User talk:Rockpocket: Difference between revisions

Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 10 November 2006.

To leave a message or request admin action, you may click here.

I'll sometimes reply on your talk, but will frequently (increasingly often) reply here.

Archives

2006 1) 3 January 2006 – 17 March 2006 2) 18 March 2006 – 20 May 2006 3) 21 May 2006 – 8 June 2006 4) 10 June 2006 – 29 July 2006 5) 1 August 2006 – 31 October 2006 6) 1 November 2006 – 30 November 2006 7) 1 December 2006 – 31 December 2006 2007 8) 1 January 2007 – 28 January 2007 9) 29 January 2007 – 25 February 2007 10) 1 March 2007 – 31 March 2007 11) 1 April 2007 – 28 April 2007 12) 1 May 2007 – 22 May 2007 13) 23 May 2007 – 4 June 2007 14) 5 June 2007 – 5 July 2007 15) 7 July 2007 – 5 August 2007 16) 9 August 2007 – 10 September 2007 17) 11 September 2007 – 15 October 2007 18) 17 October 2007 – 30 November 2007 19) 1 December 2007 – 31 December 2007 2008 20) 1 January 2008 – 1 February 2008 21) 2 February 2008 – 29 February 2008 22) 1 March 2008 – 1 April 2008

PeterBreggin claims to be Peter Breggin

He is a bit perplexed by wikipedia. I'm not sure about what is done in this situation so I contacted you. :D --scuro (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Will it be photos or words first?

Just one picture for now. This was my first view of the island where we worked. Paradise! Rockpocket 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be a day or so early, but you have been missed. I hope you have had a lifetime's supply of adventures and stories to keep you dining out for years. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bielle. Its great to be home. But first, to sleep... Rockpocket 04:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Rockpocket. I hope you had a great trip. Best, --John (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. Perhaps I could trouble you for a brief update on certain issues over the next week? I'll drop you an email when I get my act together. Rockpocket 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. I daresay you'll find not much has changed. One Night In Hackney, after what appeared to be a marathon 31 ¹/₂ hour editing session, had a sense of humour failure over the Mairéad Farrell article and announced a semi-retirement; a parthian shot was exposure of Kittybrewster's alternate accounts, which was felt not to be unduly serious (see here); BigDunc made an allegation of racism against Gibnews on AN/I, which petered out on John's talk page; and Vintagekits is agitating for a return. Giano is still tilting at windmills, but not in way that affects the usual suspects. If I were you, I'd turn round and head straight back to your tropical paradise! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, dear, dear Rockpocket; you must remember always that you may leave for four years in space but when you return it's the same old place [1]! Anyway, I'm so delighted to see you back, safe and well! Clio the Muse (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And I've stayed 100% out of trouble but now that you are back time to change all that! Sarah777 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect anything less. However, I have avowed to avoid troubles (and Troubles) as much as possible and write myself another featured article this summer, so perhaps you better find yourself another partner in crime for a while. By the way, I actually thought of you a few times while spending some time alone in my tent. That isn't a dirty as it first sounds, because I was reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond at the time. The themes of his book seemed to mesh quite nicely with some of the things we have discussed about colonization and hegemony, and it occurred to me you may be inspired by reading about his theories on how and why some cultures were historically dominant over others. I think it has lessons for us about even recent history. So if you have a chance, see if you can check it out. I think you may enjoy it. Rockpocket 11:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Begorrah (as we black folk say) I must check it out :)!Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland

Page protection required here as someone keeps inserting a political rant. Sarah777 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh - nice photo! Sarah777 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is just cause for protection now, per Wikipedia:PROTECTION#Content disputes since the revert-warring has stopped and discussion moved to the talk page. On cases such as this, I often find it is better to move the disputed content to the talk page for discussion and see whether there can be some compromise reached. Rockpocket 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicolas Atwood

Please respond on the talk page there. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Giano at Kittybrewster's page

Oh, lovely. Taking an unrelated opportunity to snark at an editor you don't like, Rockpocket? Are you by any chance hoping for Giano to respond angrily so you'll have the pleasure of seeing him blocked for violating his civility ban? This is a warning: don't be so spiteful. Bishonen | talk 09:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for your comment, and my apologies if I came off sounding spiteful, that was not my intention. I was making an observation based on a repetition I have seen. And I commented on it because those involved with the Troubles have enough grief of their own without getting sucked into that which indisputably surrounds Giano. If there was any insinuation, it was on the predictability of the consequences of Giano's actions; as much referring to those that will be only to keen to challenge him as Giano himself. I'm an equal opportunity snark - its the inevitable drama I was lamenting, not the protagonists.

It wasn't meant as criticism on a personal level either. Giano is a very smart man and I never fail to be impressed by his nous and sense of fair play (he has obviously picked that up from the natives). Giano and I have corresponded on occasion so he knows my email address. He also knows my thoughts on him (and I can assure you its certainly not dislike, Bishonen). So if he wants to respond to me, angrily or otherwise, then he can do so without concern. Thanks again for your input, its always a pleasure. Rockpocket 10:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stroke Air

What article? And when has anyone ever sung a song with the words londonderry air? It's sung one of two ways. Sorry if I got the mark up wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.211 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Our article called Londonderry Air says "The Londonderry Air (or Derry Air) is an anthem of Northern Ireland..." Hence we should direct to the name of the article. If you have evidence that this is incorrect, then you should bring it up on the Londonderry Air talk page. Rockpocket 00:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It does say that, is wikipedia now self referentially validating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.127.211 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, so if you have a reliable source that disputes it then we can change the title of the Londonderry Air article. But if there is disputing to be done, it makes sense that it be done on the primary article, not in those articles that link to it. This seems be contradict your claims, though. Rockpocket 00:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Usercheck please

Rock, could you check IP User:86.27.162.213 against the list of editors involved in the British Isles naming dispute? The IP is used solely to edit-war on these articles and I strongly suspect a "regular". Include the relevant Admins in the check please. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't do that I'm afraid - I don't have the required tools. You could ask Alison, who does, or make a request at WP:CHECKUSER. But I very much doubt a check would be carried out in this instance, since it doesn't meet the criteria for a checkuser. If there is evidence of tag-teaming with an IP to avoid 3RR then I can take another look and perhaps semi-protect it, but until then I would just address the IP's point, rather than worry too much who is making it. Ultimately, I think, these two articles will be merged since they are essentially the same - the question will be which one will be merged into the other, and that should be formally discussed. Rockpocket 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rockpocket (and welcome back, BTW ;) ) Given that it's a Troubles-related issue and that we've had intensive socking already, I checked and can point out that this is a non-issue. More details on my talk page - Alison ^❤ 17:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go. Thanks for letting me know. Rockpocket 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think to force a merge of these articles would convince many of us (who are not already aware of it) of the dictatorial abuse of superior voting power of some Anglo-Wikians. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be too pessimitic Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that would depend which way the merge went :p

I'm not really sure what can be done to counter that though, except perhaps ignore the the opinions of the Anglos and the Irish and leave the rest of the world to decide. I expect, in that scenario, the apathy would be deafening, though. Rockpocket 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a bit of tolerance of diversity would leave both articles alone. Clearly a purely geographical article wouldn't include the Channel Islands; so whatever "BI" is it manifestly ain't purely geographical. Whereas "B & I" is. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You'd think so, right? But where do we draw the line? Besides what is in a name anyway? Technically correct articles get merged all the time. When common usage is concerned, technical accuracy isn't really the over-riding issue. For example how many black people do you know? Technically speaking, I bet the answer is none. Though I expect you know some dark skinned people.

Also do the Portuguese protest at their peninsula being called Iberia (from Hispania) due to the misleading and offensive implication resulting from a historical naming? Should we consequently redirect that article to Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Gibraltar (which is really part of Spain anyway), and a tiny French territory in the Pyrenees. I jest of course, but it does seem to give some perspective to why this is such a contentious issue and where this could lead if we over concern ourselves with throwing off colonial shackles. Rockpocket 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of genocidal Imperialism there is no such thing as "overconcern" at throwing off its shackles - except maybe in the minds of the linear descendants of the Imperialists. You obviously have a problem with my call for tolerance and diversity? Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hell no, not at all. We should all strive to be tolerant of diversity. If we can manage that while adhering to WP:5P, which is what we as Wikipedians primarily have to concern ourselves with, then I'm with you. If not, I'm with 5P, I'm afraid. Rockpocket 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Faux pas?

Did you mean "unlikely" [2] :-) Giano (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. I meant "find the articles that are likely to get him into trouble [and put them on the restricted list]".

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that its looking unlikely that there will be enough support for Vk's unblocking at this time and pushing it though could be inexpedient for the ultimate success. I think the page you are drawing up is a good idea and will eventually be put in place, but Vk's ongoing (or at least very recent) socking appears problematic for a lot of people. I think if Vk can lay of the socks for a month or two more, then your plan would be implemented. It might be too soon. Rockpocket 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I always have a problem understanding the double negative, or whatever the grammatical term is. The VK "problem" is always going to be contentious, so I think it may as wel be faced sooner rather than later. I am fully aware there is a lot of undercurrents wishing him to remain blocked, and I think it is the undercurrents who are half the problem. I think, give him a chance - at the moment he is keen to edit and comply, I don't want to lose that, if he blows it now, well, that is his loss. I just don't want to see him as a troublesome sock in a few months, wandering embittered and unable to return because the hidden backbiting and goading has won. Giano (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The point about it being "too soon" is, in extremely concentrated form, the one I have been making, Rockpocket. Give the community a few months without socks, and I wouldn't even be looking for editing constraints, though your experience is much more immediate than mine. The current discussion isn't (or shouldn't be, in my opinion) so much about VK as it is about any editor who would behave as VK has behaved in respect of this block. I am concerned that the discussion to lift the block is taking the form of a licence to cover everything VK has ever done, whether related to the block or not. This doesn't feel reasonable or appropriate to me. The "backbiting and goading" Giano fears are much more likely to be the undoing of VK if the propsal goes ahead now than is any open discussion of opinions in dissent that are currently on view in the many places where this is being considered. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, Bielle, and used your elegant argument at ANI as a template for my reasoning. I understand Giano's point of view, but I also see why there is significant concern about the sincerity of an editor who claims to wish to stick to our rules but was indef blocked for sockpuppetry, and proceeded to create over 10 socks in response. As I said elsewhere, I am not particularly concerned about Vk coming back - I trust Giano's involvement would mean that will be resolved one way or another. But the other point of view is that is already resolved, and he has shown nothing that would indicate that he has addressed the issue behind his block (a blatant disregard for WP:SOCK).

Is Giano's point of view shared with a significant proportion of the community, on contrast to the other point of view? I'm not seeing that at the moment, to be honest, if anything its about 50/50. And my fear, also expressed elsewhere, is that forcing though an unblock with that famous Giano will when there is serious opposition will lead to meta-problems. In that case, Vk is going to end up reblocked and we will have another round of tedious drama for no practical real gain. The alternative, would be to convince Vk that this plan could work but he needs to show that he can abide by our policies by laying off the socks of a period of time while still blocked. In a month or two, those concerns would be alleviated and your plan would have a much better chance of attracting wide support.

Finally, it does appear on the face of it that the restrictions are draconian considering the block was for sockpuppetry. However, there is a looong history here. If Vk is to not just come back, but remain, then there needs to be some way of saving him from himself. Because he has shown time and time again that he cannot address controversial issues, and deal with challenging situations, in a manner that is acceptable to the community. So the restrictions are integral of any unblock motion, if he is to last longer than a week or two. Whether his past transgressions alone are reasons for opposing his unblock is a matter for debate, but it would be shortsighted not to at least consider them.

