Now I am allowed back in society, I wanted to let you know that that was one of the worst blocks I have ever seen, in terms of grounds for blocking, length of block and the way you handled the block appeal. RichFarmbrough, 01:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You really don't get me at all. I'm telling you this, bluntly, because you should know, and you have given everyone the impression that you are a big girl and can handle home truths (by dishing them out left, right and centre). It appears, however, that no sooner do you read this that you are blocking again, without discussion, and not as an uninvolved admin, but blocking someone you are in arbitration with. New candidate for "worst block evah." RichFarmbrough, 13:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Your bot is malfunctioning. It does not have approval to straight swap <references/> with {{Reflist}}, because the former is not deprecated. AWB general fixes only has approval for replacing certain hacks. I might have cussed at you, but I have refrained from issuing another block as I do not think it would be at all appropriate while the arbitration is ongoing. Fix your code, stop the bot from carrying out any actions for which it does not have approval and you can restart it in the usual manner to perform some useful task. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly, Helpful Pixie Bot picked up making the same unapproved edits right after you unblocked it. Unfortunately, as these things go on, more and more admins begin to appear "involved", making it harder for the bot to be blocked at all. In this case you were never involved with the situation outside an administrative capacity, and still... — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carl you are loosing touch with reality. The bot does not reprogram itself when it gets blocked... Hmm you are a professor of mathematics.. maybe you knew that? Maybe I'm being stupid assuming good faith?
And of course Elen was involved as soon as Hersfold, for whatever arcane reason made her a party to the Arb case. Stop making such silly statements. RichFarmbrough, 10:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rich. Please. Relax. There's a pattern, and that pattern seems to involve yourself eventually threatening virtually every well-intending editor who has tried to assist you. People who were not "involved" become "involved" only because you've initiated a one-sided argument with them.
On a much more immediate note: The outburst and language used is uncalled for, rude, and uncivil. Please moderate your language, leave gender out of it, fix your bot, and allow yourself to accept direct or indirect help from those that take the time to offer it. —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not threatened anyone - amazing accusation out of the blue! Please moderate your tone and retract such unfounded accuastions.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Dru of Id has given you some kittens! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companions forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else some kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kittens}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
I was wondering if you've had the time to look over my reply to your email from last weekend, especially the last two paragraphs, and if you'd mind replying. I've often felt lately that some of my messages to the mailing list aren't being looked at carefully, so I'd appreciate knowing that what I said in that message has been carefully considered. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should enter suspended animation until the improvement in the project is greater than what's already been destroyed. But unlike the Iridiun Conflict that will be never. RichFarmbrough, 00:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Darwinbish has taught your kittens to bite you shrewdly on the ass. Hopefully that has made your day better. Kittens are cute and have very sharp teeth! Spread the goodness of kittens by giving someone else some bitey kittens, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
I've hatted the discussion involving yourself and Hammersoft. As a previously-uninvolved editor, the best advice I can give you is to take three steps back and the same number of deep breaths and leave it alone for 24-48 hours. I asked Hammersoft to wait for a similar period of time before continuing that line of discussion (should he/she wish to continue it). Hopefully with that period things can calm down a little.
Any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
I just wanted to get a quick barometer check. A edit war broke out regarding if Palestine was or was not a nation and has landed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Since I saw the magic keyword and when I started digging into the disputants I observed some editors who express their national pride quite forcefully on the other side of the conflict. I would like a reading on if my use of the ARBPIA notice to warn all the contributors, and to warn each of the registered accounts individually was appropriate in it's use. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was something I meant to ask you regarding the SPI which you blocked me for, what is the difference between editing from a webhost and a proxy? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for input
I am of the opinion that an admin made a very poor judgment here or at least articulated his reasoning in a way that I find clumsy at best. I completely disagree that the word "lie" is "inherently disruptive" in a discussion when a user reasonably believes that he has evidence to support that accusation. What is the appropriate way to have this admin's actions reviewed? Pine(talk)20:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the rights or wrongs here - although I am minded to say that in general if someone is barefaced lying, saying "you are lying" is not a personal attack - some obvious steps are
Bob could post an unblock request to be allowed to input at RfAR
You could discuss it with DGG on his talkpage
You could raise the matter back at AN/I as a bad block
You could add the matter into the RfAR (although I think that's unlikely to go anywhere)
You could start an RFC/U on DGG - although he is usually quite mild mannered, and rarely bothers much with AN/I and such, so it might not have much traction.
Thanks, it's good to know of the options. I don't wish to get involved with the larger discussion on ANI where this started, and my main interest is this particular block. I may wait a little bit until tempers have cooled to take up this issue. Pine(talk)23:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I've asked to discuss my concerns about DGG's choices with DGG on his talk page. I have noted in the arbitration case that I don't think it's necessary, at this time, for DGG's actions to be a focus of ArbCom's attention. Pine(talk)23:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPI
I am unfamiliar with the SPI process and do not understand what you mean by "if Altenkrabbe socks again, watch out for this". What exactly, this page? Are you going to block these accounts as user:109.150.60.218 is flapping about and quacking in my face.Ankh.Morpork21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, cryptic remarks were for the other checkuser. You actually have two sockmeisters, Nangparbat, who is British, and Altetendekrabbe/Henrik.Karlstrom who is from Norway. This made it rather confusing. All socks should now be blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its also interesting to note that this university have remote connection.[2] so you can be 500 km away and still have universtiy IP--Shrike (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, can you check out the first edit here at 19:27, 24 September 2011 which suggests some overlap. I think there is a strong possibility of a good account/bad account in action. Thank you.Ankh.Morpork09:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that. The person operating the Henrik.karlstrom account gave a satisfactory reason to have an interest in the area, which AGF would preclude MEAT (he being the later account). However, if he continues to edit war in the area, I will reblock, similarly if Altetendekrabbe continues to be an obnoxotron - which he has been fairly consistently through his editing career. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, MEAT is where you persuade a bunch of unconnected people to turn up and make the edits that you tell them to. The Henrik.karlstrom editor isn't editing that way. And good/bad hand accounts usually edit in different areas to avoid detection of the good hand account - you don't usually get a 'gobby' editor suddenly spawning a civil and scholarly one (indeed, usually the socks of such an editor are instantly recognised by their tone of voice). It isn't an exact science though, and I will continue to monitor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
