→Request for CheckUser review: new section |
|||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
::I explicitly reject the claim that I am a "clean start" of {{userlinks|Random user 39849958}}, formerly [[user:Levine2112]]. I am in '''no way related to this account''', have never interacted with this user, and I honestly do not understand where this accusation is coming from. I took a break from my [[User:A1candidate|primary account]] due to the toxic environment in these topic areas and have never used a separate account to dodge any sanctions whatsoever. For a brief moment, I considered returning for a short while, but given the current editing environment, I am convinced that the time is not yet ripe for me to return. All I ask is that I be left alone, but if people continue to have lingering concerns that I am a sockpuppet of [[user:Levine2112]] then they should contact [[Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_CheckUser|contact a checkuser]] so that my name be cleared. With all due respect, I find it surprising to see such a ludicrous allegation of sockpuppetry coming from at least three experienced editors and I think those making these accusations should have attempted to communicate with me on my [[User_talk:RoseL2P|talk page]] first and foremost ''before'' running over to the drama boards. [[User:RoseL2P|RoseL2P]] ([[User talk:RoseL2P|talk]]) 06:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
::I explicitly reject the claim that I am a "clean start" of {{userlinks|Random user 39849958}}, formerly [[user:Levine2112]]. I am in '''no way related to this account''', have never interacted with this user, and I honestly do not understand where this accusation is coming from. I took a break from my [[User:A1candidate|primary account]] due to the toxic environment in these topic areas and have never used a separate account to dodge any sanctions whatsoever. For a brief moment, I considered returning for a short while, but given the current editing environment, I am convinced that the time is not yet ripe for me to return. All I ask is that I be left alone, but if people continue to have lingering concerns that I am a sockpuppet of [[user:Levine2112]] then they should contact [[Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_CheckUser|contact a checkuser]] so that my name be cleared. With all due respect, I find it surprising to see such a ludicrous allegation of sockpuppetry coming from at least three experienced editors and I think those making these accusations should have attempted to communicate with me on my [[User_talk:RoseL2P|talk page]] first and foremost ''before'' running over to the drama boards. [[User:RoseL2P|RoseL2P]] ([[User talk:RoseL2P|talk]]) 06:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Request for CheckUser review == |
|||
I do not know where else to submit this request, so I'm making this statement in the hope that a clerk or arbitrator might move it to a more appropriate venue. The crux of my statement concerns a spate of frivolous accusations against me, namely that I am a sockpuppet of some user that I have never heard of nor interacted with. Rather than initiating a full sockpuppet investigation against myself, I am hereby requesting for an active arbitrator to query the CheckUser tool and confirm that I am '''unrelated''' to [[User:Levine2112]]. The reason for doing so is that |
|||
this accusation is being shared by at least several editors (such as JzG, Alexbrn and QuackGuru) and it is not the first time this has been raised [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3ALevine2112×tamp=20140330051657&diff=prev ] (diff only visible to admins). When confronted about the truthfulness of the accusation, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANuclearWarfare&type=revision&diff=642772140&oldid=642771068 categorically denied it] and thought the matter had been settled. But it has not been settled. |
|||
In the midst of this arbitration case, I note that Geogene has accused me of [[WP:SOCK]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms/Evidence#Edit_count_statistics.2C_alternate_accounts.2C_and_WP:CLEANSTART ] and that this issue is currently being taken up by JzG on the ANI drama boards [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=686201697#A1candidate ]. These sockpuppet (and COI accusations [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=685873924&oldid=685873020 ][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAcupuncture&type=revision&diff=617725614&oldid=617725109 ]) have continued for more than a year, so I'm wondering if there is some way for me to clear my name without having to launch a sockpuppet case against myself? I will consider giving away some personal information to defintely prove that I have no COIs regarding the topics I perviously edited (and have stopped editing due to the toxic environment), but I think it might suffice if a trusted arbitrator uses the CheckUser tool to review the evidence and clear my name. |
|||
In any case, I have already made up my mind to semi-retire. However, it would be nice if I could peacefully withdraw from this place without these very serious (but completely baseless) allegations lingering on the talk pages of ArbCom and elsewhere. |
|||
[[User:RoseL2P|RoseL2P]] ([[User talk:RoseL2P|talk]]) 10:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:51, 18 October 2015
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Redaction clarification
Guerillero I see that you have redacted some information from the page in Minor4th's section, but Minor4th's sections are still there. Can editors still comment on these sections and are they still part of the case? AlbinoFerret 18:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes you can --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, just making sure. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- What is the reasoning behind these sweeping redactions? Jusdafax 08:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Jusdafax, the nature of revision deletion makes it look, in the edit history, like a huge number of comments were removed, but this is actually not the case. The only actual redactions were from two comments here. I made a reference to something at some other websites, and Guerillero made a reasonable determination that it should not have been displayed, and I apologize for my error in judgment. Nothing else has been hidden. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- What is the reasoning behind these sweeping redactions? Jusdafax 08:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, just making sure. AlbinoFerret 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Tryptofish engaged in OUTing is what happened, and it got REVDEL'd at my request. It was more than an error in judgment, Tryptofish.Minor4th 18:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
