Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
Hello! Ornaith,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please undo your last reversion
Unless you want to earn yourself 24 hour ban, please reinstate the version of the article Stone (unit) that you reverted. See comment Talk:Stone (unit). Please also note that even though I asked you to read what was on the talk page you did not have the courtesy to do so – you reverted before I had a chance to post.
Please also reinstate the last version in the article Kilometres per hour - at any rate the section about abbreviations.
Please discuss the changes and try to give logical and reasoned explanations for your demands on the talk pages of the respective articles. Heavy-handed threats do not impress me. Ornaith (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in the article? Which comments? Ornaith (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article!
Hi Ornaith!
I've downloaded the article. If you'd like me to send it to you, could you enable the email function on your account (which allows you to send email via wikipedia but without revealing your email address to other users) and then either let me know on my talk page or send me an email? I'll then email the article (which is in PDF format) over to you. Alternatively, if you don't want to activate the email function, let me know and i'll check that the article corroborates the information it is cited for ...
Hello again - sorry, I got that wrong. I've not used the email function before. So it does send meyour address so I can respond directly to you, so only use this function if you're happy to... If not, as I say, I can check it for you and post the relevant quote/section on your talk page...
Many thanks for that offer Loriski! I've sent you a Wiki-email. Ornaith (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ornaith. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{
The article should be winging its way to you now. GaramondLethe 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a million Garamond! Ornaith (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Teahouse Q&A board
. Feel free to reply there! Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Rcsprinter(orate) @ 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]
Hello Ornaith - I've added a reply, too. Thanks! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clue-by-four
You recently wrote the following at
WP:DRN
. I am replying here because it really is a separate issue from the dispute we are discussing. You wrote:
"In the other discussion that I was involved in though, it seemed that local consensus steam-rollered policy in that case. The motion to enforce a policy was defeated because there was no local consensus to do so. At least that was my view of the outcome!"
If that ever happens again, please open up a case at
WP:DRN saying basically what you said above. What you describe does happen, but we like to root out the articles where it happens and apply a clue-by-four. (A play on words implying whacking someone with a "two by four" -- a standard size [two inches by four inches by eight feet] wooden beam used in US house construction). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Guy, thanks for the advice. Perhaps you would have a quick look at the discussion I was alluding to, [1], and tell me if you agree with my synopsis. Ornaith (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong. The only cases in which deletion is allowed without first obtaining consensus through an AfD deletion discussion are found at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. All other article deletions are subject to consensus. There was no "motion to enforce a policy" here because no such policy exists. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The motion was to delete the article because it clearly didn't comply with the policy on notability. The consensus was not to delete it, despite it not complying, and despite non-compliance being a valid reason for deletion. Or was the consensus that it did comply with policy, so shouldn't be deleted (even though it clearly didn't comply!). Ornaith (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. You might want to start thinking about changes or additions you'd like to see. While I'd certainly welcome comments, it might be best to put those off until we finish up with the dispute resolution.
Thank you for your patience and perseverance so far with
km/h. I do think this process will ultimately result in a better article, but for now, enjoy your beer and, at your leisure, drop by talk:kilometres per hour and contribute as the spirit[s] move[s] you. GaramondLethe 03:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Garamond,and thanks for your valuable contributions to the discussion. I was worried that the article was being dragged away from the mainstream and into a niche and less wholesome place where there is a regulated and prescriptive use of the English language. Ornaith (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I issued this ANI request in orde to break the logjam and for no other reason. Martinvl (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamp statistics
You asked on SPI board if I would run a few numbers for you. You had a clever I idea (if I've understood it correctly): people editing under stress will tend to make edits all through their waking hours, so they will show similar patterns that would not have been there before.
In this case I'm not going to be able to calculate the p value: you didn't have enough "non-stress" edits before finding your way to "km/h" and "stone" (I'm sampling every fifth edit and would consider 20 to be the absolute minimum for generating useful values).
What I did instead was ask the probability that your first half of your edits and the second half of your edits were drawn from the same distribution. The result I got was 88% using the every-fifth-edit sampling method. That tells me that, taken as a whole (or as a half, I suppose) your editing timestamps have been quite consistent.
That being said, while these numbers are interesting they're a long way from being useful. For example, if I repeat the above test and sample every fourth edit, the p-value falls to 37%. If I raise it up to every 6th edit it falls to 25%. Maybe that means that, for your particular editing style, every fifth edit is the right way of to sample. Or maybe it means that due to some unknown effect, the 5th edit is just an artifact of the data. (That being said, measuring everyone else's self-similarity follows a similar pattern, so at least for the users I've looked at "5" does appear to be useful even though I can't explain why yet.)
