User talk:Guyovski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[Archive of my talk page]


I have blocked you indefinitely for now, as the seriousness of what you have done did not seem to be impressed on you. The auspices for this block is WP:NLT and you can find information on how to request an unblock at WP:BLOCK.

As I mentioned at AN, there is a reasonable assumption that when contributing to Wikipedia (and indeed; anywhere on the net or in real life) our words won't be twisted around to make serious accusations against us, without serious grounds. If you notice someone making comments you judge to be anti-semitic then your first port of call should be to community, who in my observation are fairly good at handling such things. Using a third party as a chilling effect is highly inappropriate - and such things should always be your final court of arbitration. You seem to have leapt from questioning his comments on the talk page (which I feel you are deeply misreading anyway) to this final stage of reporting.

Your comments at the talk page, referring to the subject of your discussions as "filth" are entirely inappropriate with maintaining a neutral approach to material - and is one of the things that contributed to me blocking you.

Your interactions on that talk page approach the matter very negatively; after only a short length of time you declare it a major dispute, despite only a few comments being posted. This sort of escalation reflects the wider pattern at issue here.

But the main reason for your block is the unapologetic responses at WP:AN, where you indicated regret only that you had notified him as to the action you had taken. I'd suggest any unblock request (which I do encourage you to make) addresses these concerns. --Errant (chat!) 12:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that I feel any appeal to be unblocked will be incomplete without a response to the issues I raised on the administrators noticeboard. ʝunglejill 12:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The following is my response. On [Talk:Deaths in 2012#Roger Garaudy] I stated: "I don't see how you can call him a philosopher unless you assert that Holocaust denial is a legitimate type of philosophy" (emphasis added). The other editor begins his response by saying: "So his philosophy may have entailed Holocaust denial...." (emphasis added) If a philosophy entails Holocaust denial then, by simple logic, legitimate philosophical inquiry can lead to the legitimate conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur. That was the basis for my conclusion that the other editor was implying either that Holocaust denial either is a legitimate form of philosophy or legitimate philosophy can legitimately arrive at the conclusion that the Holocaust did not occur. It is my position that that conclusion is open to dispute, but it is a conclusion a reasonable person could plausibly make. I assert that I reached that conclusion in good faith and did everything else related to the matter in good faith.
According to the above logic fallacy, you cannot call Bobby Fischer a chess player unless you assert that Holocaust denial is a legitimate form of chess thinking. Holocaust denial is not a philosophy or a board game. It is a conspiracy theory that was held by certain now-deceased philosophers and chess players. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In the Administrator Noticeboard discussion, it was asserted that my filing of an anti-semitic incident report with the outside reporting agency violated policy because it could have caused "real-life consequences" to the other editor. That is indeed the wording of the policy. But under that wording, if literally interpreted, it is a violation of policy to cause a genuine Anti-semite to be outed as an Anti-semite, or for someone committing a crime to be caught by the police. Those are also "real-life consequences." I don't believe the wording of the policy is true to the spirit of the policy. The spirit is to prevent UNJUST real-life consequences and to protect INNOCENT people from adverse consequences. So it's my position that the wording fo the policy needs to be amended to reflect that. In addition, it very much matters if a real-life report like that is made in good faith, meaning that the person filing the report genuinely believes what he is saying, especially if his reasoning seems plausible upon examination. The alternative is for another kind of chilling effect, where someone being victimized by a genuine anti-semitic incident on Wikipedia is too scared to mention it to anyone outside Wikipedia lest he be banned. That is a far worse chilling effect than someone accused of anti-semitism being asked by a Jewish advocacy organization to explain himself, which the organization would give him an opportunity to do. Or do you imply that such organizations are inherently biased and unfair because they're Jewish? I'd LOVE to see you actually say that.

