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.

[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: Mon 1st September 2008, 11:30am

[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.