Again, I just want to reiterate that this suggestion is aimed at resolving the situation without the most light and the least heat, its not aimed at scuppering Vk's wish to be reinstated. Rockpocket 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick question (I dropped in here for a different discussion) - are you saying that 50% is not a significant proportion of the community?!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Its as significant as the 50% that has the opposing opinion. Rockpocket 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So both are insignificant? You saying 100% of the community are insignificant?! Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the glass half full or half empty? It's both. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Which leaves us on ground ripe for exploitation by those wishing to push an agenda in either direction. But based on the comments made, a few months of non-socking would leave Vk with around 70% support. That would leave him with much better prospects for a permanent return. Rockpocket 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Being an Administrator, must be a headache at times

Hello Rockpocket. Concerning all the 'British-Irish' related disputes on Wikipedia. I don't envy your & the others job (Administrators). How do ya'll keep your emotions in check? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

With great difficulty :p - Alison ^❤ 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

With very great difficulty after witnessing the spectacularly poor judgment demonstrated by some today. With friends like these, who needs enemies! Oh well, lets hope Vk has it in him to keep his nose very clean, because he is going to need to. Rockpocket 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw that; is Deacon in trouble? I hope not. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who knows where this will go now but it is exactly the sort of scenario I expected if someone unblocked at the moment. Its worse actually, because there is no structure to the probation conditions - everyone seems to have a different idea of what they are - meaning Vk will have to tread even more carefully. Now if he does something an admin, any admin, considers to be in violation he get banned, and he doesn't have much grounds for argument since he agreed to the conditions. Pure folly. I'm hoping Giano will see this for what it is and counsel Vk to wait, but we'll see. Rockpocket 00:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Vk to hold off from editing, until things are resolved between Deacon & you guys. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Y'know, this is a good thing. While I'm pretty sure VK is heading for unblocksville, we really need to make sure everything is by the book and there's no room for ambiguity - Alison ^❤ 00:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel as though the community is being managed. The discussion has moved from why Vk was blocked and whether or not he has redeemed himself, with no concensus, to an assumption that he will be unblocked, though controlled by constraints that have almost nothing to do with his block, also with no concensus. Now that the Deacon has moved pre-emptively, without him having had any involvement in the current discussion -unless all this has been on IRC and decisions made there- the focus has moved completely away from the original point (and person) and is turned to (a) getting the Deacon to unblock and absorbing a lot of energy in the process and (b) to discussions of the constraints. The process is being pushed along to an inevitable ending by sheer weight of misdirected emotion. Shortly, we will all be too tired to think straight and will just wish it to go away. I will just try to get the discussion back on track one last time, and then I, too, will be too tired to care. Vk was blocked for a specific reason: the creation of sock puppets to evade an earlier block. Throughout the current block he has continued to edit, without interruption, by creating more than a dozen block-evading sockpuppets. Where, in any of this, is there the smallest suggestion of a change of either heart or behaviour? Smoke and mirrors! How can we expect respect for the community's rules when the community shows itself none? ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I has been managed. It started by lawyering out of the "ban" wording, which would permit a consensus to overturn the block. It then proceeded to a discussion on Vk's talk page where, of course, his friends could contribute support to get the ball rolling. The goal is not to foster respect for the community's rules (if that was the case Vk would never be back, since he has - and I'm not exaggerating here - broken every single one of them I can think of: threats, harassment, personal attacks, revealing personal details, sock puppetry, meat puppetry, edit-warring... hardly any of which has apologized for or expressed regret). The goal is get Vk back whatever way possible and different people have different reasons for that, some out of self interest. Now, as most of us admins familiar with this situation saw very quickly that the way this was being set up, Vk was - as Allie puts it - "heading for unblocksville". It was, quite frankly, only a matter of time once certain people got involved. So I'm working on the cynical basis that, since he is inevitably is coming back, then lets try and ensure that we maximize the value to the project (Vk's good work on boxing), while minimizing the disruption (pretty much his contributions anywhere else). This is why the focus is largely on the probation rather than the block. If the probation is done right, then Vk can't damage the project and it doesn't really matter then whether he is blocked or not.

Your reasoning, supported by Andrew, is entirely valid and I agree 100%: why, on principle, are we even discussing an unblock for a sock puppeteer that has continued to use sockpuppets throughout his block? I don't know the answer to that, except to say Vk has always been a special case. Rockpocket 03:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Aside: Interesting, Special case in computer terms (rather than mathematical) seems to mean either something that slows down the processes or that provides erroneous answers. I have to find my amusement somewhere.) Here, we are preaching to the choir. All evidence, in this and many other cases, points to the fact that the drama is the goal, and not, as most would like to believe, an unfortunate consequence. What I haven't worked out, because it is late and I am old, is why this is all happening in this way and at this time. Is there a precedent needed for an even less appropriate return? Is someone looking to make a name? Is boxing so integral to the heart of Wikipedia that Vk must be brought back at all costs? Are there specific admins being brought into disrepute in a systematic way? Is all of this a set-up for Vk's faliure? I think I may have to move this to th talk page for the conspiracy theories. Time for bed. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned user IP editing on British Isles pages

Hi. Is it possible to tell me who the banned user is?

PS. I notice you had a stint in CZ - I did too for around a week, and it actually made me realise what we had here: WP leaks gas in lots of places (abuse of email is my own biggest concern, followed by IP usage and the AfD process - esp. headcounting over un-WP POV forks) and despite the huge input practically crawls in many places, but we have clear strengths that CZ can't touch. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Its this this gentleman. CZ has its strengths for academic subject, but it could never match WP for scope. Rockpocket 07:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I found CZ a little disappointing academically. I thought that some of their 'locked until re-approved' FA-equivallents needed improving, but they were focusing instead on new articles (as they were so short on academic editors). It was Policy which I (surprisingly) found WP stonger on, and in the end a number of combined factors made me actually resign (not least the fact that some misleading articles can exist without attention for months - a bit like Wikipedia used to like be before people got on top of vandalism). It's best to focus here I think. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I just added a comment on the BI page. The IP was reverting at least mostly supported text and TharkunColl was deleting supported text. I suppose that MIGHT be relevant. Did anyone else bother to read the reference? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is there any way to "initiate proceedings" against TharkunColl for his vandalism on the BI page. He deleted referenced text three times, each time with totally misleading edit summaries claiming that the reference didn't support the text. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to initiation proceedings, the way forward is through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You'll note that the first step in that process is what I and others have recommended you both do: Focus on content, not the contributor. If you try and and make no progress, then you can follow the other recommendations. Rockpocket 06:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I accept that others do not share my interpretation of the definitions of vandalism. For me it's clear, but I'll accept that others don't see it the same way. As for Dispute resolution, I have very little faith that it's even worth trying. Having read a few page archives I see that TharkunColl and other editors have been engaging in this "behaviour" consistently over a LONG time, deleting supported text that they don't like, inserting unsupported text that they do like, asserting things without ever providing reference, etc., and that this is from both "sides" of every argument. Also, the recent admin reaction to what's happened and a read through the archives lead me to believe that admins focus disproportionate effort on herding civility and insufficient effort on enforcing verifiability. If this impression is even remotely correct then engaging in dispute resolution on Wikipedia will be about as constructive as engaging in logical discussion on Usenet, i.e. not at all. If such blatant "whatever-it-is-ism" requires an individual user to go through a multi-step dispute resolution process while an offending editor can meantime simply go around deleting text because he doesn't like it and lying about why he's deleting it, then the system is near useless and only people with infinite time could possibly engage. Since people with infinite time are more likely to be cranks and nutters then - like Usenet - that's what Wikipedia will become; a home for cranks and nutters. Either admins enforce verifiability or they'll gradually end up policing a bedlam and asking the inmates to be civil to each other. Maybe that's the way it already is, and look what happened to Usenet. I mean, there's a 3RR pending on BI already for a week and the "excuse" there was that the editor was so busy reverting that they forgot how often they were reverting...or something, and nothing has been done. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution can work, but only when all parties are interested in achieving something. My reasons for pointing you in that direction were to illustrate that nothing can be achieved unless the focus is on content, because name-calling and finger-pointing escalates content disputes to the extent that they no longer become this issue.

So your analysis is quite astute. You are correct that, in the first instance, admins tend to focus on civility in situations like these. There are a few reasons for this:

1. In content disputes, there are almost always three sides: those of the people disputing and the reality, somewhere in between. All sides are convinced they are correct.
2. It is not the job of admins to rule on content disputes. Their opinion on content carries no more authority then the parties in dispute.
3. Incivility and name-calling never resolve disputes, but frequently exacerbate them.
4. It is admins' job to curb incivility and name-calling.
5. Name calling and incivility is easier to deal with than content disputes, especially a content dispute inflamed by personal insults.

Being an obviously intelligent individual, you can see why in situations like this admins almost always attempt to curb incivility first, then when the focus is back on the article, they will attempt to guide the community to a decision on content and our policies. When that decision is made they can then enforce that if need be.

So, things have and continue to be said on both sides (TharkunColl's accusations of trolling aren't helpful either) but where have we got in resolving the core dispute (whether the reference is relevant)? Nowhere. If resolving that is your goal, stop harping on about what TharkunColl did and try and focus on what needs to be done. If you can generate a consensus that you are right, and the content should remain, then I will happily ensure that happens and that TharkunColl will accept that consensus. If you are both going to continue to making jibes at each other, the likely result is that you are both marginalized. Rockpocket 17:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Whether the content should remain is an entirely separate issue from the issue I have raised. My first question is whether or not it is OK to delete text with deliberately misleading edit summaries. If it is, then there is no point engaging on content or pretending to assume good faith because it would be a futile, Sisyphean task. If lying on WP is OK, then civility is a thin blanket covering the ulcers on the project. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal service resumed

An award for amazing prescience. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I take a rather jaundiced view of WP and its incredibly childish politics, so this is one where, I suspect, we'll all have to make the best of it. In retrospect, it's clear that you and I were both right insofar as we were on a hiding to nothing: comment on AN/I and be damned as vindictive; don't comment and form part of the alleged consensus. Get ignored in either case.

After two years of quite pointless and unproductive name-calling, we had finally got the DEFCON back down to peacetime levels, and now this ill-advisedly premature act runs the serious risk of starting the whole thing over again. The next stage, I expect, will be for the mentors - who are only in place for the next three months anyway - to hand out the abuse on Vintagekits' behalf: chuntering by proxy. I just love sarky comments directed at me!

The only thing which vaguely surprises me is the identity of the unblocker; I had rather thought that it was going to be Guy, based on his previous unilateral consensus of restoring the User page ([3], [4]) but instead it's the archetypal random Admin, who's popped up from nowhere and taken no part in the discussion. Unblocking without notifying on AN/I was a masterstroke!

Sorry for letting off steam on your Talk page. This doesn't call for a reply. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do enjoy getting an award from you, Major, they are always unique. The anti-Kb jibes are getting tiresome, I agree. Still, once this is over I'm extremely confident we will see just as an enthusiastic campaign to unblock those on the other side. Perhaps our unblocker, a self-proclaimed paragon of "solid reasoning and listening, and patience", will cast his eye over their blocks and conjure up a consensus while the rest of the admin corps struggle with our emotions. Rockpocket 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, I (almost certainly) shouldn't have posted when I was frustrated, and simply calmed down with a bottle of Żywiec Porter instead!