I do not accept that the next logical step would have been for me to go to the Village Pump and discuss my views. This is tantamount to saying "keep it in the family" and "don't involve outsiders in family business." Wikipedia does not exist in the vacuum. It is part of the real world and many of its inner workings are part of the public record. The Administrators' Noticeboard can be viewed by anyone with an internet connection, including banned users. All anyone needs to do, and all I did, is provide a link to something on Wikipedia that the reporting organization could easily have found on its own anyway. Under those circumstances it's not realistic to expect Wikipedia editors to sweep matters under the rug and "keep it in the family." Nothing in Wikipedia is purely internal if it's part of the public website. Nor should it be purely internal, because I believe the spirit of Wikipedia is that it be an organic part of its community. How else are you going to find high school students reading Wikipedia articles in order to obtain general information? Do you want to demand that they all create accounts and become registered editors before they can read a Wikipedia article? And once you do, are you going to demand that they not discuss with their real life friends, teachers, and parents what they read on a talk page? That's totally unrealistic. There is also the matter that the Village Pump is not staffed by experts on anti-semitism, while the reporting organization I contacted is staffed by such experts. In my view that makes a difference, because an expert is much more likely to be objective and arrive at the correct conclusion. Making an allegation of anti-semitism does not evoke a knee-jerk reaction from Jewish organizations. They don't take all such claims at face value. They investigate, and then they decide objectively whether the claim has merit. So the risk of "real-life consequences" to the other editor are minimal provided that he really is innocent.

But here's the surprise: I am not requesting that you lift the block. The current wording of the Wikipedia policy on real-life consequences is unsatisfactory to me, and I am not prepared to sanction any part of Wikipedia unless it is amended to reflect the spirit of the policy as described above. At this time I refuse to be a Wikipedia editor because the wording of an extremely important policy is deficient and demonstrably leads to unjust consequences, as it has in my case.

I'll tell you what I'm going to do, just to be fair and inform you of the potential consequences of what you have done. Nothing stops me from reading Wikipedia. Even a permanently banned former editor can still read Wikipedia. And such a person can still monitor Wikipedia for questionable occurrences and file reports with organizations such as the ADL. Doing so is not against any law and does not constitute a civil tort, either. So, instead of editing Wikipedia 12 hours a day, I am going to monitor Wikipedia 12 hours a day in order to find instances of misbehaviour, and then find interested outside organizations to make aware of the misbehaviour. If you had "assumed good faith" and worked with me, this wouldn't have happened. But you went on a one-sided witch hunt, so now you'll have to live with the just consequences of your actions.

