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

[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: Mon 1st September 2008, 11:57am

[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: Mon 1st September 2008, 1:43pm

[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: Mon 1st September 2008, 8:58pm

[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: Tue 2nd September 2008, 9:26pm

[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: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:05pm

[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: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:03pm