Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Frater Xyzzy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Filed On: 19:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:[edit]

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer: I am opening this request on behalf of another user who is blocked. I believe he has read them, but you should ask him to be sure.

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: Named users engaging in attacks designed to give them the advantage in a content dispute by getting Frater Xyzzy blocked.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer: I have posted two enquiries on WP:AN/I on Frater Xyzzy's behalf: here and here. However, since the users are now beginning to attack me for doing so, I would prefer that an official Advocate continue the advocacy.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: Frater Xyzzy would like to be unblocked and for attack against him to cease.

Summary:[edit]

Copied from the above mentioned AN/I queries:

Clarification of blocking policy / possible unblock needed[edit]

Is a block of an alleged sock account directed against the account or against the alleged sockpuppeteer?

The reason I ask is that Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs) was misidentified as my sock. His account was blocked but he continued to edit without logging in (i.e. as an IP). A subsequent checkuser cleared him of being my sockpuppet. He requested to be unblocked [1] providing the checkuser results as evidence and was unblocked by Yamla [2] but then blocked again by Blnguyen [3].

I don't believe this is fair, since it is my understanding that the initial block was never directed against him as an individual, but rather directed at me to prevent me from using the account as an alleged sockpuppeteer. As a distinct individual from me, he was never blocked for any reason. This is why I ask, in such a case, was the original block directed at him as an individual, and if it was not, is it fair to re-block him for "evading" a block which was never directed at him as an individual and which thus was never intended to apply to him?

Concerns about MSJapan[edit]

I have some concerns about this user. He appears to have a sort of "ends justifies the means" attitute toward Wikipedia and appears to have been actively attempting to get an editor on the other side of a content dispute blocked.

This involves the article Obligations in Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The first irregularity occurs in Talk:Obligations_in_Freemasonry#Removed_oaths, where the user makes this comment claiming that the text in the article did not match the source. Several editors subsequently compared the article with the source, but found his allegation to be untrue. He then went on to remove the quoted text using the same false reason in the edit comment.

Since then, he has been pursuing the user who pointed out the falsehood, attempting to get him blocked for various trumped up reasons, labeling him as "disruptve", a "POV-pusher", "anti-Masonic" and claiming he is a member of a particular organization which I do not believe he is, and finally going around to various admins attempting to find one who would block him: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

I find it hard to believe that MSJapan is acting in good faith here. I don't believe his claims of disruption or other labels applied to the user are true. Could somebody take a look at this situation?

Note: Frater Xyzzy tells me that he has a registered WP email address and requests that an Advocate contact him by email. Jefferson Anderson 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:MSJapan[edit]

Comments from User:ALR[edit]

Discussion:[edit]

Frater Xyzzy has been blocked for two weeks wich will cause this hearing to go under investigation.

Frater_Xyzzy's block log

Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalkTodays Pick 20:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup:[edit]

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


AMA Information[edit]

Case Status: under investigation


Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/February_2007/Frater_Xyzzy&oldid=1138375379"