User talk:Noroton

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Well, at least as soon as that can be arranged. Don't worry, it won't be long.

Hmm

Noroton, you and I have edited cordially together in the past - although its been some time. Even so, it may be presuming too much to offer my opinion, but... Just in case, here it is. I think that you may have misread the general thrust of the arbitrators conclusion on the Sandstein/CoM/Law incident. The connection between the statements made by non-arbitrators on the requests page and the comments from arbitrators is usually quite tenuous, if there is any at all. In this case, I think the core issue they've been addressing has been the propriety of unblocking someone who had been blocked pursuant to an arbitration remedy -- particularly without prior discussion. We can debate the merits of Sandstein's block, and I think there are some real questions about what the best course of action there might have been, but the situation is far more clear (to me, and to most) when it comes to Law's unblock. I hope frustration from this incident, and the atmosphere on political articles in general, doesn't push you away from Wikipedia for good. Nathan ^T 07:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that clear. There was plenty of support for the unblock, even on the AC page. Most? Not even. It's so taboo to undo another user's block that you'd rather see a user stay blocked until it can be sorted out. Fail. Law _{type! snype?} 23:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with your opinion on the subject, not least because you actually performed the unblock. I'm not sure I see leaving someone blocked long enough to have a discussion as the sort of injustice you apparently believe it to be. The ensuing drama and comments from others should at least suggest to you that perhaps your decision may not have been flawless. Nathan ^T 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Nathan. Sorry it took so long to reply. My point at the ArbCom page is that Sandstein's block looks worse when you look at the overall situation on that page. That's worth ArbCom's attention, and it's a more important problem than whether one admin should be reverting another admin (I don't know or really care about the niceties of that, although I like Law's point about see a user stay blocked until it can be sorted out.). The solution is for admins and ArbCom to monitor both sides of ongoing POV conflicts. No one was doing that. Hypocritical enforcement resulted. Epic fail. You're focusing too narrowly, and it's part of the problem here. -- Noroton (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've argued that they (in this case) are both focusing too narrowly on the wheel war problem and supporting the uneven enforcement of policy. In this situation, I think those positions are mutually exclusive - they aren't dealing with the substantive enforcement issue at all, because a discussion of the merits of the block was basically preempted by Law's unilateral decision. Nathan ^T 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how what I'm saying is mutually exclusive. They can refocus the scope of a case at will. Everybody on that page can recognize the massive failure I'm pointing out, and you should acknowledge it, too. -- Noroton (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Bitching

The arbcom page is not the best place to post "bitching". In fact Wikipedia is really not a good place to post bitching. Productive commentary is always welcome but a 2 page rant about how much you think people are hypocrites is not really productive. Chillum 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. If they repost that rant again, I will block them for edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 20:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

More hypocrites engaging in more hypocracy. You can't defend the fact that you and the rest of the admins completely ignored clear violations from one side as admins came down full force on the other. Your answer is typical Wikipedia censorship. Neither of you have lifted a finger to enforce blatant policy violations occurring right under your nose -- so long as it involves one side in the conflict.

These are facts. They're not contestable. Your own absence of conduct indicts you when you then act only against one side.

And you have no answer for it other than to remove the comment.

I'll return the facts to the page.

Because you need to be confronted with your collective hypocrisy and your utter failure to even look like you're being fair. You really need to be called out on that on Wikipedia's pages.

You are the problem here.

-- Noroton (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to look into any complaints you have, but I can't do that until you start using civil discourse to express your concerns. Take stock, gather your thoughts, and then give me a precise, cool, and concise explanation on my talk page. Please include a few diffs to highlight your concerns. I will check them. Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Review my censored ArbCom comments, which contain diffs. I'm reworking them and restoring my important points to the page. Let the clerks clerk the page. And why don't you ask yourself where you were when my complaints grew old at AN/I and 3RR/N. You can interfere now, but you couldn't do it then? Funny how admins get busy at the oddest moments. -- Noroton (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By calling me a hypocrite you have confirmed to me that your accusations are fairly random. I have absolutely no involvement in whatever the dispute is about I was just commenting on your style of communication. By lumping me into the conspiracy you are imagining you have confirmed to me that your impressions are not based on evidence. Chillum 22:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You could see I was mad, but you persist. So let me refine my criticism of you. You aren't a hypocrite. Any fair-minded admin who waded in on this by commenting in any way would look through the four diffs I provided to see whether there's some outrage that caused me to make my comments. Well? Or are you content merely to leave comments on my page to goad me? -- Noroton (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of your post prevented me from getting far in reading it. If you wish people to listen to you then you may wish to make your style more pleasant to read. Chillum 05:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You want calm discussion? See [1] But when I make my style more pleasant to read it gets ignored. Which is what I'm complaining about in the first place. Follow the links in my ArbCom post. I was ignored at 3RR and no one at AN/I could either show me how my complaint was not a simple, obvious violation of edit warring according to the language of WP:3RR or why that obvious violation should not be addressed in any way. So I have experience in being polite and being ignored. -- Noroton (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's good, practical advice. In looking, it does appear that Noroton may be in conflict with another editor who has been owning the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. My concern is that we may have two (or more) editors playing tug of war with an article where none of them are really aiming for NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 09:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