I'm enjoying this conversation and very much enjoying being totally invulnerable to you, so I look forward to your reply. Guyovski (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Or do you imply that such organizations are inherently biased and unfair because they're Jewish? I'd LOVE to see you actually say that.; this is pretty much the behaviour I blocked you for - and confirms my feeling you are not a good fit for Wikipedia. Having now examined the remainder of your edits prior to this incident; you seem prone to battleground behaviour, or picking a fight at the smallest opportunity, so I see no way you would be able to participate in our community at this stage. I encourage you to spend time away and then reconsider your approach; if you still wish to join in then you can request an unblock. But please avoid further screeds as your talk page access for this account may be revoked. On a personal note; misreporting anti-semitism because of a dispute you could not cope with is extremely damaging to the role of agencies like the ADL - I am sure they will explain this too you, if the matter is even reviewed. You are, of course, free to monitor Wikipedia, and to report genuine issues you see to watchdogs - indeed I encourage you to do so. However at this time you do not appear to have the attitude required to participate in the community. --Errant (chat!) 15:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
From ADL's perspective, a man who reported an antisemitic incident is being punished for the very act of reporting it. I'm pretty sure that that's how they would perceive what's happening here if they were given enough motivation to look into it--and believe me, they would carefully examine every single edit I've ever made, as well as every single edit others associated with my case have ever made. And having been the first to actually read what I've been saying, they would conclude that I was in the right. I welcome any contact that Wikipedia or volunteer editors make with ADL over this matter in order to encourage them to get involved. Guyovski (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
From the ADL's perspective, a man who falsely reported an alleged antisemitic incident that never occurred is dragging the name of the ADL through the mud by implying that they will automatically agree with any accusation of antisemitism no matter what the actual evidence is. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm no expert on the ADL, but I'll be surprised if they take this tempest in a teapot seriously. There are. sadly, many real examples of anti-semitism, I don't think they need to invent ones.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Just came back from discovering that there is a life outside editing Wikipedia. Editing was becoming more than just "volunteer work" for me; it was more like an obsession. I really am glad that it's over now and I can get on with my life. And I note that there is some semi-serious discussion going on of the issues I've raised (even if it's a butt-covering, self-interest-protecting kind of pseudo-discussion full of slanted courtroom arguments favoring one side of the matter). I'm really glad somebody at Wikipedia has some minor capability to consider the implications of what I've said; I was wondering if absolutely everyone here was a mental midget blinded by prejudice toward an admittedly eccentric and unpleasant editor they personally dislike. So to the people who do have half a brain I'll drop a little clue: my idea as to how to use Wikipedia even if you're banned is probably not original, but it's a kind of catchy one because anyone with enough motivation can use it without breaking any laws or being civilly liable. And the genie is out of the bottle. There ain't no way you can prevent people from finding out about this now. What do you think is gonna happen when enough non-editors are carefully studying the public behaviour of the people who wield power under the aegis of Wikipedia (many of whom are dumb as rocks and not sophisticated enough to avoid getting Wikipedia into trouble)? Very likely paranoia on the part of anyone who gets the idea to edit Wikipedia. I don't have to draw you any pictures about what happens when such paranoia becomes widespread. And I don't think there is any way you can stop it any more. But maybe that will lead to yet another "policy discussion" purely focused on ass-covering and protecting self-interest. Have fun. Guyovski (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that you've rediscovered real life, I'm sure you'll agree there's no problem with my revocation of your talk page access. You don't seem interested in requesting an unblock, but if you do want to return here, you should read WP:APPEAL and then contact WP:UTRS to discuss how you might get unblocked in the future. And of course you can pursue any goal you wish offsite, but not here anymore. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Given the fact that he sent me a threatening email, it might be worthwhile having someone (I think this would have to be someone with OTRS or a clerk, but I don't really know) to take a look and see if he has sent any inappropriate emails to anyone else and revoke email access if needed.
Unnecessary commentary removed. Franamax (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Franamax was right to remove that. I wasn't thinking and should have known better. My apologies. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
--Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Threatening Email from Guyovski[edit]

Yesterday I received the following email. At first I thought I should only send it to a couple of admins, but the more I think about it the more I believe that such behavior should not be kept secret. I have redacted the actual email address to avoid WP:OUTING but WP:OTRS has it. Here is the email:

(Start of quoted email)

To: Guy Macon [email address redacted]
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail (permanent ban)
From: Guyovski [email address redacted]
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:16:07 +0000
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
In light of my unavoidable permanent ban, I thought it would be fair to inform you of what I have decided to do. You are free to share the contents of this email with anyone you wish, as long as you don't alter them, but I'll leave that choice up to you.
Wikipedia is a public website. There is nothing to stop a banned former editor from reading it. Once I am banned, I intend to pore over every word written by an admin on any Wikipedia website and inform absolutely every interested outside party of what was said. I am not going to mischaracterize anything or try to persuade anyone of anything, just offer the naked factual evidence and let the outside interested party make up its own mind and take whatever action it wishes. That activity will replace my Wikipedia editing, which I was doing for at least 12 hours a day.
If the admins had "assumed good faith" and worked with me, this could have been avoided. But you chose to conduct a one-sided witch hunt, and now it's too late to change anything, so you'll have to face the consequences.
It is my position that this email is not a threat and is not intended to influence your decision to ban me. That decision is already a foregone conclusion. I am simply doing the honourable thing in informing you of my intentions so you can be prepared. And if you or anyone chooses to interpret this email as a threat anyway, I have no reason to give a damn, because I'm not doing anything illegal and I'm judgment-proof.

