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
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(a)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(a)cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com) <IP
removed by me for email, actual available (both are same)>
[18:16] * Joins: ScienoSitter (n=James(a)cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com)
<IP removed by me for email, actual available (different)>
According to
, 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(a)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&pa…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:S…
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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 06/10/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l