Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morton devonshire (talk | contribs) at 22:44, 15 November 2007 (→Personal Anecdotes: heh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Personal Anecdotes

Recently I left wikipedia then opened another account. The account was banned, and many conservtive editors including Mongo below, called for me to be permanently booted. I think I avoided this for three reasons:

1. I left wikipedia, having my user and talk pages blanked
2. When their was a checkuser, I openly admited that I was the other user
3. I never denied being the other account
4. I apologized if I broke the rules (which I still personally feel I didn't)

Two of these three options are still open to you (#2 and #4).

It is okay for an anon to later pick up a user name. What is not okay is for a user to later not tell the truth about being an anon. There is enough evidence against you that the arbcoms are going to assume you are the anon. They are going to investigate the evidence as cursory and quickly as I did.

I would suggest admitting it now and apologizing to everyone including TDC. That gives TDC and those who support him that much less ammunition against you.

There is a small chance you are not the anon, but the arbcom is not going to consider this. Travb (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Travb. I copied the above text here because I wanted to reply to it, but the Request for Arbitration page isn't the appropiate place. That page is for presenting statements as to why the ArbCom should or should not accept the case, not advice to the parties about how they should handle the case.

I appreciate you offering advice based on your experience, but I think our two situations are different. Your checkuser came back Confirmed before you admitted anything, and after that there is nothing left for you to admit. Another difference is our interpretation of apologies. Here was yours:

PUBLIC APOLOGY Two users above have the gravely mistaken view, that I am "proud" of having to leave User:Travb and later returning to Travb. This is dead wrong. I want to publicly apologize for any wikipedia rules that I may have broke when I left User:Travb. If I did break any rules, I apologize. I am at a loss about what I could or should have done differently (A name change?). I am not going to edit the State Terrorism page, the page which is the nexus of this argument, until after September 15. I am seriously considering never editing it again, as I explained above. I hope this is acceptable. Travb (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't an apology, in my opinion. You said your accusers were mistaken; you said you apologize if you broke a rule, but you aren't sure you even did? To me, an apology is an expression of regret for doing something I didn't mean to do. Giving a blanket "apology" for something you may or may not have done, while continuing to defend your actions, just doesn't seem heartfelt. I also don't think it is sincere to "apologize" in order to take ammunition away from TDC or to garner sympathy from the ArbCom. Finally, I will not be apologizing for something I did not do, just because it may make things easier for me. You are not the first to suggest it, however.

I think you avoided having your Travb account banned like your sock account was because you offered to leave the article for at least two months, and maybe permanently. It also didn't appear that you were using both accounts simultaneously in an abusive fashion, but I haven't looked at your edit histories in detail. Anyway, were you serious when you said ArbComs don't investigate or consider things in much depth? I see Admins signing up for the case indicating they want to "consider behaviors" and "review things in depth." Is that just for show? Xenophrenic 11:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have kind of given up on wikipedia (again). I blanked both of my user and talk page, and deleted my watchlist. But I dont like to leave unfinished business.

As far as my public apology, the reason I didn't get banned you maybe right. I said that if If I indeed broke a rule, it was inadvetant and I apologize. Your right, this is a conditional apology. Should I apologize for breaking a rule I didn't do? Which, of course, leads us to your case. If you are indeed not the sockpuppet, then you shouldn't apologize, as you wrote, "I will not be apologizing for something I did not do". Your right, our situations are different.

Anyway, were you serious when you said ArbComs don't investigate or consider things in much depth?

Usually in Arbcoms people layout a lot of evidence, representing months worth of edits. I have never been an arbcom, so I can't answer this question 100% for sure one way or another.

I really believe that the Arbcoms are simply going to see two POV warriors in an edit war and they are going to ban both of you from the article. They may ban both of you for a period of time.

In my opinion, the biggest ammunition that TDC has against you is that checkuser. Because that is the only thing that seems to differentiate you from TDC, and sockpuppetry is strongly looked down upon. You need to either admit it, or explain it away in a convincing way. So far I have seen neither.

When I was in a Arbcom case of Seabcan, my section changed all of the time, as I ammased more and more evience, and as the arguments changed of those who were against me. Every sentence I referenced with an edit, usually many.

Another admin thought I would be banned for a few weeks or months after that Arbcom. Thankfully I wasn't and the Arbcom ruling was incredibly and surprisingly favorable. Both admins were equally punished.

Anyway, I respect TDC. I don't like some of his tactics (which I have wrote about at length in his archived talk pages), but he is by far one of the more mellow conservatives. After my confrontation with TDC, I have run up against much more devious, powerful and sophisticated users, who use wikipedia policy ruthless, and who would make Machiavelli proud.

I wont be watching the Arbcom. Good luck. Travb (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh

How'd the Bar go?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 22:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)