Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/216.80.119.92|216.80.119.92]] ([[User talk:216.80.119.92|talk]]) 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. [[Special:Contributions/216.80.119.92|216.80.119.92]] ([[User talk:216.80.119.92|talk]]) 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please bring me something new. Any present block would not help your situation. It would just be considered plain punishment. We don't do those kinds of blocks. And as I said before, any further outing from any side and blocks would be in order. Thanks. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">fayssal</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">'''wiki up'''<sup>®</sup></font>]]</small> 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please bring me something new. Any present block would not help your situation. It would just be considered plain punishment. We don't do those kinds of blocks. And as I said before, any further outing from any side and blocks would be in order. Thanks. -- [[User:FayssalF|<font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">fayssal</font></font>]] - <small>[[User talk:FayssalF|<font style="background: gold">'''wiki up'''<sup>®</sup></font>]]</small> 07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::Hopefully there won't be anything new! When I think about it, I like that there is no retroactive punishment. Thanks for response. [[Special:Contributions/216.80.119.92|216.80.119.92]] ([[User talk:216.80.119.92|talk]]) 07:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond here. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond there and here as well.
As a non-admin, I can only see part of the evidence on the case. I therefore don't feel in a position to produce a definitive judgment one way or the other. You've come to a decision and presumably if the individual behind Nobody of Consequence re-offends, then his previous will be taken into account even if the link is not visible to the rest of us. If it doesn't give away too much, could you add information to the IPCOLL battle report page.
Igt the impression than Saxophone may be a more real account than ED for that particular user. If you are in communication with him, then you rpesumably can decide which to unblock in the longer term.
Hi Peter. First, thanks for your trust and suport. I appreciate that.
In fact, I am in contact with Einsteindonut in private. Of course, the ArbCom has all details of both cases.
I fully understand your concerns very well Peter. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:
I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is my decision. However, as you may understand from there, those decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before - including you. Between that and taking action, I received his confessions and explanations which I posted on the board. I then took action because of those new developments. An action was needed to be taken while waiting for the community's input. Discussions could follow. The discussions are still open out there. For instance - and regardless of the lack of complete evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task Peter. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be in big troubles. In brief, the decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but against tiny minority views on my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.
CheckUsers have confirmed my findings.
The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case (Einsteindonut's case included).
Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (it was first limited to admins since it was used to redirect the now deleted NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my blocking log. He did the same (check contribs) and everyone - including unregistered users - can verify. The account I left did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and consequently its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of complete evidence.
...if he re-offends... Well, the reply to that is obvious... He'd be re-offended (sorry for the term - it is only a figurative one since ethically, administrators should never offend but block) by being out of Wikipedia forever. For now, evidence above suggests that he is more an anti-antisemite than an anti-semite. wp:AGF wins for now. Is this nonsense?
For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases Peter. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with the basis of these privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). Naturally, I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Wikipedia, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners. I am just saying it for the record.
I'll be posting a very important note at wp:IPCOLL. However, and before doing that, I have promised Einsteindonut to review his case. I'll start doing this tonight. I'll be needing help and I'd appreciate if you can contact me via e-mail. Your insights will be very welcomed.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to actually redact a few bits and bobs of information in your explanations - I got a bit curious and investigated a little, and was able to determine the usernames X, Y and Z within about 10 minutes (despite not having admin privileges). Brilliantine (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I won't blame you but I'd blame myself and some of the members of the community who would just argue and won't relax a little and think about privacy first (i.e. My opinion is that full disclosure would be more appropriate or This should not be a decision of a single admin or an arb, blah, blah, blah....) Incredible! The problem is that their knowledge of the basics of the case is limited but still...! Whatever you do, you'd just fail somewhere because of that and the intensity of the investigation itself. I appreciate people saying at least "tank you for your work before arguing against a decision. But well. They don't - I am referring mainly to a single editor as you could notice (not more than one). Could you please fix it yourself Brilliantine as I got confused? I've got a headache because of much investigation and baseless arguments. A tip, you could do it while commenting on other issues without people noticing it (reducing the exposure at least). -- fayssal / Wiki me up®05:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pain. I think you've done a sterling job, by the way. I'll see what I can do, assuming that Y is the one that needs to be kept private. Feel free to blank this discussion once you've read this. Brilliantine (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your editing contributions, your patient and tireless work in protecting the project and ensuring a healthy and collegial editing environment, and your ability to see things from multiple perpectives, etc., etc. This barnstar is for you Tiamuttalk19:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice Anthony. I don't believe I took my decision based on the intention of the proposal.