Going forward I think this will be difficult to make reliable and ultimately of limited usefulness. Most sockpuppets are obvious and would be corralled well before they had accumulated enough edits for this work to apply. But I do find it interesting and will probably continue to dabble in it. If you want to follow along, the statistical software I'm using is called R. It's free and... rewards persistence.
So not at all reliable then. What about the comparison between Martinvl and DeFacto and Martinvl and myself that I asked for, for comparison? Ornaith (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, "not at all reliable" is not what I said.
Percent chance that your timestamps were drawn from the same distribution as:
This is consistent with User:Ornaith and User:pother being sock puppets of User:DeFacto. It's also consistent with my having picked up on an "enthusiastic editor" signal in a particular timezone. In the absence of server logs I would want to look at a couple thousand more users before I would ban someone with this data. But we do have server logs, and my opinion isn't being asked for, so we'll just wait and see what happens. GaramondLethe 15:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Garamond, this looks compelling, but I'm wary of of such analyses as there are self-evidently factors involved which have not been accounted for. You clearly need to concentrate on editors who recognise a ruthless mission poster when they see one, and one who understands the scope, influence and respect given in Ireland to EU directives. Thanks for the response though. I'd be interested to discuss this more, but looking at the next message on my page here, it would apprear that I've got something else to deal with first. Ornaith (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Garamond, I look forward to seeing your numbers for the above 'control' accounts, but with that nightmare apparently over now, and my good name restored, I've got other business to catch up with for now. I'll be back at - see if your model can predict when. ;-) Ornaith (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Garamond, have you lost interest in this experiment? I picked up where you left off, and did a bit of analysis with my own model. I took data, as far as possible, from periods where there was no ongoing conflicts between the two parties. The findings follow:
Percent chance that the timestamps of user A were drawn from the same editing time distribution as those of user B:
@Toddst1, can you explain what you mean by that please. Did you read any of the discussion about this bad-faith sock-puppet accusation on the
User:AGK
wrote, it went like this:
On hold - AGK [•] 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Cross-checking FreedomFighter84 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
AGK has the investigation on hold, presumably he's realised that something doesn't add up here. And who is "FreedomFighter84", and what is their connection here?
Also I see AGK has cast serious doubt on the whole shenanigans anyway, by declaring:
That I appear "to edit from a few hundred miles away (and in the same region)" [in relation to DeFacto I presume].
That "the connection is through a mobile provider" [which it may well also be, but this computer hasn't moved off this desk in at least the last 5 yesrs].
Then "Given the preoccupation with the same article" [but without clarifying which article in particular was meant, but presumably "stone (unit)" because I don't see any mention of DeFacto in the history of "kilometres per hour", and "metrication of British transport" didn't even exist the last time DeFacto edited. I started editing "stone (unit)" after I saw the inflammatory terminology "Republic of Ireland" mentioned in an edit summary by another editor, and went there to fix it, and then the other editor started reverting everything I added, and the rest is history].
And then "and same content views vis-a-vis EU directives" [content views that are probably held by 75% of the Irish population].
Or even "the date the account was created" [the date that my account was created was the date that I came across an article about a subject close to my heart, but which had a glaring error in it, and thus I decided to try to do something about it].
What is your role in this dandy ritual? You appear to have made your mind up about me without reference to any of the evidence. Is that how Wikipedia discipline is dispensed?
I notice too that you have said the same thing about Pother, my co-defendent, even though he apparently lives thousands of miles away!
I think you owe us a full explanation of what is occurring here. Ornaith (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been unblocked. I will withdraw my comments from the SPI and let someone else handle this. Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1, thanks, I'm glad that nightmare is now over. Sorry if I was a bit sharp above! I'll buy you a Guinness next time we meet, for your decency and decorum in acknowledging your mistake! Ornaith (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Garamond, I'm guessing you're watching this, and as I still can't get back to the article's talk page, I'd just like to point out that the stone is in more than just "informal" use in Ireland (and the UK I suspect). You supplied that horse racing reference, remember? The stone is the formal (and official) weight unit used in horse racing, and in the British health service, according to the reference supplied by User:Pol098. From the sources you supplied, the only people who consider the stone to be "deprecated" or superseded in any way are those of the SI, and anyone wedded to their output, and that means the fact that the SI have deprecated carries very limited weight in stone-using circles, its only impact appears to be on those who were using it on its own for trading purposes and even then it even appears that it can still be used for trading purposes, so long as it is in conjunction with kilos or grams. I suggest "The stone (abbreviation st) is an informal unit of measure of weight..." as an opening for the lede, with the potentially misleading/inaccurate adjectives dropped altogether.