(End of quoted email)

I would note that I am not an administrator, I have no power to ban anyone (and I like it that way) and that I have not requested that this user be banned or blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor isn't banned. (The editor is new, and may misunderstand the difference between a temporary block and a ban.) If the editor thinks a permanent ban is unavoidable, it can only be because the editor is not willing to edit according to community standards. I think the editor has been treated badly, but the response is over the top.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Guyovski has not been treated badly; Spadaro has. The editor (Guyovski) is throwing a fit of epic proportions because the community disagreed with his/her assertions. This editor has also rebuffed all attempts to discuss the situation reasonably. This type of behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Taroaldo (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(I do need to clear something up - when I say the editor acted badly, I refer to Guyovski, when I say the reaction is over-the-top, I mean the reaction by Guyovski.)
I don't think it is perfectly clear that a report to the ADL constitutes a legal threat. Let me be perfectly clear- I do NOT support the decision of the editor to make that report prior to exhausting DR, but in the same way the editor was remiss in jumping the gun, we were remiss in blocking a editor for a legal threat, when some of the early comments state that it is not, or ask the question. How on earth is a newbie to know something is a legal threat when experienced editors don't agree?
The editor has been lead to believe that it is against policy to report an anti-semitic incident to an outside agency. If someone told me that when I was new here, I might have written this place off and given up (if not, only because I'm better at AGF than Guyovski, and would assume someone was in error)
I was seriously considering reversing the block, but the editor's post block reaction has been so over-the-top, I'm not interested in helping. I don't disagree that Guyovski has handled this badly; that is not inconsistent with my observation that we have acted badly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I think I was fairly clear (when blocking) in noting that pursuing external dispute resolution is to be encouraged. But that frivolous requests, in lieu of in-community attempts to resolve the matter, used as a chilling effect (or simply a final shot in a dispute) are not :) The editor simply does not seem to see that distinction; and to be honest if you review all his contributions appears to have jumped in here spoiling for a fight such as this. --Errant (chat!) 22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The editor Guyovski has inferred a lot including the notion that it is against policy to report an anti-semitic incident to an outside agency. In the discussions I was involved in, the primary point made by the participating editors was that there did not appear to be any incidents of anti-semitism in this dispute. In fact, the most offensive comment I found was Guyovski referring to a recently-deceased individual as "a piece of filth". Taroaldo (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
@Errant - I don't think it helped that your blocking statement referred to NLT, as that leaves the impression that the editor was blocked for making a legal threat. That is a blockable offense, but I don't think it is obvious that the editor made such a threat. Perhaps a careful analysis might reach such a conclusion, but I see several editors who disagreed, so it was hardly obvious.
The editor was given advice on how to pursue DR - that advice was rebuffed, vociferously, and that is a legitimate reason for a block. I'm dragging this out because I want to be careful about precedent. Some readers appear to think that a report to the ADL is cause for a block. We should debate that, but my opinion is that a report to the ADL is not a blockable offense if the other dispute resolution steps have been followed in good faith and the community consciously refuse to remove something that someone honestly thinks is anti-Semitic. That isn't what happened here - we have an editor being told how to follow dispute resolution, but unilaterally deciding to escalate, not just once, but twice, after being told how to handle it properly.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(multi-e/c, putting it here) I kind-of agree with what you're saying but I think it falls down when you say "honestly thinks". The vast majority, pretty much every editor I've ever seen blocked for reasons other than simple vandalism, honestly thinks that they are right. That is why they end up blocked, because their sense of being in the right ultimately conflicts with the requirements of our community that we all find a way to strive for and accept consensus, whether or not it agrees with our own world-view. It's not the reporting, it's the battling that is a problem. We can't look into other people's minds and assess their honesty, we can only judge actions and potential outcomes. This editor is undertaking actions which could have serious adverse outcomes, so we need to address and curb those actions on-wiki. And that is all we will do, we will not be sending people to their door. I think it's rather theoretical to posit a situation where real anti-semitism is allowed to remain here as a conscious decision of the community, such that the only recourse is to seek an outside agency. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is an interesting topic for discussion. It is not uncommon for one or more parties to remain unsatisfied after DR has run its course. It is not a stretch to see that, in this case, Guyovski would have continued to remain unsatisfied after the full DR process because the claim that the dispute over the "holocaust denier" edit constitutes anti-semitism on the part of another editor is baseless. Would it be considered fair to complain to the ADL after a full DR process which (hypothetically at this point) found no basis for the accusation? And what would be the ramifications within Wikipedia if the accused editor sought remedies outside of Wikipedia? LEGAL exists for some very important reasons. What would be the effect on this section of LEGAL, and on trust within the community, if spurious and disruptive allegations are allowed to gain traction?