may be in conflict with another editor While true, you're looking past the real problem, which I assume you find an incredibly uncomfortable truth (more on that later). This conflict is surely the lowest level conflict on Wikipedia, since I have hardly any contact with LuLu. At some points in the past, we've gotten along well enough. Nor is LuLu much more active on that page than several other editors. It's an entire group. This is hardly the worst example of an edit-warred article, although what's going on there is classic POV edit warring on a (again, classic) mass scale. As the recent Acorn scandal unfolded, LuLu and his allies have had to slowly retreat as more and more sources and more and more editors have continually reinforced the facts, to the point that the article, while still obviously biased, isn't biased all that much. Just about all the important facts about the scandal are there and while comments from Acorn are overemphasized and quotes criticizing Acorn are underemphasized, that's really not terribly harmful. It's pretty clear, however, who's been winning the edit war overall. LuLu and the others aren't doing anything more than hasn't been done for years by others elsewhere (and by LuLu elsewhere). I'm more concerned that IP editors coming to Wikipedia casually and who contribute good-faith, non-POV edits that actually would improve the article are not only reverted completely, they are treated rudely with nasty edit summaries that are clearly unfair. The reverting without discussion and the lack of civility (we could add WP:BITE) are hurting Wikipedia by shooing away potentially good editors. It's pretty obvious to me that we lack editors on the right (although I can't prove it). If we had a better balance of editors interested in politics, it would be harder to WP:OWN political articles and bias them. To this day, the treatment of the word "terrorist" at the Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Weather Underground articles is horrendous, despite my getting 2/3 RfC consensus to have the articles reflect the way that word has been applied to the organization and those people by dozens of the best sources over decades, which I listed at the RfC. There's a reason for that, and it isn't just the editors identifiable as POV pushers. That gets us to the real problem.

The real problem is that admins at AN/I won't enforce behavioral policy in these kinds of disputes, making the problems fester and even move to other articles. None of the four links I provided at ArbCom go to the Acorn article or talk page. They all go to my complaints before admins, and each time admins failed (the civility complaint to Gamaliel actually may not have failed, I haven't checked, but it was certainly treated with kid gloves by an admin whose politics seem to make him very friendly with LuLu). What do you do when no admin will enforce a very simple request for a very clear violation of behavioral policy? Well, you take it to ArbCom. But the 3RR violations go stale quickly, and by the time I was done giving AN/I and 3RR a chance to deal with the problem, it was too late to go to ArbCom. It's true I could have waited for the next violations and then immediately taken them to ArbCom with links to the previous lack of action. And then ArbCom would do what it's done in the past: give kid-glove treatment to the perpetrators. I only have so much patience, and I think I spent a reasonable amount of time on this. I made my statement at the ArbCom page when I happened to see the Child of Midnight complaint because the alacrity in bashing CoM compared with the lack of response with LuLu on the same page, at almost the same time was stunningly offensive. You have avoided focusing on this, but in fact, this is the heart of it: Wikipedia's enforcement in large-scale political edit wars completely broke down. It was inadequate. The enforcement itself looks biased. I don't blame you for averting your eyes: It's ugly, it's big and there's no easy way to solve it. I can't do a damn thing about it as an editor, you can't do much at all as an admin (and what you could do with any effectiveness would take a lot of work and get you a lot of grief), and it isn't even easy for ArbCom. It's a failure of the system which doesn't have adequate policy to deal with it.

The most important thing anyone can do about it at this point is simply to recognize it and not be silent about it. You should acknowledge it, ArbCom should, other editors and admins should, Jimbo particularly should. Until we have a widespread acknowledgment of the problem, it will never be considered seriously by the vast majority of editors who don't deal with controversial articles. Can it be changed? You know that consensus for big policy changes is almost impossible at this point. I don't even have a clear idea of what policy might do a good job of dealing with it. I don't even have a clear idea of why admins shy away from dealing with these clear violations of the policies we do have. Is it me -- do admins just not want to deal with me? Is it political bias on the part of admins (it's a reasonable assumption, but I refactored that one out of my ArbCom statement)? Is it a reluctance to get involved in this kind of a situation? I do not know, and if you have some ideas on that, I'd like to know them. I do know that the result is to have bad-acting editors running rampant. LuLu's block log seems to show a long history of blocks for edit warring and I've seen his incivility before. But the real problem is bigger than LuLu, and a whack-a-mole response, editor by editor, isn't ultimately effective. Meanwhile, if an admin is quickly responding to complaints from one side of a political controversy, not to respond to complaints from the other side introduces biased enforcement, which only makes a particular POV war worse. THAT needs to be acknowledged, not (in effect) swept under the rug by smug, self-satisfied admins. I could give you diffs on that. -- Noroton (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Be more careful. --Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as a former clerk, I would not be surprised if they found your comments still overlong and of an unacceptable tone.--Tznkai (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I don't know how that happens. I edited, I hit the button and didn't get an edit-conflict page. Oh well. Thanks for fixing it. Noroton (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record

These are my comments at the ArbCom requests page:

Revised bitching from Noroton

My original comment was censored, not by clerks but first by someone involved as a commenter in this case, Protonk, some of whose points I was criticizing. (I thought that clerks were the only ones authorized to police these pages, and the comment was up long enough for clerks to note it.) But that doesn't remove the fact that administrators on this site have still created a complete mess, and you all need to be confronted with the facts.