interesting, i came here to thank you and what did i find? a bunch of editors hellbent on insisting that people are guilty unless proven innocent. the reason why ankmorpork and shrike are throwing these baseless allegations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is that they are sockpuppets/meatpuppets themselves. i suggest you monitor them. please also note ankmorpork's attempt to smear a whole ethnic group in britain. btw, if you want me to be civil, i suggest that you start by not calling me "uncivil" of "gobby" or whatever. respect goes both ways. anyways, i want to thank you for the 2. opinion.-- altetendekrabbe 10:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Altetendekrabbe, I apologise if you found 'gobby' offensive - but you have got into trouble for it before. FWIW I understand your position - I note the DPP himself was at pains to stress in the Guardian newspaper a couple of days ago that this case is considerably more about the vulnerability of some of our young people than it is about race or colour. But you are not going about this well - avoid edit warring and personal attacks and you will present your case much better. Indeed all editors in the area should stick to discussion from reliable sources and avoid making accusations at each other at this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. please note that ankmorpork is now reverting my edits on other pages. he started an edit war and leaves bugos warnings on my talk page. i don't think he handled his failure very well.-- altetendekrabbe 14:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You removed sourced material with edit summary "already covered".If you going to remove such large chunks of material you should explain in talk first where exactly it was covered.--Shrike (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
elen, please take note. shrike is continuing ankmorpork's edit war. instead of de-escalating, they are fuelling the conflict. i refrained reverting ankmorpork on the british pakistani page so that things could cool down. instead, ankmorpork is following my edits, and starts an editwar. suddenly user shrike comes along and reverts so that ankmorpork does not violate the 3-rr. this is tag-teaming.-- altetendekrabbe 14:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say that you removed sourced information without any good explanation and without using talk page I have started a thread there I urge you to participate.--Shrike (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Altetendekrabbe, diffs please. Ankhmopork is a special changes patroller, his contribs list has hundreds of revert per hour in it. If he's removing your edits, show me where. Shrike, there's no need to get consensus before a change, but there must be a willingness to discuss afterwards. None of you edit war or I will just protect the article in whatever version it is in when I get to it. All of you discuss the changes that you want to make now, and try not to kill each other in the process. Try to see things from both sides - I live in this town, there are multiple points of view and I suspect they all have some merit except for the most extremist. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is referring to the Dhimmi page from which he removed sourced content and inserted tendentious WP:CLAIM's. I accidentally performed a twinkle vandalism reversion and did not supply an edit summary for my initial reversion. I therefore explained this on his talk page.Ankh.Morpork15:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sure. in the first edit ankmorpork used the charge of vandalism [3]. he then posts a bugos warning on my talk page, [4]. the warning is subsequently removed by another user [5] who also warns ankmorpork not to misuse blocking templates [6]. ankmorpork now makes a 2. revert under another pre-text [7]. when i revert him for the last time, shrike comes out of nowhere and continues ankmorpork's edit war [8]. a clear violation of wp:brd, and wp:point. ankmorpork and shrike are continuing the quarrel from the spi-case on another page. i don't think they have edited the page earlier either. classic example of tag-teaming.-- altetendekrabbe 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I would appreciate it if you could visit Talk:Muhammad. The article, Muhammad, has changed in a significant way since it originally passed WP:GA several years ago. It now states in the opening paragraph that Mohammad is the Founder of Islam and has relegated to a note at the end of the article that Muslims, themselves don't believe this. I have started a discussion on the talk page concerning this and would value your input. Thanks so much. Veritycheck (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance I'm afraid - too many other things going on for me at this point. Also, I seem to recall lengthy discussions quite some time ago that AGREED with the version that you are objecting to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SAQ statistics
Thanks for taking the time to write that terrific comment about the statistics of a survey at Talk:Shakespeare authorship question#New York Times survey (permalink). I have been following the nonsense there for an extended period and that survey has been mentioned many times, and its flaws described in detail (its author is a proponent of the fringe theory!), but I don't recall anyone making the simple yet devastating analysis in your comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I find non-statisticians rarely understand the concept of statistical certainty levels, and with very low percentages it always helps to go back to the actual numbers. Both of these are quite 'hard facts', compared to arguing about the population or sample quality which may be harder to pin down. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Code tweakers
Hah, it looks like we share a similar opinion of code tweakers - fine but don't let them run the asylum. I have the greatest respect for them but there always seems to be this rush to introduce change because they can. NtheP (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've worked for years standing between the IT team and the end users. Unless they are unusual, the IT team don't think large - it's the project manager's job to organise stakeholder comms, UAT etc. And on the other hand, the end users complain about everything. I always have a section in my issue logs for the inevitable complaints about the nasty new shade of green, the button that moved 5 pixels to the left etc. They sit there for a few weeks, then someone goes back and asks - so what shade of green do you want it? 99 times out of 100 the answer is along the lines of 'oh, I've got used to it now'. Go figure :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my VPT message. Did you notice that such a drastic change had already been reverted? Where do you see consensus for it (you've not even commented on the talk)? Are you sure that yet another sort-of-wheel-war on the watchlist styles changing them in short intervals and confusing users is a good idea? I think you need to revert this immediately and if necessary restore your change when/if a clear consensus is shown. Nemo06:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nemo. I don't think you've understood what I said (I probably wasn't clear enough). I haven't rolled the software change back at all - lots of people want it, it adds extra facility and is a good thing. But if you read the original discussion, almost nobody realised that the style change came with the software, not in the css. They were all expecting to be able to opt in, and left the discussion of how it should look until after it was enabled. All I have done is recreated the way it was before using css, leaving people now able to 'opt in' by modifying their common css with a variety of styles, which is what everybody was asking for. I'm hoping this can be turned into some kind of gadget allowing people who want their watchlist modified to select a style from a list of options. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The feature has been removed for most users and is now almost impossible to find (and will be so even with a gadget, which doesn't help much) despite being essential for a normal user experience on MediaWiki. Your change has not been discussed properly, and among the many possible style you chose one (by the way the most extreme) without any clear consensus and a discussion still ongoing. Another sysop had already reverted the hasty customizations waiting for a proper consensus. --Nemo13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, what we're going to do now is some proper stakeholder communication, so folks know what options they have. Twenty people took part in the original discussion, and 18 of them expected it to be something you opt in to. What was delivered was not as specified. Ok, this was probably down to a failure to read and understand the documentation on the feature - because what they got is clearly the advertised product - but it does show that communication has been a problem all along. And it's important to bear in mind that just because something is useful for you, doesn't mean its wanted by everyone. Work with me here - the community already has a low opinion of 'developers.' This risks making it worse if not handled well - the community needs to feel that its views are being taken into account, and that change is being managed, not just imposed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not sure what you mean about another sysop reverting customisations. People are free to customise their own css. The only time anyone else would get involved if is the editor was asking for help. While I agree with you in general that a user community first complains and then puts up with it, a large part of the active community wants to feel it has some control over its editing experience - the introduction of this feature has given them new abilities to control that part of their editing, currently with the use of customisation, maybe in a more formal way in the future.