There was a documentary on the television about Tony Blair two months ago, and they eventually got on to the issue of Iraq. There were then a dozen or so people interviewed, all of whom said that the wrong decision had been made, and gave a number of reasons why the invasion was a mistake. Next up was Tony Blair, who rebuffed any discussion by simply repeating, in answer to every question or point raised, only that he was still sure that he had made the right decision. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: [5] --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, Major, you aren't the only one who's bonkers - there is Blair as well! Sarah777 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was watching a terrifying science documentary with my son at the weekend - I didn't get the presenter's name, but he had a PhD - and, based on that, my new theory is that Tony Blair is a Sontaran clone agent, covertly working with his partner to bring about worldwide chaos, thus fatally weakening us Earthlings and preparing the way for alien invasion. You see now why I don't trust politicians... ?

I'm a bit ashamed that you've found this thread, Sarah. You'll be pleased to know that I've calmed down now, but we must now brace ourselves to face a far greater threat than Vintagekits' return to Wikipedia.

(You can watch the documentary on the BBC's web-site until either Saturday or the invasion of Earth - whichever comes first: [6]) --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Major, I'd be the last person on Earth to throw stones at folk for losing their cool!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only one behaving well . . .

according to Giano [7], is Vk himself. It is easy to behave when someone is sitting on your typing fingers [8]. I wish I agreed with you, that setting the rest of us up to play policemen or nanny, is a step forward for the community. However, with FloNight and Giano lined up to do roll call, it will happen anyway. I will stay out of the way; I can recognize a steamroller from far enough down the road to get out of its path. We will talk again of happier things. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Things have settled down enough to respond. As you have seen, your reasonable and calmly stated position, even when supported by Andrew and others, was essentially ignored (and you were taken to task by Vk himself for your efforts: "John, Andrew, Bastun and Bielle are all being pretty harsh on Deacon for his unblocking of me." Notice all those named are those who have highlighted the sock issue, while all the rest of the people who were harsh on Deacon are still possible supports, so get a pass for the moment!). No, drama like this is driven by shady back-room politicking behind the scenes trumped by admins wishing to make a name for themselves out front. This is what Wikipedia is largely like at a certain level. I have learned that, in these situations, when you see the steamroller coming its a good idea to either get out of the way or jump on board and try to help steer it to relative safety. Those who politely but resolutely stand firm against the traffic get run over.

Nevertheless, when the conditions are finalized there will be an opportunity for you to express you opinion again, though it would be understandable if you have given up in disgust. Rockpocket 06:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"When conditions are finalized" anyone who dares speak against them will be torn apart by the crowd. At that point, there will be so many people who have been caught up in the process, and thus are heavily invested in its being accepted, that any small voice saying "We are focussed on the wrong thngs" may never be heard again. Vk was right. In my case, I was being harsh on Deacon, but the short-sightedness of his action deserved it. (Every once in a while, even with this case, I forget that the each step is a part of the managed process, and objections or admonishments are a complete waste of typing time.) Perhaps some others may pick up the banner. That those of us who keep going back to "Show us you can behave" are being so very pointedly ignored says, in its own way, that we are definitely being noticed, but that the word has gone out to stay away from all questions of sockpuppetry and the value of Vk's word. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Vk says "Why did I use the sock to !vote on Gianos page? It was stupid retaliation for Kitty, Lauder and his socks piling in and !voting against him." This may be Vk's memory but is not true. The fact is that Lauder appears to have !voted twice (once as Christchurch and also as Chelsea_Tory whose vote was discounted because he had too few mainspace edits - not that Vk knew they were the same person at the time) but noone else did so (although I can only speak for myself of course but Vk specifically and falsely names me). By contrast Vk scooped up a number of meat or sockpuppets earlier to !vote in afds on various "volunteers". Kittybrewster ☎ 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a mendacious argument, and clearly false, as you point out Kittybrewster. Had Vintagekits really learned about David Lauder's vote-rigging, as he claims, he should have alerted an Admin or posted on WP:AN/I; he certainly had no right to behave as he did. It's also yet another demonstration of blaming someone else for his own behaviour.

We currently have the ridiculous spectacle of Vintagekits saying, "I only did it because of him", and the argument being made (by proxy) that David Lauder's behaviour was worse than his own; and David Lauder saying, "I only did it because of him", and his behaviour was worse than mine. Both, alas, need to take responsibility for their own actions. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite. And it is precisely because he is not taking responsibility and is seeking to blame others that I remain opposed to his return at the moment. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the time or place to be discussing Sussexman's ban.He and his sockse were banned for altogether different reasons, a long time before VK had even heard of them. They are not "associated." We now know the sock, Lauder, had no business here in the firts place, so can be erradicated from the equation. Giano (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether there is merit in it or not (and I don't know), I think things are complicated enough without trying to factor another person into the same equation. Once we have settled Vk's fate, we can turn our attention to Lauder. It may be that ArbCom will take this out of the hands of the community (for reasons was are not party to), in which case I'm not sure what else could be done. However, if ArbCom indicate that they are willing to let the community discuss a return, then I promise that I will give that matter the same attention as I have Vk (though I can't guarantee that there will be as much community interest). Rockpocket 21:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That strikes me as eminently fair and humane; thank you very much. I'm just concerned when I see a vast amount of effort being expended on behalf of one editor (yet again, hem-hem), whilst the other miscreant apparently languishes in an eternal limbo. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a mystery why some editors appear to pique the community interest more than others. Once Vk is resolved, I'll contact the Arbs and see where Lauder stands. If they do not object to it, we can see if there is some way we can implement a Vk protocol (as it will be known) for him too. Rockpocket 07:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the best of my knowledge, Mr. Lauder has already brought it up with ArbCom who have not taken up his cause. While you know how I feel about VK (especially the constant socks, etcetera), I stepped out of the way of the unblock discussion, because there was already a consensus.

But for all VK's numerous faults/mis-steps, to be honest, Rock, I think it's daft to even CONSIDER unblocking DL. He's been banned by ArbCom (as Sussexman). He's been banned by the community. (as David Lauder). That's two very formidable steps to overcome. But even if the "BAN" is overturned, I can promise you that I will fight like hell to make sure the block is not.

Mr Lauder's history is consistent, especially considering his legal threats, his block/ban for making them, and then just making a new account to get around it, and the use of sockpuppets to fake consensus on items. SirFozzie (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said up there, I'm not really at all familiar with Lauder's story. If Foz's summation is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then clearly there will be little chance the DL will be unblocked at this time, ArbCom would not permit it. However, I gave my word, and therefore I will look into the situation as promised. The reason I think that is fair, is because for most of Vk's appeals in the past, the party line was that "those on the other side are behaving just as bad and nothing gets done about it". Well, something was eventually done about it and chickens came home to roost for a number of parties. Now we are proposing giving Vk another chance as long as he is not in a position to cause problems, there is no reason, on principle, that we can't at least consider that for other parties. Rockpocket 02:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BHG, FloNight et al

Hi Rockpocket:

I came across the following on BHG's talk page [9]. It's the "6 hours emailing" among an inside group that troubles me. As it would appear that everything is being arranged behind the scenes, it is even more of a waste of time for anyone not on that emailing list to get involved than I thought. We can hardly present sane options if we are not given the whole story. I am really sorry about this. No, this is not a plea to be on the list; it is a plea for transparency for all. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bielle. Well first of all, there is no "list" (that I am aware of). Secondly, its not uncommon for admins (and, I expect, non admins) to communicate by email about Wikipedia. I get emails from people all the time informing me of things they would like me to look at, and I will often email individuals if I have something to say to them personally, because posting it inevitably leads to others chiming in.

The emails I referred to in this instance were those sent to Vk himself and some of his supporters indicating that, while I'm sure they were pleased he was unblocked, it was not in his long term interests for it to happen that way. I indicated that I believed Vk would be reblocked presently and asked them not escalate tensions further by protesting, but to remain focused on putting his case across so it could be discussed properly. They were also responses to people who were expressing annoyance over Deacon's untimely and unhelpful intervention. Those were sent by email, I expect, because they used slightly uncivil language borne out frustration.

There are people with plans, most certainly, and one of those plans is to get Vk unblocked and I personally think that will succeed. I have a slightly different plan. My plan is for the never-ending saga of acrimony around Vk to end: be it by indefinitely being rid of him once and for all, or by permitting him back in such a manner that he simply can't cause any more problems. And my plan to is to let the community decide which of these it would prefer. I can't control that decision (maybe others can, but I can't). But I can do my best - on and off-wiki - to shepherd those people with their own preferences to a position where the community can decide between them and everyone will abide by that decision with a minimum of disruption.

And if we can get in that position, I think everyone should have their say. I don't envy the person whose job it is to determine what the community decides, but I would hope they would read every comment and give each the value it merits. I don't intend offering an opinion myself, therefore I hope you can see that I am working behind the scenes to ensure the community can have its say in an informed manner, not to somehow pre-empt that decision by forcing one option through. I can also assure you I am not saying anything fundamentally different in private that I am saying in public, just using slightly different words! Rockpocket 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt either your good will or intentions. I am always troubled by Wikipedia decisions, conferences, discussions, et. al. happening behind closed doors, unless the matter is one of privacy (which is not, so far as I know, the case here). I have sometimes been tempted to go to email to make a comment or suggestion, but realized very early on that the only reason I would be doing so is to say something not permitted by policy (or ordinary courtesy), or that was inflammatory or unkind. It is a way of creating an "us" and "them" set-up: that is, I can say this to you because you are like me (in some unspecified way) but I cannot say it out there because "they" are not like us, and either wouldn't understand or would understand all too well. I decided, instead, that I would simply not say what could not be said to all.

The content is not the issue, the process is. Your integrity is not in question with me, so your assurances that it is only the tone that is different from your exchanges on-wiki I am not challenging. There is, however, an appearance of an in-crowd and an out-crowd. To the extent that this is a functional difference or even a heirarchical difference, it is perhaps in evitable in any human grouping. The dysfunctional part is that it is done while we all pretend that what is on-Wiki is what determines the course of Wiki, and that is patently untrue. (And I am not here, obviously, referring to management matters, ArbCom consultations and the like. They are set-up so that a shroud can be drawn around their proceedings where necessary.)

Your hard work notwithstanding, I still believe the outcome has been decided. Even if the "vote" (sorry, "concensus") goes contrary to that outcome, Vk will be unblocked, by whatever means it takes, and without any proving time. I don't hold this against him. Someone wants him back or someone stands to gain something for themselves by having him back. He wants to come back and as soon as possible. There is something important about the timing; I laughed aloud when I read FloNight's comment about the planets being aligned in favour of the unblocking. Time is everything to the alignment of planets.

I wish you well in your efforts to set up a discussion basis for the community at large. If I turn out to be wrong about all this, I will be back, with just as many words in apology. I won't go pulling out the humble-pie recipe just yet, though I do keep it handy. One of the disadvantages of a (relatively) long life is that I have a lot of experience in apology. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and you a probably correct. In general, unless matters are sensitive, such things should remain on-Wiki. I should make it clear, though, that (at least from my perspective) that has largely been the case. I have sent only 4 emails in relation to this, 2 to Giano, 1 to Sarah and one to Vk. Two of these were replies and they all pretty much reinforced what I have said publicly. My excuse is that the chatter that often accompanies posts on-wiki is distracting and potentially inflammatory. This is particularly the case with regards to discussions with Vk and Giano, both of who have legions of talk-page watchers. In the past, one-on-one discussions have turned into meta-debates as people chip in with their personal grudges. Generally, that generates more heat than light, so I have learned that if you wish to resolve something with Giano, then its a hell of a lot easier and constructive to do so by email.