We have admins quite happy to pounce on editors on one side of this (Child of Midnight) while strangely unable to act when repeated complaints are made at 3RR/N and AN/I. You all need to be confronted with that.

We have a policy, NPOV, that arbitrators commonly throw up their hands and say they can't possibly enforce because it's a content policy and they only deal with behavior. At AN/I, admins regularly say the same thing. Fair enough. But then when complaints are made on one side in a dispute and are ignored when, shortly afterward, complaints from the other side result in quick blocks, we have admins -- in effect -- conducting POV pushing by proxy. Do they mean to do this? Intention is nearly impossible to prove, but in other cases we do have cases of admins with quite pronounced points of view blocking editors with opposing views, and doing so at the behest of POV pushing edit warriors. On this matter we have LuLu of the Lotus Eaters and Xenophrenic both edit warring at Acorn, both going over the 3RR limit in a days-long (now weeks-long? I haven't bothered to check) POV fight. And we have a complete, total breakdown in admin enforcement at both AN/I and 3RR/N. Not only did my second 3RR/N complaint get absolutely no action, but it sat there as every other single fucking complaint on that page was dealt with. So now we don't just have admins unable to enfroce NPOV, but they can't even enforce clear, black and white, obvious, cut and dried repeated violations of behavioral policy -- but only if those complaints are made against one side. There is no possible way that LuLu's violation of WP:3RR can be interpreted as not a violation, although that was done. I guess no admin dared to even comment on the second violation at 3RR/N because the embarassing hypocrisy of not acting was too much to handle. And when I brought it to AN/I, not one of these editors or admins commenting here had the decency to comment when the shoe was on the other foot. You need to be confronted with that.

Stomp in (commenting or acting) when it's one side getting the complaints and then ignore the blatant violations on the other side. What sterling behavior we have on the part of our admin corps here. You need to be confronted with that.

But when you do it, don't expect not to be called hypocrites. You are all, each one of you, hypocrites. Got it? Hypocrites. You make yourselves look like you're enforcing various behavioral policies, but when you enforce them only selectively against one side, what you're enforcing is something entirely different.

And you need to be confronted with that.

And here's the proof showing that you are Hypocrites. [2] Hypocrites. [3] Hypocrites. [4] Hypocrites. [5] There's just never enough time to address the crap that one side pushes out, but always the time to suit up for the S.W.A.T team when the other side is spitting on the sidewalk. What possible explanation can there be for this other than that you are complete and utter hypocrites.

And that's true whether or not you meant to POV push by hobbling one side and coddling the other. The fact is, you did it, no matter what you meant to do, and selective enforcement is still selective enforcement whenever you dip a toe in as an admin either by commenting or blocking one side and then walk away. Because you can be expected to know what will happen.

Look at the discussions the diffs point to and you can't come to any other conclusion: You all failed. Massively. If you have any integrity at all, any of you, editors, admins, arbs, you'll recognize that. Whether you have the guts to actually admit this is fucked up is not something that I even hope for. Therefore the resignation. -- Noroton (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

World Domination update

I've suggested merging World Domination into The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I know this may sound crazy but please check out the present status of the first article. Discussion is at Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Merger proposal. Hope you can come out of retirement for this. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.JPG

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaShelter11172007.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:NorwalkCTEaNorwalkRRsta11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNorwalkRRsta11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaTwoSmallPlatforms11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaTwoSmallPlatforms11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaHouseFromPlatform11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaHouseFromPlatform11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaEaSidePlatform11112007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaEaSidePlatform11112007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaMainEntrance11172007.JPG is now available as Commons:File:NorwalkCTEaNwkRRstaMainEntrance11172007.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

File:BranchvilleRailroadStationCtca1900.jpg is now available as Commons:File:BranchvilleRailroadStationCtca1900.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Hope you read this, Noroton. Wish you'd come back. We have much to talk about. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Based on Checkuser evidence, I have blocked this account for 1 week for abusive sockpuppetry.. --Versageek 06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to do anything other than operate alternate accounts within policy. I'd taken a look at WP:SOCK a while back and thought I was within policy to start alternate accounts -- none of which was used for a bad purpose. Looking back at the history, I didn't see any time when I used other accounts when this one was blocked. Although Wikidemon has said that I did. I don't recall doing that. If I did, a year ago, they would have been innocuous edits. Can anyone else point to me using these accounts when I was blocked? I experimented with different accounts and decided to use others for some work I was doing that was noncontroversial (Reconsideration for year-in-poetry pages; CountryDoctor eventually for art pages; JohnWBarber for Connecticut pages). Then I drifted into discussing AfDs with both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts after I resigned this account. At first I'd meant to use only the JohnWBarber account for AfDs, then I wasn't sure, then I decided I'd stick with the Barber account for anything like that. Was that nefarious?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I recall it, I left this account -- put the "resignation" banner at the top of the talk page and stopped editing here entirely by October 5. Only after that did the Barber account comment in anything more controversial than an AfD.