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, good call, this is the same point I made at VPT. If there is nothing wrong with the vanilla css make everything else an opt in "this may help your experience, here are some options" as has been done (now) with WP:CUSTOMWATCH. Users can then make there own choices about whether a change is "essential for a normal user experience on MediaWiki". The mission now is making users aware of choices available to them. NtheP (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a majority of users complaining or disliking the feature (rather, it's sure most users want it), and there's no way to make it actually opt-in. Users were already getting used to the feature and (very standard and understandable) style, the only thing you'll get by hiding it is that nobody will understand what you're talking about, even less be interested in it. Nemo18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silence is acquiescence, is that what you are claiming? Sorry don't buy it, the majority who have expressed an opinion are against such a change being forced at least without the express explanation of how to opt out being given. I've yet to find anything that explains what the benefit of this change is to anyone other than a small group of users who have 00s if not 000s of pages on their watchlist. And it can be opt in by saying "if you want to take advantage of this here is how to change your common.css". NtheP (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need stakeholder communications, so we actually can find out what most users want. So far, around 20 users discussed it initially, and 18 thought they were getting some kind of opt in on preferences. Once implemented, four times that number objected immediately, and most of these are pretty long term users. I would rather now try to find out whether there is a visual option that suits - say - three quarters of users, in which case you would make that the default with instructions for how to opt out, or whether everyone wants something different, in which case it needs to be clear from Special:Watchlist itself that you can customise your viewing experience in a number of ways. It is surely a fundamental of open source development that you don't just impose things on users and expect them to get used to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, thank you. I would, personally, prefer opt in but can go for opt out as long as the proposers of any change understand that as part of their implementation of a change, clear, easily available instructions how to opt out and the relevant code are essential parts of the deployment and without that information being available, the deployment doesn't go ahead. NtheP (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The watchlist bold disappeared again. Have no idea where to report it on the Technical pump now. I tried adding/removing your piece of code from vector.css and commons.css. Bgwhite (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it for an instance, then it disappears. Hmm, I haven't changed anything. Wonder if a script in my vector.js changed and is causing a problem? I'll work on that. Some of Equazcion's scripts do the same thing. My bad karma is spreading. Bgwhite (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know a good Mambo :) Srsly, it does sound like two things are conflicting, and knocking each other out the next time you run it. The standard diagnostic method would be to make copies of both common.css and vector.js, clear both, then add items back one at a time. Have you asked Equazcion if he has any ideas also? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found the culprit and it's Equazcion's script that removes the "mark all read" button on the watchlist. In my younger days, I used to be a programmer and linux admin. So, I'm very well versed in debugging techniques.... banging head against desk, swearing at the monitor, drink another 2-litres of caffeinated drink at 4am to keep you awake. Bgwhite (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Is bored out of his skull with having to constantly add crap to his monobook.css to keep off the "improvements" to the watchlist and the article histories.] Oh come on. I'd just got it all clean and now there's suddenly a "b" (meaning what? What? What?) in front of some watchlist items. Elen, do you happen to know some superior css code that'll keep off all the fucking decorations, present and future? Frutti di Mare23:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
P.S. I've realised what b stands for: bot edit. Boy that really throws into relief the fact that at least half my watchlist consists of bot edits. :-( Well, I don't want them marked with a b — I want to be able to have an option in Preferences or wherever to have bot edits hidden by default. Not have to click "hide bot edits" every blessed time — what good is that? The option of clicking "show bot edits" would be acceptable. I'm sure some people are mesmerised by bot edits, but surely most of us aren't very interested in them? Or is it just me? Frutti di Mare23:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm on vector, so I don't know if this will help. But, under preferences (top of page) -> watchlist, there is the "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" option. Bgwhite (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you had the opportunity to look at the RfC/U, the 11 subsection ANI thread, or the main MMA notability discussion. Pending the outcome of the RfC/U I'm considering filing a ArbCom request as it has been suggested multiple times that the locus of dispute is so far beyond the ability of any single administrator to do anything about the dispute that ArbCom is the next logical destination. If this question causes you to become involved please feel free to strike it as I would rather go into ArbCom blind with the full compliment of Arbitrators than with a idea of appropriateness and missing some of the committee. Hasteur (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was blocked following an AE Eastern Europe report (WP:DIGWUREN as was before the rename) in respect of replacing his userpage with a singularly ill thought out cartoon (designed by someone else) which accused Polish wikipedia editors of socking. And he said other things. You should be able to find it in the AE archive....it was of course posted to his talkpage, so he's being completely disengenuous when he says he doesn't know why he was blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Altetendekrabbe and I have a decidedly different POV and this has led to several content disagreements. This has escalated into him being blocked a couple of days ago for personal attacks. Since then he has continued in a similar vein; he has stated this which was retracted after I objected, and then this. The dispute resolution that he initiated is also replete with personal accusations. I request that you investigate these comments and take administrative action if warranted.Ankh.Morpork17:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
er, ok? elen, could you please check the tag-teaming ankhmorpork and shrike are involved in? i gave you the diffs in the spi-thread above. there is more proof now. there are other editors who charge ankhmorpork and shrike with tag-teaming. i also suggest you look into the dispute resolution that is going on now, and the british-pakistani talk page. it's clear that ankhmorpork started this conflict as they added contentious material without any consensus. -- altetendekrabbe 17:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i removed that comment a while ago. by the way, here is a racist who is supporting ankhmorpork [9][10]. i wonder why? the discussion on british pakistani page and on the dispute resolution page makes it clear that ankhmorpork is a disruptive editor. he uses dubious sources, adds badges of shame, and is disengenuous about what is written in the sources. all of this is clearly demonstrated in the discussion. the fact that he is getting the support of racists means that ankhmorpork edits confirm their bigotry.-- altetendekrabbe 09:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User AnkMorpork with the consistent support User Shrike has a history of editing in articles about crimes that happen to be committed by Arabs or Muslims (e.g. Rochdale sex trafficking gang, 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, 1929 Palestine riots). His Modus Operandi in such articles is to try to get the most inflammatory, sensationalist quotes and those that highlight the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrators inserted prominently into the articles. It is the kind of approach that I would expect in a right wing tabloid newspaper or a BNP pamphlet, but not suitable for the production of encyclopedic articles. This user already has two open dispute resolution cases over these issues with two entirely separate groups of editors. In all likely hood a third will be opening in the next few days with another separate group of editors (in which I am involved). In my opinion it is not surprising that people get upset by the approach adopted by this user. Dlv999 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"His Modus Operandi in such articles is to try to get the most inflammatory, sensationalist quotes and those that highlight the ethnicity/religion of the perpetrators inserted prominently into the articles."
