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.

[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.

[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: Mon 1st September 2008, 9:30am

[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: Mon 1st September 2008, 9:44am

[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?