Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 16 December 2014

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Checkuser, please

@Callanecc: (or any other uninvolved checkuser reading this), could you please run a checkuser on IP address 69.16.147.185? Because of the person's edit my original block of 1 week was extended to 2 weeks for "block evasion," but that edit was not made by me or by anyone that I know. Chillum, who was last to review my block said that he is open to another admin reviewing it.

To be clear, I am not talking about the original block, which has expired anyway. I am talking about the block extension that was placed on my account because IP user 69.16.147.185 deleted info from the GGTF ArbCom page, info that I did not delete. The only page that I have edited since my block was placed is my own talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser is not run "defensively", and they generally would not report information linking an IP to a named user in any case I don't think this request is going to get you anywhere. In any case, I am pretty sure the admins have said they were doing a WP:DUCK behavioral block. In those circumstances even a negative checkuser wouldn't mean anything. I am not accusing you of anything, I don't think the IP is you, but you could have been at a friends computer, or at work, or taken your laptop to starbucks, somewhere else that would not have the same CU but could still plausibly be you. CU for the most part is nothing but an IP check, plus a few bits of info from the browser (user agent, patch # etc). Its trivial to end up with a different CU, it only trips up prolific socks, because very few people have access to dozens/hundreds of machines/ips. But for a "one-time-sock" its easy to avoid. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen references to "duck" many times, but never bothered to read it before. I just did. I can see how this essay might apply to my original block, especially since I have since admitted that I did edit logged out (IP 72-something) for privacy. But I did not do the IP 69 edit. Further, IP 69 made one edit, so there's nothing to it that can be compared to any "habitual characteristics" on my part. The edit that IP made, the info he/she deleted, was related to the info I asked to have revdeled, but I didn't delete it before my block, and I wouldn't have and didn't delete it after, either. It would have been pointless, and dangerous... as it ended up being for me even though I didn't do it. Duck also says:

The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others.

If it will help an admin, I can get a copy of my receipt from the restaurant I was at on November 30 (blocked Dec. 1) when IP 69 made the edit he/she made.

For Pete's sake, I'm not asking to have the original block removed, I'm just asking to have the extension removed. IT WAS NOT ME. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As Gaijin42 said, CU will likely not tell us anything since we already have the geolocation of both IPs (perhaps your only defence is that they are different states (but that doesn't prove a lot). All I'd be able to tell with CU is whether you've edited on the 69.* IP with your account which is immaterial to the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let us consider a hypothetical case. How does one find out about an unexpected edit, read through it to understand what it is, from where it was made, find out some other user's location and correlate it with the new edit, calculate the distance between the two locations, work out all the intricacies / simplicities of Occam's razor, and implement a block with an edit summary containing a link to a relevant page, all withing four minutes ? How does it look if the person who did all this within four minutes is running for an election in which he/she could not hope to get the blocked user's vote ? ( The block prevents the user from voting ) Does it all look appropriate, very OK ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: @Chillum: The extension of this block seems silly to me. I disagree that this is an Occam's razor situation—we had many IPs editing the arbitration case, and it seems equally likely that this could be another person or a joe job. Lightbreather admitted the edits from the first IP were theirs; I don't think it's unreasonable to extend good faith far enough to say that this edit was not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given this my time. I have discussed this with the blocking admin. It is clear to both of us that once discovered by a checkuser you resorted to using a proxy thinking that would fool us. We know about proxies.

I am not changing my mind and I doubt the blocking admin will either. Please stop pinging me about this matter. I invite the scrutiny of the community as always. I welcome another admin to review this, but I am done here.

These blocks are not entirely separate issues as you insist in the collapse templates above. The fact that you had just engaged in sock puppetry is a relevant fact when considering the credibility of your claims. I think the any further review should take into account the sections you collapsed as to allow focus on the current issue. Chillum 18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, please note that I didn't ping you here, but that admin @GorillaWarfare: did, who seems to be open to reviewing this. Therefore, I am thinking about making one more official "unblock" request, and hoping that others will allow GorillaWarfare to do the review. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

At first look I thought it was Orange/Yellow pinging me again. I see now it was GW. My mistake, apologies to all involved. I did not think it was you. GW being an admin is welcome to review this and find differently, or any admin for that matter. Chillum 18:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed this, and I do find differently, but I don't particularly want to overturn ban extension without agreement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay well you are not going to get my agreement, at best you get my lack of objection. I discussed this with the blocking admin and we agree. I think it is a bit naive to believe the story given, however I am happy to have my sanity checked. That is why we have so many admins. Consider talking to the blocking admin yourself about this if you have not already done so. Chillum 19:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am attempting to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum. We are basically an anonymous community and the right to anonymity is a vital part of our project. I suppose everyone here is familiar with the Essjay controversy. IIRC Essjay had pretended to be someone other than what he actually was, Jimbo was told about that, but Jimbo was OK with it because he rationalized that Essjay was fibbing about his identity in order to protect his anonymity. LB has also fibbed about the initial IP edits being hers in order to protect her anonymity. If it was OK for Essjay to fib in order to protect his anonymity, why is the same not OK for LB ? Why is her fib in order to protect her anonymity being held against her ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Joe job discussion