For what's worth, I was also putting together an email to ArbCom about the best way to approach the redacted subject and other non-outing evidence a bit before Tryptofish's post. Even the non-outing evidence is concerning, but there's a lot stuff to dig into that isn't related to this case. ArbCom would seem to be aware of the general issue at this point though. It's extremely tricky to deal with these kinds of issues without outing, so I hope the arbitrators can discuss among themselves how the underlying issue may or may not affect editor actions in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- First, my thanks to Guerillero. At first look, Tryptofish has strayed into sanctions territory, and given our close working relationship in the past I never thought I would say this, but if I have the facts right, this is blockable. Apology? Faugh. Jusdafax 03:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, you do not have the facts right. That's a pity. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's unfortunately a lot of posturing in this case that I hope ArbCom takes notice of both on the case and talk pages when it comes to the mentality of different editors. For those interested in what actually happened (without the redacted info), Tryptofish summarized the events really well here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I want to suggest a "thought experiment" to the Arbs. Look at what the discussions are like on the Workshop page. Then think about how you would react if you were interested in editing content in a topic where the editing atmosphere is like that. Perhaps you would identify a point where you would begin to find yourself losing your temper momentarily. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree. It's not quite at the point of people demanding a lifetime ban from all WMF projects for failing to use an edit summary once, but some of it is not far off. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've nailed it, Tryptofish. It is a highly toxic environment for all involved parties, of which the Workshop itself is proof. Everyone is busy fault-finding in each other; and Jytdog's self-imposed hiatus during these proceedings may indicate that he has given up due to the constant attacks and lack of support. (We won't know until/unless we hear from him.) Escalation is evident; prior to around July 1 those involved were able to work together relatively well, despite content disputes, using existing WP processes. After that I see an uptick from everyone, and trying to determine "who started it" is nonproductive when all are acting unprofessionally, and when such behavior would continue were other editors to fill the same positional roles. Certainly, Jytdog has made poor choices, but so have his counterparts, and after considerable reading I cannot help but think I too would have snapped if I had continued to fight a tidal wave of pseudoscience and advocacy for years. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- And I kinda feel like I've been nailed (smile). For anyone willing to spend some time going through the muck, read all the way through the talk archives of Talk:March Against Monsanto, and see how things unfolded over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I just looked again at the Workshop page, and it looks like two opposing camps lining up to vote (not !vote) their respective party lines. I'm about to go away for a week, and believe me, I'm looking forward to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm curious too since we have some people just voting and others showing why something is true or is needed. After tonight, I'm not sure if I'll be around until after the close of the workshop either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to duck out as well, I think. There's a massive amount of material to go through, and I cannot think of anything constructive to add that hasn't already been stated. The "proposed solutions" I just posted are a bit...unusual, but even if they are not adopted hopefully they will help us collectively come up with something useful. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm curious too since we have some people just voting and others showing why something is true or is needed. After tonight, I'm not sure if I'll be around until after the close of the workshop either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've nailed it, Tryptofish. It is a highly toxic environment for all involved parties, of which the Workshop itself is proof. Everyone is busy fault-finding in each other; and Jytdog's self-imposed hiatus during these proceedings may indicate that he has given up due to the constant attacks and lack of support. (We won't know until/unless we hear from him.) Escalation is evident; prior to around July 1 those involved were able to work together relatively well, despite content disputes, using existing WP processes. After that I see an uptick from everyone, and trying to determine "who started it" is nonproductive when all are acting unprofessionally, and when such behavior would continue were other editors to fill the same positional roles. Certainly, Jytdog has made poor choices, but so have his counterparts, and after considerable reading I cannot help but think I too would have snapped if I had continued to fight a tidal wave of pseudoscience and advocacy for years. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree. It's not quite at the point of people demanding a lifetime ban from all WMF projects for failing to use an edit summary once, but some of it is not far off. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I want to suggest a "thought experiment" to the Arbs. Look at what the discussions are like on the Workshop page. Then think about how you would react if you were interested in editing content in a topic where the editing atmosphere is like that. Perhaps you would identify a point where you would begin to find yourself losing your temper momentarily. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's unfortunately a lot of posturing in this case that I hope ArbCom takes notice of both on the case and talk pages when it comes to the mentality of different editors. For those interested in what actually happened (without the redacted info), Tryptofish summarized the events really well here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Since thought grenades are suddenly a last minute topic, I'll toss out a firecracker for contemplation. Think about showing a 13 yr old student, or entire 7th grade class how TPs on WP are used to discuss article content, and you stumble upon one where Jytdog has demonstrated his exasperation. Another thought - how do we know who any of these editors really are except for those of us whose RL identities have been probed and/or spotlighted or voluntarily provided? How can we be expected to blindly AGF when we're seeing articles being whitewashed? We do know our universities are receiving grants to paint pretty pictures so unless we know for certain we're not dealing with an advocacy or an editor who is fighting for a research grant what exactly can we do to avoid suspicion when we're seeing the signs? It isn't an easy problem to solve regardless of how much thought you put into it. Money talks rather loudly and so do POV advocacies, but let's not forget the grassroots writers and editors who simply want to churn out accurate GAs and FAs and insist on getting the facts straight. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Atsme📞📧 21:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ex: "A new international effort led by Cornell will seek to add a stronger voice for science and depolarize the charged debate around agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs)....Supported by a $5.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation" (Aug. 21, 2014) [1] petrarchan47คุก 23:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Findings of Facts
