On 3/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Darren,
I'd sort of wondered when you'd show up on this list. Welcome!
Yesterday, I was blocked from using Wikipedia on
the grounds that I am a
sockpuppet master of two accounts, 2006BC and AChan.
There is a big problem with this. They are two living, breathing people
who
had previously already identified themselves on
their user page and
elswehere.
I note that in DG's block report, he actually says "Darren Ray is
User:DarrenRay and User:AChan. He and Benjamin Cass are indeed
different people, although they appear to have edited from each
others' houses, both using their own accounts and their socks'
accounts. Ben Cass (User:2006BC) has a string of his own socks."
So, what's your point?
My point is that I am not Benjamin Cass and I am not Alexander Chan. After
on and off editing anonymously, I have edited as DarrenRay and as no one
else. That's the point.
They have both already complained about this
separately although Ambi, her
friend David Gerard and others are sticking to
their guns despite the
absurdity of their position being pointed out. Ambi is a former member
of
the Arbitration Committee, and her friend David
Gerard seems enjoy a
similar
high position. Has anyone else had experience of
dealing with these
people?
Yes, David Gerard is a nice, extremely fair and respected senior admin.
I won't comment on David Gerard other than to see there is an issue with his
impartiality.
I don't know what to do other than to request to
be unblocked but it seems
that there is little likelihood of justice being
done.
Well, let's see. You've been editing a range of Wikipedia articles for
a long time to attempt to discredit an auditor, clean your name,
remove references to the name of the property deal you signed, and
make allegations of conflicts of interest against returning officers
at the Melbourne University Student Union. Not only that, you've been
editing under a number of different accounts, feigning consensus with
two close friends and accusing everyone who tries to work on the same
articles of hiding behind a "pseudonymous/anonymous" cloak, defaming
you, or being politically motivated. And now, after a huge number of
warnings, you've been blocked. If there is an injustice here, you'll
have to point it out to me.
Discredit an auditor? 1) Dean McVeigh isn't an auditor, 2) I encourage
people to read the McVeigh article, it is a sourced and valid article.
Clean my name? My name is perfectly clean, I merely wanted some balance and
integrity in the article discussing controversial issues.
The property deal I signed is not really the point. The point is how the
encyclopedia article should deal with it, considering the fact that it
actually cost the union nothing as it did not proceed.
The issue with returning officers is no more than the appointment of
supposedly politically aligned returning officers is meant to be a big deal
in one case but ought not be mentioned in another. Forgive me for pointing
out this inconsistency.
I repeat, since registering as DarrenRay I have not edited as anyone else,
have had no sockpuppets etc. Prior to that, like you I edited anonymously.
Ambi had previously filed a Request for Arbitration
against me and I was
going to respond with one relating to her abusive
conduct and POV
editing.
That's not like you to hold back. Not unwelcome, but not like you either.
I would appreciate any ideas people had about
what to do. My knowledge
of
Wikipedia policies is pretty good in theory but
has clearly come up
short in
practice as I have been completely banned for no
good reason.
In your "pretty good" knowledge of Wikipedia policies, you obviously
missed this one (from [[WP:NOT]]:
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and
advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
Your POV pushing is not propaganda of course. In the Melbourne University
related articles, I think we had largely reached a compromise anyway. You
are clearly involved in the Student Union in some way, and are editing
articles about it. That's an issue for you to think about.
1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can
report objectively about such things, as long as an
attempt is made to
approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or
start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your
favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic
point of view" for every article.
All I want is truth and balance. Perfectly consistent with Wikipedia's
rules.
2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17,
2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to
articles about
themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is
difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly
abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to
articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly
unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.
So when the guy is accused of killing President Kennedy falsely, they should
not edit it out. I think that's a real issue to be considered here.
You could probably also brush up on [[WP:CIVIL]], and even
[[Wikipedia:Talk pages]]. Remember:
Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would
be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In
the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this
can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings.
Redirecting your user talk page to another page (whether meant as a
joke or intended to be offensive or to send a "go away" message),
except in the case of redirecting from one account to another when
both are yours, can also be considered a hostile act. However,
reverting such removals or redirects is not proper and may result in a
block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without
answering consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially
true for vandalism warnings.
I have been personally courteous to all I have dealt with, even in the face
of personal abuse from users like Ambi, Garglebutt etc.
...
Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism
or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk
page is also considered vandalism. It is generally acceptable to
remove misplaced vandalism tags, as long as the reasoning is solid.
There are plenty of people here who will be more than happy to point
out more policies or guidelines that may be relevant.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I appreciate a thoughtful response and thank you for it but you have not
identified a single breach of Wikipedia policy. I have disagreed with some
strong POV pushers, including yourself in wanting balance on controversial
subjects.
I have disagreed with Ambi on some political articles.
Those reading this should ponder whether that is sufficient basis for being
blocked from Wikipedia.
Darren Ray