User talk:Gray62

This is Gray62's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sometimes it seems that the words "I'm sorry" and "I was wrong" are incredibly rare commodities around here. We benefit by your example, and I wish there were more of you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks! But too much honor. I screwed up, did put a good editor into a bad light, so apologizing was the least I needed to do. That's only basic decency, shouldn't be something special. Gray62 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gray62. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your comments at ST47's Talk page, at the deleted SPI Talk page, and elsewhere regarding the conduct of CheckUsers in handling sock puppetry are disruptive. They proceed from fundamental misunderstandings of policy and constitute personal attacks. I strongly urge you to stop, or you risk being blocked. If you believe that an administrator has abused their tools, you may bring that claim to the appropriate forum, but I advise you to think the better of it because you may experience a strong WP:BOOMERANG effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT disruptive to point out that rules haven't been followed, the disruption is the violation of rules instead. In the case in point, there's no mention of a clerk having been involved, as it is obligatory under the guideline. How about taking more care that the rules are followed? ST47 did a shortcut, which may be no big deal, but that you're the second admin rushing to his defense by threatening me is disturbing. That's not a good faith effort at communication in any way, you guys are obviously trying to intimidate critics. Gray62 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At SPI a CheckUser may act as a clerk. There is no rule that a clerk "is obligatory under the guideline". What guideline? Indeed, ST47 could have blocked the two accounts without even opening an SPI. It was his choice to document his actions. Indeed, non-CU-administrators block socks frequently outside of SPI. As I said above, you have some serious misunderstandings about how socking and SPI are handled at Wikipedia. I'm not trying to "intimidate critics". I'm telling you that your criticism is invalid in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"What guideline"? For heaven's sake, the one that is explicitly stated at the very top of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations! Don't you admins know that? Now read that text, pls. It doesn't say anywhere that the clerk and the check user may be the same guy as the one who raised the complaint in the first place! Imho that's not the jntention of the guideline at all, the purpose is to have a fair procedure, conducted by two different "officials", after someone else raised the concern. Together with the accused, such a process involves four people. But in the case I'm concerned, there' s only one, he's the accuser, prosecutor, expert, and judge. And he acted in a very short timeframe. But you criticize me for being concerned about this shady business? Now, really, more reason, please. Gray62 (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for users filing an SPI say what normally happens when a report is filed. It does not say that a clerk must be involved in the "investigation". There are many different ways in which reports are handled. I have nothing more to say to you because you clearly have decided that your methodology is the way socks must be handled and are unwilling to listen to others who know far more than you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You got that totally backwards. Admins can't be allowed to be dictators, they can only claim priviledges that have been granted to them. Now, the guideline, which seems to be official and binding, afaics, doesn't say anywhere that the same admin shall have the right to act as accuser, clerk and checkuser. So, he doesn't have that right. And it would be an unsurpation of powers to claim that, contrary to the rather clear intent of the rules to ensure a fair procedure. I understand it's convenient for admins to take shortcuts instead of waiting for two other guys to get involved, but it's not ok. Gray62 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Blocking allows administrators to block sockpuppet accounts. The SPI case was for documentation purposes, the links from templates like {{csp}} and {{sock}} point there. ST47 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the official rule that proves you right. For all I can see in the guideline at the top of the SPI page, and from old experience with a sockpuppet investigation, it is intended as a fair procedure, involving statements by four persons: The accuser, a clerk, a checkuser, and the accused. This isn't simply meant to be a documentation of an admin's single handed action, and imho you took a daring shortcut there. This may have become a bad habit among checkusers, but it still isn't ok. You're supposed to be experts, not prosecutors and judges. Gray62 (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were shown links on a now-deleted page that indisputably showed the sockpuppetry admission of the accused. You replied underneath of my post which shows that you read it. You going on complaining about what you perceive as a procedural error is at this point disruptive. Drop the stick. There is no question that it was sockpuppetry.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those links should have been provided as evidence in the sockpuppet case, according to the rules. They were not and the archived case proves that. You only try to distract from the fact that ST47 played fast and loose with the rules. How shall WP users trust admins who ignore the guidelines or try to intimidate editors? Imho that's a major reason why this site is losing contributers. Admin terms should be time limited and there needs to be stronger supervision, that would help. Btw, did you actually read what you just linked to? It says "While some users do behave in a tendentious manner, others may be voicing heartfelt concerns. "Just drop it" is not a very useful response in either case." D'oh.Gray62 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Those links should have been provided as evidence in the sockpuppet case, according to the rules." The admissions came after the case was filed. Your bad faith accusations and complete ignorance of the situation is wearing out. Case history shows that this was filed on Dec. 1. Both of the unblock requests with admissions occurred on Dec. 2. Timing may be seen here. How shall WP admins trust editors that do not concede the facts and continue to cast aspersions. It was an open and shut case and that is the end of it.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you try to distract from the clear fact that the initial sockpuppet case showed no evidence at all, only the questionable statement by ST47, who acted as accuser, clerk, and checkuser in one person. And that's my last word on this. You overstayed your welcome on my talk page, I demand that you stop harrassing me. Gray62 (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence in this case was clear. Not only were they both new accounts making similar comments on a contentious AfD at very close to the same time, but checkuser confirmed that they were editing from the same device and the same internet connection. There was no need to go through the unnecessarily arcane mechanics that you are proposing, having three different people interact at the SPI page before issuing the block, nor does any policy require it. I saw suspicious behavior at the AfD, I ran a check, I made the blocks, and only then filed the SPI for documentation purposes. There is no requirement in any policy for an SPI case to be filed prior to running a check, nor for an SPI case to be filed prior to issuing a block, and anyone who proposed that clearly does not have a grasp on the day-to-day workings of SPI and checkuser. ST47 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument, but it goes against the clear intent shown by the guidelines at the top of WP:SPI. Even if it's more work for admins, it states the case should include evidence, the name of the accuser, the clerk, and the check user (if one's necessary). That's important, so that editors can see that everything is done in a fajr way. You didn't give any of these informations, giving the whole procedure a very shady impression. I don't think it's fair to blame me for my concerns (which THREE admins have done now, Hunter, bb23 and you). If you admins don't want to do the paperwork, please get community support for changing that guideline. But as long as it stands, you should stick to those rules. Inconvenience or a pattern of disregarding them is no valid argument. Gray62 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gray62 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Facts: 1. The alleged disruption occured on my own talkpage, where I couldn't disrupt anyone. 2.The admin who blocked me is the very same guy who argued there with me. 3. If I had been disruptive, so was that admin, Berean_Hunter. Imho a review of the discussion shows that we had a simple disagreement about WP rules and procedures, during which he repeatedly threatened me with using his tools. Imho his behaviour constitutes an attempt at intimidation, plus harrassment. 4. To add insult to injury, Hunter made it a 72 hour block, way more than the recommended 24 hours. This proves he intended punishment, not a warning. I request that this frivolous block shall be removed.