If the outcome has already been decided, I don't know who by, because at the moment I appear to be the person who is being nominated to assess the community consensus (not something I particularly relish). To that extent, at the same time I was planning to offer your proposal: That Vk be unblocked after a sock-free period. I am aware that has not been discussed to the same extent, so what I would like to know is: What period would you propose that be? and, after that period, would you propose Vk be unblocked with zero restrictions, under the restrictions here, or under different restrictions? If you, and those that expressed support for this proposal, could give me some idea of that, I will propose both (along with the remain blocked option) fairly and equally. Rockpocket 08:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

When the stars are right, he will return.

I wonder if I might chip in here, Bielle? (And I do apologise for taking up yet more of your Talk page, Rockpocket.)

Throughout my own postings on the subject of Vintagekits' return, I have tried always to be conscious of the fact that the two people who have suffered the most from his behaviour are Kittybrewster and Rockpocket himself, and I don't expect either of them to have agreed with the position that I took, which is that an unblocking might be justified. However, as Rockpocket says above, the potential prize would be drawing a line under the whole 'Troubles' aggro. That requires weighing up a number of factors: is Giano an appropriate mentor? Can we trust Vintagekits this time? - but - as you have identified - probably the central question is: should we over-ride policy for the hope of finally ending a two-year edit-war? This is the nub, I suspect, which will form the basis of the eventual WP:AN/I discussion and vote on Vintagekits' return. I take the attitude that this is one time when we should accept, however reluctantly, that Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools .

• Can I just interupt here and point out, that I don't think me being a mentor to VK has ever been on the cards. How can I be a mentor, I'm not an admin? Secondly, regarding emails, it is often easier to talk to me one-to-one by email, in spite of me being so famous and important I always reply :-). Rockpocket has my permission to quote from those emails if he wishes, there is little there that is not said here. Giano (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Achieving an end to the troubles surrounding 'the Troubles' ^sorry! will also (I think) require a resolution, one way or the other, of the associated David Lauder ban. As that can only, apparently, be lifted by the ArbCom, that would be yet another reason to send both cases up to them. Oddly enough, I disagree with you that these matters are preordained; if and when this case goes back to WP:AN/I for wider community discussion and voting I would expect quite a strong 'No' vote, or at least a no consensus. So I don't think that 'the planets are aligned' or, as we worshipers of great Cthulhu put it, 'the stars are not right': In his Talk page on Wikipedia dread Vintagekits waits doodling . --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rk, quote: "They were also responses to people who were expressing annoyance over Deacon's untimely and unhelpful intervention. Those were sent by email, I expect, because they used slightly uncivil language borne out frustration."
Then, in a later posting.
Rk, quote: " I have sent only 4 emails in relation to this, 2 to Giano, 1 to Sarah and one to Vk."
Your rhetoric is not quite making sense. Are you self-contradicting? Or are you making "it" up? I detect a smoke screen, is that true? 78.19.232.249 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally not in the business of engaging with banned users, but since the implication is now made let me clarify. Your confusion comes from some rather clunky sentence structure: Multiple people expressed annoyance to me by email, but I haven't replied to them all (yet). I did send multiple responses though. If you are any good at logic puzzles you should be able to work it out. Please go back to your hate-site now, any further communications from you on-wiki will be removed. Rockpocket 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An associated post that you might be interested in: here. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the background of Lauder and his block, to be honest. I was on a wiki-break when it happened, and I keen hearing hints of some terrible business he is supposedly behind, but no-one seems able or willing to say it (presumably either because it is libelous or untrue). I agree that if we are reviewing Vk's block, I see no reason we don't review his either, unless there is some additional WP:LEGAL issues that make that problematic. I presume ArbCom is aware of the Lauder/Vk parallel and are taking that into account in their discussions. Ultimately, unless there is a consensus in the community on Vk, his case may end up back in their hands anyway, either formally or informally. Rockpocket 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(After ec, and then after a maintenance pause for the servers to catch up, and thus not taking into consideration either of the two immediately preceding comments, the first of which I don't understand anyway.)

First, in response to Major Bonkers: I don't think that Rockpocket minds us using his talk page to try to sort things out, as long as we are being civil to one another and not setting out to start flames in other places. I am equally sure he will let us know if my assumption is false, though in the kindest possible way.

And to Rockpocket: To have the Wikipedia version of The Troubles be over is a wonderful goal. (I will stop there, though I wish you all the very best and will also do my best to ensure, at the very least, that I say nothing to endanger that goal. If I say more about it at this moment, I risk fanning flames unnecessarily.) As to the "Foreordained", I did say I do a good line in apology if I am wrong. It is quite possible, I suppose, that the concensus should go against unblocking Vk. I just believe, however, that that will not be the end of the process, and I am not thinking of the reaction of Vk himself, but of what may be pushed along by others. (If the stars are not aligned, then they will be made to align or made to appear to be aligned.) I have some thoughts about "Cui bono", other than Vk, of course, but to discuss them further would be a senseless distraction at this time, and only just slightly more than conjectural distraction at that.

For some reason, my thought that welcoming Vk back should have something to do with a visible change in the specific behaviour for which he was blocked, has been catagorized as a "policy" position. If it is, and I know of no such policy, then my choosing a policy is entirely fortuitous, though, given the general high esteem in which policy is held by many of the participants, surely not serendipitous. I do like a process to make sense, however, and, if it does break new ground, the new process is only really useful if it can be a precedent for future cases. (There will always be, in a community this size, somebody with great knowledge in a useful area, who cannot disengage from a challenge or a disagreement, however much continued engagement may cost himself or others.) If you want a suggestion, I would say 3 months entirely away from Wikipedia (less any time since the use of his last sock) without using a sock, an IP or anything other way of communicating, and without talk page commentary or "backstage appeals". As for what should guide him once this period is over, there are many of you with direct experience here who are much better qualified to say. I was content to say he should then be readmitted free and clear, except with the knowledge that the next block/ban would be a permanent one. Vk knows what the problem areas are. If he wanders back into them, he will know. If he is baited back into them, then both parties should be treated equally strongly. (That's my Grandmother's rule about consequences, by the way. The only exceptions were babies and those family guests who could not be expected to know the rules.)

I have one further suggestion. Rockpocket, if you write up the presentation for the AN/I page, I would strongly recommend that someone else assess the concensus. Find someone with stature in the community in general, a lot of experience with contention and no known bias with respect to matters Irish, matters "Giano" or matters "Vintagekits". ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is my strong preference, Bielle. I only intend to assess the consensus if it is very clear (and, realistically, when is anything very clear in this topic?) I think 3 months from the use of his last active sock seems a sensible proposal. I think a simple Troubles ban for one additional year would be a suitable condition at that point. Vk says he doesn't wish to edit in that area, and if we can help not lead him into temptation, then it can only be to his advantage. Additionally, feel free to use my talk-page to discuss at will. Rockpocket 17:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock, it might be helpful to now line up someone else to assess the consensus. It seems at this stage that the consensus will be clear, but I think that the worst possible outcome would be for someone who is perceived as involved to close the discussion controversially, and generate another meta-drama. Lining up someone else now would be a good way of avoiding that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. I have been fortunate, perhaps lucky, that I have managed to walk the tightrope here so far. I think I'll quit while I'm ahead! My tentative plan is, when the discussion matures, to contact the 'crats collectively and ask if one would considering reviewing the discussion and coming to some sort of conclusion at the appropriate time. I have seen some very sensible summing up from them in the past, and would hope the could make the right decision this time. By the way, your option 1.5 seems like a very good summation of the opinion so far, but that may change. I wish NYB was still around, he would be a perfect guy to close. Rockpocket 19:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

JohnRock, you have done a brilliant job of walking the tightrope, and it's no reflection at all on your good efforts that I suggest someone else for the final stage. I like your idea of asking the 'crats, and suggest an early approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken (an I expect John won't take any either either ;). I'll approach them later today. Rockpocket 20:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

oops! Yes, dunno why I typed John, but I did mean you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has indicated on the 'crats noticeboard that he was considering closing the discussion. I have no objection to this. My feeling at the moment is that the close shouldn't be too controversial, but if anyone knows of a good reason why Ryan wouldn't be a good closer then do let me know. Rockpocket 07:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If the opinions continue in the same vein, then the close is not likely to be controversial. As long as the person who does the close has no known "side" in the matter, who he or she may be is not going to be an issue any more. Ryan would be as good a choice as any, though I don't know why he would be volunteering. (Perhaps I just don't grasp the process. Are there points ascribed for such work? Does it go on your "I wanna be a ___________" score card?) However, the timing might be significant. All of the opinions gathered so far have been over a weekend. I would suggest that the matter remain open for at least two or three more days. This is not because I think there will be any change in the current overall view, but because we are looking for a decision with as little potential for drama, now or later, as is possible on Wikipedia. ៛ Bielle (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be closed, and VK unblocked, at a suitable time, by a Crat or an Arb so that the whole things appears whiter than white, I also think if VK does fail to abide by the rules the blocking should be done by an Arb or a Crat - but hopefully it won't come to that. Giano (talk) 08:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits at WP:AN/I

You've done a good job on setting up the proposal, being neither too obviously directive nor too partisan. Well done. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very well done for your good work. --John (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, both. My hope is now that there can be some sort of consensus on one of the options and, if it is to unblock, then it is successful. Rockpocket 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your good work here. You have laid out the options very clearly, but also remarkably concisely ... and given all the tangled history here, that was no easy task. I feared that whoever summarised things would find their summary being attacked from some quarter as a misrepresentation, and the real proof of your success is that there is no sign of this shooting-the-messenger. Very good work :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if there's a criticism to be made, it's that you've been too fair, by drawing a discrete veil over Vintagekits' previous bad behaviour towards you (eg. User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 18#Get off and stay off my talk page) and the harassment issue. Still, a thankless task, well done. And, by the way, I'm surprised to have to pull you up for your English, but 'disinterested', primarily a legal term, means that you have no interest or bias in a case and therefore that you are acting objectively; 'uninterested' means a lack of intellectual interest, one step removed from boredom. Thus: you are disinterested in the case of Vintagekits and uninterested in baronets. We are all extremely uninterested in continuing this discusion further! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Too fair" is oxymoronic. You either are or you ain't. Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't say fairer than that. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the fairest of them all, Sarah - my wiki-lovely! --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:David Lauder

Please can you protect this page for the moment; it's attracting the usual wind-up merchants. --Major Bonkers (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Need I remind you to remain civil and no personal attacks. BigDunc^Talk 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed your request, I spent most of today in an emergency department with a sick wife (all sorted now though). I don't think that discussion was going anywhere constructive and think Alison took the right course of action. I don't think engaging Giano on this subject is a good idea. Either he knows something we don't (or he thinks he knows something we don't). But either way, he clearly doesn't want DL's situation to change and any amount of discussion isn't going to change that. That may appear inconsistent with his position over Vk, but it is his prerogative.

If it comes to that stage, Giano would get his opportunity to oppose or support the same as anyone else, but its probably not in DL's interest to have him involved at this time. I'll see what I get get from the Arbs when I get an opportunity this weekend, but until then I would recommend thinking about how one would draft unblocking conditions that would be acceptable to the community. Rockpocket 00:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Agree with you re. Giano; last week he was constructive and this week he was - ah - not quite so constructive. He and I have become part of the problem, and I agree with you that I don't think much would be gained by continuing. Will leave it to you to try to bring about some sort of fair conclusion; you did a very good job with Vintagekits and you're doing a good job with DL. Thank you for your interest.

