User:Shalom Yechiel/Drafts and archives/SlimVirgin arbitration evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Shalom Yechiel | Drafts and archives

This evidence was presented to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence presented by Shalom.

Subpages

1 Evidence presented by Shalom

[edit] Evidence presented by Shalom

[edit] SlimVirgin deleted User:Zordrac/Poetlister for an invalid reason

Zordrac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Internodeuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (Zordrac's old account)

Starting on or shortly after December 22, 2005, User:Zordrac wrote a long report, User:Zordrac/Poetlister, to request the unblocking of User:Poetlister, User:RachelBrown, User:Londoneye, User:Taxwoman and User:Newport. Based on checkuser evidence, these users had all been blocked as sockpuppets of one another.

Zordrac explained: "Partially to try to disprove Antaeus and Lulu's lies, I made User:Zordrac/Poetlister, so as to demonstrate that it was not about them. I was not doing this to attack anyone. I was doing it to help people."

On January 7, 2007, SlimVirgin deleted User:Zordrac/Poetlister as an "attack page." This reason was invalid. At the time, CSD G10 stated:

Attack pages. Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to.

SlimVirgin implied that User:Zordrac/Poetlister "served no other purpose but to disparage" her. This is wrong. SlimVirgin should not have deleted this page as an "attack page." (She was permitted to delete it under CSD G5: "Banned user. Pages created by banned users while they were banned." See next section.) SlimVirgin's unilateral deletion was especially problematic because she was directly involved in a content dispute with RachelBrown and Poetlister, for which Zordrac criticized SlimVirgin in his report.

[edit] SlimVirgin indef-blocked Zordrac for an invalid reason

In January 2006, Zordrac was blocked as a sockpuppet of Internodeuser, who had been banned for one year in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Internodeuser. The ban on Internodeuser took effect on May 27, 2005, and was set to expire one year later. Since Zordrac's last edit was on January 17, 2006, his ban was reset to expire on January 17, 2007. Zordrac/Internodeuser continued to evade his ban by editing as Blissyu2 (talk · contribs) and by vandalizing the Arbitration ruling against himself.

To confirm that Zordrac was free to resume editing, administrator User:One posted to User talk:Zordrac on February 19, 2007: "Just so you know, you're no longer banned." One week later on February 26, 2007, Zordrac resumed editing. He archived his talk page, made two article edits, and created a subpage, User:Zordrac/goodbye. None of these edits can be considered problematic.

SlimVirgin indef-blocked Zordrac on February 27, 2007 "for obvious reasons." Golbez unblocked but then reblocked. See block log:

01:55, 27 February 2007 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) blocked "Zordrac (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (for obvious reasons)
11:53, 27 February 2007 Golbez (Talk | contribs) unblocked Zordrac (Talk | contribs) ‎ (time has been served; you will have to show a specific reason or a community ban or arbcom decision to do this)
14:07, 27 February 2007 Golbez (Talk | contribs) blocked "Zordrac (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (on second thought, i will not enter a wheel war, and there are other circumstances beyond the old arbcom ruling)

Although SlimVirgin's decision to indef-block Zordrac was not a wheel war against One according to the policy as of 27 February 2007, it was wrong. Golbez's unblock reason needs no explanation, and the "other circumstances beyond the old arbcom ruling" were far from "obvious" to an uninformed reader. Even though SlimVirgin's decision to indef-block Zordrac was upheld, her method of blocking Zordrac without warning or explanation, after Zordrac had been explicitly invited to return, was extremely inappropriate.

[edit] SlimVirgin protected the user talk pages of indef-blocked users without a valid reason

On March 11, 2007, in order to deny Zordrac the opportunity to request an unblock using the standard template, SlimVirgin protected User talk:Zordrac. She did not explain why this unusual action was necessary.

In a similar incident, on January 26, 2007, SlimVirgin declined an unblock request by User:Everwill, whom JzG hadblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Raspor. Then she immediately protected the user talk page and directed Everwill to appeal to her by email. Based on email correspondence, SlimVirgin agreed to give Everwill a second chance, and after Everwill violated the conditions of his second chance, SlimVirgin again blocked the user and protected his talk page. The first protection of User talk:Everwill was unwarranted. SlimVirgin could have discussed the matter on-wiki, or she could have allowed Everwill to request unblock from a second administrator.

