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.