Jump to content

User talk:Millandhouse33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Millandhouse33 (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 7 July 2019 (→First request for urban)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezourvedam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneohimself: @Elgato97: please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Veuveclicquot1

Appeal againt ban

@QEDK:@Ivanvector:

Dear Admins, As I was unaware of the investigation and unable to reply I'm replying here. Feedback would be welcome.

Comparing the original report of meatpuppetry by RobertHall7 to what happened.

Original Report by RobertHall7

...uninvolved User:Kashmiri’s drive-by maintenance tag: [1]

Elgato97 removes it first: [2] Boneohimself removes it three times: [3] [4] [5] then in Talk page discussion Millandhouse chimes in: [6] (Statement supporting removal of tag, statements that a cohort has been required to overcome an individual editor, statement canvassing for this to continue.) Boneohimself replies: [7] (Statement providing support.) ...


What actually happend

  1. 3rd May: Kashmiri & I have a disagrement about edit on matra.Kashmiri reverts my change, tries to justify on talk, discussion contunes till 8th May. Kasmiri ultimately accepts my changes.
  2. 4th May, I point out that my edit was infact correct and my changes should remain, offer olive branch.
  3. 4th May, Kashmiri visits School of Economic Science Page and adds maintaince tags.
  4. 4th May, I collapse tags but leave in place. I contune making other edits.
  5. 5th May, User Elgato97 Removes Kashmiris tags. comments: I made a considered decision that the template is not applicable.
  6. 5th May, Kashmiri reverts Elgato97s changes . comments Reverted to revision 895493914 by Millandhouse33 (talk): The issues have not yet been addressed, and your account looks like a WP:SPA
  7. 6th May, Boneohimself removes Kasmiris's tags. Comments: pease discuss on talk page before making controversial changes.
  8. 7th May, RobertHall7 reverts boneos changes
  9. 7th May, Kasmiri uncollapses tags then reverts his own edit.
  10. 7th May, Boneo reverts Kasmiri
  11. 7th May, Kasmiri reverts Boneo
  12. 8th May, Boneo Reverts kasmiri
  13. 8th May, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:School_of_Economic_Science&diff=896105641&oldid=895117663 My post on talk trying to build consensus, other editors are invited to join, I state my views on the tags for and against. My desired outcome stated as "I'm in favor of replacing the maintenance tag at the top of the page with inline cleanup tags identifying the areas that need looking at. This achieves the objective of drawing editors attention to the issues without acting like a badge of shame on the page."
  14. 8th May, Boneo Chimes in criticising the tagging, does not even mention my proposal.
  15. 14th May, RobertHall & I engage on talk. Unconstrucively.
  16. 25th May, Dreamy Jazz adds a tag to the page.

This shows a very different picture to the original one painted by RobertHall7. Boneohimself did not support my propsal or help me build concensus. Elgato did not even engage with me when invited. No concensus was acheived and nothing was done. Kashmiris tagging, although legitimate, was in response to not getting is way on the Mantra page.

My position was not infavour of removing tags but replacing them with inline ones. Boneos position was different to my own.

This far from meatpuppetry, it is not even independant editors agreeing. The events were incorrectly described by RobertHall7, in order to make them look like a bannable offence. Had I the chance to reply I would have ponited this out. I should have hand the chance to respond.

This is the first alegation on the page related to meatpuppery and the remaineder are not related to puppetry of any kind and as such should not feature in a sockpuppet investigation. However if they do I can address them too.

Millandhouse33 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Claim of Meat Puppetry

RobertHalls7 Original text

They have formed a cohort that gives the appearance of a democratic mandate to manage the reputation of The School of Economic Science (a.k.a. The School of Practical Philosophy) covered by WP:MEAT ("Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors"). In Talk page discussion I refer to the SES with universality in mind as a 'group' or 'organization', and edited the MOS:FIRST line accordingly prior to 2018's year of consensus/stablity at the article - this is far more generous to the organization that our articles on the Church of Scientology, for example, which it has been studied with [8]; Have also contributed relatively positive opinion on it from Evans:[9] and Hugh Jackman in interview:[10] This said, many sources (including those in the body of the article) refer to it as a New Religious Movement or sect, cult, an alleged cult or a possible cult [11][12][13][14], more diffs available, most recently Emily Watson in the Financial Times of April 10, 2019 with a verifiable history of criminal child abuse, denigration of women and other controversial issues talked about in the secondary sources. I have added material which reflects this. In breach of WP:LEDE this is getting removed from the intro by the cohort e.g. here [15] and here [16] despite talk page opposition:[17] leaving readers with the impression that it is an educational, course-providing charity without any reputation of past wrongdoing, nor any sign of the many verifiable allegations of it being a New Religious Movement or cult, etc...