Also sorry to hear about your wife; for what it's worth, best wishes to you both - and wait until you get children - they're great hypochondriacs, always at the doctors or in hospital! --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say well done on being willing to stick your head above the trench to approach the Lauder issue? Lauder remains in my mind as a good editor no matter what occured in the past. Regardless of the outcome, it is nice (refreshing?) to see people taking action rather than settling for the far easier status quo (And I speak there as one of the lazy buggers who will generally go for the status quo providing the quo doesn't involve his leg on fire) Narson (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Narson - only just noticed yours (sorry!). Is anything happening on this issue? --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Article without agreement

Rock, pl check Great Britain and Ireland asap; some e-warriors are trying to merge it despite an active discussion which is not concluded. Sarah777 (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Edit Warring by User:CarterBar

Rock, pl note that this British editor has moved the article while discussion is ongoing. Are you going to do anything?????? Sarah777 (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So - everyone making remarks about "ranting", "incredibly extreme" (!), etc etc etc is cool. Article deletion etc and warring with endless blocks for 3RR, incivility etc is cool so long as you're...eh...supporting "mainstream" pov. But, apparently on the talk pages of Wiki "the comparison of the British Empire to Nazi Germany is patently offensive." and merits a Community Ban. Does this guy even realise what he is saying there?!! The implications for Wiki WP:NPOV? And I guess if they silence every person who holds anti-Imperialist/liberal views they look at one another and see the their own reflections and all is well in the Wiki-world. It seems to me, based on the number of constant reverters, warriors, vandals, IPs, squabbler, serial getting-blocked-ers that it can't be the alleged "disruption" that provokes talk of Community Bans. It must be the views expressed per se.

• "the comparison of the British Empire to Nazi Germany is patently offensive."
• But - stating that calling Ireland part of the British Isles is offensive is patently disruptive!
• And characterising the above as Orwellian is being....eh....even more disruptive.

How could you advise me to buy that COS in order to be allowed stay on Wiki?

Sarah777 (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have much choice if you want to stay on Wiki. Sometimes we have to bite our tongues and accept things around here don't function as we would like. This is one of those times. Irrespective of how right you may feel you are, Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox and a significant number of editors are seeing your contributions as exactly that. Statements about geo-politics rarely go down well, and in persistently suggesting they are the motivation for just about any edit that you disagree with, it was pretty much inevitable that it would come to this. By painting the criticism at ANI as further examples of Anglo-American POV, you are simply reinforcing their point. Maybe it is, but it is also the community POV. Which would mean the the community has a systemic Anglo-American POV. Is that a big surprise?

What those at ANI wants to hear from you is that you understand that Wikipedia is not a geo-political battleground and will stop treating it as such (and really, Sarah, you have been recently. The whole Great Britain and Ireland palaver is so subtext driven that any outsider can see what is really going on). That means that you lose the terms "British POV" and "Anglo-American POV" from your talk-page repertoire, quit making disparaging references about any nation or its people, and stop couching any editoral dispute in terms of a cultural war. Are you willing to tell them that, and mean it? Somehow I doubt it. So the question then is, how important is Wikipedia to you. Because things really aren't looking that good for you at the moment. I have tried to temper the calls for a community ban, which I think are ridiculous under the circumstances, but you need to offer something more than a stubborn assertion that you are right and everyone else is wrong if you want to continue to edit unrestricted. Rockpocket 06:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Since you were heavily involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals some time ago I thought you might be interested in discussing the merits of a similar but slightly different proposal here. I would be very interested in your opinion. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777

Her civility has greatly improved recently. Now Sarah should not be vilified for the errors of then Sarah. She promised to try and has done so. MilkFloat 10:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Sarah will be given an opportunity to demonstrate that. Rockpocket 18:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Thanks for you answer. I changed it a bit though:

... cleaned, so that the results would indictate no...

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Peer_Reviewed?

from a "...not..." to "...no...".

Does this change your answer? Thanks68.148.164.166 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No. I understood what you meant first time around. Rockpocket 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting my talk page, my user page was also vandalised yesterday by same anonymous user. I hope he doesn't return. Thanks again for helping me out and to BigDunc for informing you.I'm still new here and am still learning the ropes.jeanne (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Ss

Ss has made more personal attacks after your final warning. Specifically here lower in the subsection -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Is_ADHD_a_Biological_Illness

This was followed by a personal warning on his talk page here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ss06470#Hit_and_run

Which was followed by more attacks here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#status_of_article --scuro (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Further character assination attempts today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies#Poor_sources_make_for_a_poor_article:_include_academic_and_medical_journals --scuro (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this later today, Scuro. Rockpocket 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TOR

[10] Care to suggest any? I'm not at all up to speed on TOR or really much of what is involved with the CU background, although I have used CU extensively in the past. seicer | talk | contribs 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. He is the one we tend to use [11]. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies for more tools. The only reason I suggest we put this to bed immediately is because Sarah, for her sins, is avidly anti-sock. There is no way she has been sock-puppeteering. I believe that 100%. Rockpocket 02:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I considered it dropped after Sarah openly admitted to the IP addresses, but was a tad offended by the pile-on that ensued. It was a legitimate request, and was designed to find additional (potential) TORs or IP addresses if that was the case -- and not knowing Sarah's full background prior to March (and the ANI threads)... I've seen worse, and it's always better to play it safe. seicer | talk | contribs 02:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar tourists

You might take a look at Talk:Mairéad_Farrell as I feel there is some POV censorship of highly appropriate material. --Gibnews (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate to the McCann and Savage article not to the Farrell one. If as you say to show the company she keeps then lets expand article and talk about the shoot to kill policy in Ireland to show the company that murdered her. BigDunc^Talk 09:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• gasp* The 'M' word! We're not allowed say that on WP, remember? Only that someone got convicted of murder. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page. It appears, BigDunc, that the shoot-to-kill policy is indeed now being talked about in the article. From your comment it would appear you agree with me that that is equally inappropriate for a bio on Farrell. Perhaps you could assist in de-POVing the article from both angles. Rockpocket 17:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as I touch this article I get accused of a lot of things from Gibnews we have a bit of history on this article with opposing views but will give it a go. But wouldn't mind if you keep an eye too thanks. BigDunc^Talk 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll give Domer a chance to mull over it and, hopefully, rework it himself to find a better balance. If that is not forthcoming, I'll have a go myself later. I agree with you that these sort of things are a consequence of push-and-pull editing from people with opposing opinions, but the point I am trying to make is that Gibnews is no more a POV-pusher than Domer is. Both are trying to make the article accurate and informative, but - both having strong POVs on the subject - find themselves doing exactly the same thing. The problem is that people see faults in others' edits much easier than they do of their own! Rockpocket 17:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've mulled, nice to see you back around Rock:) --Domer48 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 (again)

Well done for this, very clearly and eloquently put. Let's hope the penny drops this time. Waggers (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No joy. Rock, can you PLEASE make her understand if there's no bending (not bending the knee, just realizing that a lot of people find her editing problematic and adjusting her behavior to that), there's very likely no unblock, and this block might just become permanent after all (by that I mean it's going to remain status quo.) SirFozzie (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried again, Foz. But there is only so many ways one can say the same thing. If Sarah isn't going to flex on this then I guess we wait. Or we come up with sort of restrictive conditions and unblock anyway with the hope she sticks to them. But experience suggests that would not go well. Rockpocket 03:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, if she doesn't flex, then, sadly, the block has to stay up. SirFozzie (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

chromatophore

Hello Rockpocket, just letting you know that I translated the excellent article Chromatophore article into Esperanto and it is currently article of the week there. Cheers! - Eb.eric (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is awesome. Well done! Rockpocket 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My comment on DiHyMo's RFA

I was just wondering, but why did you remove the numbers on my comment, was it in violation of some policy or something? If possible, I would like to have it replaced because it clarified my two points. Anyways, no hard feelings, I was just wondering why. Jkasd 03:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I removed the numbers because they reset the numbering of the Opposes (See here}, which I thought was more important. I retrospect I should have just replaced the # with "1." and "2.", I'll do that for you now. Rockpocket 05:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't realize that it would get reset since nobody was after me at the time. Thanks for fixing it. Jkasd 15:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for catching that. I've removed the logo. I didn't realize it was a non-free image. It's fixed now. I don't understand your charge of racial harassment. Jeanne's White, I'm White too, and we're both damn proud of it. I changed the language for the haters out there. Let Jeanne take it off if she doesn't like it. I'm on the road, by the by, so the IP is constantly changing. Cheers! 72.85.128.63 (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you let Jeanne speak for herself. The box is there in the history, if she feels "proud" enough she can revert to that version. Rockpocket 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

No, I'm not mistaken. User removes warning for mild insult from his talk page. User removes it. User sees that it's been sanctimoniously added back, and gets irked. User then gets blocked for being irked.

It's not my fault that a lot of folks suck at dispute resolution. If one chooses to ignore WP:DTTR, one shouldn't be too surprised when users get irritated by that. What exactly did the blocking admin think would occur if he blocked Timeshift here, apart from exactly what happened? There are many ways to deal with a user who contributes great content but can be abrasive sometimes, and that sure ain't a helpful way of doing it, unless one is seeking to generate drama. Rebecca (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeshift9

I saw that, and I've registered my displeasure on her talk page. Thanks for letting me know, anyway, especially since she didn't do me that courtesy. My displeasure notwithstanding, it was a short block for an offense that, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't a serious offense, so I consider the matter closed (although I am concerned that she's sending him the message that overt disregard for core behavioural policies will be tolerated). Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That said, I don't endorse your re-block - I think you're veering awfully close to WP:WHEEL, no matter how bad Rebecca's unblock was. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a wheel war - it was undoing an ill-conceived block that was only serving to generate drama, and wasn't going to do anything to either make the user concerned less pissed off, make them less likely to swear at the blocking admin in future, or otherwise benefit the project. However, I see that you've gone ahead and restated, thus stirring up more drama for no apparent reason. Congratulations. You should be very proud. Rebecca (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

it was undoing an ill-conceived block that was only serving to generate drama? stirring up more drama for no apparent reason? Ha. Read that back. Rockpocket 08:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you absorb it. Rebecca (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly? I've been here a lot longer than you have, and your type does more harm than his ever will. Your last thousand contributions are not the slightest bit comparable to Timeshift's, you seem to really enjoy playing the enforcer, and you don't seem to be too good on the social skills. That's the last thing we need around here, and you're no model for anyone to follow. Rebecca (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If your justification for unilaterally undoing the admin action supported by three other admins without consultation is I've been here a lot longer than you have, then there is little point conversing with you further. I bet your daddy is bigger than mine too. Get over yourself. Rockpocket 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment at Sarcasticidealist's talk page. As it doesn't really address the block at all but more your two comments about it, I thought I'd better notify here as well. Orderinchaos 17:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi, deary me, I must really have a bee in my bonnet or something about this :-) - I'm being particularly pedantic on the issue of ad hominen attacks (mainly because I attract a lot of them). On the British Isles Talk page, you posted that This is completely unacceptable and labelled it an ad hominen attack. If you get a chance, would you mind pointing out the ad hominen nature of the comment please? I'm coming at this more from an intellectual curiousity than any emotional connection. Now this was definitely one (should have been warned too). --Bardcom (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion as both examples you link are to the same attacks. For the record, the ad hominen was I see TharkunColl and Matt Lewis are obviously back from that BNP leaflet drop over Antrim today... Your politics is reviled, and deeply so. Implying that other editors are members of a racist political party, then criticizing their politics. Rockpocket 01:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

UAN corrections

Hi Rockpocket
I think, it is important, that you and other wikipedia editors watch over the quality of the articles that are posted on this very important encyclopedia, in order to keep it as good, as it is. So thanks for that.
I've edited the original UAN articel, because I thought it to be important to informe interested readers about the whole story of this organisation.
I've just recently started to work for Franz Weber, the original founder of the UAN, a man of now 80 years, who never worked much with, nor has given much importance to the internet. I now are obviously interested in providing as much information about the original UAN as possible on internet.
Problem is, that the american UAN, which was founded by one of the original founders of UAN, has over the years forgotten about the original UAN but still uses the original Logo, with slight changes, and the www.uan.org URL. Therefor, whenever we tell people about our UAN and get publicity, people go on uan.org and are confused, because there is nothing about the work we did and do.
It is hard to find references or other proof of the existenc of the original UAN on internet, other then newspaper articles or references on other homepages, would it still be referenc enough, to mention them?
The Logo I placed, because this is the original Logo, the blue-one is the changed one from UAN USA. About the copyright-info, I'm not quite sure how to do it? Maybe you could help me out with this, and with how to make it a better article?
Many thanks and regards
Sirlobster --Sir Lobster (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777

Please could you drop by; I've very generously offered to add to your workload!

