User:LambaJan/User:Roxanne Harman block log

I was more upset about this than I care to admit. Enough for me to be embarrassed about when I think back on it. As of 15 Mar 06 this is the whole story.

This intro was plastered on my userpage for a couple of days

I want everyone to know that I'm very upset with the Wiki admin community. They blocked this user for reasons that were not consistant with Wikipedia policy. I can fully understand why they made this error and I'm not upset that they blocked her. I'm not even upset that my arguments have thusfar proven insufficient for her to be unblocked.

I am upset that my rational arguments have gone unanswered and the block persists with no reasoning that is clearly laid out that responds to the points I brought up.

I'm furthur insulted that my genuine efforts to advocate for this user have caused accusations of me being a troll.

I wouldn't persist in this matter if it didn't have serious implications regarding wikipedia policy and its application.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that good editors get fed up and leave Wikipedia.

If interested, see: Roxanne Harman Block Dialogue

From User_talk:Roxanne Harman

I will only make genuine edits using this account. --Roxanne Harman 16:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet you claimed to be an account that has made thousands of vandal edits. How can we trust you? I always like to assume good faith but you don't exactly have a great record -- Tawker 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tawker. I'm a big fan of assuming good faith, and I'd like to think that you can become a productive contributor, but I think many in the community would be very wary of you being unblocked. What's made you change your mind about Wikipedia? Where do you feel you can contribute best? moink 05:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't fair. She hasn't done any vandalism with this account and says that she isn't going to. The only contribution she made that wasn't on her userpage was on someone's talk page and it seemed to indicate that she was done with the willy thing. I don't think she ever claimed to be done with any of her sock puppets, but now she is making that claim. If she starts vandalizing with this account, then we know in the future not to trust this claim, but for now we should assume good faith. -LambaJan 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why would she advertise to be a vandal. If she had just created a normal account and didn't claim to be on wheels there would be no block right now. I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there, advertising to be a vandal even gloating about being a vandal is an block in my books -- Tawker 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever... — Mar. 7, '06 [00:29] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I wasn't the original Willy On Wheels, but I did make edits as:

William on Round Objects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Solar-S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I know who the originator of this is, but it is not me! --Roxanne Harman 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Roxanne, why did you change your story? On your user page you said you were willy and all of those sockpuppets; now you're saying you weren't willy and you were only 2 sockpuppets. I overlooked this before because I was really emotional that the authorities of an encyclopedia would act in a manner that encourages lying. Now I'm looking at this and am wondering whether or not I should continue to advocate for you. I can't continue simply because their actions are wrong. I need to know that if by some chance your block is lifted you will act in the same manner I'm admonishing them to. Please enlighten me. -LambaJan 12:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, it wasn't a gloat. It was phrased as an account. She was coming clean about her involvement in this mess so that she can associate in the wiki community with this behind her so that she doesn't have to feel like she's hiding something. Denying her this account, one that committed no acts of vandalism, simply because she told the truth on this matter is just that -punishing someone for telling the truth.

Her admission revealed an important bit of information, that Willy on Wheels is actually a group of people. All of the WoW vandal accounts were unabashadly vandal accounts and of all that I looked at none of them made a claim that the accounts would only be used for genuine edits, as this one does. This is unprecedented and deserves closer and more resonable consideration than simply blocking by association. It's like you're a company owner and a few of your employees call in sick so that they can go to the beach, and you fire the one who freely admits it. What did that do? It rewarded lying and removed a worker who had a very valuable and useful (not to mention increasingly rare) character quality from your workforce, thereby cheapening the quality of work that your force is capable of. Having editors who have the integrity to be truthful even when it makes them look bad is something that is highly valuable in the venture of putting together an encyclopedia. -LambaJan 19:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing your argument (and it pop up on my watchlist to remind me to have a look) LambaJan slightly changes my POV, I'm willing to suggest an closely monitored unblock, however I have no juristiction in the matter and these words might not be worth the hard drive they're stored on. If we're "voting" on this block I support a closely monitored (aka blacklisted in the IRC bots (no offense, but its better than no access at all) unblock and we can see if bad can come to good. Perhaps this user might have some suggestions on how to defeat WoWo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tawker (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)