I suggest you explain this attempt of yours to emphasise the Jewish ethnicity of the attackers, and my reluctance to divide paragraphs along racial lines.Ankh.Morpork10:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt at balance, following your extensive POV edits to the article. Among other things you inserted into the lead against consensus an inaccurate statement that Arabs had been responsible for all the Jewish deaths while Jews had been responsible for 6 Arab deaths. Under these circumstances I felt it was important to document the high quality academic sources which attribute more than 6 Arab deaths to Jews. But I think the wider issue is that the normal editing process in these articles has broken down and become dysfunctional. The common factors I see is yourself and Shrike's involvement in articles relating to Muslim/Arab crimes. Dlv999 (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. I just saw a comment you made, specifically the line: "However, it appears that like everyone ele who runs bots (remember I'm on a committee with Xeno and Coren) you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum." Was that posted as a joke or a serious comment?--Rockfang (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I came over as snippy (prolly did) - I just have had hardly any time to edit in the past week - this is pretty much the first time - and any time I did have was spent shepherding the watchlist kerfuffle. As you'll have seen by now, it was intended as a kind of shock tactic - I could kind of see things ending up the way they did, and hoped that if I could make Rich take notice .... but didn't work, and with hindsight was just horribly rude to our many editors on the autism spectrum (and Rich, who afaik has no such problems). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
An arbitration case regarding Rich Farmbrough has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above.
The following remedies have been enacted:
Rich Farmbrough (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.
Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked. At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.
Elen of the Roads (talk·contribs) is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.
In the mentorship page, one discussion that I archived, you don't imply that I used "over-the-top rhetorics" and "hyperboles" that would be deemed "disruptive" by others, do you? Also, AniMate told me to leave Hunter alone. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elen. This is an obvious sleeper sockpuppet account created in June 2009 that has been reactivated now to troll on arbcom pages (their second edit). Their conduct is becoming increasingly disruptive and their edits suggest yet another sock of Echigo mole. Since Echigo mole is "de facto" banned, I have twice removed their contributions there. Please could you or another checkuser look into this account? A detailed analysis can be found in the SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Dennis has misrepresented what I have said and done. Dennis has done that to me many times. I have asked him to acknowledge that he understands after explaining to him on several occasions that he has been inaccurate (always negatively) about me but he never has. In reality my e-mail account was used to harass me in real life today. I suspect Dennis was behind it. I have not accused him other than to say I think it was him. I have also requested that I be checked for sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry since those allegations have repeatedly been hurled at me. There is no seeming refusal to provide evidence. I refused and shall continue to refuse. I have had my personal life including my employment threatened and I'm wondering if my bank account could have been compromised. I insist action be taken against me immediately. I refuse a ban and demand a permanent block as well as a block of a range of IP adresses to ensure that my sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry end forever. I confess to canvassing, forum shopping, meatpuppetry of hundreds of users, writing comments as an IP with clear knowledge I was doing so, and sockpuppeteering over fifty accounts. Factseducado (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only accounts in good standing can vanish, and usertalk pages should not be deleted db-user - particularly when they contain edits by persons other than the user.I have blocked this account permanently - has someone filed an SPI for either him or Agent00f. If not I will do so as somewhere to park checkuser findings. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed from all the posturing that he was going to turn out to be Agent00f or someone else associated with that RfC. In fact, the truth of the matter appears to be that this user edits from one IP address, and has created one other account User:NewtonGeek which never edited. All three are currently blocked pending some calm, rational explanation that assures us all that he has the capacity to be a useful editor who does not fling hyperbolic accusations about all over the place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he has socked, it will have to be the WP:DUCK test. If he edits like Agent, it is easy enough to use two IPs to try to cover it up. If Agent also has a habit of editing logged out, comparing geolocate information for both IPs from the public data will show if they are in sufficient of a similar area (or editing via proxy).Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I see that you blocked Factseducado over this, but (and I'm sorry if I appear to be patronizing, I don't intend to, but my linguistic grasp of the language is not good enough to provide a suitable alternative wording) had you considered that he was either being sarcastic or falsely confessing to try and get himself an immediate block?--GilderienChat|List of good deeds12:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think he probably was trying to get himself blocked. It is still possible he is Agent00f - which several people think is likely - but someone would have to file an SPI on WP:DUCK grounds for that. Maybe if he calms down and posts rationally someone will unblock him.As it is, given the rest of his recent behaviour, I'm not too concerned about leaving him blocked for the moment. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that this might be the same editor, but I see distinct differences--in writing style, obviously. Then again, there is a patronizing tone to Facts writing that I find in Agent's writing as well. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Factseducado (Facts). I became acquainted with this editor working on the Theosophy article. I found him/her to be sensible and rather new to Wikipedia's ways. At one point, I presented a brief tutorial which Facts found useful. Facts, another editor, and I worked together quite congenially and it surprises me that this editor has been banned. I think the evidence for Facts banning is rather weak. It seems that he/she has done nothing demonstrably wrong other than having incriminated himself. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, would you mind providing a link for the CU comments confirming the sock? I can't seem to find them. I was going to be surprised if Factseducado had any confirmed socks, because my impression was that the user was trying to quit Wikipedia, and wanted their account blocked indefinitely. I think the claims of recruiting hundreds of meatpuppets and manning 50 socks were bogus, or at least, grossly exaggerated. ~Adjwilley(talk)17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Thank you for clarifying that. I'd never seen the RFC/U; I'd been drawn into the discussion on the user's talk page when they decided to blank several of their past talk page comments, including a talk page where I was participating. It looks like an unfortunate/messy situation for all involved. ~Adjwilley(talk)18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't intent to make this any more messy than it already is, but I only came here because of the frankly odd accusations by Dennis at the end of this section. As stated there, nothing in the few emails to me from Factseducado seems to imply anything of sort (I can provide these to ARBCOM), and the profile they build is someone rather consistent with Factseducado's rather substantial/specific if short contrib history diametrically opposite to any kind of sporting interest. As to whether I'm Factseducado, that's easy enough for ARBCOM to check. Agent00f (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Elen's CU check, you're not, so that should be the end of it; Arbcom doesn't need to get involved for that. The "sock" hasn't edited (according to the SPI) so it technically isn't a sock. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general I would prefer it if ARBCOM or whatever higher authority decided to eventually step into the dispute in the RfC linked. This isn't the first of such indictments which have been a massive sink of resources away from process or content discussions (to the extent that personal politics seems to historically constitute the overwhelming time spent from well before I joined the fray). The strong and somewhat guiding opinions of Drmies and Dennis there and here despite their supposed position as reasonably neutral admins seem to warrant it. I haven't seen too many other wiki disputes other than ones happened to catch at prior ANI's, but can't imagine many a more fitting scenario for what I can gather from ARBCOM's purpose on its wiki page. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have had a conflicting edit. I accidentally truncated the timestamp on the end of my first post. Please feel free to reply to the new comments separately. My take is this broader issue which has brought a wiki subject with hundreds of contributors and far more users to its knees for months, and now looks to infect other related subjects warrants some kind of higher investigation. This seems evident from all the bad faith assumptions now going around as if standard procedure, but I'm not familiar enough the specifics of wiki tribal knowledge to determine the best way to go about this. Agent00f (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NewtonGeek