(Sir Lobster - what a good name! - wish I'd thought of that.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sobo returns

Dr. Sobo returns, the window of opportunity is here. He is editing the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies and unusually, is not name calling.--scuro (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Rockpocket

Thank you, for your kind reply and all your information an offer for help. Your thoughts about the Logo are correct. And I will see, that I find some newspaperarticles talking of the foundation of the UAN.(in English)
To Major Bonkers: thanks for the flowers, wasn't my idea either. Was named like that from a friend, 'cause she thought I dance salsa like a lobster...sidewards, with my arms in the air.
--Sir Lobster (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you need a special User box. Do you also turn red?

This user dances like a Lobster...sidewards, with my arms in the air.

--Major Bonkers (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Sobo attacks me personally again

The man needs his beak straightened. For how long is a good faith contributor supposed to accept repeated attacks? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies&curid=4833604&diff=218534496&oldid=218518634 --scuro (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Lost Wages, Nevada

Welcome back from the water hole and money pit in the desert. Is your wallet empty? I didn't hear the mighty crack of any banks breaking in the general area, so, if you are "in the money", you haven't yet caught up to Mr. Gates. We are being drowned, wave after wave of high-intensity thunderstorms tonight. I walk the house looking for leaks, the sound of the pounding rain from a broken downspout having wakened me from a deep sleep. My spouse continues to sleep; his is the daylight shift. For everything there is a season, and this one is rainy. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland conflict

The ban specifically refers to the "Northern Ireland conflict", not the "Irish-British conflict over independence" as you refer to it on my user page. Your interpretation is unique in my experience. To extend the scope of the ban a full half-century back from that stipulated by arbcom is very much egging the pudding, especially when the group in question did not even operate anywhere near what became known as "Northern Ireland". As for the British terrorists category, surely it exists for a reason. If not to categorise British terrorists, what else? Or do uniforms preclude the possibility of terrorism altogether in your opinion?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe you should be able to edit articles regarding 20th century Irish Republicanism, then I suggest you seek clarification from ArbCom, since futher editing of similar articles may well lead to longer blocks. With regards to the (now numerous) Northern Ireland related ArbCom remedies, they have generally been interpreted broadly, and to include the incidents leading up to the formation of NI. After all, the problematic editing that surrounds NI related articles is equally persistent in those articles. Lawyering over exactly what is included is against the spirit of the ban, which is stop disruptive editing in the general sphere.

I don't have an opinion on whether the Tans were terrorists or not, other than to note that there has been almighty objections to referring to Republican paramilitaries as "terrorists" (note how empty Category:Irish terrorists is?) and therefore the same objections holds for those on the other side. The reason Category:British terrorists exists is because someone created it, no other reason. I would suggest you read WP:TERRORIST before adding such clearly controversial cats in future. Rockpocket 03:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the deletion discussion for Category:Irish terrorists I note the following !vote:

• Delete. Lapsed Pacifist 11:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

By the same token, don't you think that Category:British terrorists should be deleted also, rather than be added to articles? Rockpocket 04:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I do. Well spotted, I had forgotten that. To explain, I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not we should use the word, it's that I find its current application is often highly selective. The possession (or not) of a uniform invariably being the deciding factor, in my experience.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, unfortunately. All the more reason to be rid of the word completely, unless attributed to a source, I think. Anyway, I genuinely would check where ArbCom intends the line to be drawn with regards to that remedy, since it may well lead to problems down the line. Rockpocket 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vintagakits

As you added the probation header to his page, you may want to see the probation violation thread on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You got email

Look for an email from me. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777

Can you take a look at this and this, please? Guess that's what I get for !voting against a ban - but I'm not prepared to allow those remarks to go unchallenged. Thanks. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, I agree that these remarks are not acceptable, and should not be tolerated. Your previous comment starting with Yawn was a tad provocative, but nothing more. Perhaps you should leave a warning on Sarah777's Talk page first? --Bardcom (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

*Yawn*. Or, y'know, we could leave it as is, and thereby educate people... A tad provocative but not "facetious and smug", eh? Get Real Bard! (I can't do those "diffs" thingies - maybe needs regular practice) but Mr Bastun's next comment was "Oooo. Who's your mentor then?". And so forth - he's goes on to claim I'm not fit to suggest he may be breaching civility. Is that "not acceptable, and should not be tolerated" Bard? Sarah777 (talk) 10:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn from this dispute and apologised for using the terms "smug and facetious" at Talk:British Isles. Feel free to apologise for your part in this too Bastun. Sarah777 (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Will respond later. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If the "*yawn*" caused offence, then I certainly apologise for its use. Look on it as similar to a "Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". The reason I used it is because we all know that your mooted proposal is a non-runner - both because its not in any way a proper use for a dab page, and it would never achieve consensus. "Or, y'know, we could leave it as is, and thereby educate people..." Nothing to apologise for there. The article is about the British Isles. If, through ignorance, apathy, or pointiness, or whatever, some people use the term incorrectly, our job is not to accommodate them, but to continue to write an encyclopedia. (Mis)conceptions about the term are properly dealt with at British Isles (terminology). Lastly, on civility - as on previous occasions, if you are going to accuse me of incivility towards you, provide diffs, or say nothing. "I note an increasing level of remarks that breach WP:CIVIL coming from you Bastun and frankly I'm a bit disappointed." is vague and doesn't give me a chance to defend myself. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, I do not "know that [my] mooted proposal is a non-runner", which is why I propose to offer it as a solution to the POV problem. And while I thank you for taking the correct decision at the ANI I would have done the same for you in similar outrageous circumstances without expecting any 'reward'. Not that I am suggesting you'll ever find yourself in such a situation nor would I wish it on you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Ddstretch put it rather well on Sarah's talkpage. Bastun comments weren't really called for and neither was Sarah's response. Neither are constructive and neither serve to do much beyond inflame and irritate another user. Now whats said is said, but rather than continue to argue over it, why don't you both draw line and, most importantly, think what effect the tone of your comments will have in future, before making them. Rockpocket 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Good advice indeed. Will confine my "yawns" to bedtime in future. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. What a boring thread. Can't people post something a little more entertaining on Rockpocket's Talk page? Some of us come here for a bit of a laugh, you know! --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Last night, I shot an Elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas, I'll never know. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up the day job ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If I get any closer to ya? I'll be in-back of ya. You guessed it, I'm a Groucho fan. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked - for what?

Resolved

Hi, Rockpocket. Apparently I'm no longer allowed to post on Domer48's talk page, and an entire ongoing discussion has been deleted (another "rule" I'm not sure Domer understands properly). Since my post was addressed to you I've taken the liberty of pasting the whole lot on here. Feel free to delete it again once you've read it. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

---

As a victim of excessive punishment myself I wish to protest at this block. “Consider it educational, not punitive.” is not a wording I believe is consistent with WP:CIVIL and is especially unfortunate coming from an Admin. I would certainly think Rockpocket should give some adjudication here. Sarah777 (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the introduction, Sarah. My thoughts on this are rather simple: going around accusing editors of being "liars" is not conducive to collaborative editing and is pretty incivil. Domer appears to appreciate that, yet oddly pedges "to make no comments about any other editor for the duration of the block". That isn't really the point. The point is that it is generally inappropriate to call another editor a "liar" at any time, not just for some specific duration. But if Domer acknowledges he appreciates that, then I don't really see the point of keeping him blocked. Forced apologies are pretty meaningless, so what is the point of forcing him to give one? I don't really care if he is sorry, I do care that he doesn't continue calling other editors "liars" if unblocked, and not just for the next 31 hours, but going forward from that. Rockpocket 23:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the thread again and it seems Domer nowhere actually used the term "liar". But TWO editors DID actually say "Domer48 is trying to drive everyone but himself off the article" - which is at least as serious a breach of WP:CIVIL as implying someone is lying. Yet no Admin felt the need to block either of those editors. I suggest Domer be unblocked immediately as this is manifestly an unsound intervention by the blocking Admin. Rockpocket? Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It took me about 20 seconds to find two examples of Domer using the term "liar" in direct reference to another editor (and a indirect use of the term "gobshite" for good measure). That said, there is so much verbiage being expressed around this issue (combined with Domer's habit of repeating exact same comment over and over again, which I can only assume is meant to re-inforce his point, but merely gives the appearance of quoting oneself for some unknown purpose), that its difficult to work out what the hell is going on and who said what.

The bottom line is this. Do I think Domer deserved to be blocked for this? Not really. Do I think Domer should continue calling people liars (explicitly) and gobshites (implicitly)? Certainly not. Am I going to unblock? No (because there is no consensus to do so, and wheel-warring will only inflame this incident). So here is what I propose to minimize the drama: if Domer pledges to cut that those sorts of accusations, I would urge the blocking admin to unblock Domer immediately and we can all get back to something more productive.