The community has an obligation to make every effort to ensure that editors can do good faith work in the encyclopedia without being mercilessly dragged through the mud. Taroaldo (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Phil; the text at NLT is the best we currently have to explain the issue. I'm certainly supportive of you incorporating my explanation of how it applies here - or even better to write a meta policy which expands on the problems of chilling effects etc., and why it can lead to a block. Again, my block notice might provide a useful starting place for that. --Errant (chat!) 23:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BURO we do not have rules that precisely specify what editors can get away with. While it is true that WP:NLT does not really cover the situation, the core fact is that no editor could ever collaborate with Guyovski because if there is ever a disagreement they might find themselves reported to an outside organization with real life consequences, simply because Guyovski imagines them to be anti-semitic or a pedophile or a terrorist or whatever. Of course anyone has the right to report people, but they do not have a right to be part of the Wikipedia community. If editor X sees a disturbed user Y who is posting grossly offensive material then X can report Y, and the community would thank X. But Guyovski has shown that their judgment cannot be trusted—even after several independent people have expressed disagreement, Guyovski has made it clear that their participation at Wikipedia involves a battlefield mentality, and any transgression will be reported to external authorities. We do not need a policy to point out the bleeding obvious—such behavior would be highly destructive to the community, and the community must support editors who have been so badly harassed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
How is it that NLT does not apply? By taking that action, there is automatically the possibility of legal ramifications. If an editor said on a user talk page "I'm going to file a complaint about you at [quasi-legal organization ABCD]", would this not be considered a legal threat? If so, how is acting on that threat not a violation of NLT? Taroaldo (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I have to run, but OTTOMH, filing a complaint with a lawyer is a bright line action. If I told you I didn't like an edit of yours, and I was fling a complaint with the BBB, would that be a legal threat> They have lawyers. If you say yes to that, what if I disagreed with your interpretation of a biblical statement and I said I was going to complain to the Catholic Church. Is that a legal threat? We know what to do when it there's no "quasi", but there's a range of organizations all with complaint departments and lawyers. I don't want to automatically lump them all together with law firms.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If I reported you to the Catholic Church (what is your position on the Filioque clause anyway? <smile>) I would expect to be blocked from editing Wikipedia while I pursued an Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis. It really wouldn't be fair for me to be allowed to pursue my case through the Juge D'instruction and WP:ANI at the same time.
(I knew those classes would come in handy someday! <grin>) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A relevant arbcom case for anyone interested is this one, specifically, "in truly extraordinary circumstances, a user who engages in egregiously disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's real-world life or employment in retaliation for his or her editing". I stand by what I originally said to Guyovski. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum and users have every right to pursue off-wiki remedies where they feel it is necessary. But as a privately owned and operated website, the foundation has the right to endorse the removal of editing privileges for any and all (or no) reasons. They have chosen to make cooperative behavior a requirement for being here, and permit administrators to enforce it. Then again, given how Guyovski has responded to all of this, and especially things he has stated after being blocked, it has become painfully obvious that he is actually just a borderline troll who can't handle being disagreed with. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but please note that I have removed talk page access for this editor, so unless you (or anyone else) has very specific advice for the editor on how to get unblocked, we really shouldn't be having an ongoing discussion where Guyovski is unable to participate - not here anyway. Franamax (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Erica Kennedy[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)