The second proposal suggests that, in this particular instance, the Committee did act as a fact-finder before finding "no evidence exists." It has not been the case. Yes, the Committee may have acted as a factfinder but there was no plaintiff in that instance.
Mackan explains it well (i.e. evidence of absence -- absence of evidence when evidence should be present; which is not the case) and Newyorkbrad's makes a good point when he says that "[NYB]'s confident that if Cla68 had made another comment perceived as threatening in the months this case has been pending, it would have been drawn to our attention."
That said, I'd be satisfied with dismissing both confirmations for both proposals. I believe that can do the job and would have no problem to propose it.
I'll give you a parallel... In the case of JzG, there was a RfC where user's actions were addressed. The RfC's final outcome was to observe the user's posterior and future actions (i.e. how would a user act after a RfC). In this case, a follow-up (though non-binding) was needed. That explains why we had to re-evaluate and then re-affirm and confirm the unconfirmed (i.e. JzG's posterior actions - see (E) for JzG). fayssal / Wiki me up®19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posterior
I assume that in [1] you meant to say 'Watching his posterior actions'. 'Watching his posterior' means something quite different from your intent. --Barberio (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to maintain the trust you have placed in me. I am honored by your trust and your support. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just for clarification: you did actually verify that User:Aminullah (the original user active since 2006) was the same as User:Wikinger, right? Because the CU request was most certainly done by Wikinger himself, who has been waging an absurd socking campaign to get Aminullah blocked as his own sock - a campaign that I had the feeling looked a good deal like a joe job / impersonation stunt, in revenge for Wikinger's own ban. He had just recently created impersonator accounts like AminuIIah (talk·contribs) (capital-i-for-l name spoof) for the same purpose, and several other really nasty little impersonation attempts with other users.
Just wanted to make sure you really checked the right accounts there, because Wikinger is quite adept at muddying the waters with forged "evidence". Fut.Perf.☼09:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could you stop your trolling? If you are not what what you claim is him then you should be the other one. Either way, you should stop it. Next time, I'll block your IPs. Understood? fayssal / Wiki me up®19:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice Carcharoth. I have verified what you wrote and I don't believe there is any misrepresentation. I'll be having a look at the whole discussion and give my feedback. -- fayssal / Wiki me up®06:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:MISOC.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MISOC.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
Yes I do remember discussing it; I do not remember consensus. This was one of many issues that I had directly prior to getting blocked and I realize now that it was not resolved. Show me where we found some consensus that would deem this CIA map "biased." I would never have agreed to that, nor do I now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really have to get back to 'show me/show you' game? Honestly, we don't want to repeat something and get the same results. Please use your wisdom. -- fayssal / Wiki me up®03:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Game? Who is playing games? You claimed that we had some kind of consensus and we didn't. You also claimed "I won't claim it is 'biased.'" Take a look at this:
"# 2008-09-20T22:29:52 (hist) (diff) List of cities in Morocco (removed biased map (please refer to Morocco article)) "
Fayssal, you are the one playing games here. You show me this consensus. I don't understand the question "We have to agree at least that it is 'disputed;'" what is "it" in this sentence? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I won't'". The situation, the map and everything related to Morocco and Western Saharan stuff are disputed. No?