Note too, that as a result of the trawl for supporting data that I have been doing in connection with my pending appeal against the recent miscarriage of justice that has occured, I might have some numbers to add to your statistical analysis table above. Ornaith (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why have I been blocked again?
Yesterday a bad-faith allegation of "sock puppetry" against me collapsed in disarray as evidence from other editors contradicted that of the filer, messages from administrators conflicted with each other (and indeed judging by this contribution from
User:AGK unarchived it [2] and Toddst1 unclosed it here. Then AGK and Toddst1 exchanged a few words, a mediator (User:Guy Macon) asked for clarification of what was going on in this edit, and then User:Timotheus Canens
removed a sock puppet category from the report.
The net result was that, less than 2 hours after a premature blocking was issued by Toddst1 in this edit he reversed the mistake with this edit.
Looking through the various edit histories of the parties involved, it would seem that the "check user" reprimanded Toddst1, for his "serious misjudgement", in blocking me (this edit), stating:
"Ornaith edits from North America, and the other account edits from Europe... why did you block the accounts?... Please revert your block."
and then, almost immediately, Toddst1 reacted with the unblock.
As far as I can tell from the SPI page, and in the absence of any messages to me following the unblock from Toddst1, I should not be blocked, yet it seems that I have been blocked again for some reason, and indeed some helpful soul plastered a big message on my user page to that effect.
Who can sort this mess out please? Ornaith (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone made an error and then corrected the error. Of course it is entirely possible that the first person got it right and it was the correction that was in error; I cannot verify this either way because it is based on checkuser info that I cannot access and which could reveal the real-life identity or identities of the three usernames listed is the SPI. I do have confidence that SPI usually gets it right, but anyone can make a mistake. That being said, just as I assumed that you were not a sockpuppet pending a SPI ruling, I am now assuming that you are pending a successful appeal. Again nothing personal -- it's just that a skillful sock tends to look exactly like a user.
The next step for you would be to carefully read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, especially the sections on "Sockpuppetry blocks" "Checkuser and Oversight blocks" and "Examples of bad unblock requests" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy, thanks for your civilised reaction and response. I'm devastated that Wikipedia could get it so wrong. I'm glad that it isn't the death penalty for this one! The SPI comments still look confused to me, and I've emailed AGK to see if he would try and clarify it all. It's self-evident, to me at least, if not to the baying mob, that some false assumption or misreading of data has occurred. Thanks for the recommended reading, I'm not sure if I've got the stomach for it all though. I'll wait and see if AGK can put it all back together for me. What makes you say that you "have confidence that SPI usually gets it right"? Once you're blocked there's no obvious way of challenging the reasoning or the motives. It is all seems so summary and so mediaeval. Ornaith (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another excellent question. The reason I think SPI in general and checkuser in particular usually gets it right (which does not mean they got it right this time, but that's the way to bet) is because in many of the cases a new sockpuppet pops up that passes the same
WP:DUCK test, often with "ha ha you can't stop me" taunting. Also, it is not very often that someone who is determined to be a sockpuppet even bothers appealing the block, much less is successful. Remember, I still have no way of knowing whether the person I am talking to is an innocent party who is going through what must be a quite upsetting experience or a sockmaster who is laughing at me for responding -- if the sockmaster is good they both look the same -- but if they did get it wrong this time and this gets reversed I will be asking some tough questions about why it happened and how we can avoid it happening again. So,, if you aren't a sockpuppet, I am sorry you had to go through this, and if you are, please stop wasting my time. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Ornaith, if you aren't Pother/DeFacto, then making (this change) in the middle of the SPI was extremely stupid. If you are Pother/DeFacto, what can I say. Martinvl (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl, as I am neither Pother or DeFacto, I can only take your comment in one way, as a personal attack. Given that I also believe that you don't actually believe that I am them either, that leads me to the following conclusions:
You came here to bait me, to insult me and to attempt to bang some more nails in, with the hope of prejudicing any appeal that you fear I may make.
I, unlike you, have behaved honorably throughout this witch hunt, and I can hold my head up high.
You are hoping that attempting to equate the removal of that unworthy content with the work of a wicked little sock-puppet, that you will frighten away the other honourable editors attempting to remove your POV stamp from it right now, as I was.
I see in the history of that article that you, and your bedmate there, are isolated in your position that anything worthy of an article of its own can be salvaged from the biased and unsupported personal POV content that currently graces it.
