---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute To: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
have 10 people asking "please moderate him" 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and "bullshit" simply don't help your cause. michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil onto fire doesn't help.
Parker
Hm. I've had some private email exchanges with the user, and I've finally managed to calm him down, a bit. By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit warring, with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the only one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
RuinedChozo absolutely must back off or cool down on his personal attacks and accusations -- if some of those complaints about lying and cabalism are legitimate, let such be revealed through an RfC or brought before Arbcom for consideration. On that count, I don't think I'm going to bend.
I am disappointed, however, that the admins involved didn't put more effort into discussing things with this user. It's true that he's got a long block log, but I notice that most of the blocks come from the same "group," -- in situations where I have trouble getting through to someone, I'd say it's better to try and find a neutral third party to talk things over, with the person.
There really should have been more discussion from all sides. In heated disputes, repeating the same superficial arguments ad nauseam usually doesn't work -- why not explain in detail why you feel a particular edit was or wasn't sourced, unsourced, original research, neutral in tone, or such? Why wasn't more effort put into this, especially by experienced admins?
I'm still looking, but as of this moment, it's not yet clear to me where the alleged block evasion took place. Anybody see something I'm missing?
-Luna
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute To: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
have 10 people asking "please moderate him" 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and "bullshit" simply don't help your cause. michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil onto fire doesn't help.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Also, there's a pretty interesting read at AN/I. Forgot to link that, silly me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. I've had some private email exchanges with the user, and I've finally managed to calm him down, a bit. By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit warring, with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the only one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
RuinedChozo absolutely must back off or cool down on his personal attacks and accusations -- if some of those complaints about lying and cabalism are legitimate, let such be revealed through an RfC or brought before Arbcom for consideration. On that count, I don't think I'm going to bend.
I am disappointed, however, that the admins involved didn't put more effort into discussing things with this user. It's true that he's got a long block log, but I notice that most of the blocks come from the same "group," -- in situations where I have trouble getting through to someone, I'd say it's better to try and find a neutral third party to talk things over, with the person.
There really should have been more discussion from all sides. In heated disputes, repeating the same superficial arguments ad nauseam usually doesn't work -- why not explain in detail why you feel a particular edit was or wasn't sourced, unsourced, original research, neutral in tone, or such? Why wasn't more effort put into this, especially by experienced admins?
I'm still looking, but as of this moment, it's not yet clear to me where the alleged block evasion took place. Anybody see something I'm missing?
-Luna
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute To: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler < mbimmler@gmail.com> wrote:
- I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
have 10 people asking "please moderate him" 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and "bullshit" simply don't help your cause. michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil onto fire doesn't help.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:30:14 -0800, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit warring, with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the only one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
I got the same result, but I don't see the block log as evidence of a cabal, I regard William pretty highly, for example.
This has all the appearances of someone bringing their battles to Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:30:14 -0800, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit
warring,
with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the
only
one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
I got the same result, but I don't see the block log as evidence of a cabal, I regard William pretty highly, for example.
Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been looking into things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to evidence supporting the allegation of block evasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me. 70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on RunedChozo, as it references the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same sorts of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and insults coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo. Looks like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?
JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon user who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the same person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.
Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's submitting a checkuser request.
-Luna
<snip>
Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been looking into things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to evidence supporting the allegation of block evasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me.
They don't to me.
70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on
RunedChozo, as it references the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same sorts of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and insults coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo. Looks like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?
Highly unlikely.
JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon user
who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the same person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.
That looks like a more reasonable assumption.
Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's
submitting a checkuser request.
-Luna
If he's vindicated, someone owes him a serious apology and block shortening.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been looking into things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to
evidence
supporting the allegation of block evasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me.
They don't to me.
70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on
RunedChozo, as it references the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same sorts of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and
insults
coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo. Looks like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?
Highly unlikely.
JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon user
who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the same person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.
That looks like a more reasonable assumption.
Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's
submitting a checkuser request.
-Luna
If he's vindicated, someone owes him a serious apology and block shortening.
Parker
And if he's not? To whom does he owe an apology?
On 12/12/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Fair enough. I have no questions on the older blocks. Have been
looking
into things a bit more. Tariqabjotu has been kind enough to link me to
evidence
supporting the allegation of block evasion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14
If we compare the two, they look pretty similar, to me.
They don't to me.
70.114.237.14appears to have been used to evade the block on
RunedChozo, as it references the same dispute, uses some of the same language, and shares the same sorts of behavior. It's also worth noting that the vitriol, attacks, and
insults
coming from 70.114 are far more severe than those from RunedChozo.