I agree with you though, that accusing Domer of "trying to drive everyone but himself off the article" is hardly civil either. Whoever said that should also be told to refrain from such comments also (If you point them out to me, I will be happy to do so). Everyone needs to cut back on the barbed comments, because it is an utter energy sink. Rockpocket 01:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I found it now, looks like we are reading different pages, Sarah. I completely agree with Scolaire's comment That whole section is nasty in tone, and everyone involved needs to take some responsibility for that. There is a serious lack of good faith abound among the principle editors of that page and for as long as that continues nothing will be resolved. If those editors are unable to work on that page without assuming their colleagues are lying or trying to drive others away, then they should take a leave of absence themselves, and leave it those that can work together in good faith. Rockpocket 01:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the comment on the Great Hunger talk page. While I'm here, I want to clarify that in my post that you link to there, the "implication that someone is lying" was not actually intended to refer to Domer, but to the post immediately above mine (at the time). I believe it was right to block Domer - it's good for him and good for the article - but one or two other people need to be told that their behaviour is being watched. Scolaire (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks - while I still feel Domer shouldn't have been blocked I was indeed reading a different page and genuinely thought the term had not been used. My mistake. Sarah777 (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

---

(Originally posted on Talk:Great Hunger. Moved here following Domer's deletion of the section on his page and Scolaire copying it to here.) As User:Domer48 has requested that I not post on his talk page, I'll respect that, but this is in response to this section of his talk page, following his incivility block. My posting of this is being brought into question. All I can say is that while yes, we have a guideline of assume good faith:

"* Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

* If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives."

given the actions of Domer on this article and at WP:V over the last few weeks, I can no longer assume good faith on his part. (At WP:V, Domer has edited the policy, then come over here to quote his version at people). If Domer gets attacked, User:BigDunc jumps in with a NPA warning. If Domer attacks someone else, BigDunc is silent. From Domer, we've seen a pattern of editing that has inserted/reverted material against consensus, and that has been questioned by the Arbcom-appointed mediators of this article. Other editors have been called gobshshites, illiterate, and liars. Thursday's/yesterday's demands for a citation (the Citing sources section above) were the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Domer posted at 13:36 seeking a quotation to back up the citation for "Emigration reached new heights and the infamous coffin-ships crossed the Atlantic in large numbers carrying people fleeing from the famine."(Thomas Keneally (1999) The Great Shame. London: Vintage: 135-40)" Domer makes three more contributions to that section, but its BigDunc, at 17:11, who offers the clarification that what is actually being sought is a quotation to support "infamous" and "Emigration reached new heights". After another four edits, at 19:46, Domer states all he's been looking for is a quote to support "infamous". Now, sorry, I can't believe for one minute that Domer and BigDunc think that the word "infamous" cannot be applied to the coffin ships, one of the sorriest episodes in Irish history. The fact that it is or isn't used in Kennealy is wholly irrelevant. Its quite obvious to me, given the section above, AngusMcLellan's talk page and this has all been an attempt to - well, I don't know - somehow attack or undermine Colin4C. According to AGF, true, I probably shouldn't have stated my belief that Domer is trying to drive other people off the article, but given his disruptive behaviour, I could come to no other conclusion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when is it acceptable for an article talk page Talk:The Great Hunger be used to attack editors? Is there any mentors or admins watching this page and if so what is going to be done about this attack? I wont hold me breath waitng. BigDunc^Talk 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, that's the second time you have made that false allegation, and it has already been said once it is not true. The policy contained the text before Domer ever edited it, so I suggest you withdraw your false allegations. BigDunc^Talk 12:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

---

It's great to see this articulated by someone else! The tag teaming and wikilawyering that goes on by these two is truly astounding. Yet there is great evidence of breaches of WPs V, AGF, CON to name a few. There is also some reason to suspect that there are undeclared COI issues at play. I was so concerned at the tag teaming that I think requested two different check users on these editors, both of which came back clean. But I more than share Batsun's concerns.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

BaStun not BaTsun. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to support what Bastun said there about Colin4C. Rockpocket said above, "[the] whole section is nasty in tone, and everyone involved needs to take some responsibility for that." Colin would be an exception. He has pressed on doggedly, defending his edits, criticising incivility while never descending into incivility himself. I think he is entitled to a much higher level of protection than he is getting, especially on a page that is mentored. Traditional Unionist alluded (through a link) to Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment. A new editor quit WP after being exposed to what I would call bullying on that page. Surely there is a way to lay down the law and say "this is behaviour that goes beyond reasoned argument and constitutes incivility"? It shouldn't be necessary to wait for the appearance of a word such as "lying", and it shouldn't end simply with an assurance that that word won't be used again. Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire if you are alluding to User:GDD1000 his reason for leaving was The reason I am no longer active is illustrated below. Several days of research and hard work resulted in two overkeen editors deciding that badges, historical information and quotes from cited publications - all concerning the regimental history of two cavalry regiments, breached copyright… In the face of such sanctimonious behaviour I can only conclude that the lunatics are running the asylum. And the two editors in question are Admin User:SirFozzie and Admin User:Kylu. So you are accusing or backing up an editor who says that they bullied another editor from wikipdia? Also that whole section came about because Colin4C refused time after time to provide the direct quotes as required. What the mentors should have said is "Colin4C, why not produce the direct quotes and then everyone will be happy?. Also can you point me to anywhere I was uncivil to any editor on that page. BigDunc^Talk 12:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

1) To complete the quotation: In addition, despite a post to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, no attempt was made to address issues about other editors assuming ownership of articles concerning the Northern Ireland Troubles. You're not denying, I presume, that you and Domer kept up a campaign of asking GDD1000 "time after time to provide the direct quotes as required"?

2) Why should a mentor say "Colin4C, why not produce the direct quotes and then everyone will be happy"? They might as well say ""Colin4C, why not back off and let Domer and BigDunc write whatever they want and then everyone will be happy?"

3) This is where you said "Colin4C repeatedly said it was, so is he lying?" Ironically, my reaction to that may have indirectly caused Domer to be blocked. Scolaire (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I must be going blind! Would anybody PLEASE provide a diff showing where Domer used the word liar? "Colin4C repeatedly said it was, so is he lying?" doesn't even come close - it clearly asks if someone else is calling Colin a "liar". Sarah777 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[12] [13] [14] Rockpocket 19:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Clarity never hurts. Sarah777 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't. Apparently, though, it is now my fault for Domer being blocked. I am supposed to wheel-war against the opinion of 4 other admins because, presumably, it suits Domer's POV. And because I don't chose to do that, I am "sitting on my hands" and "lacking conviction" in my opinions. Apparently he also has some sort of psychic ability and is keen to tell me what I know and don't know.

Unsurprisingly, my enthusiasm for remaining involved in that discussion has dipped somewhat. Nevertheless, Angus has agreed to me unblocking Domer and so hopefully this can be put to bed and everyone can move forward with a little more good faith and a little less suspicion. Rockpocket 23:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done Rock, again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, is accusing someone of bullying another editor away from wikipedia any worse that calling an editor a liar? It is a discrace that I can be accused of doing this and not a single word is said about it. The editor got in to a strop because I removed images he placed as copyvio in line with policy. He then reported me for 3RR which was dismissed per policy as removal of copyrighted images must be removed per policy. He then inserted a poem in breach of copyright I pointed this out on the talk page and didn't remove it as I didn't want this editor to feel he was being harrased, because evetrytime I tried to explain policy he just ignored it. Cant see any bullying going on, unless upholding wiki policy is now something that I am not allowed to do. BigDunc^Talk 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question: I guess it depends on context, but I would say both are unlikely to foster a good working relationship (but then again, so would behaviour that could be perceived as bullying!). But I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to about, to be honest. Is this related to Domer's block or The Famine, because I've not seen any copyright issues raised. If it is, and as I said a few times now, its not only Domer that needs to tone down the accusations. Rockpocket 03:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Its the comments above by Scolaire re the UDR article which obviously have nothing to do with this discussion but a was brought up IMO to try and discredit myself and Domer. But once again these type of comments go past with out a mention. Also TU comes along with his tired old checkusers about me a Domer AGAIN, feel free to ask Alison and Fozz about this matter twice they were carried out on my agreeing to it, after Fozz said CU was not for fishing. And I wont go in to the COI issue either raised AGAIN by TU. BigDunc^Talk 10:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Scolaire

Opening a new section as the previous one is now ticked as "resolved". Sorry to continue to hog your page, Rockpocket, but this is where the discussion is. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never said, and I never would, that Editor A or Editor B is a bully; I have said, and will continue to say unless a responsible person tells me it is unaccetable, that certain editors on certain occasions have pursued tactics that in my opinion are bullying tactics. FTR, I have said this on four occasions that I can remember: on the Easter Rising where I was at the receiving end, on RfC in relation to R. fiend, on The Great Hunger in relation to Colin4C and on this page in relation to GDD1000. For a small sample of that episode see Talk:Ulster Defence Regiment#Contention discussion or here as diffs – this took place over 19 hours! – including the infamous word "lying" compounded by the infamous word "bully" here (scroll down to end). Far from admonishing me for incivilty, admins should be putting their heads together to find a way of identifying these kinds of tactics and cracking down on them.
Incidentally, I agree 100% with BigDunc on the question of raising spurious CU and COI issues, and I would put those kind of tactics in the same category! Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to both your comment, and that by Dunc in the section above. I have had a cursory read through the links provided to the UDR discussion and here is my thoughts.

I don't believe "bully" or "lying" in reference to other editors is going to assist in reaching a constructive solution. However, as Scolaire deftly points out, Dunc, you are not above making the same accusations yourself ("Please stop lying" and "Please stop trying to bully me"). There are two schools of thought on this: Either it is your opinion and you are entitled to express it, or else it is incivil to make such accusations. My personal opinion is that, if one feels a need to make those sort of comments, then it must be expressed subjectively, rather than objectively. But I also feel there is little to be gained by it unless the purpose of the discussion is explicitly about the behaviour of a editor (at an RfC, administrative discussion or ArbCom for example).

Regarding to content issue at the UDR. The sentence under discussion does not appear to be directly sourced and so by a strict definition of policy Dunc and Domer's position is justified. However, I find myself asking, why? I mean, the sentence itself is so blindingly, obviously, uncontroversial: "Some UDR soldiers were injured during their service or suffer from service related disabilities...". The only real justification for that I can come up with would be if one believed no soldiers were injured, because "our policies allow me to" does not cut the mustard. WP:V says that material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed. However, that is highly conditional on the good faith of the challenger. Our policies are important, but they also have to be interpreted with judgment and good faith. Every sentence in every article is not sourced and every sentence in every article does need to be sourced. Therefore I can understand why the demands for a direct source, in this particular instance, was perceived as rules-lawyering.

So my advice over this sort of incident in future is this: instead of thinking, "no source = must be removed", think "do I genuinely doubt the veracity of this statement?" If so, then ask for a source sufficient to convince you. So let me ask you, Dunc. Given your good judgment and the information provided already, do you genuinely doubt that some UDR soldiers were injured during their service? Rockpocket 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the part most in dispute was that UDR members "suffer from service related disabilities", and the relevance of the section as a whole which was nothing but a linkfarm. I would also point you to the original addition which stated the number was "many". As I'm sure you know...."The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true", so my own feelings about the subject are not that relevant. I seem to remember ArbCom agreeing with that as well. If editors write from sources and not add their own opinions or information not directly supported by the sources given editing tends to be much easier, I am sure you will agree? BigDunc^Talk 20:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your feelings are relevant because it is you who is asking for sources. Others appear to be content with the sources already there, that I why I asked you the question. As you suggest, I do know WP:V pretty well. And if you read the sentence after the one you quote, you will see why the goal of person doing the challenging is key to the policy working.

So it appears you are content with the veracity of some of the material. Why don't you tell the other editors that, which would be one way of moving the discussion forward? I am correct in saying that you wouldn't protest the material if "suffer from service related disabilities" was removed, or if you could be convinced some suffer from disabilities related to their service? Rockpocket 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, there isn't much point re-hashing the details of this particular issue. The point I'm trying to make, though, is that policy is not inflexible and it can be interpreted in different ways. Repeatedly demanding "this is against [my interpretation of] policy thus it must be removed" over and over simply doesn't work. When two editors are repeating it in tandem it becomes intimidating. That is what was going on there and I am trying to demonstrate that there are better ways of working with editors. This inevitably involves some give-and-take, because there is almost always a acceptable middle ground. But that said, the editor on that article did seem to fail to grasp copyright issues and wasn't the easiest editor to work with. I don't think it is fair to blame Domer and Dunc for driving him away by "bullying", when they were only trying to adhere to policy.

