[WikiEN-l] Is it welcome to recal my case in waiting ?

Tue Dec 20 15:11:02 UTC 2005

Thanks !
    I'm waiting for a while, and will certainly take care in future possible 
edits to expose my motivations in 'talk' pages in a more comprehensive way.
l'Omnivore Sobriquet

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sam Fentress (Asbestos)" <asbestos999 at gmail.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is it welcome to recal my case in waiting ?

I've unblocked you, as I think the initial block wasn't warrented, and was
either way an over reaction. However, I have asked for a sock puppet check
to be run for your username, which may clear some things up a bit.

I'm also a little confused, as I couldn't find your initial block. Hopefully
another admin will tell me if I made a mistake anywhere.

Sam

--
Asbestos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos

On 12/20/05, l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Messieurs-Dames,
>     With no reaction since Friday, my case for block-lifting is now buried
> in the crowd of messages in WikiEN-l, and I'm wondering if the many people
> here still have it in mind.
>
>     I'm pasting it below for an easier catch 'on the fly' by the
> interested wiki-admin, as it is to be found in my user Talk page as well 
> (là
> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Omnivore_Sobriquet .)
>     The blocker was one Jayjg, who posted in wikien-l mere motivations,
> adressing a truncated version of my case, on 'points' that were indeed
> already adressed in the truncated part. (plus wild claims on the
> 'biographed''s behaviour.) That was Friday at 18:23 GMT, and it's pasted
> further below.
>     Then one Sam Fentress (Asbestos) posted a comment somewhat favorable
> to my case, although furthering on the truncated version. Same Friday at
> 20:11 GMT, pasted further below.
>     Then nothing, while I had finally my corrections posted here Saturday
> 14:27 GMT, which I paste at bottom although it doesn't add much, just 
> saying
> to take my full text into account.
>
>     I must stress also that I had received no warning whatsoever prior to
> the block., which is an 'infinite' block.
>
>     In addition, I figure that I have no way of knowing whether the block
> is lifted, so I regularly hit some 'edit' button for a check. Do not 
> resume
> imaginating 'fashions' about this, please.
> IP changes everytime, the last being 86.194.140.6
>
> So here you are folks, I just wondered about the 'noisy silence' going on
> about my case here; in my view, it has been a fast misjugdment from one of
> yours, that could be settled swiftly.
> Yours,
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> vendredi 16 décembre 2005 17:18 (i.e. 16:18 GMT)
>
> [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked.
>
> My complaint about being blocked.
>
> Friday, 16 December 05
>
>                 Messieurs,
>
> I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked
> from Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
>
> My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
>
> My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I got
> blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
>
> "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
> The reason given is:
> revert sockpuppet"
>
> Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single line
> :
>
> "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
> articles; that is what your edits consist of.
>
> Jay. "
>
> Today, I see to my dismay that a new 24hours blocking has been
> auto-generated.
>
> I'm writing here to argue my case:
>
>
>
> By the time of the 'block', my contributions to Wikipedia totalled to
> only. two. One last Sunday, one Wednesday. In no way this can be seen as a
> basis for a trend. Two occurrences cannot be held as statistical. I argue
> that my contributions, numbering to only two, simply didn't "consist of" 
> any
> behavioural pattern. Mr Jayjg writes that I "appear" . "created solely for
> the purpose". based on a total of only two occurrences, hardly a basis for
> purpose guesses or appearance lectures. The line of Jayjg consists solely 
> of
> his own guessings on invented trends.
>
> More so, trends and fashions, guessed or not, shouldn't come into play
> when it comes to Wikipedia editions or users' accesses.
>
> Denis Diderot boasted loud enough about it : encyclopaedias are not
> hair-dressers' salons. Hurt as any innocent blocked user should be, I
> acknowledge here challengeable Ancient Régîme ways, péroraisons, and
> short-lived privilege abuses.
>
>
>
> However if explanations for my sole pair of independent editions may help,
> to erase the wrongful impression of - 'award-winning' - Jayjg, here they
> are:
>
>                 Both related to the file titled "Israel Shamir" (actually,
> early on Sunday and before creating an account and logging in, I made an
> edit on American WW2 aircraft production, deleting post-war F-86 Sabre 
> from
> the list, making a total of 3 contributions in all from my PC, and 
> certainly
> not 'revert sockpuppetting'.) Both were reverts. After a lengthy read of 
> the
> controversies in the correspondent 'talk' page, I viewed the introduction
> paragraph of 'JohD' as already demonstrated as superior to the version
> seemingly endlessly reverted-to by a couple of Wikipedians. Also, the
> behaviour of these few Wikipedians - Jayjg and Denis Diderot (??!!!) - had
> been exposed as being on the verge of vandalism, according to Wiki
> guidelines.  My attitude has therefore been that 'the case is closed', 
> that
> it's all well written and argued about in the talk page. There only 
> remains
> to Wikipedia to let it show. My 'comments' just said that. A logical
> conclusion of the whole discussion page, as it reads. Therefore reverting
> was the minimal - yet justified - intervention, in order to let the
> hopefully virtuous Wikipedia process move on. So please do not be 
> surprised,
> do not imagine hooliganism, if I simply feel very little need to invent 
> some
> weak literature of mine and then to pour-in my low-key argumentation in
> endless talk pages, just to try to re-argue already well stated points.