Looks
like block evasion and serious attacks, to me?
Highly unlikely.
JoshuaZ expressed some concern that 70.114 might have been another anon user
who caused problems, in the past. Sounded like he was considering a checkuser request to try and sort out for sure whether they're the
same
person, but I shouldn't speak for him in that regard.
That looks like a more reasonable assumption.
Also, just as I finished typing this, Tariqabjotu let me know that he's
submitting a checkuser request.
-Luna
If he's vindicated, someone owes him a serious apology and block shortening.
Parker
And if he's not? To whom does he owe an apology?
If he's not, I'd support a month block.
But the chances of that, at my present estimation, are somewhere on the order of the chances of the sun spontaneously exploding tomorrow.
If THAT happens, I'll owe you 20 bucks, but it won't matter because we'll all be dead.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:30:14 -0800, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit
warring,
with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the
only
one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
I got the same result, but I don't see the block log as evidence of a cabal, I regard William pretty highly, for example.
This has all the appearances of someone bringing their battles to Wikipedia.
Guy (JzG)
This has all the appearances of a new(er) editor getting piled on by people who have axes to grind and are already on Wikipedia, you mean I'm sure.
I did a quick count. When they said "five blocks", first they double-counted William who had undone his own after accidentally applying an infinite block (I applaud him for having the good sense to catch his own mistake, too).
Then after looking at the blocks, I found the following:
#1 - block by Aecis, related to a good-faith page move related to commentary left on WP:ANI about a page needing to be moved. #2 - First 3RR, not uncommon for new users. Block by William for "infinite". #2.5 - William resets this to a proper 24 hours; Shouldn't really even count this as a "new" block since it's William fixing his own mistake. #3 - Future Perfect at Sunrise - friend of Itaqallah and at his request - blocks RunedChozo for a massive 72 hours. 3RR not even violated. #4 - William blocks for 3RR: 72 hours yet again. RunedChozo contests, claiming he didn't actually break the line, and is yelled at for "gaming the system." If we have 3RR, fine, but now they're just hounding this user, not to mention slapping on out-of-process ridiculously long blocks compared to what policy states.
And then the rest on the block list currently, a massive amount of resets and extensions by Tariqabjotu, which will undoubtedly be counted as numbers 6, 7,8, etc... next time they want to use this as a bludgeon against this user.
So not only was it not what FayssalF/Svest claimed it to be, the blocks weren't unreasonable or even something I'd consider evidence of a problem user as such.
William I normally have respect for, but he's participated in a piling-on and harassment of a user at this point, sad to say.
That those he is opposite to aren't being blocked more, after viewing page histories, is solely due to the fact that there's a guild of people who are taking turns. It appears RunedChozo's accusation of meatpuppetry and organized edit warring on the part of the Muslim Guild editors is valid.
But that's my take. You can go with the "admins can do no wrong" philosophy if you want; I think this user was being deliberately hounded, I think they were deliberately mischaracterizing the situation make him look worse than he is, and I think that's wrong.
The fact that it's Future Perfect - the one who slapped on a 72 hour block when 3rr wasn't even violated - once again who showed up, at Itaqallah's request, to lock down the page and yell at RunedChozo smacks of an admin using his powers to do favors for his buddies. I'm not so sure the description of him as a "tool" is terribly out of line at that point.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
Hm. I've had some private email exchanges with the user, and I've finally managed to calm him down, a bit. By preliminary looks through page histories, it looks like he *was* being pretty disruptive and edit warring, with a persistent failure to use talk pages -- but then, he wasn't the only one doing so. The full protection of the page seems more or less appropriate, as a means of forcing discussion.
RuinedChozo absolutely must back off or cool down on his personal attacks and accusations -- if some of those complaints about lying and cabalism are legitimate, let such be revealed through an RfC or brought before Arbcom for consideration. On that count, I don't think I'm going to bend.
I am disappointed, however, that the admins involved didn't put more effort into discussing things with this user. It's true that he's got a long block log, but I notice that most of the blocks come from the same "group," -- in situations where I have trouble getting through to someone, I'd say it's better to try and find a neutral third party to talk things over, with the person.
There really should have been more discussion from all sides. In heated disputes, repeating the same superficial arguments ad nauseam usually doesn't work -- why not explain in detail why you feel a particular edit was or wasn't sourced, unsourced, original research, neutral in tone, or such? Why wasn't more effort put into this, especially by experienced admins?
I'm still looking, but as of this moment, it's not yet clear to me where the alleged block evasion took place. Anybody see something I'm missing?
