| Revision as of 09:59, 18 May 2015 view sourceDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators263,962 edits →off-wiki harassment: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:03, 22 May 2015 view source Lightbreather (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,672 edits ←Replaced content with '{{Archives}}'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives}} | ||
| ==Kaffeeklatsch update== | |||
| I have ] that were here. All the brouhaha had died down. If it fires up again in the future, I'll take care of it then. ] (]) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=Viriditas advised to stay off my talk page}} | |||
| == Human self-reflection needed == | |||
| :''A member of this committee has closed the SPI that I opened, commenting that the evidence was "vastly insufficient to support a sockpuppetry claim." Part of the reason that I presented my evidence there is that I thought it quite convincing. I respectfully ask the whole committee to consider the evidence, rather than have the decision made by one arbitrator, whose answer at SPI indicates that they have already made up their mind about me.'' | |||
| Lightbreather, I don't think you are stupid or incompetent, but this comment tells me you should stay away from Misplaced Pages for a while. Seven different editors commented on the quality of the evidence you offered at the SPI and all agreed that it was quite possibly the worst evidence they had ever seen in the history of SPI. For you to think this lack of evidence is "quite convincing" tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is in this context and how it works. If you would like to correct your error, I would recommend finding a checkuser you trust and have them walk you through the entire process. That would be a good way for you to learn why what you think is "quite convincing" is in fact, non-evidence. Other heuristics that will greatly help improve your thinking include ] and the concept of ]. There's also the general idea of a "sniff test", which Wiktionary defines as "an informal reality check of an idea or proposal, using one's common sense or sense of propriety". I don't think you lack common sense or propriety, but you do seem to get carried away in the moment and do things without thinking them through. Next time, take a deep breath, apply Occam's razor, attempt to falsify your hypothesis, and ''sniff'' it (metaphorically speaking) for soundness. If you had truly done this, you would have never proposed the SPI in the first place. Try not to act on every thought that comes into your head. Remember, humans have a reputation for excelling at ]. Erroneous pattern matching can often be categorized as ]. In your favor, ] argues that there are survival benefits to forming beliefs based on erroneous pattern matching. The point is to know when your brain is doing this and to filter accordingly. ] (]) 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :''It was already proved last night that at least one editor whom I have suspected of being a sock is a sock. I didn't slap my evidence together; it took a lot of time. And no-one has given details about why the evidence that I gave for Gaijin42/Godsy is "insufficient" or not "solid" enough.'' | |||
| Lightbreather, you suspected EChastain of being Sue Rangell, but the account was blocked for being a likely sock of Mattisse not Sue Rangell. As for your evidence, many editors on the SPI gave you explicit details why your evidence against Godsy and Gaijin was insufficient, so your claim that they didn't is quite disturbing. Here are five diffs from one user alone giving you explicit details. If you continue to engage in this kind of denial you're probably going to end up banned. ] (]) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Viriditas, please stay off my talk page now. ] (]) 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == ] arbitration case: special arangements == | |||
| Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the ] arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that: | |||
| {{Ivmbox|1=1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the ]. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the ] to ''link'' to material on the /Evidence page. | |||
| 2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans. | |||
| 3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages. | |||
| 4. Similar arrangements apply to ] and the ].}} | |||
| The original announcement can be found ]. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) via ] (]) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:L235/sandbox&oldid=661834298 --> | |||
| == TWL Questia check-in == | |||
| Hello! | |||
| You are receiving this message because ] has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to ]. This is a brief update to remind you about that access: | |||
| *Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to ]. | |||
| *'''When your account expires you can reapply for access at ].''' | |||
| *Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. | |||
| *Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, ] and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources. | |||
| Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out . The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Misplaced Pages Library can offer. | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| <small> Delivered by ] (]), on behalf of {{noping|National Names 2000}} 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Questia/Check_in/List&oldid=655573416 --> | |||
| *{{u|ChrisGualtieri}}, I don't think you got my last communique about this. A year ago or more I had a personal, ''trial'' membership. When I cancelled that I actually cancelled my Misplaced Pages account instead. Can I get it back, because now I have neither. ] (]) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Any personal trial membership is completely separate then the free one which was provided. Even the Misplaced Pages ones are completely separate between codes and require signing up again, from scratch, and cannot be kept or extended from even prior free memberships. ] (]) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hat|reason=ArbCom SPI talk}} | |||
| == Continuing the SPI on the case talk page == | |||
| I'd like you to remove that please, it's completely inappropriate. You need to follow Roger's advice or drop it, but not use the talk page to continue pressing it. Thanks. ] (]) 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :To what are you referring? ] (]) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::My responses to {{u|Gaijin42}}? If Gaijin42 removes his remarks about the SPI, I will be happy to remove my replies to his remarks. Or maybe he could move them to the evidence page, so I may rebut them there? ] (]) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm referring to everything from "@Gaijin42: My evidence against you includes" to " case will consider my response to you and read that SPI." specifically. Re-raising your SPI on the talk page is inappropriate. Commenting on that SPI is not the same thing. ] (]) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Dougweller: At 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC), after my SPI was closed by a lone member of the committee, I asked the committee to consider reviewing the evidence as part of the case. Roger Davies gave an ambiguous answer. After EChastain was found to be a sock, I asked Euryalus if he would object to the committee reviewing the SPI. Gaijin42's comments about the SPI at 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC) were ''after'' all of the above, and I've still seen no evidence that the committee together has discussed my request. | |||