Hi. You blocked for User:NewtonGeek for being a sock of User:Factsecucado, which doesn't exist as an account. Newtongeek hasn't edited, so I'm presuming it was from checkuser. They have appealed via UTRS. Do you know which the other account was? They say they are a married couple.. Secretlondon (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Came to read the thread above this one, but I can sortof answer your question. The "sockmaster" is User:Factseducado, looks like Elen typo'ed the username in the block log comments.. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read from the CHU that Agent00f and Facts are different people. Is Facts just blocked because of Agent? It sounds like we can unblock Newton in this case. Secretlondon (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't want to unpick this really (I'm ploughing through appeals this evening) so as Facts hasn't appealed I'll leave that to you. Secretlondon (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absent evidence or a retraction (or an appeal even) Facts can stay blocked for the time being. That was my intention, sorry if it wasn't clear. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to re-iterate the obvious, but to be entirely fair to Factseducado there's been copious biting on this topic. Factseducado was incredibly polite for a long time on this topic (as evidenced by contrib log) until numerous harsh accusations started flying his/her way for minor technicalities. Blaming one party for mutually degenerating behavior seems unbalanced. Agent00f (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the block reason and posted on Factseducado's talk page. They need to either substantiate their claim that Dennis is harassing them and threatening to contact their employer, or they need to withdraw it. Serious allegations cannot be left hanging. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not totally sure on what happens with regard to the CheckUser report and how you use it with regard to editors not named in the SPI, however I am contemplating adding in to the Agent00f SPI the following :
as they and Agent00f have just started using the argument that MMA should be treated as a league. I am aware that the two IP's are not in the same country but wonder if when you did your check-user report you limited it and would it be worth considering adding in - your comments would be welcome. Mtking (edits) 05:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust Agent00f edits only from IP addresses not used by any other editor - in Checkuser terms he has no socks. Ky does not appear to be a sock. Neither IP address appears to be an open proxy. So no, I wouldn't bother to add these to the SPI. Just because people agree with each other doesn't make them socks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo situation
Lifespan9 (talk·contribs) came to people's talk page for help, including mine, about the Jessicka situation. When I gave the AGF tone on him, Hullaballoo accused that user of being a sockpuppet of Swancookie (talk·contribs). Then Hulla gave me a "trout" message for being "gullible" and "naive" on the situation that went on for years... maybe? Also, I have contacted Hulla about his inadequate communication with other people, whose images were removed for "lacking" substantial fair use in Wikipedia. Magog and MGA73 tried to advise him about communicating more, but he is still too reluctant. Also, he advised me not to go to his user page anymore. What can I do? --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi George. I'm sorry, I've been very busy - my current job finished today and I have been very focused the last couple of weeks on looking for new work, and haven't had much time to edit. If he says to stay off his userpage, I'd stay off it. If he is behaving badly, it looks like you've got a couple of admins on the case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moar work for ya ;)
What's his name has left other messes and mebbe you're looking at 'em...
was moved twice, today, and that bot 'fixed' the double redirect so that it can't be moved back with out teh tools. It's a really old trick. Older trick was simply to edit the redirect yourself. But that's /obvious/. With the rise of teh bots, now the trick is to game /them/.
is where the article belongs; that's the topic the content of the article actually covers. Cook's expedition; not the whole planet-wide topic, which is sort of covered in Transit of Venus, which is going to be a TFA next month. A rare repeat TFA 'cause Teh Raul Said So. The intermediate move was at:
Done the first, but I don't think the second requires a history merge - my reading of the various policies is that a cut/paste fork of this kind only requires attribution. Now if you thing Karangasem Regency shouldn't exist.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks re the first (I should look, but have not yet;)
On the second; there's really no attribution; see history: it says he created it (and ya there's a tag, but it doesn't link). I know this sort thing is a pain. I let these go at the time as I was undercover ;)
A sockpuppet account Jello carotids(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) who has already been blocked for trolling on the WP:AN thread that another user opened on Echigo mole has been blocked as "sock troll" by FPaS. He also opened a SPI report on me similar to that of a previously blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, having located legitimate alternative accounts, used either for collecting information on the use of vodafone IPs for socking or collecting large numbers of rough diffs as a preliminary to submitting evidence on arbcom pages. Jclemens has not run a checkuser on the blocked account Jello carotids. Instead he is suggesting that my collapsing on AN and reversion there and elsewhere, which are similar to those of mutliple other users, are a sign of battleground behaviour. He has restored the SPI report on me deleted by FPaS. On 29 March, Southend sofa(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) made a similar report which was dismissed by several administrators as without merit. Southend sofa, because of a set of anomolies in their editing related to other sockpuppet accounts of Echigo mole, was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole 2 weeks later by DeltaQuad. When the SPI report on me was listed, one of the alternative accounts in use for the arbcom review was listed and all the raw diff files were present. 3 days later, since the rough diffs were still needed, I coalesced the rough diffs into one file in a new account that was reported by Jello carotids, identically to Southend sofa. Jclemens seems to be militating to change the way serial wikihounders whose sockpuppetry shouts out through a megaphone are treated. He seems to be doing this in only one specific case, where he favours the sockpuppet, known for continued harrassment and wikihounding of an established user for 3 years, to the detriment of that established user. Please could you take a look at the SPI report on me (a declared account) and the two outstanding reports on Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).
I was indeed. I have no idea why I made that mistake - going senile probably. Courcelles is quite cross about it - I can understand that - must have caused him and/or Fluff embarrassment. Just what you don't need. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HPB and related matters
"and they can't see why someone should be allowed to keep running a bot with as many bugs as HPB had"
I would be grateful if you would redact that statement and please stop making unfounded implications. It is fairly clear that you blocked me for a month on a complete misunderstanding of how NOINDEX works, as a result of a successfully trolling, it is high time that you just left these matters alone. RichFarmbrough, 17:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
To give an example of the harm these uninformed statements make, Jclemens has suggested that the desysopping was to stop me using AWB, following your absurd lead in that matter. RichFarmbrough, 03:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Here's a handy hint for life. Telling people how they are feeling is never a good idea. Free hint number two. Don't patronise.