-Luna
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute To: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
have 10 people asking "please moderate him" 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and "bullshit" simply don't help your cause. michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil onto fire doesn't help.
Parker _______________________________________________ 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
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz...; the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
George Herbert wrote:
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
Given your obvious conflict of interest, I'm not interested in any quibbling on your part.
"Former member" is just as bad in this case. Or perhaps worse, since it shows you're trying to hide a conflict of interest.
It is my considered opinion, having looked through the edit histories of the pages involved and your contributions, that you, Future Perfect, Itaqallah, and others who have piled on have not behaved in good faith through this.
Slapping a denial into an unblock request, when you are the blocking admin, is something you should NEVER do. I don't care if you think it's justified, you just opened up a massive conflict of interest, and that shows that you were being vindictive.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz... ; the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
George Herbert wrote:
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChoz... ; the block was not lengthened for the edits on his talk page; it was over possible block evasion and further incivility. If the Request for CheckUser concludes that the IP is indeed RunedChozo, the block is most certainly valid. Otherwise, perhaps it will go back to the original forty-eight hours. However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
George Herbert wrote:
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If this sort of evidence is not posted in the ANI discussion, user talk page, or in the block message, it's a little hard for other admins to figure out that there are other evasion claims outstanding...
Note that the time-of-day of edits by ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14 ) are completely outside hours of the day when RunedChozo has typically edited before, and predate his being blocked by a day. A reasonable suspicion could be made based on targets and content, but you might want to checkuser this first and extend a block for evasion later...
The more recent edits from the IP, however, come about six hours after RunedChozo's block. It's been posted to WP:ANI; forgive me for neglecting to add that at 1:40am on a weeknight...
George Herbert wrote:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
If this sort of evidence is not posted in the ANI discussion, user talk page, or in the block message, it's a little hard for other admins to figure out that there are other evasion claims outstanding...
Note that the time-of-day of edits by ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14 ) are completely outside hours of the day when RunedChozo has typically edited before, and predate his being blocked by a day. A reasonable suspicion could be made based on targets and content, but you might want to checkuser this first and extend a block for evasion later...
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
The more recent edits from the IP, however, come about six hours after RunedChozo's block. It's been posted to WP:ANI; forgive me for neglecting to add that at 1:40am on a weeknight...
The IP edited in two sessions; one 6 hrs after Runed's block, one about 20 hrs before. It makes sense if he might have thought he was about to get blocked, to start using an IP. But it did predate the block.
I entirely understand about forgetting to add it with the late-night editing, but it did confuse me...
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why Runed may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why Runed may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
I think that it is a generally tendentious and unhelpful thing to do.
In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another editor on an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest, especially when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim admin sides with the Muslim editor.
Parker
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why
Runed
may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
I think that it is a generally tendentious and unhelpful thing to do.
In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another editor on an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest, especially when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim admin sides with the Muslim editor.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
s/Muslim/White/ s/Muslim/Male/ ...
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not; I'm not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of a conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why
Runed
may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
I think that it is a generally tendentious and unhelpful thing to do.
In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another editor on an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest, especially when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim admin sides with the Muslim editor.
Parker
I see. So if a Christian editor and an unspecified editor are duking it out on the Creation article, whatever admin decides to step in can't be Christian because of potential COI, especially if he happened to agree with the Christian editor? OK, so if the other editor is an atheist, then I suppose an atheist admin would be blocked from acting for the same reason. But since Muslims and Jews are "of the Book", as Guy said, and since both believe in a Creation myth, they couldn't step in either so I guess we would need to search for a Hindu or Buddhist or Shintoist, yes? At what point does the lunacy end? Or, could it be that Peter Parker or Parker Peters or whatever simply has a visceral hatred for and innate suspicion of Muslims?
Jim,
I have no stake in this beyond the fact that it is clear to me that abuses are taking place. Please don't try to put words into my mouth.
What I am stating is that whenever there is a possible appearance of conflict of interest, it should be avoided. The very same principle applies in journalism, in politics, and pretty much anywhere else as well.
Parker
On 12/13/06, Jim Schuler jim62sch@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
However, I don't appreciate the accusations (not from you, George) of this being some Muslim Guild conspiracy. It's not;
I'm
not even a member of the Muslim Guild.
Lest anyone misunderstand on that point, I fully agree that claims of
a
conspiracy starting this are clearly unreasonable, and help show why
Runed
may not have the temperment to be a productive WP editor.
I don't agree with Parker Peters that it is a conflict of interest for Muslim admins to react to abuse issues on Islam related pages.
I think that it is a generally tendentious and unhelpful thing to do.