I never used an account to vote twice, create the impression that there was more support for something than one editor's support, harass or avoid legitimate scrutiny -- there was never any reason, based on the actions of any of these accounts, to scrutinize me. I did use the Reconsideration account in a contentious article and commented on the talk page there. What I did was make suggestions and rewrite sections that were contentious. It was the article on Obama getting the Nobel prize. I edited in a way that all sides seemed to find acceptable and -- to my amazement -- seemed to calm down most of the disputing and edit warring going on. I found I had no problem interacting briefly with an editor I'd had a conflict with in the past, and that editor didn't dispute anything I said on the talk page or did on the article page. It was a solid contribution to the encyclopedia. I think I did once vote in an RfAdmin election (for Orlady?) with the Reconsideration account. It was a mistake (I thought I was logged in as Noroton), but it was harmless.

Why did I create the alternate accounts? First, I was curious and created the CountryDoctor account to see what it might be like to edit under another name. I found it liberating -- I found I felt differently (less annoyed) when I was editing with that account. But I got bored with it and stopped. After I was blocked, User:Bali ultimate made a comment on some page where I think I commented previously. I'd had some conflict with that user on a page related to a political, controversial article, and we didn't get along. Bali ultimate made some comment on a page that had nothing to do with politics or our dispute, and that comment by Bali ultimate convinced me that no matter what I did in the future, I'd find opposition from an editor like that. I expected to comment on things like RfArb cases, ANI and the like, occasionally, and I would continue to use the Noroton account for that over the next 12 months, until Oct. 5 when I finally stopped editing with it. I decided to use other accounts for noncontroversial editing in certain areas (I also used the Noroton account for various content edits, and created Hotel toilet-paper folding with it.) I thought that if I split my interests into different accounts, the new accounts would be harder to find for editors who wanted to get at me.

At no time did I engage in disruption with any of these accounts. I didn't think that commenting on AfDs was wrong, but now that I look at WP:SOCK, that seems to be allowed with only one account. My bad. It wasn't mentioned in the version of WP:SOCK that I looked at when I originally started the Reconsideration or JohnWBarber accounts. [6] That version of SOCK didn't mention not commenting in policy discussions, AfDs, etc. (I did also use Reconsideration to comment on some style guideline policy months ago, because it had something to do with the edits I was making on year-in-poetry pages.) Go right ahead and blame me for not continuing to look at WP:SOCK and periodically scrutinize it for any policy changes. Then tell me why this is worth any kind of block. I did what I thought was allowable and for good reason, for no bad purpose and without doing any harm to anyone or anything. What is the purpose of the block?

Recently, I started and participated in the Shankbone DVR. Shankbone is someone I've had conflicts with in the past, and at ANI, Shankbone has posted my last edit referring to him (he replied to it at the time). In this DVR, I might be seen as somehow taking Shankbone's side because I defended keeping the article. Nothing nefarious was involved with my advocacy there (I was originally in favor of deletion, then in favor of keeping -- both times because I wanted to follow policy, and I changed my position when new information came forward). I certainly gave a good knuckle-rapping to Jake Wartenberg on his talk page, but I don't see how any edit I made there or elsewhere engaged in disruption, avoided proper scrutiny or violated any policy at all.

You know, all anybody ever had to do was post an objection on the talk page of any of my active accounts. If I was told I was specifically violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and stopped. That this is the way an admin acted instead is, well, pretty typical for this place. I think I have about a 50 percent chance of getting an nutso reply to this.