Regarding the Lightbreather discussion that Chillum started on Salvio giuliano's talk page, since I cannot respond there, I am doing so here. Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Chillum: I am wondering what you make of the claims by Lightbreather that he/she was framed for the actions leading up to the block extension. A Joe job sort of thing. I don't think it is plausible. The behavior was so idiosyncratic and not the clumsy impersonation that normally comes along with a Joe job. Just wanted to see if you saw any merit in the claim.
2. Salvio: No, I agree with you and I don't see any merit in the claim. There is no gentle way of saying this, but, put simply, I don't believe her when she says she didn't do it; she has already lied before, when she denied operating the first IP (the one for which she was originally blocked), so I don't attach much credence to her protestations.
3. Chillum: I am glad we are on the same page then. Thank you.

First question, before I even respond to the details, is how am I supposed to have a chance for a positive review outcome if the original blocker and the first reviewer (who ostensibly agreed to a second review) privately agree that there is no merit to the claim? Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Second question goes to Chillum's first set of comments. The single edit by IP address 69.16.147.185 was the deletion of info that was related to me. There were others involved in that discussion, Question to Arbs, who felt that the information should not have been presented publicly there (on the GGTF ArbCom PD talk page). Others who spoke up and possibly others who did not speak up. Could any of those editors have made that deletion, in a misguided attempt to help me get rid of the information that I had asked to have revdeled? Lightbreather (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Third question goes to same set of comments. There were others in that discussion who had no problem with my username and IP address being connected publicly (against policy) and possibly others who felt the same way and did not speak up. (In other words, they were hoping that I would get blocked.) Could any of those editors have made that deletion, in a malicious attempt to get my block extended? Lightbreather (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fourth question, rhetorical, involves the alleged idiosyncrasy of IP 69's behavior. Which behavior? I have already had to contribute to the outing of my personal information (real-life IP address) in order to present my argument for why I edited not-logged-in. My argument was not accepted as legitimate and for that I was blocked. And that block has expired.

But the block extension was based on one edit. There was no pattern of editing to compare to idiosyncratic behavior (as there was between my 36 edits logged out to my other edits as Lightbreather). The information that IP 69 had deleted had never been deleted by IP 72 or Lightbreather. I had asked to have it revdeled because I know enough to know that simple deletion would not have protected my personal information. There was no good reason for me to get sneaky and get myself into trouble to delete something when I know that deleting it would accomplish nothing positive for me. It wouldn't truly hide the personal information that I wanted to hide, and it would very likely cause me to be blocked again or for a longer period of time. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fifth question is for Salvio and involves a hypothetical.

There is a highly controversial discussion going on that you would like to participate in anonymously. You read WP:SOCK and decide that Privacy must apply, because you see that at least eight other editors have chosen to participate anonymously, too. Near the end of the discussion, someone speculates that some of the IPs (plural) in the discussion might be "case parties logged out." A clerk replies, If you've got evidence of that could you please email it to me or the clerks' list. This makes you a little nervous, so you go to the main case page and re-read the Involved parties list. Your name is not there.

Six days later, the same person who had speculated before about IPs in the discussion being logged-out case parties PUBLICLY links your username to your IP address. Within a couple of hours, the same person starts an SPI and publicly asks for a checkuser, too. You still believe that your reason for participating in the highly controversial discussion, in which you were not an involved party, was legitimate. How do you defend yourself - without outing yourself? Do you lie outright - say "I am not Salvio" - or do you dance around the problem as best you can after reading Defending yourself against claims, and say, I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Re contrary claims

Now DeCausa joins in with his "pre-arranged alibi makes her difficult to believe" comment? Anyone who is familiar with my editing knows that I have on numerous occasions shared my RL plans when in the middle of an important discussion... as have many other editors, for that matter.

And Hell in a Bucket - who publicly outed my real-life IP address, without repercussion - chimes in with an "the evasion was her" allegation. He must believe that repeating an allegation makes it a fact. Well, it doesn't. Only one person knows for sure who the IP 69 editor was: the IP 69 editor; and only two know who was not: the IP 69 editor and I. I was not the IP 69 editor. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

Since other editors are continuing to discuss me on another talk page, I will respond here... since it's the only place I can respond for the time being.