With that out of the way, I would appreciate an undertaking not to keep making false and misleading statements. You promote yourself as a technical ignoramus, in a very charming way, no doubt, and yet you continue to take what might be called the technical high ground. In mitigation Jclemens, who seems fairly knowledgeable about technical matters, made the same mistake and compounded it with some tosh about noratelimit. The bottom line is this. When we are speaking against another human being we need to be damn sure of our facts - when we hold a position of trust in a community, doubly so. In this respect you have abysmally failed. I would appreciate a positive commitment from you to at least try harder in future, but preferably to avoid talking about things you don't understand altogether. RichFarmbrough, 02:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, keep bearing in mind that I wasn't involved in making the actual decision. I had been told that AWB came as standard with the admin bit, which is true, but fully accepted the information given in further discussion on the talkpages that there would be no difficulties in a non-admin obtaining AWB and using it to edit Wikipedia, therefore any "we must desysop him to remove AWB" argument would be pointless. As it is, looking at what was written in the actual decision, it doesn't seem to say that was the reason for removing the tools.
And to be frank, whether you want to hear it or not, wikilawyering like this is really not doing you any favours. You can take my advice or leave it (or optionally say it's rubbish) but I'd let it all die down for a couple of months. I believe there will be a call for new Checkusers in the next couple of months. If it interests you, maybe you could go for that. You don't need admin tools, but if you were successful it would improve your position at RfA because you could solidly argue that you need the tools to block the spammers and vandals that CU throws up. It would also be a chance to highlight that you are careful with people (I've not seen anyone ever advance the argument that you used admin tools wrongly where editors were concerned). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The decision doesn't say, IIRC, what the reason was for anything. Jclemens, who voted on it, however, does say it was to remove AWB from my toolkit. If I still had any faith in ArbCom I might request a clarification, the implication is that blocking and banning would result. RichFarmbrough, 18:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Looking at that SPI it seems a mess. Can you explain to me where the huge list of names comes from? And how you are raising an SPI on the basis of checkusering you have already done? RichFarmbrough, 21:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It was a monumental mess. It's not so common to get an SPI where there are multiple sockmasters - this is another example of how editors have a tendency to lump their opponents together as socks.
It isn't necessary to file an SPI to perform a CU, although I prefer to have somewhere to record the results, hence I started this one. You do have to have a very good reason to believe there is socking going on, and there is a point to the CU, before you CU - see my second example where the clerks, myself and another CU were all turning down some of the requests because either no evidence had been presented or the user had already admitted they were a sock and been blocked for it.
OK, I have spent some considerable time examining this (both when I first looked at it and now - see what I'm doing here?) and I more or less understand what's going on, I think.
Now here is what I see that might be helpful;
Firstly the list of names appears out of nowhere, even with the back link and the later text to go on I was struggling to source them. In the Bell Pottinger case extreme clarity was the order of the day. Thus, if each name had an annotation of it's source it would be useful.
Secondly (and I may still be confused here) it looks as if there are two parties here, a paid editor and his client. Combining them in the same case may not be useful.
Thirdly (and this may have happened) this particular case looks like it may have far wider ramifications and necessitate a proper paid-editing investigation through Elance and Odesk.
Good points, particularly about the annotations. I started the SPI as a place to document my findings from the CU tool as I went along. As this was intended for Kuru and the editors looking at the articles, who were familiar with all the parties, it didn't include a full backstory, just pointed to where the backstory was. The SPI clerks will sometimes split cases up where there are two sockmasters, or move them to another name, but did not do so in this case, although there were at least two parties here as you say. I believe Kuru and others did more digging, but it wouldn't surprise me if Elance was still trying to control some of the articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Elen of the Roads. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Given your conversation with Jack on this page, and especially because it directly references me, why have you not recused yourself from all matters involving Jack Merridew? Raul654 (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of any outstanding requests for Arbitration in respect of this individual. Should one be filed, I will give consideration to your request. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you recusing yourself as an arbitrator with respect to issues related to this individual? That's a yes or no question. Your colleagues do not seem to have difficulty noting recusal from AC issues. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My only contribution has been to clarify the situation in respect of previous sanctions and rulings about his account and how it impacted on the legitimacy of his current account. I voted in some of those motions - I'm entitled to give my view on what I voted for. As I said to Raul above, if someone opens a new RfAR on the guy, relating to his current editing, I would - as I would for any case - give consideration to a request from any party to recuse, and would take advice from the other Arbitrators. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just serving as another pair of eyes, and with thanks for your rewriting the block note: I was wondering whether the latest unblock request sufficiently serves as a withdrawal of the charge of outing. The user is presenting as someone without complete technical prowess, and has already made attempts to delete such comments en masse. Perhaps if you were to delete and/or oversight all the charges of outing by Factseducado you know of, that might be sufficient? You might be the only one right now who knows where all the alleged charges are. The only charges by this user I know of are (were) on Agent00f RFC/U talk, and they were not at all clear to me as charges of outing given the newness of the user. Or is there other diffable disruption that should also be addressed by continued indef? Thanks. JJB 22:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It's probably worth pointing out that we seem to be weighing an admin's aspirations for higher office one day against another editor's more fundamental posting privileges. For all this talk of character and fairness, Facts has yet to receive any retraction over provably unfounded SOCK claims by said admin which led to the first indef, and is in fact still indefed for a parallel "accusation" far less clear cut as policy violation (basically mounting to "I don't trust Dennis"). Something to that effect might work toward earning some semblance of trust back. Agent00f (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note since I have been requested not to post on a certain editor's talk page. I would like to raise a concern regarding the recent postings by said editor to imply that they had consulted legal advice regarding the issue raised here. It may be me, but I see that straying into the "chilling" territory explicitly defined by WP:NLT. The continued erratic behavior (No longer self-signing their posts) and claiming all sorts of interesting potential exemptions suggest a mounting WP:BROTHER defense. I will attempt to keep my continued thoughts to myself as it appears that instead of moving to rehabilitation, the editor in question appears to be moving to a indef-"no talkpage"-block. Hasteur (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, since we can't make an erratically behaving user turn in paperwork or stop believing something, why is your complaint not settled by oversight? On the unblock question (newbie and formerly helpful contributor thoughtlessly makes improper dramatic charge without evidence, withdraws it and apologizes) I don't have that much experience. Newbie claims to truly believe the charge, but newbie is attempting to withdraw the charge and not make it again, in my book that's a matter for time served and probation. The fact that newbie was sorely provoked by several may not apply to this judgment but does tend in the same direction. JJB 10:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I can oversight all the edits, and will do so, but I do not have any sympathy with users who make an allegation and then refuse to substantiate it. At the very least, Facts should explain why she won't forward the email, not keep making these daft statements about waiting for the whole of Arbcom to tell her to do so. Maybe if you try a 'good cop' approach, you might get more info out of her. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're engaging in AGF here, it's probably best to seek an alternative basis rather than Hasteur's insinuations above and consider the possibility that Facts is careful to remove anything which might be grounds for such insinuation given they can apparently serve as a basis for her indef. If we're seeking clarity, perhaps we can find some as to how skepticism serves as a basis for indefs. Agent00f (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a very credulous skeptic myself, Dennis. Thanks Elen. JJB 11:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur, a polite request to an uninvolved editor to stop posting tenuous personal accusations on the user's talk page is not an invitation to write the same elsewhere. Agent00f (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Needed. I am simply informing Elen of my concerns and doubts. As an Arbitrator, she's presumed to be very good at taking in reams of information and distilling it down to the important parts. Now pleas discontinue laying any further accusations at my doorstep. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right, this venue seems to be reserved for bludgeoning Factseducado, who can't bludgeon anyone here. However, the clear exit criteria for blocking reason of "accusations" was explicitly "this editor must either withdraw the allegations or ...", but has shifted to surrendering personal identifying info to address concerns over someone's future aspirations on the site, so it doesn't seem straightforward at all. Agent00f (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recall the sequence of events perfectly well: This was the first comment by Facts regarding email harassment. This was a BITEing reply from Dennis not long after. It was only after this that Facts suspected Dennis, not exactly altogether out of place for someone unfamiliar with technology given that comment. If these diffs are inaccurate or incomplete, please be specific. BTW, "this editor must either withdraw the allegations or ..." was a statement from Elen; who if we recall made the block, not you. Agent00f (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the blanking, i'm moving my questions over here.