@Guy, thanks for another very diplomatic reply, and for your robust comment to Martinvl. Reading the article about the so-called "duck test" reveals it to be nothing more than a condescending and arrogant expression used to smugly and thinly veil an action based on scant, or no, evidence at all. The "duck test", at best, gives a reasonable excuse to start asking questions and look for evidence, but nothing more. How can such a weak level of certainty that anything untoward is going on, lead to an indefinite block? It is almost unimaginable that, with no time given to defend oneself, a result based on nothing more than a "reasonable suspicion" can have such dire consequences. And especially when that "suspicion" is actually nothing like "reasonable" if you read the "reasoning" given, to anyone not suffering from an extremely severe dose of confirmatory bias, that is. Ornaith (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to comment on whether SPI is fair or well-run; those arguments are best evaluated in an appeal. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy, fair play to you. I'm still waiting for AGK to answer the questions I posed. Without the answers, it will be difficult for me to construct a well-reasoned appeal. Let's hope that's not the reason they haven't been forthcoming yet. 22:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Ornaith (talk)
You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:
that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our
blocking policy
); or:
that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or:
that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range).
I don't see how any of the above requires any input from AGK. Also, attacking Martinvl is unlikely to help. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy, I am apparently blocked, but was not told why, what the "evidence" was and what steps I should take if I contested the decision. Even looking at the so-called "SPI" (which I only found out about by accident) it is impossible, amidst the confusion, contradictions and conflicting details to see what the "evidence" was. Have you read it?
From what I can tell, I stand accused (by an editor who appears to have lost arguments with DeFacto in the past) of being a "sock-puppet" of User:DeFacto, as apparently many others do too. The "evidence" of the "SPI" filer was basically that I had some values in common with DeFacto. This "evidence" clearly didn't convince anyone who mattered. But rather than dismiss the accusation for the bad-faith attack that I believe it was, someone decided that a "check user" verdict was required for the "SPI".
What exactly a "check user" is isn't clear to me, but reading between the lines it is a comparison of IP addresses between users. So, presumably, my IP address was compared with that of DeFacto. If that was the case, and if there was a match, then surely the person doing the checking would have reported back to the "SPI" that the same IP was used by us both. Well that didn't happen did it, so presumably no match was found between me and DeFacto.
What then happened is that the person doing the "check user" (
User:AGK
) put the "SPI" case "on hold". There was no explanation given for that action, so we can only speculate. But the first question that needs answering before I can decide how to proceed is: "why was the case put on hold at that point?".
What happened next, more than 30 minutes later, was that AGK added some comments to the SPI. It looks as though, after finding no match between myself and DeFacto, he decided to check me against User:FreedomFighter84, another alleged "sock-puppet" of DeFacto. The factual result was that my IP was reported as being a "few hundred miles away" from that one. Then followed some bizarre, unsubstantiated, speculation about the unreliability of the data from my ISP. So that check didn't support the allegation either. So the second question to AGK is: "why was I compared with another FreedomFighter84, when I hadn't been accused of being a "sock-puppet" of that account.
Then AGK added more comments to the "SPI". He put something about a "preoccupation with the same article", but didn't say whose preoccupation, or with which article. So the next question is: "Who was preoccupied, and with which article?".
Then AGK talked about "same content views vis-a-vis EU directives". Next question: "What content views, and whose were the same as whose?".
Then, following speculation that "it is not unimaginable that DeFacto would use a mobile connection to sever a technical link with his previous account", AGK stated: "On balance, this is likely." Next question: "What is likely?"
Then another administrator blocked me, then AGK forced them to unblock me.
Then AGK, after presumably (no reasoning was given) realising that there wasn't enough evidence to claim that I was a "sock-puppet" of FreedomFighter84 either, apparently checked me against User:94.197.n1.n2 (another alleged "sock-puppet" of DeFacto) and added "both seem likely". Next question: "Why was I checked against 94.197.n1.n2, and both of what "seem likely"?"
Then AGK added to the "SPI": "The results from FF84 were not very clear, and apologies for the flawed set of first results." Next question: "What is "FF84" and what was the apology for?"
AGK, apparently, then blocked me himself, with no explanation of reasoning given. So the fianl question is: "What was the reasoning behind my block, and why wasn't it explained so anyone interested could consider whether it was reasonable?"
Do you follow me now Guy? Without answers to the above questions, I have no idea what I need to demonstrate was, or wasn't the case, in my appeal. The SPI has now been archived, even though it is still marked as "on hold", and even though I have stated that I need more information to help me formulate an appeal. That sounds like they are trying to bury something, not that they want to ensure that a proper verdict has been delivered. Ornaith (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my understanding of the sequence of events.
1) Martinvl brought a well-documented request to SPI.