I just saw a post from Bigtimepeace at ANI. Partly it states and who, I'm forced to assume, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing those supporting deletion were worrying about—agenda based editing in a barely notable BLP of a Wikipedian which we as a community could probably not do enough to protect. I would again suggest to David that he simply ask for the article to stay deleted, both for his own good, and also to put an end to the endless discussion about this, but of course that's up to him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) How incredibly stupid. I never had any intention of editing the article. As I said in my last comment to Shankbone on this page, the one he linked to at ANI, I had no intention of hurting or hounding him. Bigtime, reread the damn diff Shankbone linked to. I wasn't trying to help or hurt Shankbone, and my attitude toward him is adequately represented in both that diff and in my first !vote comment on the AfD -- I don't think the article is something he's going to like, and I think admins will have some extra work with it. Again, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept -- Bigtime, did I or did I not apologize to Shankbone for what I'd said about him? Did I or did I not then ignore him? When did I ever use any of these accounts to cause disruption or even get into some harsh fight with someone? Perhaps the harshest thing I said under any of these names was in the diff Wikidemon points to [7] -- where I specifically state that I'll accept another editor's bonafides for Wartenberg while still condemning the appearance of Wartenberg's actions. Use your brain, Bigtimepeace. You know, even when I've been mad at someone in the past, I've been known to ignore that when I think there's a principle at stake or even a reason to support that person. Look at LHVU's RfAdmin re-election. I'd gotten into quite a dispute with LHVU at some point before that (its in the Wikipedia Review website's "tar pit" section somewhere, someone who's a member there can get it for you). When I'm involved in an issue like the Shankbone AfD, I try to make up my mind based on principles, not personalities. That's what I did in that AfD and DRV. That's why I changed my mind in the AfD. One good, unintended consequence of me participating under the JohnWBarber name was that I and everybody else could ignore my past conflict with Shankbone, because it was irrelevant.

You know, if I were going to do something actually nefarious, wouldn't I have done it in the past 12 months? At what point does the actual lack of any harm to anyone or anything start to register with you people?

If there's a checkuser out there who wouldn't mind dealing with this, I'd like to email one about a related privacy concern. If so, please email me and I'll email back through Wikipedia. I was going to make this an unblock request. Maybe I will, maybe not. Not sure I care anymore.

If there's something I haven't covered, tell me. If unblocked, I'll drop all of these accounts and maybe start a new one or maybe not start a new one. I certainly don't feel like editing Wikipedia now. I assume people have been looking over my edit histories to see what abuses I must have committed. I hope you all look very long and very hard for those abuses. Because you all richly deserve the waste of time. I think it's somewhere north of 50K edits.Noroton (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

An explanation from the blocking admin needs to be given why this was socking and not a reasonable attempt to use an alternative account. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop being naive. This is Wikipedia. I think the Reconsideration account posting in a few AfDs and in an RfC on the guideline matter is the technical violation. The idea that posting information at ANI had anything to do with a bona fide concern is laughable. Noroton (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

[Comment by me since removed] Nathan ^T 23:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You said, to avoid scrutiny for controversial statements or actions. The relevant part of WP:SOCK: Using alternate accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Nothing was hidden that would have provided anyone with any help in scrutinizing me. My dropping the Noroton account and then continuing to edit on JohnWBarber was not a SOCK violation any way you read it. And the only thing anyone would want to scrutinize was Noroton. No one would have gained a bit of insight by linking Reconsideration with JohnWBarber with CountryDoc. And if I were going to vote multiple times in the same discussion, I'd have done so by now. I never did and wouldn't. I find that behavior disgusting. Frankly, how dare you imply that I tried to confuse or deceive anyone. No editor had a legitimate reason to look into my past contributions. As mitigating factors: editing had ceased with the Noroton account -- that's not a mitigating factor. That's an exonerating factor. I guess maybe I should have used the Reconsideration account for policy-page/AfD-type edits because that is the one with the most edits and therefore the "main" account now. But 99.9 percent of its edits were to year-in-poetry pages. No harm was done. the contributions of these other accounts are mostly to his credit -- you mean to say, "I've found nothing discretable to him in the edits from these accounts". Otherwise it's like saying, He doesn't usually beat his wife. Thanks for your help, anyway. Noroton (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed my comment and I'll refrain from any further involvement. Nathan ^T 23:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Noroton's accounting here. Before I posted at ANI I e-mailed a seasoned Wikipedian I trust that I thought it was odd that Noroton was JohnWBarber (since critics seem to think I want the article kept), this Wikipedian replied that it could be a reflection of Noroton's inclusionism. At ANI I made no accusation about intent as that made sense to me; he's well known for that. I think Noroton needs to figure out which account he wants to use, it should be unblocked for the explanation he gave, and the others should then be disabled with the appropriate templates. If warnings are appropriate, they should be given as well. -->David Shankbone 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I'll take Noroton's word above, and my apologies if he was offended by my statement on ANI (to which I'll now add an addendum). Having never created a sock account myself, I generally find it hard to understand why it is necessary except in the most obvious cases (avoiding harassment and the like), and tend to take a dim view of editors who use multiple socks, whether technically within policy but seemingly unnecessary, on the border of policy, or outside of it. Given your strongly stated distaste for David Shankbone (and once that diff was cited by David I recalled some extremely negative comments from you about him on Wikipedia Review which I otherwise would never have remembered), and the fact that you were participating quite fervently in an AfD and DRV about Shankbone using a sock rather than the account you are generally known for, I'll admit to a failure to assume good faith on my part. Perhaps that was a mistake, and it's not typical of me, but you might look at it from my perspective, wherein I saw the person who started [this thread] [I removed the link. -- Noroton (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)] (had to find that just now but I remembered the substance of it) taking a huge interest in preserving the article of a person they referred to as "a [not-nice characterization I'm also removing -- Noroton (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)]" while using an alternate account. Maybe it's because I'm not the type of person to engage in gratuitous name-calling, but that set off some alarm bells for me and led to my ANI comment. I am sorry it pissed you off and can see why it did, and as I said I genuinely take your word that you did not plan to edit negatively on Shankbone's article while apologizing for jumping too quickly to a conclusion about your intentions. But again, you might try to see it from my perspective for a moment. Finally, if you did not violate the letter of the sock policy (I have no idea what it even says these days), then I too would support an unblock. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I think I inadvertently did violate the letter of the policy since the Reconsideration account is the one with the most edits and should now be considered the main account, while I was going to AfDs with the JohnWBarber account. The idea that an inadvertent violation that did no harm would be worth any block is ridiculous. The fact that there's a "resigned" banner at the top of this page and no edits from this account after Oct. 5 should actually mean something. The fact that WP:SOCK didn't disallow what I did back when I started these alternative accounts in early November 2008 should also mean something (the policy back then strongly discouraged it, but it didn't disallow it). If you saw that statement I made about Shankbone at Wikipedia Review, then I think you saw the reason I made it and you understand why I said I was (and am) appalled by his behavior. None of that has changed, but I'm still sorry I said it, as I told him in the diff he posted at ANI. He didn't ask me for an apology, but I gave it to him because I was sorry I'd said it. I'll take your word for it that you don't do name calling, but you did go over the top at ANI for a similar reason to my going over the top at WR with Shankbone. And like me, you apologized. Please take it as a compliment that I expected your apology.