The passage continues with allegations of advocacy, COI and the like. As the guidance states "You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them. You may wish to note that the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed." I am going to ingore them for now. However I am happy to address them if needed.

RobertHall7's claim is that I, Boneohimself, & Elgato have "have formed a cohort that gives the appearance of a democratic mandate " this is simply not true. The discussion of what should be in the lead occored at seveal places, on the talk page, (1,2,3,4,5)

  • None of them contain a result based on a concensus of the users listed. Boneohimself and Elgato have not participated in any of them. This alone should demonstrate this to be a false claim.
  • None contain a result by democratic vote, arguments are resoned out.
  • RobertHall7 did not engage in the debate instead just insisted he got his way. I have descriebd this here. There were two points of contention where RobertHall differed from all other editors, how much weight accusatinos of cult and cases of child abouse from the 70s & 80s should get. The page had recently been merged with other pages so it now descriebd a gloabal oransation not a UK based one, so UK only events would ineveatlby be less prominent than they were perviously. The accusation of cult from the early 80s had been widley discredited as a political hit job, even the original accusers in their book Secret Cult, excluded the vast majority of the organsiation from this decription. There was no logical reason for the entire organsation to be called a cult in the opening paragarh beacuse of this. It was agreed by all othes but robert that it would nto be in the lead, both sides of the cult argument remain in the reception section. Historical child abuse was a similar situation, this was fact, it happened at childrens school in the Uk in the 70s & 80s founded by SES, had been investigated and addressed, there was no suggestion that it still happened. This had it's own section on the page. RobertHall7 alone wanted these in the lede but would not engage in the debate on weight as he has done above, he simply listed sources ingoring context but would not deiscuss weight. He simply ignored it and repeateldy stated they should be in the lede. This is why the other editors did not agree with him.

That should thoroughly debunk the claim that anything was done by consesus between myself, BoneoHimself and Elgato97. There is jsut no evidence of it. RobertHall7s claim was completely false.

Kashmiri has identified OWN [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri has identified OWN [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The above statement is made by RobertHall7 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Veuveclicquot1 and claimed as evidence of my wrongdoing.

What happened?

  1. 20:44, 7 May 2019 User Kashmiri makes comment on my talk page accusing me of acting like the owner of the School of Economic Science Page.
  2. 20:44, 7 May 2019‎ Within a minute Kashmiri reverts his own comment before I see or respond to it.
  3. 22:38, 7 May 2019 I post a message on Kasmiri's page to confirm he intended to delete.
  4. 22:47, 7 May 2019 Kashmiri responds stating original message was a mistake "Sorry this happens when I have too many tabs open. Apologies for the confusion"
  5. 04:49, 19 June 2019 RobertHall7 Posts comment 1 to the investigation without proper context claiming it to be evidence of my wrongdoing.

Clearly, this is an action by one or both to actors to misrepresent events to prejudice the investigation. I can take every single comment by RobertHall7 and demonstrate this sort of thing has been done in all cases, in bad faith, simply to prevent my editing. . Millandhouse33 (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


First request for urban)

