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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.
(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".

1. I had already checked those diffs, please don't accuse me of not checking facts. If you look at the whole series of edits it is clear that SLR has not changed his mind. He is trying to balance both sides of the issue.

2. On not checking facts, you still haven't discussed the misattributed quotation from Lakoff. See the other thread.

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 3rd September 2008, 5:42am

[FT2]

1. I had already checked those diffs, please don't accuse me of not checking facts. If you look at the whole series of edits it is clear that SLR has not changed his mind. He is trying to balance both sides of the issue.

Er.. No. You don't issue a "stern warning" and tell people emphatically about a different diff you hadn'tr spotted before, saying "this IS disruptive", if you're "just balancing both sides". He was quite happy to say "nothing wrong here", and even "maybe some people are picking on him", and then switched. His messages when he did do not contain any of the sentiment of the former that would show what you feel. he doesn't say "this was minor" or that it was borderline, or anything of that kind. he came down firmly on a completely different view, as did others. The bottom line is even the unblocking admin concluded it had been a blatantly disruptive post.

FT2 - "As an editor with no prior involvement in your circumstances I have reviewed the recent edits you made, at the request of others, for an independent double-check on them. This is my view: It may be that you feel roughly treated by others, or in the past. But... this is clearly a disruptive edit, and its purpose is to make a point ... This isn't a matter of censorship, or attack. It's a clear and simple matter. You know it's inappropriate and unhelpful. You did these edits anyway. You knew that you already had problems... and you edited in an unhelpful manner anyway, based upon your personal grievance, instead of simply settling down and accepting you have made mistakes (who hasn't?), learning from them, and setting the past aside to do better. I take no pleasure from this block, my feeling is other editors working on policy pages should not have to have hassle because you feel upset, or have to deal with knowingly unhelpful edits because you feel wronged. Thats not fair to them. So I am blocking you for a week."

Slrubenstein - "[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." (link)

If you think he didn't mean this, ask him, don't assume.

2. On not checking facts, you still haven't discussed the misattributed quotation from Lakoff. See the other thread.

Discussed on-wiki I thought (not 100% sure, I'd have to check). Quick answer - long ago. nested quote, I got it wrong, it got fixed quickly by others in one case, overlooked in another, not habitual, and the few hundred cites that are accurate got ignored to pursue that single one.

Meanwhile have you tried applying the same scrutiny to the diffs on Headley? No, otherwise you'd have some rather more direct questions for him, too, instead. I see none, although in his case the evidence is very great, very well documented, and from many users over several years. Why?

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

This post has been edited by FT2: Wed 3rd September 2008, 11:13am

[Proabivouac]

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

Whom you allow to take credit for your work is completely irrelevant here, FT2. If TBP isn't you, you have wrongfully claimed his work as your own. In the real world, that's a much bigger deal than Wikipedia sockpuppetry.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac: Wed 3rd September 2008, 12:51pm

[Docknell]

FT2, for the third time:
If User:TBP wasn't you, why did you take credit for his work?
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=125253

TBP is his own topic. And I routinely let others take credit for work I significantly help with, or delicate posts I help them with wording, or disputes they aren't so sure how to approach, it's well known amongst both admin and non-admin users. I'll open that when I'm round next time (away today).

Whom you allow to take credit for your work is completely irrelevant here, FT2. If TBP isn't you, you have wrongfully claimed his work as your own. In the real world, that's a much bigger deal than Wikipedia sockpuppetry.

Go ooooooon! If FT2 throws another wobbler at this one I am going to have another brandy. FT2 is just the most amazing liar I have ever come across on the web. FT2 deserves an Oscar and a half at least! A round of applause for trying so hard with your pants still down, FT2!

Meryll Streep, eat your heart out. FT2 is here!

I wonder about those enactments with FT2's pets. I suspect among the hurt and abuse, there must have been some glimmer of furry admiration and respect (abject fear) (after the bleeding had stopped) (and just before the dispair had sunk in completely).

Its ok folks, this stuff just happens with the most unfortunate deviants, and only when they get access to telephones, satelites, and the web (and Wikipedia).

Normal people can rely on humour to get them through the day, even when a loony is making disturbingly napoleonic noises next door.

Doc