In just the last 24 hours:

• Admin Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has called me a liar or fibber multiple times.
• Admin Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has called me a liar multiple times.
• Editor Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) has called me a liar.

WP:ASPERSIONS says, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Not one of these allegations was made with a diff or in an appropriate forum. That's called "casting aspersions."

As for the claim by Chillum that, Logging out to edit a controversial area is evasion of scrutiny, not protection of privacy, - WP:VALIDALT in the sock puppetry policy says just the opposite:

Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Misplaced Pages identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Misplaced Pages actions in that area.

The real-world consequence of editing as Lightbreather in controversial areas is that I have been harassed on- and off-wiki. That is part of why I quit editing (along with, of course, not being called a "cunt," but being told that editors can act in ways deserving of being called a "cunt," and similar comments and actions by other editors).

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties at the GGTF ArbCom

Proposed I-ban between you and Hell in a Bucket

Hi Lightbreather. Keeping in view the recent interactions between you and HiaB, I have proposed an I-ban between you two directly below this . Although I am not too familiar with the history between you two, what I have seen in the past month or so seems more than enough to think that an I-ban between you two has become necessary. It should bring some peace of mind for both, and also benefit the project because the project could hope to get some nice, more productive output from two eds. I certainly do not want to pressure anyone into accepting anything, and would surely like some others to offer their opinions / criticisms / suggestions on this proposal, and hope both of you would give serious consideration to this proposal. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for stopping the madness. Honestly my head is hammered today so I probably will not be on too much today either way to discuss it further until later tonight. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still drinking my coffee, and pondering what I want to do next. I'll consider this option, but won't say for sure until later today or maybe tomorrow. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think for the immediate future (3 - 6 months) this would be a wise choice. We can revisit it then to determine if the issues surrounding the dispute between you two has settled down enough where you two can talk without trying to spit in each others faces. Because, right now, the only thing you two communicate is insults and accusations.--v/r - TP 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am still thinking about it. Also, although I agree that I have made allegations against Hell in a Bucket, I don't recall insulting him - unless the allegations themselves are considered insults, but I believe I backed them up with evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the accusations I find insulting but from a manners POV, Lightbreather is usually very polite, that's part of what frustrates me so much dealing with her, she has the potential that Neotarf or CMDC didn't to actually accomplish things IMO. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

OK @Salvio giuliano, TParis, Hell in a Bucket, and OrangesRyellow: I've had a day to think on it, and I would like an IBAN between Hell in a Bucket and me. But instead of 3 to 6 months, as TParis has suggested, let's say indefinitely until we both agree to lift it? Lightbreather (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is why a Iban is nec when the discourse is civil enough it's the delivery that's in the question. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not so much concerned with "civility" here, although that may be a plausible issue. What I am thinking about is words like "productive", "useful", "beneficial". I do not foresee anything productive / useful / beneficial coming out of interactions, and although I do not like saying this, I only foresee the opposite of those things being produced from interactions, and taking away a lot of yours, and this projects time, energy and peace-of-mind resources in the bargain. An indef I-ban looks like a good idea to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. LB socked (Personal attack removed) and HIAB caught her. That she didn't like being caught is of no consequence. If HIAB doesn't want to enter into this IBAN, then your only recourse is to ask at ANI and gather community input.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: you are not welcome on this page if you're going to talk about/to me like that. I socked, yes, though not for the reason that I was "busted." Also, I've done my time, and then some. But most importantly, I. DID NOT. LIE. An accusation of lying is a severe accusation, and without evidence it is casting aspersions. If you will please strike that part of your comment, I will strike this part. Otherwise, stay off of my page and stop repeating this lie. Lightbreather (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't strike it, because IMO your arguments sound like you are about ready to help OJ Simpson find the real killers. And I'll gladly stay off this page, provided that HIAB voluntarily enters into the IBAN agreement. Otherwise take it to another page.Two kinds of pork_Bacon 14:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh. You want to continue argueing who did / did-not do what wrong / right, instead of finding the way forward ? I suggest an indef I-ban between LB and you too is necessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow, our banning policy allows bans such as you are suggesting only when there is a community consensus for it. Proposing it privately is of no effect. Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You can discuss such things on one of the noticeboards but there is little point in suggesting it here. Even if the users agree it will still not be binding if broken. If the users are willing to avoid each other then no ban is needed. Chillum 08:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Voluntary, indefinite IBAN between HIAB and LB

@Hell in a Bucket: Will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite IBAN between us? If you will accept my word, I will accept yours. If either of us wants to lift the ban, we can go to the other's talk page and ask civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: would you mind being a counselor or witness to this? Lightbreather (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)