User talk:Nandesuka/Leflyman

semi-protect request

Do you know how to put in sem-protects? I'd like on on pseudophilosophy and Patrecia Scott as Alienus is using new sockpuppets to edit these. Thanks. LaszloWalrus 06:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: this request for semi-protection on two articles is out of process -- the user making the request is in a content dispute with multiple editors, and has provided no valid evidence, nor requested Checkuser to support the claim that any banned sockpuppets are editing. Editing from anon-IPs is not reason enough; particularly when the request for semi-protection comes from an editor with a self-avowed bias who wishes to protect his version of the article.--Leflyman^Talk 22:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most requests for administrative intervention come from editors with an interest in the topic. That doesn't invalidate the request, or change the fact that Alienus is not permitted to edit Wikipedia by the order of the Arbcom. Hope that helps. Nandesuka 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been no actual evidence that any vandalism or editing by Alienus has occurred at those articles. Claiming an IP address is a banned user without proof is inappropriate, and contrary to semi-protection policy, which states,

Semi-protection should not be used:

As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred.
As a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this).
In the case of a static IP vandal hitting a page (blocking is preferable to semi-protection).

...

To prohibit anonymous editing in general.

--Leflyman^Talk 19:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty satisfied that the thing that is quacking, waddling, and shedding feathers is, in fact, a duck. Nandesuka 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When making a claims contrary to WP:AGF, it might be a good idea to actually have evidence. Can you show any edit in the recent history of Pseudophilosophy that was either 1) vandalism or 2) an edit by a banned user? Likewise, can you show that in Patrecia Scott IPs 207.210.106.104 or 128.197.11.30 are the banned user Alienus, as claimed? All I see is a content dispute, and edit-warring by LaszloWalrus-- and for that you are not permitted to semi-protect an article. In fact, the content in the latter article that LaszloWalrus keeps removing is in the Nathaniel Branden article: "In 1968, the close relationship between Rand and Branden came to an abrupt end when Rand discovered that Branden was having a sexual relationship with a third woman, actress Patrecia Scott. Rand then expelled Branden from the Objectivist movement."--Leflyman^Talk 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look more closely. Good day. Nandesuka 06:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is not an answer; it's your responsibility to demonstrate that you're using Admin powers appropriately. If necessary, I'll bring this up at RFC for Admin conduct.--Leflyman^Talk 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to do whatever you think is best. Regards, Nandesuka 12:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'm editing Pseudophilosophy and the gentleman in question seems only to remove the sections that he does not support. Most of that is cited material, or documented on Ayn Rand's own page. It is not novel or disputed, just not liked. I think we need to be wary of such edits and protections. If he is doing this elsewhere, that is even more problematic. I have noticed that at least one time he reverted on the basis of 'alienus' from an anon ip, it did not look like a sockpuppet edit, and i think the continued use of this justification is being used as a trope for a campaign. It should be ignored and forgotten. --Buridan 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's accepted practice to treat anonymous IP edits that closely parallel those made by banned users as sockpuppet edits. There really is no controversy here at all. Nandesuka 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is not "accepted practice" -- and is contrary to WP:SOCK which notes,

"Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown to be not well-founded." (emphasis mine.)

The proper way to handle suspicions of sockpuppetry is to use Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets, which details the requirements for evidence -- which neither you nor LaszloWalrus have yet provided.--Leflyman^Talk 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee disagrees with your interpretation. Best regards, Nandesuka 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you appear to have some fundamental misunderstandings of Wikipedia policy. ArbCom does not "disagree with [my] interpretation." ArbCom does not have ongoing opinions about anything. As noted at Arbitation Policy rules, "Former decisions will not be binding on the Arbitrators - rather, they intend to learn from experience." While there is a list of past principles, the top of which clearly states, "Note that the Arbitration Committee is not bound by precedent." You may, perhaps, be referring to the past decision principal under "Sockpuppets" which included the point "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets." Note the first clause "For the purpose of dispute resolution" -- your actions as an admin were not part of dispute resolution, nor are you a member of ArbCom involved in deciding a case.

Your protections of particular articles were contrary to the principals of WP:PPOL, "Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should request protection in the way a normal user would. Admins should avoid favouring one version of the article over another in general.". --Leflyman^Talk 05:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections are noted, and I continue to disagree. I don't really have anything more to say about this issue. To me, it's cut and dry: a banned user is using Tor to abuse Wikipedia, and he will be stopped. End of story.

Feel free to respond as much as you like on this page, but I believe I've explained my position on ths matter adequately. Nandesuka 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]