My interest in preserving the article is extremely clear: I think ignoring policies and guidelines in deletion is wrong, even corrupt, and when it's done so frequently it makes the process a joke. If that sounds pretty familiar, it's because all of my comments in the AfD and DRV reflect that. (DS mentioned that I'm seen as an inclusionist. Well, I usually agree with DGG, but only because we both look closely at the policies and guidelines -- he has a more inclusionist interpretation of some of them.) It's less about the Shankbone article than the corruption I see in the process. My initial !vote and comments cited policy and the amount of sourcing, and every comment I made specific to that article did the same thing. As soon as I got new information on the sourcing, I changed my vote and argued the other way, for Keep. What does that tell you about my motivations? How can my arguments be dismissed? It's not as if I'm alone out there making some wierd argument -- lots of other people in those threads agree with me. When you think about it, it's just a little too hard to think I'm really motivated by personality conflict rather than principle.

The way WP:SOCK policy stood when I created the Barber and Reconsideration accounts is worth looking at. This was the "Avoiding scrutiny" passage, which I adhered to:

Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this may occasionally be legitimate (see below under legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

And there was this passage, "Treatment of the editor" [8]:

There is a significant difference between an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account and a person operating sock puppets. Thus, an editor who inappropriately uses an alternative account may still contribute to the encyclopedia through their main account. An inappropriate alternative account is not a sock puppet account and assumption of good faith still applies to the main account of that editor. Aggressive approaches applied to protect the encyclopedia from sock puppets ordinarily should not be applied to the main account of an editor in good standing who inappropriately used an alternative account.

My main account is now Reconsideration. I dropped this Noroton account and no one has any reason other than assuming bad faith -- and with nothing beyond that assumption -- for citing this account as a violation of a single thing. I inadvertently made some mistakes in good faith. What I created the accounts for was editing and constructive comments, and that's what they've been used for, and that's what I enjoy about Wikipedia. Crap like the recent comments about me at ANI and at the DRV are what I hate about this place. Thanks for treating me like some vandal, guys -- I'm sure you all must've meant well. Noroton (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the other three accounts have been outed as yours, what's the purpose in continuing to use them? I respectfully suggest that you abandon them, and bring this one out of retirement. There's a lot of work to do. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since WR threads and what they say about me has come up here, I'll say that I actually somewhat respect Noroton as a critic, which is why I took the time to approach him. I have respect for people who take a reasoned, principled stance that doesn't shift depending on where he is in good graces. That contrasts with the WR's Horse With No Name, known in these parts as User:Ecoleetage/User:Pastor Theo, who tried to get a couple of Wikipedia editors fired IRL because they !voted against him, actually contacting their employers, which is why he is banned here. That's to say nothing of the private e-mails from HWNN talking about how talented and amazing I am, and his comments are still on my blog, at one point posting that he'd like to give me a hug. Now he makes homophobic remarks about me on the WR. Sigh. Noroton at least has principles he follows, and that's respectable. Otherwise, when you read the WR it's best to remember that people like HWNN/Eco are celebrated there as my chief critics, simply because it earns them cred. -->David Shankbone 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Your being such a gentleman about this is, of course, making me even more uncomfortable about my stupid statements from before. (It's exactly the kind of thing I did with/to LHVU in supporting his RfAdmin re-election so strongly, so I guess there's some poetic justice here! Wikidemon is also being a gentleman about it, although I notice he hasn't taken down his incorrect accusation that I socked while blocked.) That you would have so much more clue about this than half the people commenting on it at AN/I and the DRV is telling about both you and them. Noroton (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. If I was in error, I'm sorry - I'll look for my statement and strike it. I think that your ongoing account block serves no constructive purpose. As a suggestion, your unblock request is rather long and goes into some things that probably don't help your case even if true... unblock requests accompanied with complaints about the competence or good faith of the blocking admin and other editors are often dismissed. You could compare it to the protests of someone wrongfully imprisoned - his protests of innocence are used as evidence that he hasn't accepted the wrongness of his crime so his parole should be denied. What convinces me is the simple fact that you didn't mean to violate the policy and you say you'll follow it if it's made clear. And also, thanks for being courteous. I'd like to keep an open mind about encyclopedia content, and hope we can move past old disagreements. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Appeal