Okay So you did say that, but you'll refrain from now on for some reason? Why? You also wrote on my talk "We've discussed the map in depth at Morocco's talk page for almost two years before finally reaching that consensus." We didn't reach consensus; you're changing what you're saying, Fayssal. The statement "the situation, the map and everything related to Morocco and Western Saharan stuff are disputed" is vague enough that I can't really disagree, I suppose. I do not think it is controversial or biased in any way to show a map of Morocco produced by the CIA or UN, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because it is not about the CIA Justin. It is about the image being used. There exist other versions and none would be deemed 100% neutral for any side. So the argument is moot.
If one objects and 9 agreed, then there's no problem in terms of consensus Justin. That's why the only viable option for us is to recognize at least that the situation is 'disputed'. This is what I mean... By the way, what do you think about this map. -- fayssal / Wiki me up®04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatives That map is fine for some purpose, but for showing what "Morocco" is, using an (adulterated) map from the UN or CIA is a better option and consistent with WP:NPOV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure The notion of showing that map in some context if fine with me; there is nothing inherently NPOV about that map - it represents some kind of claim or perspective that is not NPOV itself, though. A preference in the infobox would be to chose a map that represents the international boundaries of Morocco with the text explaining various disputes, occupation, claims, etc. For instance, see Israel. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. In fact, the Morocco_map.jpeg is very suitable for [List of cities in Morocco]. Why? Because it first shows the dashed boundaries (meaning disputed or non-fixed or whatever -- for that we can add explanations of the situation) plus the cities under Moroccan administration (while, again, explaining the situation -- cities claimed by both parties). What do you think? -- fayssal / Wiki me up®05:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No It's not useful for List of cities in Morocco because that article only lists cities in Morocco proper; why would you include a map that also had Western Sahara, since List of cities in Western Sahara is a separate article? I suppose I wouldn't object to including a map or discussion about cities in occupied Western Sahara, but I do object to replacing the sole map in the the article with one that includes Western Sahara. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. A valid theoretical argument ;). It is not a good valid technical argument though since cities in the [List of cities in Western Sahara] are de facto administered by Morocco. Thanks for all Justin. -- fayssal / Wiki me up®05:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? No, that's not accurate: some of them are, some of them are not. Either way, they are not "in" Morocco, even if they are administered under Moroccan military occupation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Justin, you reverted at [List of cities in Morocco] and I stopped and used the talk. You could at least do the same at Morocco and stop where you are as I've done out there. We've talked about that tons of times. Without the talkpage, you won't be able to change anything. I hope you understand what is WP:Consensus (the process) and abide by it. -- fayssal / Wiki me up®05:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is doing it again, accusing me that I am intentionally doing something to avoid scrutiny AKA sock puppet. I am not interested any more in his opinions. Where can I file a complaint against him? 216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am well past bedtime here. Please read User talk:216.80.119.92. The conversation that occurred is still visible there. It is not long. I hate to summarize something so short. Please read the original and get full fidelity. Additionally, look at this prior warning I issued. That was the reason why the user's talk page was on my watchlist. JehochmanTalk05:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As a side note, our sock puppetry policy is repetitive, contradictory and may not accurately reflect current practices. It would be a good idea to review that and rewrite it to help editors and administrators avoid confusion. This current incident is regrettable, and might have been avoided if policy provided better guidance to all concerned. JehochmanTalk05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped editing under Lakinekaki after few users started WP:STALKing my edits, and after I was haressed by another 'former wikipedian'. Then, users User:SesquipedalianVerbiage, Jehochman, and NJGW started placing ridiculous block threats on my page. For example, the one that Jehochman just quoted (he BTW loves quoting things out of the context) above about me harassing ScienceApologist is for me [objecting to ScienceApologist's removal (without explanation) of sourced statements (more precisely, whole paragraphs), to which Jehochman responds to me with ...Their edit was not vandalism. It was a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia...
Jehochman essentially accuses me of being a socket puppet and tells me that I must use account. Well, he cannot tell me that I cannot be an anonymous editor, specially not with threats, and that is why his administrative privileges need to be challenged. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If interested in other user's block threats, see this diff[2].
