Well, I've been watching this for a while, so I guess it's time for my side of the story.
(apologies as this was copied from a chat transcript) He was originally blocked as an IP editor for making personal attacks in edit summaries http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_organization&diff=prev&a... Then created an account to bypass 3RR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_organization&diff=775878... was blocked and came on IRC contesting the block said that he didn't know who the IP editor was I did a /whois and it was the same IP as the IP editing the article [15:53] * Joins: NoLongerScieno (n=Mike@cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com) <IP removed by me for email, actual available> next weekend, he tried the same thing as [[User:XVidMan]] [19:47] * Parts: XVidman (n=Xvid@cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com) <IP removed by me for email, actual available (both are same)> [18:16] * Joins: ScienoSitter (n=James@cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com) <IP removed by me for email, actual available (different)>
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enviroknot, this indef-blocked editor edits through houston roadrunner IP addresses. This is what led me to block all of the accounts as obvious sockpuppets of [[User:Enviroknot]]. Granted, I may have been in error with the block messages, but I fully stand by the blocks.
Also, Parker Peters, if you are IRC user pakaran, we did have a discussion about this. If not, my apologies.
naconkantari
On 10/6/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
This is my final reply to you, David. I've no need for your continued attempts to provoke me.
But since you asked, and since I started this question, I'll provide some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Sc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienoSitter&action=...
In this instance, I think the offending admin should receive a censure and a warning regarding his actions, from arbcom. Only the only person who has standing to bring such a case is blocked indefinitely.
Why? #1 - The admin in question, Naconkantari, was the one who instituted a block on NoLongerScieno with a reason of "user.." #2 - The admin in question, Naconkantari, then blocked ScienoSitter for being a "vandalism-only account" and "suspected sockpuppet of NoLongerScieno."
Whether ScienoSitter's edits are vandalism? I don't necessarily think so, and I think this is failure to AGF on the part of the admin. Whether NoLongerScieno is a valid username block? If "Scieno" is a derogatory term for Scientologists, perhaps. It'd take more research before I could declare myself certain. I'm also not sure what ScienoSitter means, but it contains the same term and could have been validly blocked as another username violation without the need to falsely accuse a user of vandalism.
However, Naconkantari also committed the following offenses that warrant definite censure and show an extreme lack of judgement: #1 - He failed to leave even a message - much less the proper tags - on NoLongerScieno's page to let them know the proper course of action in the case of a username block. #2 - He, himself, the blocking admin, at least twice removed the user's unblock request from the page. This is a clear violation: every user should have the right to an impartial review of their block. #3 - He, himself, took action and reverted each of these users. While not an offense in itself, claiming a content dispute to be "vandalism" is troubling behavior for any admin, as it shows they do not understand policy.
Under our policies, I also tried to contact Naconkantari privately in IRC. He refused to discuss it and promised to put any unblocks or unprotection of the page back into effect. Not wanting to wheel war, I left it alone.
I would also think, in this instance, that Mr. Lefty and OmicronPersei8 are out of line and deserve some similar official censure. Again, the only person with standing to do so is blocked indefinitely.
OmicronPersei8 repeatedly removed the unblock request from the page, even though he is not even an admin. I would term this vandalism for interference with official templates.
Mr. Lefty locked the talk page of ScienoSitter for, of all things, "{{unblock}} abuse." Since there was only one unblock request present at any time, and it was being tag-team removed by the blocking admin and a user who ScienoSitter had been in content dispute with, this is an amazingly problematic behavior to deny a user their proper independent review. As I understand it, unless we've expanded the definition of "unblock template abuse" so far that it includes the mere posting of the template, that lock reason is completely bogus.
But that's my view of the situation as I came across it, based on reading the pages involved and the contribution histories of Naconkantari, ScienoSitter, NoLongerScieno, and OmicronPersei8.
Parker
On 10/6/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/10/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, here's a basic question. One we should all be able to agree on. Should a "suspected sockpuppet" (new username) of a username block be blocked for being a sockpuppet? It's a simple enough question. Yes or no?
Generally not, I'd say. Speaking as the admin you say you are, what would you say should be done concerning such?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l