Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19 Block Enthusiasts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-19 Block Enthusiasts

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.


[edit] Request Information

Request made by: AquaticTheory 02:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the issue taking place?
... Mostly in the Wikipedia namespace
Who's involved?
...I am and a couple Admins who prefer to block rather than discuss an issue.
What's going on?
...Very long story, but the short version is that I had a second account that I used to post. An Admin did not like the post, and after my trying to discuss it, the account was blocked, being called a sockpuppet even though the account violated no policy. Now, a few Admins block me on sight calling me a sock, and I would like to discuss it. I am trying to calmly discuss, but that is hard to do when they are engaging in interplanetary destruction.
What would you like to change about that?
... Really I want my good name cleared. I worked quietly on Wikipedia for years until an onslaught of Admin attacks for an error in understanding Wikipedia policy they made.
Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
...Oh yea, being top secret is essential. If I am caught talking to you they will put an IP range block up to prevent North America from editing Wikipedia. Like I said, I just want to calmly talk about it, and they are willing to dismantle Wikipedia to prevent me from trying to post. Just talk to me on this user account's talk page or here. I am watching both of them.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

[edit] Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

[edit] Case - Block Enthusiasts

I'm quite happy to help but you'll have to be a bit more descriptive! :) You can explain it on my user page or here if you want, or if you want, you can put it on the case page and I'll open it up there. --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 15:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BarryC, thanks for your interest in this. It is really quite simple but has turned into a wild ride. Hope you are up for it!
Real simple background is there was a page I helped create and watched, and it steadily grew with quite a few contributors (over 50). One day an Admin came by and removed a large section saying it was not encyclopedic. This was after the article and that section had been started more than a year and a half earlier. Naturally, I restored the content. A couple more Admins quickly joined in deleting the content, and I restored it a couple more times. Frankly, I did not understand their concerns because I spent my time in article space, and all I saw was a couple users deleting what over 50 users put together. They ultimately put it up for an AfD.
By this time I was reading a whole bunch of policy pages, since they were citing tons of things they said were violative. I wanted the contributors to the article to know there was an AfD, but I didn't want to go awry of policy. I created another account to post to the contributors to keep my account out of it. Then I posted to the contributors. This was the only contribution the other account made "Please support the article you helped create on its talk page and at this page. Thank you."
I did not vote in the AfD with either account, but I let the process work, if that is what the process was. The AfD said the content had to go (votes were overwhelmingly from like minded Admins). I never brought the content issue up again, never edited that page again, nor disputed the AfD. It was done per Wikipedia standard.
Now here is where it gets messy. One of the Admins filed a RFCU on my original account and the multiple account. I read the RFCU and it is clear that there should be a policy violation in order for the RFCU to be completed. The RFCU is looking for sockpuppets who are abusing Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that the only contributions by the multiple account was the one line above and only to the relevant article contributors. I used the multiple account to object on the RFCU since I didn't do anything wrong. I was then accused of Spamming and Vote-Stacking.
Sure enough, the RFCU was completed, and the accounts were shown to be connected. The multiple account was labeled as a sockpuppet and my account was tagged as a puppetmaster. The multiple account was blocked for being a sockpuppet.
All over that one sentence, I have this lousy label put on top of my user page making me out to be a villan. I had been editing on Wikipedia for a couple years with no trouble, now I am suddenly a violative outcast. In an effort to clear my name I contacted the responsible Admins, posted on AN/I all to the result of being harassed, pursued, blocked, and mocked. I have done two things, I posted that sentence in accord with direction on how to make those posts at WP:SPAM and I have protested the administrative action taken against me.
Small issue right? Seems like extreme Admin action right? It is. Problem is when I demonstrated that I didn't spam and the account was not a sockpuppet, they couldn't refute it, and just said I was wikilawyering. I think that is just an excuse for them to justify the action without it being supported by policy.
So, you want this one? It is simple at the base of it, but you will see it is ugly later. Right now, I would like to just discuss the post and the accusation of being a spammer and sockpuppet. I am happy to answer any questions you have and provide links to relevant pages, but would prefer to avoid using specific links at this time, because there are a couple Admins who work to track me down, block me, and purge my request for someone to look at this.
Thanks. AquaticTheory 05:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a few queries on things. Firstly, when the admin originally removed the content, why did you take it upon you to revert his/her changes? Why did you not ask for their reasoning, instead of, by the looks of things, initiating an edit war? And quite a serious edit war at that, as you were dueling with admins. Also, why did you create the sock in the first place - to keep your good name out of it is your reasoning - that I don't understand. Whatever you were fighting over in the first place, you have just put yourself in a worse position by creating the sock. The admins must have had some evidence against you when they initiated the RFCU, and succeded. Finally, have you created another sock with AquaticTheory, whose first contribution seemed to be yesterday, when you started this mediation session?

