Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ST47 is supposed to be our mediator at the foie gras informal mediation. Yes, there is an ongoing controversy, and both sides have engaged in edit warring; to attribute it to us or to speak of disruption is hardly what one can expect from a neutral mediator. ST47's statements about 3RR violations are heavily one-sided too. To accuse us of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism" (code C) is ludicrous - and codes D and E are too, since the only reason we might be sockpuppets is that we all disagree with the pro-foie gras side. The other information given by ST47 is vague and unsustainable, such as the assertions about writing styles - while the pro-foie gras side is certainly acting entirely of a same accord, one user even calling two others to help in in that straw poll! (here and here).

ST47, who took up this case, expresses that he doesn't care for the arguments - after one side showed that foie gras is not known to have been produced by the Egyptians, he answers that "This is not an argument about foie gras, its history, or its production, but about the article." He doesn't care for the arguments; it's easier to simply take sides. The foie gras case is not an easy one; it would have been understandable for ST47 to desist, but not for him to fall in to the pressure of the "majority" just because that is the more comfortable option.

David Olivier 13:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment very briefly on Olivierd's statement that I called two others to help in the straw poll. These two users were at that time already named as parties to the mediation, and my very wording on their talk page was only to point out to them that the mediation had taken a new turn, and that they might want to express their position if they so wished. The reason I left these users a note is that, contrary to all other users names in this mediation, these were the only two left who hadn't been active on the mediation page since ST47 tried to restart the mediation. Please let me know if I broke any rules, but this was only done to ensure all named parties had a chance to express their opinion and wasn't trying to influence the "vote" (as the mediator, ST47, said at that time this was a listing of arguments for or against each of the positions he perceived).--Ramdrake 14:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course you were trying to influence the vote. And I wouldn't be so petty as to hold it against you if those on your side, and now ST47, didn't themselves have such a track record of petty slurs. When every edit on our side is described as a disruption while all your manoeuvers, tricks and disinformation count as normal practice, it is necessary sometimes to note a few facts. David Olivier 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, above: "The reason I left these users a note is that, contrary to all other users names in this mediation, these were the only two left who hadn't been active on the mediation page since ST47 tried to restart the mediation." Benio76 made no contributions at all between the start of the "straw poll" (22:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)) and the moment you alerted Trevyn an Apankrat (18:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)). But of course your forgetting to alert Benio76 has nothing to do with that user not being on your side... As I said, that matter is just an insignificant detail, but your constant propensity to never recognize the obvious is one major reason why each discussion grows out of control. David Olivier 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

ST47, you are accusing me, among other things, of "several 3RR near-violations and edit warring". Could you please substantiate your claim ? Please provide evidence supporting this accusation, or please publicly apologize for false accusations.

Zelig33 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock of Benio76

After consulting at WP:AN/I and with the blocking admin, I've decided to unblock Benio76, who has provided me with evidence of who he is, and good grounds for doubting the sock-puppetry claim in her case.

Mel, do you have any plans to make this evidence public ? Alex Pankratov 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to ask the editor, as it involves her real name and contact details. Admins at WP:AN/I and the blocking admin seemed happy to take my word, especially as Benio67's contributions showed no vandalism, etc., the block resting entirely upon a sock-puppet claim, which was in turn backed up by a checkuser that can't distinguish between sock-puppets and people editing in the same house (I have a house that I let out to tenants, and three people there all edit from the same connection. They'd also be branded sock-puppets on this evidence).

If you want to see the evidence, I can ask her if he'd be willing to allow me to e-mail it to you; I shouldn't think that she'd have any problem with that. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was more interested in the nature of the evidence rather than private details. IIRC the original CheckUser request was based on a (subjective) evidence of editing, discussion and argument styles being similar between accounts in question. There was a strong concern of this being a case of MeatPuppetery rather than SockPuppetery.

Additionally, I'd like to comment on this particular argument made by OlivierD. Given the proliferation of remote desktop access tools (such as VNC, GoToMyPC, Remote Desktop, etc) the fact that two users were posting in an interleaved manner does not definitively prove they are not the same person. Similar to how positive CheckUser result alone does not prove a case of puppetery, the argument of interleaved posting alone does not prove the opposite.

WRT Benio76's contributions showing no vandalism, I would suggest looking at "steatosis" portion of the discussion on Talk:Foie_gras page, Archive 3. At the very least there is a history of a determined edit warring behavior on Benio76 part.

Thanks for your time. Alex Pankratov 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Benio76 has assured me that she won't go near that article again. Moreover, there is clear evidence in their respective English styles that she's not Olivierd. As for meat-puppetry; it's always difficult to distinguish between that (rather vague) notion and two people who know each other and share the same views on some things. If there's a problem, she can, of course, be blocked again — I don't think that will be necessary, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Mel. Alex Pankratov 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)