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).

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

---

Request reason:

24 hours after blocking, Versageek finally offered an explanation. This happened not on my talk page but at AN/I, where various editors have been smearing me with lies, which have been referred to at the DRV I was participating at. If nothing else, I should be unblocked so that I can point out the smears at AN/I. Versageek's behavior has been disruptive to the DRV, where discussion veered away from the actual subject to my supposed socking. One reason I bring this up is because Versageek's explanation for my block is: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Versageek has simply contradicted what all editors are told is policy at the WP:CLEANSTART part of WP:SOCK. Clean start under a new name: If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit. That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious. If we're going to tell editors to follow policy and block them for not doing it, then let's not contradict the clear language of the policy, particularly when the blocking editor doesn't think there was a bad intent behind the supposed motivation (Versageek says of me I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap). If I was disruptive, Versageek might still have a point, but then he could simply block me for being disruptive. The idea that "aggressive debat[ing]" is disruptive -- a blockable offense -- only applies if what I was doing either was uncivil (or worse) or if I made it much more difficult for the discussion at the Shankbone AfD or DRV to continue. If not, no disruption. In fact, my comments in both discussions were focused on the things that WP:TALK and WP:DELETE and the instructions on WP:DRV tell us we are supposed to be doing in discussions -- talking about policy and facts and (at DRV) whether or not the closing admin acted within policy and procedure. Which is more disruptive: resigning with one account and participating in an AfD & DRV with a new account or blocking an editor in the middle of a DRV that editor started -- causing some confusion on that page -- when even the blocking admin admits the editor had no "intention to be abusive"? I'm not wikilawyering about WP:SOCK: I simply didn't abuse it in the way Versageek said I did. Look: Either I have the right to a clean start or I don't. Versageek doesn't like the idea that I spoke at the AfD while people didn't know my prior conflict with Shankbone, and in a vague, abstract way there could be something wrong with that, although it isn't wrong in the letter or spirit of SOCK, which is about abuses involving simultaneous accounts. The problem he points to simply wasn't simultaneous with the Noroton account, which I'd stopped using by Oct. 5. By sticking "sock" labels on all my accounts and blocking me for a week, which unnecessarily raised the level of drama, Versageek looks like he's trying to affect the DRV, or perhaps he's mad at me for sharply criticizing Jake Wartenberg. Is Versageek punishing me for holding opinions perhaps opposed to his own? When an admin goes beyond policy and confuses sharply opposing (but civil) expressions of points of view with disruption, that suspicion naturally comes up. Although Versageek didn't bring this up, I will: My using CountryDoctor and Reconsideration and JohnWBarber together could be interpreted as a violation of WP:SOCK, particularly the way that policy is now written. I've said elsewhere on my talk page that when I started using these alternate accounts, they were discouraged but not prohibited by SOCK policy, the language of which focused more on abusive use of alternate accounts.(for instance, the lead then stated, While many reasons for using alternative accounts are acceptable, a number of uses for them are explicitly forbidden. [9]; from "Avoiding scrutiny" subsection: Alternative accounts should not be used to edit in ways that would be considered improper if done by a single account. [...] it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. [10] -- No one would have had a legitimate interest to make comparisons between any of my new accounts, ever, or between any of them and Noroton while I was using that account) It wasn't even prohibited for Reconsideration to comment in an RfC for a change in style policy at the time that account did so. Both the Reconsideration and JohnWBarber accounts participated in AfDs, which goes against policy as currently written. My bad, and I wouldn't do that again -- but let's not pretend that any harm was done. The idea of having only one account participate in policy page discussions, AfDs, etc. is so that you don't avoid scrutiny. But anyone who scrutinizes the edits of Reconsideration would gain no insight into JohnWBarber or vice versa, so absolutely no practical problem occurred here. Versageek is concerned about scrutiny involving the Noroton account, but once that account finally wound down its editing and resigned, it stopped being subject to WP:SOCK. The "scrutiny" that socking improperly avoids is supposed to be "justified scrutiny" (in the words of older versions of WP:SOCK) -- scrutiny of misbehavior of various sorts. Unjustified scrutiny -- scrutiny in order to continually bring up past actions of an editor even though doing so only clouds the issue -- is what CLEANSTART is supposed to help an editor avoid. The purpose of using separate accounts was originally to avoid having editors who were antagonistic to me start stalking me in areas separate from politics, and I used separate accounts to prevent the kind of unjustified scrutiny that would lead to those antagonistic editors following me. After a while, I became unconcerned about that, but it was why I did it and initially it was not a violation of policy to do it for that reason. I also found I became more annoyed when I logged in as Noroton than when I logged into the other accounts. I'd been planning on unifying the accounts eventually, but I'd hoped to do it silently. Since I knew I wasn't being disruptive with any of the accounts and was never deceptive, it was never a priority for me to unify them (and until recently, I didn't know how easily I could combine the long watchlists). If any admin had simply emailed me and told me I was violating or seemed to be violating WP:SOCK, I'd have looked into it and, finding the more recent language at that policy, simply shuttered all but one account. It would have been just that easy if any admin or checkuser handled it that way. Of course, then we would have avoided the drama at the DRV and ANI. Given the lack of a policy violation involving the Noroton account, I have to wonder at the motives of Versageek or whoever asked him to checkuser my accounts, because this looks like it was designed to affect opinion at the DRV. At this point, I'd prefer simply to have the JohnWBarber account. I'll probably drop that account at some point in the future and -- again-- exercise my right to WP:CLEANSTART. Participating in AfDs with both the Barber and Reconsideration accounts was a violation of SOCK, and I have no intention of violating that policy. There was no ill effect from that violation. Since I didn't edit disruptively at all with JohnWBarber, at the DRV or anywhere else, there is no reason for anything other than dropping the block entirely, immediately. I have no intention of using more than one account at a time in the future. If a checkuser willing to work with me briefly will email me, I have a privacy concern related to this that a checkuser can handle, or I can contact one when I no longer have the block. Noroton (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request is far too long. Please try again and remember WP:NOTTHEM. Note that your unblock request may also be declined as long as you label yourself as "retired".  Sandstein  18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

