User talk:Traveller-Onlooker

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)
 * Please see WP:D, the disambiguation guideline.  Mini  apolis  22:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator Bullying
Initiated by  Traveller-Onlooker (talk) at 18:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


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

ADMINISTRATOR BULLYING


 * 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.wikipedia.org/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.

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-- 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.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

Thank you for clarifying.