This Wikipediocracy thread (Looks like they deleted the thread) would be a good read. I'm going to go through the points made from the opening post there as I see them and what I have observed about this case. Can Elen or someone explain some of the parts that I ask about?
1. If we assume that User:NewtonGeek is indeed the husband, is it true that he revealed his real name (and incidentally place of occupation from the email) to a bureaucrat? If so, which bureaucrat are we speaking of? Why was this information asked for? Per the privacy policy, there should be a rather good reason to request this personal info. Also, is it true that a portion of the personal info in this correspondence was revealed to other users (Arbcom or whomever) without the subject's permission?
2. The hometown address thing i'm disregarding. They're likely referring to Dennis pointing out that the IP slip-up reveals the general location of Factseducado, which is irrelevant. The same is true for all the rest of us and we've all revealed our IP address at one time or another. Though it does not reveal one's actual address, as far as I know, so I don't know where that's coming from.
3. Per 1, has An Arbcom member been shown the email correspondence without being allowed to by the subject?
4. Apparently some sort of threatening email was sent to Factseducado to their email address that was revealed in the correspondence with this bureaucrat. Since the number of people with knowledge of this email address is small, the suspects of who could have done so is also small. Is any action being taken to look into this to see if it is true or not?
NewtonGeek (the husband) put an unblock appeal in thru UTRS, which was handled by User:Secretlondon - a UTRS admin and also a bureaucrat. You'll see a note from him above about it. I haven't seen anything that contains NewtonGeek's name or occupation (or his email address). SecretLondon sent me an email asking how he should respond, but his email didn't contain any personally identifying information about either party. NewtonGeek had volunteered that they were husband and wife, which was why both accounts had the same IP, and his wife had received a nasty email from persons unknown on her email address, so had changed the email address attached to her account to be his email account (I think he thought we could see account details and this was part of the SPI). I am not aware of any Arb but me being involved with this.
Factseducado edited a number of times while logged out, then went back and put her name against the IP address. As I recall, the IP does have a fairly tight geolocation (not all do - most UK ones are hopeless) so you could easily have said where it originated from with some accuracy using one of the online geo tools.
Factseducado was complaining of receiving harassing email on her email account several days before the NewtonGeek account was blocked. The timeline you apparently have doesn't tie up with this, as Secretlondon didn't get the UTRS ticket until after NewtonGeek was blocked, and I don't believe he ever had Facts email address, just her hubby's.
Factseducado never said who she had given her email address to, and she consistently refused to forward the harassing email to Arbcom despite multiple requests. I don't know, maybe she'd deleted it and didn't want to say. As you'll have seen above, she was actually blaming Dennis Brown for sending the harassing email. I would have looked into it - if it had turned out to be an editor with a wikipedia account I would have blocked his/her ass whoever they were. However, as Facts never explained how Dennis had her email address (the impression she gave me was that she had given it to him), or who else might have had her email address, or sent Arbcom the email, I'm not sure what else can be done. She said in one of her unblock appeals that she'd only just found out that it wasn't safe to give your email address out on the internet, so I'm not sure whether we can be sure it was only given to a few people. I'm open to suggestions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "suspicion" the user had seemed to be result of Dennis' own statement that Facts was "outed" when Facts accidentally posted without logging in. Given that it's pretty obvious Facts doesn't have much in the way of computer expertise, questioning their "reasoning" on technical matters isn't exactly helpful. What's puzzling here is why someone in what was probably a stressed state was summarily indefed for a careless remark and continues to be indefed for choosing not to reveal email which has personal details (such as employer as directly alluded to). Facts has apparently already apologized for the comment. Agent00f (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Facts has officially "retired" from Wikipedia. Is anything served by further discussion of this? The user seems unwilling to retract accusations made against a user in good standing (saying they could be blanked, but never actually stating the accusations were even potentially in error). Dennis, I wouldn't worry about this being used to tarnish your image in the future, because without evidence, the accusation is as useless as any other random cry of ADMINABUSE. Anyone who might be swayed by such a claim is unlikely to be supportive of you in any case. Even the Wikipediocracy thread has apparently been deleted (a fate which, should it happen to befall most of that site, would certainly seem to make the world a better place). Cuppa, anyone? It's too late for black tea for me, but I believe I've got some rooibos lying around...Qwyrxian (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The user seems unwilling to retract accusations made against a user in good standing (saying they could be blanked, but never actually stating the accusations were even potentially in error).". If the overall concern is over a matter of wording, those are easily fixed without prying into personal info. AFAICT, retractions seem to be uncommon if the indef block request against Facts for SOCK by users in good standing (with far more aggressive accusations) is a standard example, but it looked as if that would've been inadequate anyway. As for the fundamental question of what we're doing here, personally it's a matter of character and principle. Agent00f (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a puzzle piece for you, Elen. The alleged harassing email came immediately after Facts revealed personal details that IMHO were sufficient for an assiduous third party to find a working email address for her; I have not yet checked whether those details are still available or whether they do in fact lead to an email. It seemed to me at the time that the alleged email would have come from one of the parties to that discussion, so I said nothing. Further (with apologies to the suspected party), it appeared that Facts named the suspected party immediately after that party made an innocent leading statement about the email that would invite suspicion in a person with the suspicious nature Facts has demonstrated: that is, Facts's accusation was a mere intemperate attempt at self-protection by lashing out against one of several parties who were ganging up on her and saying she should man up to it for having wandered into the ductwork of RFC/U (my paraphrase). It's possible that Facts may also sent a wiki-email, or responded to one, both of which I think reveal her address; but I know of no evidence from anyone that this occurred. Seems more likely that Facts unwittingly self-identified and then was harassed further than she had already been on RFC/U.