2) After an inordinate delay, AGK finds a "likely" match with Ornaith and FreedomFighter84, but that Pother is "unrelated" to FreedomFighter84.
3) Toddst1 bans Ornaith and Pother based on Martinvl's evidence AGK's report.
4) Toodst1 (correctly) reverts his ban, as his previous interactions with DeFacto might give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest.
5) AGK reruns the SPI on a second known sock puppet of DeFacto: 94.197.n1.n2. Based on this, AGK reports that it's "likely" both Ornaith and Pother are sock puppets of DeFacto.
6) The Ornaith and Pother accounts are rebanned by a disinterested admin.
I don't see any grounds for appeal here. Because there are two independent, corroborating lines of evidence (Martinvl's list of edits and the IP addresses) pointing to sockpuppetry, we're done. (The fact that I can offer two additional independent lines of evidence, timestamp analysis and vocabulary analysis, reassures me that the correct decision was reached.)
So, Ornaith, as a scientist I'm happy to admit that all knowledge is tentative and that there may be an innocent explanation for the above. But I also realize life is short, and sometimes something that looks, walks, and sounds like a duck really is a duck.
@AGK, you assert that "Garamond's account is correct", yet it doesn't fit even the evidence we have currently before us, let alone the evidence you are still witholding from us. There is something VERY fishy going on here, and we need to get to the bottom of it. Let us go through some of the numbered statements in Garamond's account:
1) It was "well-documented", but mostly fantasy, exagggeration and even misrepresentation of the facts. It is clear though that AGK must have taken it as read, without checking the details.
2) That "AGK finds a "likely" match with Ornaith and FreedomFighter84" is at odds with the SPI. In the SPI AKG wrote that I appear to edit a "few hundered miles away" (from FreedomFighter84 it would appear). That doesn't narrow it down much as I edit within a "few hundred miles" of everyone that edits in in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, Netherlands, Belgium, and north-west France. AGK then unbelievably combined the fact that we both edit from somewhere in north-west Europe with "the preoccupation with the same article" (without stating which article, and even though FreedomFighter84 (ALSO blocked by Toddst1) and myself have NEVER edited the same article) with the creation date of my account to deliver the verdict of "Likely"!! Incredible.
3) "Toddst1 bans Ornaith and Pother based on Martinvl's evidence AGK's report." I'd say it very clearly cannot have been based on either, but that is subjective, so we'll skip that one.
4) The ban wasn't reverted because "his previous interactions with DeFacto might give rise to the appearance of a conflict of interest", but because AGK came down heavily on him pointing out that they were clearly "Unrelated" diff!
5) Why was the check re-run? If, as has previously been claimed, FreedomFighter84 is DeFacto, then what was the problem with the first check? AGK gives a clue in this reply on Toddst1's talk page, so presumably it was because his first check gave the WRONG result! Try, try, try again - until you get the "correct" result, it would seem.
6) We weren't "rebanned by a disinterested admin", we were rebanned by AGK!
To be frank, I've entirely lost faith that Wikipedia administrators work fairly, in good faith or for the good of the project. This case highlights how gross inequities, false assumptions, and collusion between admins can lead to terribly unjust outcomes. Reading back through some of the convictions of other alleged sock-puppets of DeFacto, it would seem that we cannot be sure that any of them are guilty as charged either. How can A equal B, and A equal C, and yet B not be equal to C? (A=DeFacto, B=FreedomFighter84, C=Pother) It simply does not add up - at all.
@AGK, will you please unblock me now, or at the very least, answer all the questions raised by the above analysis, in detail, to make my appeal as easy and as straightforward as possible for me. Ornaith (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK, you should also address the elephant in the room: as you chose not to treat the allegation that I was a sock-puppet of DeFacto with the contempt that it clearly deserved, why did you NOT compare me directly with DeFacto? Did that give the "incorrect" answer too? As there is clearly no "evidence" supporting the allegation that FreedomFighter84 is a sock-puppet of DeFacto (just Toddst1's unsound judgement) and there is no clear evidence or reasoning of any connection between 94.197.n1.n2 and DeFacto, it is clearly unsafe to make any judgements about a relationship with DeFacto via either of those proxies. Ornaith (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK, can you give me a rough idea of when I can expect answers to my questions to you please. I want to try and move on with this tedious and curiously difficult process. Ornaith (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there are no answers forthcoming. I suppose I can take comfort from that; in as much as it suggests that they know that they have no reasonable and supportable case, and don't have the courage or good grace to concede that. Because you can be sure that if they thought they had such a case, that they would be right back to hoot about it. The sad thing is though, this is probably happening right across Wikipedia every day, good and conscientious editors are being hounded out, and the arrogant and bullying mission pursuers are being encouraged to prevail. And there is no effective mechanism available to counter it. In fact, the so-called "administrator" system, for what it's worth, appears to be systemically geared and tuned to promote exactly that outcome. No wonder the reputation of Wikipedia is on a dramatic decline at the moment. Ornaith (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[1] Nobody but you agrees with the above conclusions. They are completely without merit. And no, I am not going to debate them with you point by point or answer any of your questions about them. See point [8] below.