In cases where a Muslim editor is in an edit conflict with another
editor
on an Islam-related topic, a third admin who just "happens" to be Muslim is definitely going to raise questions over conflict of interest,
especially
when both sides are accusing each other of POV pushing and the Muslim admin sides with the Muslim editor.
Parker
I see. So if a Christian editor and an unspecified editor are duking it out on the Creation article, whatever admin decides to step in can't be Christian because of potential COI, especially if he happened to agree with the Christian editor? OK, so if the other editor is an atheist, then I suppose an atheist admin would be blocked from acting for the same reason. But since Muslims and Jews are "of the Book", as Guy said, and since both believe in a Creation myth, they couldn't step in either so I guess we would need to search for a Hindu or Buddhist or Shintoist, yes? At what point does the lunacy end? Or, could it be that Peter Parker or Parker Peters or whatever simply has a visceral hatred for and innate suspicion of Muslims?
--
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/13/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Jim,
I have no stake in this beyond the fact that it is clear to me that abuses are taking place. Please don't try to put words into my mouth.
What I am stating is that whenever there is a possible appearance of conflict of interest, it should be avoided. The very same principle applies in journalism, in politics, and pretty much anywhere else as well.
Parker
Ditto for possible appearances of bias.
On 12/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
As far as I can see, it's entirely over his editing of his talk page, removing unblock request refusals and re-unblock-requesting, plus arguing with people there.
That appears to be the case.
Further, no unblock request refusal appears removed save one, and that one appears to be the result of the servers misprocessing an edit conflict;see his talk page in the "To Rosicrucian" section.
And that one unblock request refusal was made by Tariqabjotu, who's the admin who blocked him in the first place. No matter if Tariq had good intentions or not, that's a definite no-no!
As a personal opinion - lengthening blocks due to ongoing argument
ONLY on a blockee's talk page is among the worst abuses that a pack of administrators can commit, ganging up on someone.
Precisely.
RunedChozo came into the argument with a bunch of abuses he'd
committed counting against him, and certainly was being disruptive on several levels. He did have one point that I see - Itaquallah did use inappropriate edit summaries and remove material with source info claiming it's unsourced. There was a two-sided abusive edit war going on; Itaquallah was not an innocent party there, and should have been warned against that.
But that's unfortunately not how Wikipedia has worked, that I've ever seen. It's always one side getting swatted and the other side being held blameless.
It's hard to see this and not wonder if RunedChozo is too disruptive
to be a Wikipedia participant, but a bunch of admins have gone and collectively beaten up on someone in a way which is not called for or appropriate. If someone can't stop being a dick on their talk page while they're blocked, admins need to just walk away and let them cool down.
Bad day.
Indeed, very bad day. And what makes it worse is the sheer number of problems I documented a few emails back, where I doublechecked FayssalF/Svest's claim that RunedChozo had "five blocks in one month" and it didn't look nearly as bad as he was making it out to be when he was using the block log as a bludgeon.
There are plenty of conflicts of interest here, and there's plenty of evidence that it is a collective effort to beat up on one user rather than a real problem user.
Parker
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:11:56 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia?
... are amply justified by the aggressive tones in which he made his statement. Ever heard the old adage that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? It never hurts to ask politely.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:11:56 -0600, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia?
... are amply justified by the aggressive tones in which he made his statement. Ever heard the old adage that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar? It never hurts to ask politely.
That works both ways. You learn in any customer service class you ever might take that no matter what someone says to you, it does you absolutely no good to do the same back.
You and other admins here have been nothing but dismissive and insulting, especially in refusing to acknowledge the very valid complaints raised.
You've given a lot of vinegar, and you're not entitled to do so.
Parker
It is in my opinion absolutely inacceptable, that you forward a private email of mine to the list without my permission, no matter what it's content is. This is a blatant violation of Netiquette. I think it is definitely time to set you on moderated now, not as a form of censorship, but as a reproach / punishment for repeated bad behavious. EOD from my part Michael
On 12/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com Date: Dec 12, 2006 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Completely unreasonable block and behavior by admin friends of Itaqallah to win a content dispute To: Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com
On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler mbimmler@gmail.com wrote:
- I'm not the list moderator. I'm merely reporting, so that we don't
have 10 people asking "please moderate him" 2. He should maybe get a bit more calm... Words as "dick" and "bullshit" simply don't help your cause. michael
No, they don't. But the utterly dismissive attack rhetoric that's been heaped on him, both here and on wikipedia? The fact that I'm the only person it seems who's even bothered to check the merits of his complaint?
I can see where someone would start to get really angry, and throwing oil onto fire doesn't help.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l