Great and thanks for the summary. I'll have a look at all the diffs you've provided. I'll do the same for Jehochman. Eveything will be sorted out by tomorrow. Now, please focus on editing as this issue have taken much of your times. I'll leave a note at your talk pages once I'm done. Thanks again. -- fayssal / Wiki me up®06:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FayssalF ... I would ask you to look at my comments from the WQA, as it truly identifies the genesis of this issue (the WP:OUTING) which makes is no surprise that the editor chooses to edit anonymously...as permitted under WP:SOCK. To be told to "use one ID or be subject to admin action" is a threat by an admin that needs to be dealt with - hopefully, it was merely a misunderstanding of the user's rights. Feel free to contact me. BMW(drive)11:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has an outing happened? Please posts diffs. I am not aware of the editor's real world identity, nor have I seen any evidence that they have been personally identified. The user themselves connected their alternate accounts to the main account.[3] They claim to have been stalked and harassed, but they provided no actual evidence. It appears that they had been acting disruptively,[4][5][6] and did not like the scrutiny that their editing received, so they chose to abandon the named account and edit with a variety of IP accounts while continuing the same pattern of problematic behavior.(uses vandalism warning in a content dispute)[7][8][9] I might have assumed good faith, except that they proceeded to taunt other users with a suggestion that they could IP hop in order to continue the disruptive editing.[10] That comment was very rude to the other editors, and that is why I gave the warning. Administrators are not mind readers. We can never know what an editor's intentions may be. We must look at their statements and behavior and respond accordingly. In this case, I made a judgment call to give the editor a warning instead of blocking them immediately, because I had hope that they could change their behavior for the better. If my understanding of the situation was not correct, all the editor needed to do was provide a calm explanation and I would have looked at it a second time. Instead, they pursued a path of disruptive accusations and incivility. Granted, they may have been upset and I am willing to forgive the breaches of decorum if they will agree to cease disruptive tactics, and refrain from switching accounts to avoid scrutiny. I do not see any reason for them to use more than one account at this time. Per WP:SOCK, using multiple accounts to engage in disruption is sock puppetry. (adding) Lakinekaki has suggested that there might have been sock puppetry by those they were in conflict with. On one occasion, I did check for that, but none was found. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. JehochmanTalk13:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a much deeper rabbit hole that I anticipated. Perhaps we should look at User:Hillman, and the possible underlying COI editing of Lakinekaki and try to put an end to this controversy, globally. It does not seem that the problems are just going to go away. Do you think I should request arbitration? JehochmanTalk16:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jehochman, you repeat your nonsense again. In addition, I was not referring to SA being a SP, but someone else. But that's beyond the scope of this complaint. As for my "disruptive" behavior, your selective diffs, and few of my replies I posted before speak for themselves. STOP ACCUSING ME, it is really boring, rude, uncivil, and above all very very annoying. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you for the diff. At least I now understand what you are talking about. I am not sure how I reverted your talk page[13], but I don't think it was my intention to do so. Perhaps it was some sort of edit conflict, or my user error. Sorry for that. In any case, you need to understand that I am not out to get you. I understand that you may feel harassed by other users, but I have no association with them. I am an outsider trying to understand what is happening, and prevent disruption to Wikipedia. JehochmanTalk18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Somebody else just reverted the edit.[14] Using different accounts confuses people. That's probably why I reverted your edit. At the time, I must not have realized that was your own talk page. JehochmanTalk21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out to yet another abusive edit that happened after solicited for help[15]. Any other editors you want to bring over here NJGW and to my talk page? Plus, you Jehochman could not have been confused with my edits, as they were done under Lakinekaki. Don't try to find excuses for your abusive actions. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Okay, I think I understand your message. It seems to me that we are having difficult communications, but that there may actually be no real problem. Would you like it if I remove the warning and the other remarks I made, and then we can each go our own ways in peace? JehochmanTalk19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear FayssalF's opinion on the issue. I don't think that I am only non-admin editor being threated in this way by few admin editors. Something should be done about it. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to provide anything to You for your amusement in wasting my time. However, if right people ask me, I will be happy to post differences, complaints, RfC's, RA's, etc, related to the topic of editors' misuse of "power". 