I found out about this user, Roxanne Harman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the reference desk. She claims to have been involved in the Willy on Wheels debockle and was blocked indefinately solely for making this claim. I looked into it and she hasen't committed any acts of vandalism with this account and claims that she will only use it for genuine edits. This claim was not made by any of the WoW accounts, which were created unabashedly for the purpose for which they were used. Her comments indicate that she was not the only one involved and I think punishing her for telling the truth, which is what I think this amounts to, is not the correct thing to do. I took it upon myself to advocate for her but my comments have thus far fallen on harsh or deaf ears. I don't know who to appeal to for more opinions on the matter, but I think it deserves more than just a casual shrugging off because this is not a sockpuppet or a banned user. Please tell me what to do or who to appeal to. -LambaJan 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If she is Willy on Wheels, then she should be banned as a vandal. If she isn't Willy on Wheels she should be banned for impersonating another user. Why can't she just create another account, not make any vandlaism claims, and edit afresh? User:Zoe|^(talk) 17:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would still like an answer for my question, but to answer yours; her willingness to bring a high level of transparency to the matter is very valuable for the community. We already learned that there were multiple people that were doing this. If this truthfulness is encouraged we could have a direct benifit of learning more about the incident, other participants, motivation, etc. and we would have the indirect benifit of having a high level of disclosure and honesty encouraged in this community, which considering that we're making an encyclopedia, I'd say that's a good thing. Right now the incentive seems to be strongly in favor of lying.

Also there is a discrepency between the terms 'block' and 'ban.' A block is for the username and a ban is for the person. A banned person can not rejoin the community under any username. WoW was not banned. Finally, I would suspect that from her point of view, creating an account without disclosing her previous actions would not be starting afresh if she has any guilt about her past actions, which is what her present actions seem to imply. Please tell me where to take this so that my time spent advocating her position can garner some sort of definitive action. -LambaJan 02:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me where to take this matter?? -LambaJan 17:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Administrator's noticeboard is where controversial blocks are discussed, if you haven't already found that out. - Taxman ^Talk 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -LambaJan 02:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

From other talk pages

(Users Freakofnurture and InShaneee currently hold blocks on Roxanne Harman)

Interchange on both my and Freakofnurture's talk pages

Roxanne Harman

Please remove your ban on this user. My reason is very reasonable and I wrote a paragraph about it on her talk page. Thank you. -LambaJan 00:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

re: unblocking an alleged Willy on wheels account

You have got to be kidding. Any moral benefits of assuming good faith in a case like this would be grossly outweighed by the subsequent howls of "what the fuck were you thinking?"... I'd rather not put myself in that position. One of two things is true:

The account is actually a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user, Willy on wheels, or:
The account is a sockpuppet of somebody else who is trolling the community by impersonating the identity of a well-known user, Willy on wheels.

I see no room for an assumption of good faith in this situation, as keeping the account blocked is the appropriate solution in either scenario. — Mar. 7, '06 [00:45] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Neither one of those things is happening.

1. Willy on Wheels is indefinately blocked, not banned. Look at the conversation about it here. This means that the person can open a new account for the purpose of making edits that aren't vandalism, which if you look at her contribs, she hasn't committed any vandalism.

2. She isn't sockpuppeting or trolling. She used her userpage to come clean. She got blocked simply for being honest.

So, there is room for AGF. Block or even ban her with my blessings if she actually starts trolling or vandalizing. I strongly doubt that she will. -LambaJan 01:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If I were to take the ill-advised action you advocate I would probably be desysopped. Feel free to petition somebody else instead. This conversation is over. — Mar. 7, '06 [01:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Message on InShaneee's talk

Roxanne Harman

Please remove your ban on this user. My reason is very reasonable and I wrote a paragraph about it on her talk page. Thank you. -LambaJan 00:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(No response)

Interchange on both my and Tawker's talk pages

Roxanne Harman

Thanks for taking another look at that. Your proposal sounds very reasonable to me. I've decided to not do anything more unless and until she responds to my question about changing her story. I can understand why the community is responding so apathetically on this one. It's hard to want to stick your neck out even a little bit on something like this. -LambaJan 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was thrown out on the IRC channels and I think there is no hope for that account, I was on IRC with freakofnurture when the account was flagged on the creation and it was a bit of a call, we've had hell with WoW, maybe the user should make an account but not mention anything about WoW, thats about the only way to get a clean slate around here -- Tawker 05:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with not being able to save the account. Given my previous posts you can imagine what I think about her only option being hiding and lying, but given the current climate with these sorts of things I guess it would be best for me to bow out of that aspect of it also. The admins generally do good work and I shouldn't condemn them for not always being the embodiments of my idealism. Thanks again for your consideration. If you ever want a hand with anything don't hesitate to visit my talkpage. -LambaJan 01:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)