Responses inline:
On 10/6/06, Nacon Kantari <naconk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I've been watching this for a while, so I guess it's time for my
side
of the story.
(apologies as this was copied from a chat transcript)
He was originally blocked as an IP editor for making personal attacks in
edit summaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_organization&diff=prev&…
Then created an account to bypass 3RR
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Front_organization&diff=77587…
was blocked and came on IRC contesting the block
said that he didn't know who the IP editor was
I did a /whois and it was the same IP as the IP editing the article
[15:53] * Joins: NoLongerScieno (n=Mike(a)cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com)
<IP removed by me for email, actual available>
next weekend, he tried the same thing
as [[User:XVidMan]]
[19:47] * Parts: XVidman (n=Xvid(a)cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com) <IP
removed by me for email, actual available (both are same)>
[18:16] * Joins: ScienoSitter (n=James(a)cpe-70-114-*-*.houston.res.rr.com)
<IP removed by me for email, actual available (different)>
According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Enviroknot, this
indef-blocked editor edits through houston roadrunner IP addresses. This
is
what led me to block all of the accounts as obvious sockpuppets of
[[User:Enviroknot]]. Granted, I may have been in error with the block
messages, but I fully stand by the blocks.
In the first place: none of the accounts did you block as a "sockpuppet of
[[User:Enviroknot]]." Rather, as I check, you've blocked NoLongerScieno
indefinitely for "name..", Inshaneee blocked Xvidme first as a "sockpuppet
of Blainetologist" and then you reblocked as a "sockpuppet of
NoLongerScieno", and you've blocked ScienoSitter with a reason of
"(vandalism-only
accou{nt)" with a tag on the userpage claiming it's a sockpuppet of
NoLongerScieno.
From looking at the user talk page, I see at least two
incidents where you,
the blocking admin, removed an unblock request template from
the user's
page. I don't care what your excuses are, I don't care what your
explanation is: THAT was out of line, as was OmicronPersei8's removal of the
unblock template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienoSitter&action…
Now, if you're going to bring up the name "Enviroknot", as David Gerard did
earlier, I've been doing a little research back into the history. Since I
don't have access to the "secret evidence" side of CheckUser, I've only
been
able to go by the contributions list, and I've yet to find a diff from the
Enviroknot account that breaks our rules, save for removing templates from
the userpage.
For that matter, I think the hoarding of "evidence" like this is bad.
Houston's a huge city. Roadrunner, like it or not, appears to be their
bigggest ISP, or at least one of the top 2 (SBC/Yahoo appear to be the
other; Roadrunner's cable modem, SBC is DSL, so they probably have plenty of
markets where only one or the other is available). It'd be like if we were
to take Cox Cable or AOL and declare "X vandal always has an IP from Cox,
therefore all new users from Cox are sockpuppets."
But that's the sort of problem we get, and it directly conflicts with AGF
and Be Bold too.
Now that you're on the defensive, you're completely willing to try to attach
the name "Enviroknot" to this based on IP address, even though from every
supposed "Enviroknot sock" I've been able to hunt down, there isn't an
edit
on Scientology or even a reference to it to be found?
This may be incivil of me, but I think your belated accusation and attempt
to link that case to yours are very Bad Faith.
I also have a problem with your being the blocking admin in the first place,
since you were clearly by the page history spending your time edit warring
with these accounts.
As an ancillary topic, I see that the page for [[User:Enviroknot]] has had
the ban almost indefinitely extended (all the way through May now), but
there's a severe lack of diffs or any reason for the extensions, either on
the user page or on the affected arbcom page. The last one to have anything
close to proper notation is one from Demi, which states that
[[User:ForgetNever]] (who was editing on the arabs and anti-semitism page)
is a sockpuppet of KaintheScion as established by CheckUser... except that
as I understand how CU works, it shouldn't give any result of the sort for
the difference in time between when the accounts were killed and created
respectively.
The previous "extension", placed by Anonymous Editor (who I'll note seems
to
have been involved in edit warring in the past, on the same contentious
topics) merely bumps it in March with no linking and no reporting
whatsoever.
The last properly recorded "extension" according to the arbcom discussion
page is to August 1, 2006. The last one up until Demi's which shows any
notation whatsoever is by DMcdevit, who put a link to his discussion diff
with Jayjg into the comment, but didn't bother to report it anywhere else.
Mirv's "addition" of "information" in question shows no evidence
linking a
supposed sockpuppet, has no information notated to the arbcom filing as to
who the supposed sockpuppet was, and is damning in that we're again hoarding
up evidence to attack any new editor.
I can't tell if they're a sock, but unless there is some other secret
function of CheckUser going on we're not being told about, then the only
"match" is to a huge ISP in a huge city, editing on a similar topic, and
that dubious "match" is being used to push continual extensions to a block
in a case that I can't say for sure was even a sockpuppet to start with.
That's very poor form, people.
Also, Parker Peters, if you are IRC user pakaran, we did have a discussion
about this. If not, my apologies.
No, I'm not. But I did watch your discussion with the person as they came
in. Civility is important. Even when you think someone is acting in bad
faith, even if you think you are right, you need to be civil.
Your conduct was as far from civil as possible.
Parker