| ::::I respectfully ask again that the committee discuss letting the SPI stay. The foci/loci of dispute with me and these other editors are gun control and GGTF/gender. If the committee decides that the SPI will not be considered and if Gaijin42 deletes the comments he made about the SPI at/after 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC), then I will delete my replies to him. If his comments are to stand, they should be moved to the evidence page. ] (]) 18:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Roger is a co-drafter and we agree on this. I'm going to hat it now. ] (]) 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe others have already entered the SPI and your comments about it into evidence, so it doesn't make much sense for me to duplicate it. However, that does seem like the opportunity is already there for you to rebut that evidence by others (assuming your space permits). Ill strike the portion that specifically critiques the evidence you raised, but not the rest of the commentary. ] (]) 18:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Gaijin, there is a paragraph at the top of the evidence talk page that begins in big, bold letters: '''Behaviour on this page'''. I believe every post I've made on that page has honored the expectations spelled out in that paragraph. Where do your comments like, ''In light of the SPI filed against me, I guess whatever detente LB and I had achieved was illusory'', and ''In addition to being a) wrong, b) wasting your limited space, c) (perhaps more importantly) wasting everyone's patience - I'm not sure what you think you are going to get out of pursuing this godsy thing so aggressively'' fall in relation to page expectations? | |||
| ::::I respectfully ask that if you have a beef with me, take it to the evidence page and provide diffs, otherwise, delete your evidence talk-page comments as they are contrary to case-page behavioral guidelines. ] (]) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I respectfully decline. I didn't have a beef with you. I submitted evidence in support of you (including your EChastain accusation, and a defense against the second socking accusation during the GGTF case) I also supported your request regarding the iBans in evidence. | |||
| :::::For the past several months we have gotten along fine, and had several pleasant exchanges. I spent a decent amount of time working with you to clean up your google-footprint a while ago. In spite of this, you apparently have a beef with me, regarding a content dispute that happened a '''year and a half ago''', and that I am '''already sanctioned for'''. | |||
| :::::I mentioned the change in situation ("illusory") as commenting on why I added additional evidence - I had refrained out of respect for our (then) improved relationship. The second bit ("in addition") is not "evidence" against you, nor a rebuttal, its merely a comment that I don't see the point of what you are doing, since even if you were proven correct on that point, it doesn't materially improve your situation. | |||
| :::::Do you really not see how you are piling the wood at your own pyre here? One of the main accusations against you are that you carry grudges/vendettas, and that you don't drop the stick. Even if 100% of the evidence was somehow excluded, your conduct during this case proves the allegations against you admirably. | |||
| :::::Seriously, file an SPI, whatever - I've filed dozens, and I understand your paranoia, especially in light of our original interactions. But when many-multiple editors, admins, and arbs tell you "this is not sufficient", to appeal it 2,3,4,5,6 times - it only proves that the only opinion you value is your own. | |||
| :::::Again, for the record, I am not Godsy. He may or may not be someone's sock, but it isn't mine. ] (]) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''I spent a decent amount of time working with you to clean up your google-footprint a while ago.'' Yes you did, and I thanked you. However, when I said that a tech-savvy third party was messing with me, and that it might even be you, you said you weren't offended that I might suspect you. | |||
| ::::::Now that you've shared the google-footprint thing and I've shared this third-party thing, I'd like no more mention of our private discussions. ] (]) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Removed some of your evidence == | |||
| Hi Lightbreather. At the Arbitration Committee's direction, I have removed certain parts of your evidence. You are instructed to not reinstate any content removed without the permission of an arbitrator or clerk, and you are further instructed to not mention the Gaijin42 SPI. You may appeal this by email to the clerks or the arbitrators. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 19:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*What email address do I use for the arbitrators? functionaries-en or ? ] (]) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*If you wish to email the arbitrators and explicitly not the clerks, {{nospam|arbcom-l|lists.wikimedia.org}} is the one to email. Thanks, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Is there one that goes to arbcom and clerks? Is that functionaries-en? ] (]) 00:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*Clerks-l goes to all current arbitrators, all current clerks, and some former arbitrators. Hope that answers your question, --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 03:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*It's been brought to my attention on the clerks-l list that I was wrong to direct you to email there. It is possible that another clerk or arbitrator may soon request that you post to the /Evidence talk page instead. My apologies. Thank you. --''']''' (] / ] / ]) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Lightbreather, in light of the removal of this material, I have recalculated your evidence word count which has been significantly reduced but is still over the limit. It would help if you only included one signature in your comments, at the end of your section. Since the evidence will all be read at same time, it is not crucial for the arbitrators to know when you added which sections of your statement. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{done}} ] (]) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == off-wiki harassment == | |||
| That's disgusting. Are you aware of ]? ] (]) 09:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
