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?

[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.

[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

[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

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

[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: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:27pm

[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: Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:42pm