@Ivanvector: I would like to appeal the decision made here regarding the banning of my account. I did not use any other account with the exception of vewvecliqiot when I was a new user, and have not done this since this was explained to me. As you will see from my history I have edited 56 pages and make a broad and valuable contribution to this site, contrary to what has been claimed. Had I the opportunity to respond to this discussion I would have pointed out the multitude of errors with it. you will see the two users that levelled the accusation have objected to perfectly legitimate edits to Wikipedia preferring their own opinions [eg 1], eg2. As you accept in your final comment on the investigation report that the alleged relationships may not exist I request the blog be removed. If the ban is for COI then I would like the chance to respond on that. Roberthall7, a single purpose account that has only edited one page, and repeatedly misrepresented source (see talk) is a user with an admitted COI (also on talk) and it is this person testimony that the entire investigation is based. You will see here that the sources were misreported and corrected by me. This has now been reversed by a conflicted user with no right of response. Looking forward to your reply. 14:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Millandhouse33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My Talk page above is now updated, above, with a proper account of what happened, showing the errors in RobertHall7's account. Hoping to get some engagement now. This decision was made on behavior, not technical details, the descriptions of the behavior on the report were wrong. Hoping to get some feedback from somebody before progressing. This was a bad faith complaint made by two users who didn't want me editing pages. It was conducted without my knowledge so I was not able to make my case during the investigation. User RobetHall7 along with Kashmiri have made complaints in bad faith because they did not want me editing a page or scrutinizing my edits. My edits were in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines their was not, my summary of the discussion with RobertHall7 can be seen here and the discussion with Kashmiri here RobertHall has many times tried to have me banned to silence my voice as shown in the link prior. In both cases, the talk pages will show that I was insisting content be sourced and the two complainants wanted to write there own opinion. It is clear on both talk pages for any party to see. When this investigation was restarted on 14th May, by RobertHall7 & Kashmiri I was not notified, I received no notification until I was banned and therefore excluded from representing myself in the discussion. Only the accusers were heard. The reason given on the investigation by is @Ivanvector: "I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts." . This cites advocacy, the discussion on the investigation page, which I was not made aware of,but mostly COI. He says it's "It's edging on meatpuppetry", I deny that, but none the less, edging on a violation is not a violation. The guidelines clearly say "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." . This decision was not based on IP misuse, but advocacy, COI, etc as stated by @Ivanvector:. Please correct me if I am wrong. Millandhouse33 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= My Talk page above is now updated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Millandhouse33#Appeal_againt_ban above], with a proper account of what happened, showing the errors in RobertHall7's account. Hoping to get some engagement now. This decision was made on behavior, not technical details, the descriptions of the behavior on the report were wrong. Hoping to get some feedback from somebody before progressing. This was a bad faith complaint made by two users who didn't want me editing pages. It was conducted without my knowledge so I was not able to make my case during the investigation. User RobetHall7 along with Kashmiri have made complaints in bad faith because they did not want me editing a page or scrutinizing my edits. My edits were in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines their was not, my summary of the discussion with RobertHall7 can be [[Talk:School_of_Economic_Science/Archive_3#Hard_revert,_administrator_intervention_required|seen her]]e and the discussion with Kashmiri [[Talk:Mantra#Proposed_removal_of_line_-_not_supported_by_citations|here]] RobertHall has many times tried to have me banned to silence my voice as shown in the link prior. In both cases, the talk pages will show that I was insisting content be sourced and the two complainants wanted to write there own opinion. It is clear on both talk pages for any party to see. When this investigation was restarted on 14th May, by RobertHall7 & Kashmiri I was not notified, I received no notification until I was banned and therefore excluded from representing myself in the discussion. Only the accusers were heard. The reason given on the investigation by is <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span> "I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts." . This cites advocacy, the discussion on the investigation page, which I was not made aware of,but mostly COI. He says it's "It's edging on meatpuppetry", I deny that, but none the less, edging on a violation is not a violation. The guidelines clearly say "[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims|Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.]]" . This decision was not based on IP misuse, but advocacy, COI, etc as stated by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span>. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Millandhouse33|Millandhouse33]] ([[User talk:Millandhouse33#top|talk]]) 06:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= My Talk page above is now updated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Millandhouse33#Appeal_againt_ban above], with a proper account of what happened, showing the errors in RobertHall7's account. Hoping to get some engagement now. This decision was made on behavior, not technical details, the descriptions of the behavior on the report were wrong. Hoping to get some feedback from somebody before progressing. This was a bad faith complaint made by two users who didn't want me editing pages. It was conducted without my knowledge so I was not able to make my case during the investigation. User RobetHall7 along with Kashmiri have made complaints in bad faith because they did not want me editing a page or scrutinizing my edits. My edits were in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines their was not, my summary of the discussion with RobertHall7 can be [[Talk:School_of_Economic_Science/Archive_3#Hard_revert,_administrator_intervention_required|seen her]]e and the discussion with Kashmiri [[Talk:Mantra#Proposed_removal_of_line_-_not_supported_by_citations|here]] RobertHall has many times tried to have me banned to silence my voice as shown in the link prior. In both cases, the talk pages will show that I was insisting content be sourced and the two complainants wanted to write there own opinion. It is clear on both talk pages for any party to see. When this investigation was restarted on 14th May, by RobertHall7 & Kashmiri I was not notified, I received no notification until I was banned and therefore excluded from representing myself in the discussion. Only the accusers were heard. The reason given on the investigation by is <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span> "I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts." . This cites advocacy, the discussion on the investigation page, which I was not made aware of,but mostly COI. He says it's "It's edging on meatpuppetry", I deny that, but none the less, edging on a violation is not a violation. The guidelines clearly say "[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims|Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.]]" . This decision was not based on IP misuse, but advocacy, COI, etc as stated by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span>. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Millandhouse33|Millandhouse33]] ([[User talk:Millandhouse33#top|talk]]) 06:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= My Talk page above is now updated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Millandhouse33#Appeal_againt_ban above], with a proper account of what happened, showing the errors in RobertHall7's account. Hoping to get some engagement now. This decision was made on behavior, not technical details, the descriptions of the behavior on the report were wrong. Hoping to get some feedback from somebody before progressing. This was a bad faith complaint made by two users who didn't want me editing pages. It was conducted without my knowledge so I was not able to make my case during the investigation. User RobetHall7 along with Kashmiri have made complaints in bad faith because they did not want me editing a page or scrutinizing my edits. My edits were in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines their was not, my summary of the discussion with RobertHall7 can be [[Talk:School_of_Economic_Science/Archive_3#Hard_revert,_administrator_intervention_required|seen her]]e and the discussion with Kashmiri [[Talk:Mantra#Proposed_removal_of_line_-_not_supported_by_citations|here]] RobertHall has many times tried to have me banned to silence my voice as shown in the link prior. In both cases, the talk pages will show that I was insisting content be sourced and the two complainants wanted to write there own opinion. It is clear on both talk pages for any party to see. When this investigation was restarted on 14th May, by RobertHall7 & Kashmiri I was not notified, I received no notification until I was banned and therefore excluded from representing myself in the discussion. Only the accusers were heard. The reason given on the investigation by is <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span> "I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts." . This cites advocacy, the discussion on the investigation page, which I was not made aware of,but mostly COI. He says it's "It's edging on meatpuppetry", I deny that, but none the less, edging on a violation is not a violation. The guidelines clearly say "[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims|Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.]]" . This decision was not based on IP misuse, but advocacy, COI, etc as stated by <span class="template-ping">@[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]:</span>. Please correct me if I am wrong. [[User:Millandhouse33|Millandhouse33]] ([[User talk:Millandhouse33#top|talk]]) 06:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}