Decline reason:

This unblock request, which doubles down on your disruption, demonstrates that the block itself was amply deserved. As usual, your grasp of Wikipedia policy and practices is way off base, e.g., (a) that the block must not be more than 24h and (b) that a user cannot be disruptive on their own Talk page. See also WP:NOTTHEM.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2019 (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.

You don't get to claim harassment when that is what you have been up to and I'm the admin that has been trying to clear this up. You've made unfounded accusations and others have also tried to explain to you. You were shown proof of the socking in the form of admissions and your failure to concede that point is your undoing. The I didn't hear that attitude is not welcome because you could carry that forward to other parts of WP...and frankly, I have to wonder if you are a meatpuppet trying to facilitate an already blocked sock that admitted it. We'll let others look at this.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You just misused your admin tools to win an argument on my own talkpage, where I didn't disrupt anybody else. You should be ashamed of yourself. Gray62 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the reviewing admins, please see this thread which shows that the socking was admitted the day before Gray62 started accusing people and the admin's endorsement of what I told Gray62, if not how I said it. Gray62 didn't listen to him. Please see this thread which has an endorsement to block. This was no simple disagreement about policies and guidelines and I made that clear from the beginning. I believe that he should correctly describe and acknowledge the evidence that he has been shown before he would ever be unblocked. His propensity to wikilawyer combined with the I didn't hear that attitude means he shouldn't be cut loose on WP unless we want circuitous unneeded arguments.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the framing done by the involved party Berean_Hunter above. Actually, the discussions show I never questioned the sockpuppet block was probably righteous, but did criticize the way this had been conducted. That's a fact and Hunter's claim is a strawman argument. That he tried to distract from my clearly stated concerns can't be reasonably held against me. Also, I did NOT Wikilawyer, that accusation is rather ridiculous. By blocking me, he disregarded the rather clear guideline about disruptive behaviour, which proves that my mere arguing with him can't be seen as such. He also violated the rule that the involved admin shall not excercise the block himself. This obvious evidence of misconduct by Hunter should have been taken into account when considering my unblock request. That it was still denied, by bbb23, doesn't surprise me, since that admin is NOT an uninvolved party, as required, but evidently had argued with me himself. Both the frivolous block and the involvement of the involved party bbb23 to decide on my request are clear violations of rules.Gray62 (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked your access to this page so you cannot continue to be disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]