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, please don't get down on anybody at Wikipedia interested in "preventing disruption" in general. That's just silly. Now, here's an issue I'm starting to see emerge: Hillman is accused of "outing" you in the context of a "pseudoscience" dispute regarding an article you wrote about a subject you may study in real life [17] (20 intermediate edits, but all Hillman's). That sounds like a legitimate wp:COI that is important to explore, especially in an AFD. The way I come into this mess is when you come to the Fringe science article and try to alter the very definition of "fringe science". Being allegedly considered a "fringe sciencetist" yourself, wouldn't you consider this a COI? Some might even consider that to be disruption. NJGW (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, are you a mainstream scientist, because wouldn't you consider this a COI too on your side when editing about Fringe science. Or maybe you can actually stop using ad hominem fallacies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, your guess about me is also wrong, as I am engineer by education, and programmer by what I do. But if you calling me (fringe) scientist strengthens your argument, feel free to call me like that. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, to bring this back into context, I include myself in "some may call" a COI in this case to be disruptive. It violates NPOV and causes editors to follow their emotions rather than rational facts. If you have a COI, it might very well explain a lot of what is happening. Now that that's settled, please explain your feelings on your possible COI in the new section below. NJGW (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to involve a COI issues here, lets separate the thread, as I have A LOT to say about that. And don't tell me there is a COI on Intermittency. Oh, wait, I am a world renowned expert on it, and they told Hillman to notify me about it! How kind of him. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One day, I will make a rough calculation of how much of my and other editors time and energy was wasted by the nonsense that you caused, and also a comparison with other constructive things that could have been done in this time. I think it can be measured in HOURS. Do you really think that you have a right to waste people's time like that. Because Wikipedia is a public place, and your accusations simply had to be responded to, but you keep going on and on and on and on and on. STOP!. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read that essay, and like it. Giano and I are close. I agree with you completely about the unproductive use of time. You are welcome any time on my talk page should you like to discuss things. JehochmanTalk19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, even if there was no outing, wiki admin cannot act the way Jehochman acts (nor NJGW for that matter with his copyvio threat). Admins cannot misuse their blocking rights to threat other editors with whose edits they disagree with, as was done by few mentioned above. Admins cannot misuse their blocking rights to force users to edit under accounts. Admins cannot misuse their blocking rights to talk to other editors in uncivil manner, and then when they get response that is too strong on their 'incivility' scale, they wave with blocks. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this editor have a COI in editing articles related to Pseudoscience and Fringe science?
If you want to involve a COI issues here, lets separate the thread, as I have A LOT to say about that. And don't tell me there is a COI on Intermittency. Oh, wait, I am a world renowned expert on it, and they told Hillman to notify me about it! How kind of him. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for my edits in Fringe science, I came there after I had observed a squad of crusaders chasing edits on numerous articles, edits that they didn't like, and started labeling and deleting edits with WP:FRINGE without any further explanation. I thought that it would only make sense that the fringe science article that WP:FRINGE cites in the lead should have a solid definition of what the fringe science is, and not definition by some guy who nobody quotes. NJGW could not provide that definition, and when I added a sentence by the author whose work was already cited several times in fringe science by other editors, NJGW threatened me with a block. His irrational reaction to my rational edit could only be explained by emotional attachment to the subject of the article, and therefore I suspect a "COI". 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, can you tell us more about these anti-fringe "crusaders"? Also, can you explain why it is irrational to require editors to follow MOS:QUOTE? More over, do you think that the way I integrated the sentence you are referring to into the lead is an unfair characterization of the author's intent in that chapter? And finally, this section is about your potential COI, so could you please address that issue? NJGW (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you keep trying to turn this around, would you care to share why you can't wp:AFG? Just because you don't know who I am doesn't mean you don't have to follow Wikipedia policies on NPOV and COI. NJGW (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained why I think you may have COI. Your inability to initially argue my edit caused you to threaten me with the block. Your inability to see the real 'admin misuse of power' issue above (in which BTW You are also involved) caused you to turn it into ad hominem COI issue against me. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun (since this isn't about me at all, and you've only tried to turn it in my direction since you can't lay anything on Jehochman), let's keep this focused on what I've done:
Not really fun in my opinion. It is also about you for above stated reasons. Jehochman... I respond to him directly, as he doesn't need a lawyer here. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. I asked you to use quotation marks when using direct quotes (using a standard template... so if you have issues with the wording of that, this is the wrong place).