The reason why he blocked is contained within the comment cited above. He says that its maybe not Sock puppetry, but if it isn't, its Meat puppetry. And for your notice, the evil admin-Argument is probably not getting you anywhere. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannik Schwaß: I appreciate the reply, could you kindly quote me where it says that. The reason given on the investigation by is @Ivanvector: "I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts." . This cites advocacy, the discussion on the investigation page, which I was not made aware of,but mostly COI. He says it's "It's edging on meatpuppetry", I deny that, but none the less, edging on a violation is not a violation. The guidelines clearly say "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." . This decision was not based on IP misuse, but advocacy, COI, etc as stated by @Ivanvector:. Please correct me if I am wrong. Millandhouse33 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannik Schwaß: Apologies, I was quite angry yesterday about not being able to voice my case in the investigation. I see now he says"whether they're one user with many accounts (which we would tag referring to this case) or several people pushing a common conflict of interest" which is what you are referring to. I do believe it is the malicious complaint that I cold not respond to that tipped the balance on this, it came down to behavioral stuff most of which was incorrectly reported on by RobertHall7. Could you advise me on how I might have my case considered. Thanks, 21:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannik Schwaß: Hi, Are you an Admin? Your profile doesn't indicate that you are. I responded to on the assumption that you were. Millandhouse33 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Millandhouse33&oldid=905228192"