• Note Since I want the JohnWBarber account unblocked and I don't care about whether this one or the others are unblocked, I've posted a revised, shorter version of the unblock request at User talk:JohnWBarber. I'm assuming it's easier for admins to do the unblock if I post there. Noroton (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this comment from Lar

Part of a comment Lar made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone:

Rather than arguing that policy DOES say something, you need to argue that policy SHOULD say something, to sway others to sustain or overturn. Because policy here, at this point in time, is not clear cut. No consensus BLP as delete sometimes passes muster and sometimes doesn't. I've argued that policy SHOULD favor deletion for BLPs, elsewhere, at length. And I will continue to close them that way. Because I don't always get overturned. This is one of the BLPs where deletion is the right outcome. [...] ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This was my response to that passage:

If the policy change is so "descriptive", why is it having so much trouble getting consensus at the Deletion policy talk page? Looks to me like it's getting more and more prescriptive, and edging closer to proscriptive[16]. Lar, if you fail to change policy, what should be done in the future with closing admins who deliberately violate WP:DEL as it stands? Would you object to warnings and blocks? JohnWBarber (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

'You need to dial down the threats. DRV is intended to see if there is consensus that the close is endorsable or not, and if it is it sticks and if it isn't, it's overturned. A series of DRVs will shift policy, because policy in this area is not, and will never be, proscribing. If you think you can block an admin over a close made in good faith, you have another think coming. Keep up this sort of disruptive, argumentative badgering and you might find yourself blocked. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Lar, and I may have worded this wrongly -- he certainly misunderstood what I intended to say. I wasn't threatening anyone. I meant to point out that he's arguing that policy needs to catch up to "practice", although the consensus for a policy change wasn't forming at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default to delete for BLPs, and not being able to change the policy through consensus would seem to me to show that the kind of deleting he wants to do is both contrary to policy and without consensus. How can you go against policy when you don't have a consensus to do so? Since DRV is normally subject to the challenge of getting a consensus to overturn, doesn't a deliberate violation of the language of WP:DEL amount to gaming the system -- in fact, violating policy? He states, You need to dial down the threats. I'm not threatening anyone, I'm pointing out the fact that deliberately violating policy when you aren't able to change that policy is a clear case of acting Disruptive. How do you run an encyclopedia website when the admins deliberately violate the rules? If admins can do that, why bother having policies at all? And as I pointed out to him before, he's trying to change the policy language at the same time he's saying he'll violate the policy if it doesn't say what he wants it to say. With respect, Lar, this is fundamentally illogical. It's also a dangerous precedent to the website. That's essentially what I thought I said. If what I really said looks like some kind of threat or over-the-top language, that's certainly not what I meant, so please accept my words in this paragraph as a kind of replacement. Noroton (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)