[2] I already advised you twice as to what to do next.[3][4][5] This is the third time. There will be no fourth explanation.
[3] You are free to appeal your block. Your assertion that you need something from someone in order to do that is also without merit. And no, I am not going to debate this with you are answer any further questions about it. See point [8] below.
[5] Nothing is stopping you from appealing. The administrator who reviews your appeal will be an independent third party. If you are thinking of making the "all the admins sick together" or "the system is unfair" argument, don't bother. Plenty of admins get reversed, and the bias is toward the blocked users, not toward the blocking admins.
[6] The reason nobody is answering you is because you are asking questions on your talk page instead of following the proper appeal procedure. Nothing in any of the links I just gave you (point [4] above) advises you to "demand answers on your talk page and then make disparaging 'I guess the lack of a response means...' comments when nobody is willing to play that game." as a valid method of appealing a block.
[8] This is the last thing that I am going to post here. If I see a bunch of further questions or objections, I will simply unwatch this page. I suspect that I am the last person who has this on his watchlist. If so, my unsubscribing will leave you shouting into an empty hall. (Unblock requests using Template:Unblock or the Unblock Ticket Request System go through no matter who is watching this page.) Whatever your question is, my answer is "file an appeal and ask it there." Whatever point you wish to make my response is "file an appeal and make your point there." If you claim that you need something in order to make an appeal, my answer is "file an appeal and explain your theory about needing further information." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons why the block is unnecessary
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
With reference to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, I would like to plead that this block will not prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, because as I hope to be able to show you, I have never indulged in the behaviour that I have been accused of, that led to this block. A quick review of my editing record will show that I have never intentionally damaged or disrupted Wikipedia - far from it. In fact, I have contributed constructively to a number of articles on subjects related to the south-west of Ireland.
The basis for this ban appears to be that, after following a link to Kilometres per hour out of the Roads in Ireland article, and there questioning what appeared to me to be an inexcusably partial and incomplete treatment of the way the k.p.h. unit is represented in the real world (of Ireland at least), that User:Martinvl, the editor whose contributions I was questioning, became indignant that his evidently narrow view of the subject was being challenged, and he became even more indignant when I subsequently followed him to the Stone (unit) article, and found (and challenged) what I believed to be a similarly biased interpretation of the subject matter there too. His bizarre response was to accuse me of being one of the people that he had had disagreements with before (and he does appear to attract more than his fare share of controversy and disputes), User:DeFacto, an editor who had been banned some time before I started editing Wikipedia.
Martinvl then, after failing to convince me that his interpretations were comprehensive enough for Wikipedia, and after going to a great deal of trouble to isolate convincing examples of similar behaviour to mine, from the apparently huge and diverse reservoir of work that DeFacto seems to have been responsible for over his six, or more, years of editing, raised an SPI against me. With due credit to Martinvl, the examples he had so carefully selected did, in isolation from the rest of the body of DeFacto's work, make a convincing case, and indeed did convince some followers of the case, including User:Garamond Lethe - a user he was collaborating with in the k.p.h. article, that I and DeFacto were one and the same person. The "proof" was that: (1) my account was created after DeFacto was banned (I created my account the day I spotted inaccuracies in the Ballydesmond article), (2) that I had a "very good understanding of Wikipedia" - well I tried my best, including asking questions at the teahouse ([6], [7], [8], [9]) when I was struggling (this one is interesting, with hindsight I should have dropped it like a hot potato, as indeed advised!). (3) that I supported the deletion of Metrication of British Transport (Martinvl was involved in a dispute there at the same time as the one with me, and I could see the precise point his adversary there was making for deletion, so I supported it), (4) that I "belittled" the EU (because I attempted to tone-down Martinvl exaggerations of the scope of their directives), (5) that I provided cover for my actions by editing other articles (particularly Ballydesmond, the article that persuaded me to enrol in the first place!), (6) that I removed what I thought was flawed content from articles in a similar way to User:Pother, another editor that Martinvl was involved in a dispute with (I supported every edit I made with a comprehensive edit summary, and none were without justification - actions supported by User:Kahastok in his comment on the SPI: "Ormaith followed WP:BRD after you added a large quantity primary-source-only material.").