Participants, if you list a finding of fact on the workshop page against an editor in particular, I think it helps the ArbCom out if you link to the specific sections of evidence that support your proposed finding. Or, you can list the diffs directly in the finding statement. When the ArbCom drafts their proposed decision, they usually try to list the specific diffs in their findings statements. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking of findings of fact, I thought some of yours had merit. But I hadn't seen the punchline, which was your ludicrous "proposed remedies." I feel like something of a sucker dignifying your proposals, but I guess there's no point in striking them out at this time, as I do agree with you but I think that your aim was disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Coretheapple, my proposals are serious, based on my 20 years working in organizational management, both in the US and Japan, which have different management styles. If you agree that the core problems I identify are valid, then please propose alternative solutions that will be more than just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cla68 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure that a person of your vast experience in management would realize that your proposals would not be taken seriously. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Coretheapple, my proposals are serious, based on my 20 years working in organizational management, both in the US and Japan, which have different management styles. If you agree that the core problems I identify are valid, then please propose alternative solutions that will be more than just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Cla68 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Status of my email request
@NativeForeigner:, I have not heard back from you in response to my email request to submit as evidence the email that was previously approved by the sender for use as part of my evidence in the COIN case. Please advise. Atsme📞📧 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Our bad, thanks for ping. Checking right now. NativeForeigner Talk 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Question about hatted comment
The drafting Arb hatted this accusation. Now it has re-appeared at ANI. It looks like editors are continuing to attack this editor to get them blocked; would this be allowed when reference to it has already been hatted? petrarchan47คุก 18:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would assume what is being discussed is the question of sockpuppetry, which might be seen as not exclusively falling within the scope of the arbitration. I ain't an arb, but, if there is evidence of this individual having been circumventing, and thus violating, existing sanctions, I would guess it is allowable. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- I explicitly reject the claim that I am a "clean start" of Random user 39849958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), formerly user:Levine2112. I am in no way related to this account, have never interacted with this user, and I honestly do not understand where this accusation is coming from. I took a break from my primary account due to the toxic environment in these topic areas and have never used a separate account to dodge any sanctions whatsoever. For a brief moment, I considered returning for a short while, but given the current editing environment, I am convinced that the time is not yet ripe for me to return. All I ask is that I be left alone, but if people continue to have lingering concerns that I am a sockpuppet of user:Levine2112 then they should contact contact a checkuser so that my name be cleared. With all due respect, I find it surprising to see such a ludicrous allegation of sockpuppetry coming from at least three experienced editors and I think those making these accusations should have attempted to communicate with me on my talk page first and foremost before running over to the drama boards. RoseL2P (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Request for CheckUser review
I do not know where else to submit this request, so I'm making this statement in the hope that a clerk or arbitrator might move it to a more appropriate venue. The crux of my statement concerns a spate of frivolous accusations against me, namely that I am a sockpuppet of some user that I have never heard of nor interacted with. Rather than initiating a full sockpuppet investigation against myself, I am hereby requesting for an active arbitrator to query the CheckUser tool and confirm that I am unrelated to User:Levine2112. The reason for doing so is that this accusation is being shared by at least several editors (such as JzG, Alexbrn and QuackGuru) and it is not the first time this has been raised [2] (diff only visible to admins). When confronted about the truthfulness of the accusation, I categorically denied it and thought the matter had been settled. But it has not been settled.
In the midst of this arbitration case, I note that Geogene has accused me of WP:SOCK [3] and that this issue is currently being taken up by JzG on the ANI drama boards [4]. These sockpuppet (and COI accusations [5][6]) have continued for more than a year, so I'm wondering if there is some way for me to clear my name without having to launch a sockpuppet case against myself? I will consider giving away some personal information to defintely prove that I have no COIs regarding the topics I perviously edited (and have stopped editing due to the toxic environment), but I think it might suffice if a trusted arbitrator uses the CheckUser tool to review the evidence and clear my name.
In any case, I have already made up my mind to semi-retire. However, it would be nice if I could peacefully withdraw from this place without these very serious (but completely baseless) allegations lingering on the talk pages of ArbCom and elsewhere.