> Hence the behaviour of those two first edits. "See talk" could have been a
> dryer comment for these.
>
> Impressions, however corrected, shouldn't come into argumentation here.
> But humans always appreciate !
>
>
>
> Please 'unblock' me at once.
>
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
> vendredi 16 décembre 2005 19:22
>
> >From: "l'Omnivore Sobriquet" <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
> >My complaint about being blocked.
> >
> >Friday, 16 December 05
> >
> >                 Messieurs,
> >
> >I would like to register here my full disagreement about being blocked
> from
> >Wikipedia. This is unfair, and as I appreciate it, unjustified.
> >
> >My IP address is 83.205.136.21.
> >
> >My user name is "L'Omnivore Sobriquet", and on Wednesday 14th of Dec I
> got
> >blocked at 22:03 (Wiki time), with the message :
> >
> >  "Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jayjg.
> >The reason given is:
> >revert sockpuppet"
> >
> >Moderator Jayjg replied to my call for justifications with the single
> line
> >:
> >
> >  "You appear to be a userid created solely for the purpose of reverting
> >articles; that is what your edits consist of.
> >
> >Jay. "
>
> The userid made exactly two edits, both of them reverts of the same page,
> Israel Shamir.  It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page
> of the article in question, and certainly appeared to be a revert
> sockpuppet.  Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has
> been
> consistently vandalizing it, in ways with which we have become all too
> familiar.  He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the
> article for him on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:
>
> From: Israel Shamir <ishamir at ...>
> Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:12 pm
> Subject: Wiki ish314
>
> Dear friend, if you have time, you may help to fight a small internet war
> over Wikipedia, a popular website with many links. Obviously it is as
> dominated by philosemites as any other media, and they consistently
> demonise
> me in the entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir When I, or
> some
> friends correct their most blatant lies, they change it back in no time at
> all. Afterwards, they refer to their own lies as if it is an objective
> source. Everybody can add, remove and edit any entry in the Wiki. I call
> those who has available time to make an effort and to re-conquer the site
> from philosemites. Shamir
>
> Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
> userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind.
>
> Jay.
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from : Sam Fentress (Asbestos) <asbestos999 at gmail.com>
>
> vendredi 16 décembre 2005 21:10
>
> While I think it's quite likely that this user was recruited by Shamir,
> and
> also that he has edited before, I don't think one can say for sure whether
> he is a sock puppet -- you're better off having a developer check that.
>
> But as for blocking because he came to Wikipedia with an aim in mind... if
> we blocked every user who arrived at Wikipedia because of a bone to pick
> or
> a view to push, we'd be down the vast majority of our contributors. The
> only
> applicable policy is WP:NPOV, and you don't get blocked for a first
> offence
> under that. I wouldn't ever unblock without knowing the whole story, but I
> don't think I agree with this block's reasoning.
>
> Sam
>
> On 12/16/05, JAY JG <jayjg at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>         [edited, same as above. l'O.S.]
>
>
> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> from : l'Omnivore Sobriquet <omnivore.sobriquet at wanadoo.fr>
>
> vendredi 16 décembre 2005 21:46
>
> Objet : Re: [WikiEN-l] My complaint about being blocked. Now you
> cancompare...
>
> hello, quick amendments:
>
> "It made no contributions elsewhere, even to the Talk: page of the article
> in question"
>     This has been well explained in the following of my message, it is a
> fine wiki-ethical usage all along. This is a truncation you're reading,
> rely
> on full version instead. (posted here 40 minutes before Jay's, your time)
>
> "and certainly appeared to be a revert sockpuppet"
>     It wasn't, and didn't appear as such then, as I explained in my
> message.
> Please don't  resort to "it's our experience that..." kind of argument;
> we're not meant to guess. The number of possible logical cases of
> behavours
> identical to mine while not being a internet sockpuppet is so high that in
> 25000 years time one still wouldn't have digested it. That you are 'not
> used
> to forsee' such or such is of no importance, concerning the veracity of
> being a such said sockpuppet. It may change a bit for the explanation of
> Jay's behaviour yes, reacting to some 'well known pattern', well known by
> a
> particuliar 'Wikipedia' staff and time etc., but changes stricly nothing
> on
> whether it is actual sockpupetting, created solely for the... etc.
>
> "Moreover, the subject of this article (Israel Shamir) has been
> consistently
> vandalizing it"
>     Not at all. See talk, see history; Shamir just intervened some three
> or
> five times if memory serves, weeks or months ago, civil and compliant at
> that. In fact we have one, possibly multiple, swift reverts from Jayjg
> and/or this Denis Diderot fame-seeker (shame-finder) without one word of
> an
> explanation, I repeat, without one word of explanation.
>
> "He also appealed for friends of his to come and revert the article for
> him
> on a Yahoo group called Shamir readers:"
>     It makes no mention of reverts.
>
> "Even if this editor is not a sockpuppet, I'm quite skeptical that this
> userid was created with Wikipedia's goals and policies in mind. > Jay."
>     Black magic again.
>
> I'm not wild-eyed by this all comrades, and Jay is not the devil
> incarnate.
> But I'm hurt and there should not be such a quasi-fetichist way for a
> wiki-reaction.
> So I'm waiting for good outcome, so I'm patient.
> l'Omnivore Sobriquet
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JAY JG" <jayjg at hotmail.com>
>
>     [edited, idem - l'O.S.]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l