However, anyone looking a little further into the works of DeFacto and of myself would see that the similarity is, at best, explained as inevitable given that the evidence was selected, not as a neutral cross section of work, but precisely only if it showed what was wanted to be shown. The evidence was shamelessly cherry-picked, with all of the evidence showing no similarity or dissimilarity being discarded. Indeed one commentator, User:Guy Macon, saw through the allegation and noted in the SPI case, after doing some research of his own, that "If this is the same user, he is remarkable in his ability to change his edit summary habits." Please don't just take my word for it (and I'm sure you wouldn't) and certainly don't accept Martinvl's allegations as evidence of wrongdoing, please examine the details and the contributions for yourself, and draw your own conclusions, particularly with reference to my trail from Ballydesmond to k.p.h. to stone and then into trouble - and please give due weight to the comments of those not directly involved in any dispute with me over article content. Ornaith (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As a reviewing admin, I don't see a case for unblock here. When someone appeals, we usually take into account their apparent sincerity. So far Ornaith hasn't provided any story to explain why his account was so quickly created after the block of User:DeFacto. In his above response to the original block, Ornaith splits all the hairs in the original block decision but does not give an account of his own motivation that makes any sense. Someone whose contributions range widely across different content can be forgiven for suddenly arriving in the middle of a dispute. Ornaith has none of that background, and no plausible explanation for why he suddenly appears to take up the torch of the recently-blocked DeFacto. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had given full explanations for all the circumstances which have been misinterpreted as implying that I am one and the same person as DeFacto; but just to make them very clear for you, and to help make sure that I am not again refused editing privileges because of mistaken assumptions based on apparent similarities or overlap between myself and DeFacto, I will answer each point you raise in turn - to the best of my ability. Firstly though, I will just point out that Ornaith is a woman's name, and that I am indeed a "she".
(1) Why did I appear so soon after DeFacto's block? Well, for one, I didn't know anything about DeFacto when I created my account. The reason I created an account was primarily to correct, but then to hopefully improve and expand articles about subjects related to the south-west or Ireland. I did this after coming across the Wikipedia article about Ballydesmond, and seeing inaccuracies in it. In fact, I explained this in a request for advice to the teahouse, long before the accusation of "sockpuppetry" was made. The date I created my account was just the date I first noticed the anomalies in the Ballydesmond article, nothing more. It was whilst I was away from my family, and I was homesick I suppose.
(2) What was my motivation and how did I end up in the dispute? As explained, my initial motivation was to improve the articles about locations that I cared about in the SW of Ireland. Whilst editing I followed related links, as I'm sure we all do - don't you? One such link must have led me from the Roads in Ireland article (which I edited on 13 April) to the Kilometres per hour article which I edited directly afterwards. Now I think that edit of mine to the k.p.h. article was what led to my downfall. The reaction by Martinvl to my minor tweak (which I am still convinced represents the true picture) led me on to greater and more acrimonious disputes with Martinvl as I tried to moderate his apparent attempt to sanitise and whitewash articles about metric system units and to add negative content to articles about the traditional and customary units of measure, and I tried bring a touch of real world reality in place of his exaggerated claims of how fully metric units have replaced the old units in places like Ireland, and I believe, the UK. He obviously didn't appreciate my attempts, and I did indeed get sucked into ever more bitter disagreements and disputes over content.
If there are still other anomalies or unexplained "coincidences" which lead you to doubt that I am indeed nothing to do with DeFacto, please raise them - I am sure there will be innocent explanations for them all. Do not let my appeal here be rejected because of an unanswered doubt about my credentials and my sincerity. Ornaith (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eloquent words, but completely unconvincing as a conclusion, given the available evidence. This result seems to raise more questions than it answers.
Who was the "independent Checkuser" it was checked with, and where is the request for, and report of, that check documented?
What does "the information is now state" mean?
What "behavioural evidence" was examined, what were the standards it was compared with, and when will we be given visibility of the detail of each of the findings and the opportunity to challenge them?
The claim that there is "no reason to believe the original CU was defective" is astonishing, given that it was so incompetently executed, reported and actioned at the time. There are still unanswered questions surrounding it.
Then to say "the likelihood of this person being one and the same with DeFacto is sufficiently high to reach this conclusion" without showing any of the reasoning beggars belief.