In another similar incident, on September 1, 2006, SlimVirgin blocked User:Xosa as a sockpuppet of User:Zephram Stark. The next day, she declined Xosa's first request for unblock and protected his talk page. JzG unprotected to "Allow dialogue." After much discussion, SlimVirgin protected the page again. The first protection of User talk:Xosa was unwarranted.

On July 7, 2006, SlimVirgin blocked User:WordBomb and protected his talk page just 52 minutes later in response to an edit (later oversighted) by WordBomb. Mackan79 presented this evidence the Mantanmoreland case.

[edit] SlimVirgin falsely accused Piperdown of being a sockpuppet

On April 26, 2007 User:MONGO asked Piperdown if he was a sock puppet. Piperdown complained on WP:ANI.

On May 27, 2007, User:Piperdown posted to WP:ANI to complain that SlimVirgin had labeled him a sockpuppet. [1] (admin only; SlimVirgin's edit summary was "rv sockpuppet".) I supported Piperdown's complaint. [2] SlimVirgin has not explained her inappropriate edit summary. She has not apologized on-wiki to Piperdown for falsely accusing him of being a sockpuppet.

[edit] Crum375 deleted the history of User talk:SlimVirgin without a valid reason

On June 11, 2007, User:Crum375 deleted SlimVirgin's talk page history. On June 19, Piperdown complained on WP:AN that SlimVirgin deleted her user talk history in order to cover up the edit where she falsely accused Piperdown of being a sockpuppet. He wrote:

A query on Crum375's talk page indicated that he/she was removing vandalism from SV's page, which sounds reasonable. Why that would require a deletion/restoration of the entire page, including a 5/27/07 edit by SV on her own talk page, was not explained. ... Checking the deletion policy [3] I don't see where the policy allows the deletion of an edit history from a user page by circumventing a regular admin loophole to oversight edits is alllowed. Covering up your own mistakes as an admin to prevent scrutiny by making further mistakes in abusing loopholes in wikipedia admin tools should not be tolerated.

SlimVirgin responded:

Crum375 removed an edit that tried to out me (as I understand it; I've not looked at it yet), and then wasn't sure which edits to restore. Similar edits had been deleted in the past, and he was worried about inadvertently undeleting them, so he only undeleted some recent ones. At some point, I aim to go through them and check for the edits that need to stay deleted.

Cla68 argued against SlimVirgin's reason:

I would suggest that anyone, admins or "regular" editors, who desire "outing" or personal attack edits removed from a page in the project ask an oversighter to do it instead of an admin clumsily using the page deletion function. The page deletion function obviously doesn't work well for surgically removing offending edits and it appears that this is what the oversight function was created for.

In response to Piperdown's concerns, User:Prodego restored all revisions of User talk:SlimVirgin, but Crum375 deleted the page again two hours later without explanation. This was an act of wheel warring according to the policy at that time:

A wheel war is a struggle between two or more admins in which they undo another's administrative actions — specifically, ... undeleting and redeleting... . Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it.

Crum375 has not explained why he wheel warred against Prodego.

On August 11, 2007, ElinorD undeleted and archived SlimVirgin's talk page history, but revisions after March 2006 (User talk:SlimVirgin/Archive 26) and before August 2007 are still deleted.

[edit] SlimVirgin supported the ban on Piperdown

The request for unblocking of User:Piperdown was a critical focus of the dispute between Cla68 on one side versus SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk and Crum375 on the other side.

On September 7, 2007, User:David Gerard blocked Piperdown as a "sockpuppet/meatpuppet for overstock.com". His request for unblock was declined by Sandstein. At Piperdown's request, Cla68 posted to WP:AN on January 24, 2008 to ask the community to unban Piperdown. SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk and Crum375 all supported the ban on Piperdown (see details below). The discussion reached an impasse, but after it ended, User:J-stan unblocked Piperdown on January 27.

On February 27, 2008, Cla68 commented on User talk:Piperdown: "Somebody owes you an apology for the original block. I believe there's space here for that person to leave one, if they so choose." Based on this edit immediately afterward, Cla68 was referring to David Gerard.

I have read almost the entire discussion about Piperdown's unblock request. It is extremely long. I have collected all posts by SlimVirgin, FeloniousMonk, Crum375 and Cla68—with minimally necessary context—at User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/SlimVirgin arbitration evidence/Piperdown.