The "retirement" should not be taken any more seriously than other statements to desire to stop editing. (The terms "diva" and "opus" for this operation originated on FreeRepublic.) So IMHO this is still an open issue, and the unblock request has gone unanswered. I also think it would be unhelpful to jump to a third block charge (from socking to attacking to, um, general disruption?). Facts has apologized, attempted to withdraw the statement, and promised not to do it again in a way appropriate for AGF. Accordingly, it's very hard for me to see another approach than to recommend unblocking; we have plenty of tools for any further probation necessary. JJB 14:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
My final take on the whole thing -
I will accept that Facts is technically clueless, but I see no reason to believe that she can't read a calendar. Hence I can see no reason why she claimed on Wikipediocracy that she was being harassed because her private information was released to villains by Secretlondon following her husband's unblock appeal, when the alleged email was sent two days before
As we are accepting that she is technically clueless, I have no idea who might have her email address. If you email someone using the 'email this user' facility, it does not reveal your email address or the other user's email address. If they reply to you, you can see their email address. Only if you reply directly to their email do they get to see yours.
I do see where Facts gave out some information. I can further see how that might have encouraged someone to make a guess that information posted elsewhere on the web might belong to Facts.
Trey Geek makes an observation at the Agent RfC/U that the entire MMA disupte had featured outing and harassment as a tactic. This area seems to be watched by people who have not registered accounts and who have been in some cases disruptive. We also know Wikipedia suffers from the presence of internet trollers. The possibility cannot be excluded that one of these individuals pieced it together and sent the email.
The possibility also cannot, in my opinion, be excluded that it never existed in the form that Facts has presented it. Facts seemed to have regarded everyone in that discussion as either friends or enemies, and all non-supportive commentary as hostile, and the possibility cannot be excluded that the email communication was not hostile, she just found it unnerving that someone had found information about her on the internet.
Unfortunately, lacking both the alleged email and a crystal ball, I cannot tell what the truth of the matter is.Facts has blanked their talkpage and retired. In this case, I can see no reason to unblock at this time. I consider the matter closed unless Facts either returns to request an unblock or makes representations to Arbcom, or through OTRS or similar. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Elen! Here's my research.
Agreed, did not read the 'cracy thread, but Facts had already claimed harassment about 24 hours before the SPI opened. Probably means Facts had a bad memory.
Facts claimed she replied to a wiki-email (thus revealing her address) and implied the same emailer sent a second ("harassing") email. Not diffing for privacy. Therefore strike my first scenario, Facts's claim (as I've stated it) is the most likely to be correct.
Agreed wholeheartedly. But best left as is given this context.
Based on #2, I believe that it was someone in the MMA discussion, but that Facts knows who it was. However, what is important is that Facts said it was "through" a particular named party, not (e.g.) "from" that party. Therefore the named party is not accused of outing, but of conspiracy to out, whereas the alleged "outer" was a second (unnamed) party. It is quite clear based on what I found Facts saying (#2) that, whoever did the alleged outing (if anyone), they did not need any help from the named party. Accordingly I would counsel the named party to drop the charge (viz., that Facts accused that party of outing), as it was clearly Facts's misunderstanding (which might have been exacerbated by the named party's IMHO hostile tone, verbum sat); that misunderstanding is now withdrawn.
Certainly alternative explanations exist, but I would run with the above as the "accepted" explanation.
I have rationalized my own argument away as follows: a posting of a "retired" page is a withdrawal of an unblock request, therefore another unblock request should be required first. I will note that on Facts's page briefly. Whether ignored or responded to, that will keep the process clearly explained. No oversight necessary either. (The comment(s) would be too buried and ambiguous, and the later revisions too mazy, for anyone to bother. From the current revision, I researched to be sure that nothing would be lost if any comment(s) were deleted and everything oversighted from then to now, but from my experience it's more dramatic to do so than not. Even our going on about it is suspect.) That is all. JJB 20:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It's still unclear why an indef block on a user is predicated on the "truth of the matter", esp. when the crux of their alleged crime is literally "I suspect you, Dennis" in a time of distress after Dennis felt the need to be intimidating. Qwyrxian had a really good point above that this hardly constitutes much of any consequence, yet grand accusations are made of it directly leading to the greatest punitive measure which can be dealt on wiki.
This statement is also worth discussing: "Facts seemed to have regarded everyone in that discussion as either friends or enemies, and all non-supportive commentary as hostile". This wasn't evident from the actual conversion. To the contrary, the opposite appears to be been true with several editors piling on Facts despite Facts' general civility. It seems fairly obvious why she was a target. The situation only escalated when the comments towards Facts became increasingly hostile, coupled with the IRL email.
The only reason that Facts seemed to have "retired" is that despite fulfilling the criteria for unblock, the demands changed to revealing even more personal info to parties who just changed the criteria. In light of that, it seems more than fair to act on the fulfilled initial requirements (which adhere to policy) rather than put them through that choice of being able to use their account or maintain IRL privacy/dignity. Agent00f (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease assaulting the equine - it has rung down the curtain and gone to join the choir eternal. This matter is closed for the moment. Should Facts make an unblock request, there may be a reason to reopen it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's being referred to exactly, but I'll revert anyway since it doesn't seem like answers are forthcoming. Agent00f (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you use your super powers to investigate me. AGK has claimed that I have made edits with AAWB but won't tell me which ones. RichFarmbrough, 00:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I think this new user could be a WP:BITE situation waiting to happen (which I think we'd like to avoid). Thought I'd put this on your radar since I've seen you so tactful in the past : ) - jc3721:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the contribs even after doing a purge. Should I note this on Bugzilla if it's not already there? Pine✉21:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd gone from the editor's userpage to his contribs and assumed it was a cache issue but the answer is that Jc37 accidentally put User:Snowwatcher instead of just Snowwatcher in the user4 template. Try the link now, you'll see the contribs. Now, someone just needs to explain that volunteering for admin on your second edit isn't a cracking idea. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And my apologies for the linking mistake (That'll learn me. I usually test templates in show preview, but this time the blue linked results fooled me : )
Oh and I would have tried to help myself, but my last attempt to help out a new editor led to me being not only chastised for it, but also being accused of forum shopping (of all things).