Oh yeah, one more point. This is the Mediation Cabal. We mediate, not investigate. That said though, if you want to reveal more information in private, just ask for my email and I'll help you there. --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. Even though I had been on Wikipedia for a long time, I really was quite innocent to the Administration of it. I had only posted something to an article talk page once before, and honestly did not pay much attention to that. When you ask, why did I get in a revert war with an Admin, first, I didn't know what an Admin was at the time. While I have spent tons of time on Wikipedia researching, and reading articles, and doing some contributions, I never got into the behind the scenes stuff. Another way to look at it was, why did Admins revert war with me. Really the revert wasn't so bad, it was six times over a few days. If that was a lot, I didn't know it until I got hit with a 3RR. I stopped at that point because I got to read something new. (The other guys last four reverts took place in just over 24 hours)
Regarding the multiple account, I had no idea multiple accounts were so inflammatory. I had created multiple multiple accounts to edit articles before. Like I said, I worked in the article space, and never dealt with voting or anything before.
Evidence against me during the RFCU? No. That is why I protested. I tried to sophisticate myself quickly. Before the RFCU the account only made that one post to contributors on that one day. No warnings, no discussion, just the RFCU because they said I was a vote stacking spammer. Here is why I disagreed at Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming it said, and still says, "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." The policy gives instructions on how to do it.
Mediate, yes I would like that. If alright, I hope to dialogue with you just a bit before bringing in another. This got quite inflamatory and I have not had a chance to discuss this with anyone yet. An Admin protected my talk page after I had posted arguments there to keep me from posting, so I had to create antoher account. I would prefer to use the term multiple account, because absent using a multiple account to violate policy, it is not a sockpuppet. At least that is what WP:SOCK says. Thanks. AquaticTheory 13:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets on the whole inidicate bad faith. --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Any account that acts in bad faith is an indication of bad faith. The mere presence of an account is not bad faith. Please don't forget WP:AGF.
This is the heart of my issue here barryC, yes a multiple account was used. Others however did not AGF and took extreme action. I would really like to talk about this, but if the mediator is going to be working with a bias before we even get into the detail, I am not sure if you would be able to help with a mediation.
If you already see where I did something wrong, please tell me, but please don't be assuming bad faith here. Please see that I am trying to work with this situation, and I am AGF that this process could be beneficial for me and others involved. What do we do? AquaticTheory 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Hold on though (and sorry for weighing in) Jimbo himself says:
There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason. I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny. (2003)
So what was your good reason for using multiple accounts? Why not just one? Sockpuppets are not bad faith but they arn't good faith either - it is a form of deception after all!
Anyway for Barry to get anywhere here your going to have to provide some links to the AFD in question, your old accounts and any other pertinnent stuff. Having a hypothetical discussion is one thing but for him to hit the meat of the matter he needs access to the whole story :D --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 13:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am more than happy to provide the relevant info here, however, is my mediator going to be able to mediate. As described above my case involves the delicate subjects of a multiple account that is accused of violating policy. My contention is that I was complying with policy and not violating it. I am hoping that the mediator can be nuetral in this instance and help get to the issue, and not express bias. That will doom this to failure. Can the mediator refrain from imparting judgement (which frankly is the problem that I have experienced - users who take punitive action against a multiple accout without violation). Is there nuetrality here? AquaticTheory 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, hey. I am not biased, I say that sockpuppets indicate bad faith with experience from Uncyclopedia. I meant that as a view on things, intending to say: "Sock puppets have the habit of creating more problems than they solve", and not personally attack on you (e.g. "You're an idiot for getting a sockpuppet in the first place"). I am quite willing to give my best shot at mediating this case, but your hypothetical discussion is taking up a lot of space - and you are portraying this as quite a lengthy case. So therefore, why don't we cut to the chase? --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 20:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
BarryC, thanks for keeping an open mind. Sorry if that came across as harsh. I have had people react very negatively toward my having a multiple account. I do appreciate your time with this. AquaticTheory 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The details

OK, I don't really know who to mediate with. The original blocker (Hall Monitor) has left Wikipedia, so perhaps The Admin completing the CheckUser Request inappropriately is the best place to start.