Now, I might be a 5 year old girl in Russia, or I might be a diamond miner in Africa. I could even be a really successful Turing test. It really doesn't matter though, does it? You asked for a new section to explore the COI angle, I gave it to you. You are now deflecting this as much and as furiously as possible. I'm done in this section. NJGW (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It my opinion it doesn't matter, as I didn't accuse you of COI first, AND I believe in anonymous editing. However, to explore this COI issue, we need to explore all sides of it. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once you show your RLI, I will first expose the absurdity of 'pseudoscience related COI', than argue 'fringe science related COI', than argue specific articles you may happen to quote, and last, or maybe first, argue Your possible COI. Of course, I will argue COI itself, as well as interpretation of WP:COI as related to me, and interpretation by you etc. This is quite a topic, and don't think it will end in one or two days. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will be really disappointed if you are done with this section, as the issue of COI and anonymity is a very important one to discuss on Wikipedia in general. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see, when I was putting Hillman's deeds in the context, my edits were being removed for a while, and then 'archived'. He was allowed to speak whatever he wanted, while I was barely allowed to respond. Guess what, I will not let you just accuse me about things without being able to respond properly, which can be done only if I also know your real life identity. If we want to be transparent, lets go all the way. 216.80.119.92 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming truly farcical. Wow, I am glad I was busy most of the day so that I could see the developments. NJGW, I originally thought you were arguing for the sake of argument, and it looks like I was wrong - you appear to be the one that has the most issue with the edits. Where the HECK did this crap about COI on Fringe Science come into play. Do you ever read WP:COI?? If someone actually had GOOD knowledge about a topic, they are welcome to edit it. Stop requesting real life identities...I know it's being done as a rhetorical point, but stop as it's undermining your overall point - that is, that you deserve to edit under either your userid, or anon. BMW(drive)22:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know anything about Lakinekaki's personal issues with pseudoscience until this afternoon. Now that I know about it, it explains a lot. NJGW (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are three different issues. However, I'd try to focus on the first issue while giving you some insights on how to deal with the rest.
A) The alleged sockpuppeting issue which resulted in admin Jehochman's intervention. As everybody knows, the etiquette alert was meant to sort out this particular issue.
B) The original registered account's edits and the outing. I must say that this is the crux of the matter. I'll not judge it though some notes should be taken seriously.
C) Issues related to civility. I must note here that admin jossi and myself have already addressed this issue but I believe that there are still some clarifications to give.
Analysis
Let's start with the main point which prompted the etiquette alert.
A) I've checked the contributions and see no real instance of sockpuppetry. The IP started editing after being outed exactly at the time the registered account stopped editing. He left a note at the registered user userpage and of course the user is free not to mention or identify his IP. However, I must note that the IP owner has stated that "[He] can probably use dozen of public IP's in such a way that you may or may not be able to track them -- depending on [his] mood." No, no moods. There is a very good reason why that is not acceptable... Nobody would be able to verify if different IPs of the same user have been used for the same topic. Unless they are from the same range, using multiple dynamic IPs for the same topic can only be considered as plain sockpuppetry. I know that in many cases, that would not be done intentionally, so please make sure no such thing happens.
