or mediation cases she did against me didn't fly then, why should they all of a sudden be credible as new evidence to quickly block me before I could make any statement at the RfAR?

There was absolutely no reason to quickly block me.

My daughter got harassed on Wikipedia, and you, as other ArbCom members, have helped Durova cover it up with illogical arguments (as shown above).

This shows you believe it is right to harass people on WIkipedia and even non-Wikipedians. This show you rather protect you own butt then care for what may be done to people's family.

This shows you support hurtful remarks made on Wikipedia despite what you said.

I'm not here to find you wrong FT2, yet it shows you avoid questions -- the reason I posted in Proabivouac's thread.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas:

[Moulton]

Would it be possible to do an Umpiric Peer Review here (or on-wiki at Wikiversity?), in accordance with established protocols for Scientific and Journalistic Peer Review of disputed theories or accounts?

[Jon Awbrey]

From yourself — unlikely. Clearly proxied from yourself — unlikely. Planning to stress myself over it or over others beliefs I'm mistaken, impolite to choose that option, or don't have that right? Unlikely. Rules broken in doing so? Unlikely.

Some of us feel that the mere identity of the person asking a question does not in any way alter whether or not it should be answered.

And some of us don't.

Responses like this suggest that your purpose here is to harass and belittle, instead of to discuss.

Not really. Are you noticing that people who post in a respectful genuine manner get replies, whether they are banned, hostile, or aggressive, or even whether — like Greg Kohs — they have posted provocatively on other occasions, and it's only 1/ Docknell and 2/ people who post without hope of their post being helpful to dialog, that I'm paying less attention to? As you write to me, is the general rule.

(With the exception of Docknell, that is, who — for me — comes under [[WP:DENY]] even if you don't like that idea.)

I'm sampling only about 1 in 20 of these now, but this one is too rich to pass by.

Reminds me of that new Apple Ad —

FT2 playing the Bill Gates Look-Alike on His Kiddie Throne —

I banish you … banish you … banish … banish …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)

This post has been edited by Jon Awbrey:

[Peter Damian]

I just want to respond to the statement FT2 made since it appears there is theme of concern about FT2 here in this thread.

Concern? Where?

By the way there is no such policy as [[WP:DENY]]. It's [[User:FT2/DENY]].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Jon Awbrey]

I just want to respond to the statement FT2 made since it appears there is theme of concern about FT2 here in this thread.

Concern? Where?

By the way there is no such policy as [[WP:DENY]]. It's [[User:FT2/DENY]].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/DENY

Not To Bee Co-Founded Wit WP Ab-User:DenyColt —

Hey, wait a 2nd — on 2nd thought I think I may have fingoed a hypothesis …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)