Given that it is impossible that I am DeFacto, this result is either a complete
whitewash
or a good-faith misreading of the evidence. Obviously if it is the former, there is no way I'm ever going to get justice here, but if, as I hope and believe, it is the latter, then I have one last plea for help to sort this out:
What I need to know is what exactly do I have to do to persuade someone who can unblock me that I am not DeFacto? It is a simple question, surely. I have provided explanations for the few examples of "suspicious behaviour" so far mentioned - the date of my account creation, how I got embroiled in the disputes with Martinvl, etc. What other "evidence" is there against me and how can I successfully prove who I am?
It seems incredible that anyone can legitimately be banished forever from Wikipedia on this flimsy evidence and the clearly very low level of confidence in the result. Ornaith (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "stale" not "state". Corrected. The independent CU was DeltaQuad, but really doesn't matter since the information is stale (ie: too old to check). And I've already explained that we don't divulge methods used for investigation. You are at the point that emailing is the only way to get more. You should read the guidance at
Can I have a review by an uninvolved administrator please
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I hope to show that I am not (and indeed cannot possibly be) DeFacto, the editor that I am accused of being a sock-puppet of.
We see from the previous review that the reviewer at first decided to ask for a "check user" because he was not confident that there was enough evidence otherwise to persuade him that the block was well founded. However, after being informed by the CU that the data was "stale", the reviewer concluded that "I have no reason to believe the original CU was defective", so, relying on the previous CU result and another "own review" of the previously unconvincing evidence, the reviewer decided to decline the unblock request.
Even a cursory glance at the original CU reveals that the conclusion of there being "no reason to believe the original CU was defective" is unconvincing. Here is the complete CU sequence of events (that needs to be seen to be believed!): * The original CU request response was made by AGK at 14:40, 24 July 2012, in which he put it on hold. * Less than an hour later, AGK came back with the comments "Although Ornaith appears to edit from a few hundred miles away (and in the same region), in my experience geolocation from this ISP is somewhat unreliable, and in any case the connection is through a mobile provider. Given the preoccupation with the same article (and same content views vis-a-vis EU directives), or the date the account was created, it is not unimaginable that DeFacto would use a mobile connection to sever a technical link with his previous account. On balance, this is likely." That sounds like he was trying to convince himself that an unlikely combination of unlikely events had probably happened because I had a "preoccupation with the same article". In fact there was no "same article" that I could find that I have edited at that point, so the reasoning there fails scrutiny. The CU status was left on "hold" although the SPI status was changed to "checked". * Within about half an hour, Toddst1 then blocked me. * A few minutes later, Berean Hunter closed the SPI case and shortly after Keilana archived it (with the CU still on hold). * Just over 2 hours later, AGK unarchived the SPI case. * A few minutes later Toddst1 unblocked me AND "unclosed" the SPI. The explanation might lie in this reprimand of Toddst1 by AGK. * A few minutes later AGK came back] with some sort of coded message in which I think he was saying I "seemed likely" again. The CU was still left on hold. * A couple of hours later, Guy Macon asked for clarification of the status of the SPI. * About 24 hours later the SPI case was closed again with no further clarification and I was blocked. Was there "no reason to believe the original CU was defective" as suggested by the original block reviewer? And what about the "own review" of the other "evidence", what we have is: * He says there is "little physical overlap in article edits" (so no mention of "preoccupation with the same article" as indicated by AGK in the CU review and disputed by me). * There were (said to be) "many similar behaviors", but "None of them by themselves are convincing enough to provide linkage, which is why we depend on CU", so not convincing enough without the CU evidence. * Then some conjecture about how competent an editor I was and that although my "edits were constructive" and that I "was trying to improve Wikipedia" didn't matter in an SPI. * Then, as if to confirm a predetermined outcome, rather than as a reasoned summary of the doubts exposed so far, the conclusion "I am inclined to think that the probably of a correct match to DeFacto is sufficiently high, although not completely certain." and then this "Only a CheckUser can compare the previous checkuser logs and either accept or decline an unblock in this case, and I will leave it to them".
But he didn't leave it to them, after hearing that the data was "stale", he made the incredible decision: "I've declined this unblock, as explained above in the template."
Other editors added the following comments, also throwing doubt on the allegation: * If this is the same user, he is remarkable in his ability to change his edit summary habits. --Guy Macon here * Unless the argument is that anyone who ever reverts you citing
WP:SOCK and in full compliance with the policy? Of course it cannot. Please review it, carefully and without prejudice, and decide yourself whether you think the "fiasco" (as Toddst1 referred to it here when discussing it on Dennis Brown's talk page) of a CU can be trusted as the basis for an indefinite block of a constructive editor (as Dennis Brown acknowledged I was). Thank you. Ornaith (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Decline reason:
We have some CU evidence which points to being "likely", and combined with my experience I'm getting tinnitus from the volume of the
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Done Checking with other parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)