Jehochman says that he wasn't aware of the complexity of this issue. That may be true and I'd assume good faith and trust his words. However, that is not really a total valid justification. Admins should have a prior knowledge of the background of the story before intervening or acting. Anyway, the situation is not that bad since it stopped at threats of a block instead of a block itself. I, therefore, see no reason why Jehochman should be sanctioned or anything of that sort. A sincere apology from him to the user would be sufficient unless Jehochman persists. As I can see, there's no reason to believe that something of that kind (persistence) would happen. I advice the user to forgive the actions of Jehochman and concentrate on the essentials (editing and collaborating).
I'd ask the IP to sign all his posts. There have been instances where no signature has been provided. This is not an infraction but in a collaborative project signatures are important.
B) This is not something which I was asked for to help. The IP has shown a preference not to enter in these details though I see that he has been obliged somehow by the circumstances and the inappropriate persistence of user:NJGW. I note the outing by user:Hillman and find that very unacceptable. A word from some admin on Hillman's talk page would be appropriate and any further incident would lead to an immediate block.
That being said...However, I must also note that the IP operator has also outed the user who had outed him. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Same thing. Any further outing of anyone and an immediate block would be in order.
As for the COI accusations, I'd advice all parties to go look for help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. In parallel, accusations of violations of WP:Fringe should be dealt with at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It is highly recommended to exempt user talkpages from discussions about these kind of issues since it is known that that leads nowhere. Noticeboards can guarantee a wider participation from experienced users who deal with these issues on a daily basis. For this reason, I urge NJGW to use those pages instead and stop arguing with the IP at every page.
Civility is important and I'd have not intervened if shouting (using CAPS) and using bad words didn't stop. Nobody can fix or sort out anything in a noisy and an uncivil environment. Please, no "idiot", "&#çà" or anything of that kind.
I would say that you and I are on the exact same page on this fayssal, and that it helps when we all read the whole background. As an uninvolved, non-admin editor who only got involved through my patrolling of WP:WQA, I tend to do a lot of background reading, especially comparing what proof was provided, vice what was left out. My only (minor) disagreement with your conclusion: the user had been outed once. Editors then kept re-outing him by linking his IP address...therefore I do not blame the editor for continuing to desire anonymity by changing IP addresses. Heck, if I was being chased, I would keep trying to hide too. In addition, although cursing is never to be condoned, I sure don't blame him/her for getting a little bit p'd off and finally saying "leave me the $$$$ alone!" and filing in WQA as again, after being chased, I would do the same thing. Again, I'm glad we have a similar analysis (although mine was much less verbose :-P ) BMW(drive)09:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take our hands off the block button for a moment. There was an accusation that the user violated conflict of interest for the purpose of self-promotion to write about themselves or link to their own stuff for the purpose of promotion. This underlying matter has yet to be investigated. An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing. JehochmanTalk13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...An area of policy that needs attention is the relationship between WP:OUTING and WP:COI. They are presently in conflict with each other. Editors should not be punished for following written policies that are confusing. JehochmanTalk13:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They are clearly in conflict with each other unless we see it from a different angle:
WP:OUTING is part of WP:HARASS which is a policy. It is also very tied to the Wikimedia Privacy policy. This is something much more serious than a conflict of interest because one may be exposing someone else to a risk of harm in "the real world" or other media.
WP:COI is just a guideline and we can still defer to the NPOV policy instead (like a notable person can still create or edit their own bio as long as they abide by the neutral point of view policy). And, the main point behind the creation of the COI guideline is to maintain a high standard of NPOV after all.
I did little search about this user, and found out that not only did he out me twice (in 2006, and 2008), but he also outed other user(s) before, for example this one. I really think he should be 'preventively' indefinitely blocked, which will only help him in his own wish to 'vanish'.
I don't want to spend any more time discussing this or other issues on wiki at this time, but just wanted to give my opinion/suggestion.
Please bring me something new. Any present block would not help your situation. It would just be considered plain punishment. We don't do those kinds of blocks. And as I said before, any further outing from any side and blocks would be in order. Thanks. -- fayssal - wiki up®07:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg){kind=small}