GoldToeMarionette (talk • contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk • contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk • contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [1]
Other Admins contacted [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply
GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [7]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page.

I am interested in discussing this, because no one has ever taken the time to talk with me. I feel I have legitimate concerns, but ever since the Check User was completed, Admins either protect my talk page, or block the account I try to communicate with. While much has happened since this original issue, I think it is important to focus on the original concern, the inappropriate Admin action, which no one would discuss with me. Thanks. Your time is truly appreciated. AquaticTheory 05:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me clarify things a little. I have set up an order of events, could you please just verify them. I have tried to put these from a NPOV.

  1. Pet Peeve dispute occurs over section "List of Pet Peeves"
  2. Revert War occurs between PoolGuy and other parties - PoolGuy blocked for 3RR violation
  3. AfD request filed - GoldtoeMarionette sock created by PoolGuy to promote the Afd, and allow contributors to defend their article
  4. GtM blocked for alleged spamming
  5. Various socks created attempting to contact admins
  6. Checkuser request filed - Checkuser matches PoolGuy to GtM et al.
  7. Arbcom complaint filed - Arbcom rule that PoolGuy should be restricted to one name.
  8. PoolGuy blocked

And presumabably, AquaticTheory created. --BarryC (talk) Uncyc 16:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BarryC, you have got it pretty good. Except GoldToeMarionette was blocked for being a sockpuppet. If there was spamming, I am sure the Admin who sent it to checkuser would have just blocked it for spamming, but instead, they must of realized it complied with the WP:SPAM policy.
I think you can see now why the title I picked was so appropriate. Just trying to dialogue results in this immediate action. At this time, I would like to just focus on the first four items on your list. The rest of it occurred because of people failing to dialogue with me. I know once we get the first part resolved, the rest will come together quite nicely.
In Regards to the 3RR - I did that inadvertently because I | did not understand the policy at that point. I was blocked for 24 hours. I | apologized for it. It has never happened again. Additionally, GoldToeMarionette was not created until after the block had expired.
I am sure that you can see all of this is quite typical action for users who are not familiar with the many policies of Wikipedia. However, when the Check User was filed, and GoldToeMarionette was subsequently blocked, I felt it appropriate to understand the basis for the action, just as I had with the 3RR. The only problem was Admins chose to ignore me, and the reason for that, I believe, is they realized I was correct in my statement that policy was not violated. Since they wanted their version to be true, they ignored me and chose to let the inappropriate Admin action stand. I am happy to follow the policies, but those vested with the Admin authority should do so as well. If someone would take time to explain to me how GoldToeMarionette violated policy I would be satisfied. The only problem is, I don't think they can do that. Thus, all Admin action appears unjustified, so I would like it reversed. I think that is more than fair. This is the only thing I have been trying to communicate since March.
Where should we go from here? Oh, now that this has been found, I will continue to be blocked. Don't let that worry you, I am long past being phased by the bullying intimidation tactics. I appreciate your your help. Looking forward to finally getting all this resolved. UnderwaterAquaticAdventure 05:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
AquaticXXXX yoiu have been blocked and banned extensively for many reasons and on community consensus - going through a protracted mediation process will have little effect, we have no power to unban you! Instead you should get in touch with some senior admins on the IRC channel demonstrate your good faith and ask to be unblocked - but only if you are serious about joining the wikipedia community proper and adding to the articles... This mediation has been closed --Errant Tmorton166(Talk)(Review me) 08:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are not many reasons for my being blocked and banned, which is why I have sought mediation. I would like to actually discuss this. Failure to discuss and relying on the assumption that the previous Admin was correct in their action is flawed. This has occurred again and again, causing a perpetuating cycle of Admins failing to actually communicate. I was holding out some hope that this project could actually work at stimulating dialogue for once. It was, up until some Admin decides to throw another block on.
I do not expect those running this to unblock or unban, but they should facilitate the dialogue with others. Frankly, getting in touch with senior Admins does not work, because Admin minions simply remove my comments. Please reopen this mediation. I am actually trying to work through this. Without this venue which should be based in some respect and assumptions of good faith, my attempts to communicate will be much more disparate and less focused.
What is an IRC channel? LowDensityUser 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocking this guy as yet another sock of banned editor, PoolGuy. --Tony Sidaway 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/d/Wikipedia%7EMediation_Cabal_Cases_2006-07-19_Block_Enthusiasts_d121.html"