So let me also address another issue that has been raised here. The suggestions that Dunc and Domer are the same person and that their COI should exclude them from these articles. I think these are pretty ridiculous, quite frankly. I don't think there is any credible evidence to suggest they are the same person, and I personally have good evidence that they are not. I include suggestions otherwise among the bath faith accusations that are poisoning the discourse. I would hope these accusations could be put to bed and not repeated. As for the COI accusations. Well, clearly both have a declared interest in these subjects. So what? They are hardly alone in focusing their efforts on a certain subject. Ironically enough, its always people who have their own narrow focus that make these sorts of accusations. I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing, but there are many editors who are contributing to the persuasive haze of bath faith. I urge editors to look at their own comments and actions just as soon as they are to complain about others. Rockpocket 22:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, Rockpocket: twice you have typed "bath faith" in the preceding paragraphs. Is that because you want to see it cleaned up? It is a good thing you are not writing about articles associated with Iraq, or is that just too, too Freudian? :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

I'm not normally one to defend Giano, but how did he out Kittybrewster? Seriously, I don't see it at all - suggesting someone is a sock is not outing them, especially when thye've edited under that account name previously. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On that note btw, I suggest you unblock ASAP. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors, who are editing in a perfectly acceptable manner, have a right to create a new account and edit from it without being "outed: as someone else. Especially when they feel their security or wellbeing is threatened. Giano was warned to stop, he didn't. I told him what would happen if he didn't stop. He continued. Therefore I blocked him as a preventative measure. There is no need for drama here. If Giano says he will stop, I will unblock. Why, exactly, is this an issue? Rockpocket 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Because you have no mandate from the community to block established editors without consensus to do so in this situation. There are still some people around who will take issue with your actions when you take it upon yourself to bully another editor with your block button. Please desist immediately. HiDrNick! 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

He was warned to stop doing things that aren't even against policy - he's quoted usernames, not one real life name. Even at a stretch, this was no way outing an editor. Please unblock ASAP - Giano has done nothing wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add my voice to this request - alleging sockpuppetry is not the same as outing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, in all honesty, it looks as if you were the one that did the "outing" if it occurred. This happened when you reverted and posted on Giano's talk page. If you would have quietly reverted and sent an email to oversight the issue would not have been exposed to a wide audience as it is now. By making a fuss, the account has been "outed" as something unusual. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Do you seriously believe that, Flo? No, all the would have done would have provided Giano with more ammo about a sekrit conspiracy. I ask Giano very politely and reasonably, both on and off-wiki, to stop naming him. I think we have a pretty reasonable relationship (or I should say, had) and hoped he would realise I was asking him only because I had a very good reason. Sadly, the the respect I have for him is clearly not mutually held. Rockpocket 20:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the consensus here, on giano's talk and AN/I - I've unblocked Giano II. It was a bad call Rockpocket but we shouldn't dwell on it - mistakes happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a concern that one of the accounts is linked to a real-life identity? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

None at all! Rockpocket has been cooking geese and burnt his fingers! Giano (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I assure you, Giano, that if you don't have anything constructive to add here, I'm prepared to reblock you myself for stirring the pot. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, is the user name he quoted is attached to a real life identity. Giano is well aware of that.

The bottom line is this: I (and I believe at least one other admin) was made aware than certain editor wanted to edit anonymously because of certain other developments that I will not divulge publicly. Considering the history, I considered that an entirely justifiable request. Those familiar with the situation, including Giano, are well aware of who the editor is. This editor has a justifiable reason for wishing to edit anonymously and that admins are monitoring his account to ensure it is not used inappropriately. I told Giano that and gave him warnings to stop. However Giano, for reasons better known to himself, decided to publicly and repeatedly name the editor today, thereby linking the new account to a real identity. I don't know why, but based on the emails I have received, it is most likely because he is bored and fancies sparking another drama.

I know Giano's game. He knows I know his game, because we have discussed it in the past. Normally, I don't play along, but when harassment of another editor is at stake, I considered it important enough to risk the wrath of the Gianophiles. The consensus that this block was wrong is flawed, because I don't believe you are in possession of all the facts, Ryan. Before hurrying to unblock I would have hoped someone would have taken the time to ask why the editor in question should be allowed to edit in peace, without Giano naming him whenever he wants to have some fun. Therefore I don't consider this a mistake at all, and I think protecting editors from harassment is somewhat more important that Giano sitting out a half hour while the details are investigated. But, when it comes to Giano, even that becomes secondary, it would seem. Rockpocket 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket - we also know that the standard advice is "If you don't want your alternate account to be recognised, don't edit where you've been before." I mean..that account was practically flashing "sockpuppet" with neon lights. Unless everyone is in on the secret, then the account outed itself. Risker (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. When one is a victim of harassment, does that mean one has to completely stop editing the area one would normally edit in just so the harassment doesn't continue? No. Irrespective of who thinks they know, there is no reason whatsoever that Giano should be attempting to out editors publicly. Rockpocket 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock, I AM in possession all of the facts, and this was a horrible block. To the extent that any outing occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You do not get to create a new account, and no matter what the circumstances, go merrily discussing all the feuds/people that your old account was in, taking all the positions of your former account, even using the same phrases that you did before, and not expect the two accounts to be linked. Dude, except for 1=2, there's NO SUPPORT for this block at all. Just reconsider, man. You acted to protect the privacy of another editor, which is laudable. However, by his own actions he had discarded that privacy. SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)We are talking about the talk page of another user, not an article. And there is no outing, it was a suggestion that it was a sockpuppet of another editor, one who's been known to sock disruptively before. If whomever had just stuck to editing articles instead of hanging out with his old buddies, he would probably not have been detected. Further, if your concern was to get rid of the "evidence" and keep things quiet, the appropriate action would have been to remove ALL the edits from that page with a summary of "cleaning up" or "unnecessary bickering" or something like that, and nobody would have batted an eye. Now you are the one who has drawn attention to this user. Frankly, I'm pretty shocked at your not having thought of this. Risker (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Foz. Obviously Kb's accounts aren't difficult to spot when one knows what to look for. I agree that I don't really understand why he would want to move accounts when those who are looking will very easily be able to spot them. Nevertheless, while it might be an open secret to those 'in the know' it doesn't change the fact that there is no reason whatsoever that Giano should publicly "out" them whenever he feels like stirring the pot a little. There is an real life issue here, because of the obvious links to a real life identity. Giano should not continue doing that, this is what I was trying to ensure. He is doing it only to continue a feud with a group of editors, for reasons that have never been clear, but appear to be ground in politics or class. That is not acceptable, and I hope that fact has not been lost in the drama.

Risker, believe it or not, I foolishly thought that I had earned enough respect from Giano that he may actually consider then heed my request (also made in a slightly more detailed manner by email) without re-reverting. I've worked with Giano on some things recently and I thought that I could explain to him why I was asking him not to out the editor and he might agree to it. Over-sighting it without comment be a bad idea, I thought, because we all know how Giano dislikes censorship. However, instead of listening to my reasoning, Giano saw the opportunity for another block and the drama that accompanies it (which, of course, is the goal).

You see, Giano has us over a barrel (something that he has gleefully acknowledged to me by email). He gets blocked, he wins, he is left to cause trouble for those that have drawn his ire, he wins. So, knowing that, what should I do? Well, I decided I would treat him exactly as I would any other editor. Any other editor who purposefully attempts to "out" an editor to a real identity gets a few warnings to stop, and an explanation to why they should stop. If they don't I would block them until they do. Thats what I did. Therefore I stand by the reasons I blocked. I thought it through and came to the conclusion that it offered the best chance that Giano would stop outing editors. Would I do it again in the same circumstances? Probably not, because there are a significant number of people who disagree with that action and its not my place to impose my opinion over the community. If Giano stops outing accounts in future then it will have served it purpose. If it doesn't, I hope those of you that are so keen to unblock will have more success than I in stopping him to assisting those that harass editors, because purposely or not, that is the result.

Finally, I am have never advertised that I am open to recall, because I don't believe in a specific process. But I have always said that if my judgment is out of kilter with community, I would relinquish my tools. I expect anyone who feels that way is reading this: so please feel free to indicate that is your opinion here or any in other forum. I'll think it through myself in the next few days and decide whether it is appropriate for me to continue to use the tools (obviously that does not preclude any other formal mechanisms one might like to open). Rockpocket 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, I'm not calling for your tools, but I will call for you to start thinking like an uninvolved admin when analysing this event. What should an uninvolved admin do when finding what they believe to be a privacy violation? Would the first step not be deletion (not reversion) of the offending post? The second step would be avoiding actions that would draw attention to this private information. Posting on Giano's page is a guaranteed draw, it's on the watchlist of hundreds of editors and gets more hits than the talk pages of all the members of Arbcom combined most days. (I've pointed this out to people before, but it seems to slip everyone's mind.) Edit-warring with Giano and blocking him were equally as likely to draw attention to the very thing you were trying to keep under wraps. To be honest, if even I could link the two accounts based on the editing of the two accounts, then I can guarantee anyone who is at all informed about the whole Troubles situation made the connection long before, and perhaps a less involved admin might have seen that any privacy intended to be provided to the editor involved had long since been blown away by the editor himself. It's one of the reasons why I keep harping on the principle of admins not using tools when they have an established relationship with any of the parties in a given situation. I am not going to put up any kind of fuss about the block Sir Fozzie has just issued. But I'll point to the obvious, which is that poking people with sticks almost never leads to them behaving well. I don't understand why this supposed privacy violation has not yet been deleted - it's just hanging out there like a red flag, waiting for more and more people to find out about it, and wonder about the judgment of those who permitted the change in username in the first place. Risker (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference now whether the difs are deleted or not. I happen to know that the editor in question will now edit anonymously from another account (the name of which I am aware). Again, I am not giving "permission" to do this, I am simply taking into account an editor's wish to edit anonymously when they are at risk of harassment. The only justifiable argument against this is that there is no oversight of their contributions to ensure they are policy compliant in controversial areas. Providing the account name to trusted admins enable us to ensure that. I'm not sure who you think will be wondering "about the judgment of those who permitted the change in username in the first place". Are you suggesting that you think that was a bad call? If so, what exactly would you suggest we do to protect our editors from harassment in this situation?

To address your other points. Once Giano had posted the name it made no different whether the whole of Wikipedia was aware if it, which was why I commented on his talk page (and sent him an email). And since you are unimpressed with my attempts, perhaps you could advise me about what is going to keep Giano from misbehaving if polite requests, warnings and blocks don't work for him? I expect it will not take long before Giano, and anyone else who knows where to look, will begin to suspect who the owner of the new account is. Are we going to stand by and let Giano out this one too? Rockpocket 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't outing if the editor himself will not stay away from the very areas that make him controversial. In fact, if he continues to edit under another account without those sorts of conditions, then I really don't think he has any right to complain when people link his accounts; quite the opposite, in fact. I don't think it's okay for this to continue, to be honest, and I don't think you're helping things by supporting him in this effort. I'd encourage you to bottom-line it with this editor, who apparently trusts you, that if he cannot stay away from these issues, then he has forfeited the right to the privacy he is trying to claim. He has to be part of the solution, we cannot keep accommodating people to preserve their privacy when they then go and make it very obvious exactly who they are. Giano didn't bring it to light, KB/Berks did. Giano just mentioned the elephant in the room, but it was already very obvious. Risker (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now we are talking, Risker. I actually agree with you on one level. There seems little point of creating an "anonymous" account when one is going to comment on matters in a way that pretty much identifies you. The editor in question would be much better off avoiding such discussions if they wanted to remain anonymous. But there is a slightly wider issue we need to consider. The problem with this argument is that it gives harassers something to aim for. Most of the time people harass because they clash on a particular subject. If we say harassed editors must leave the subject if they want to edit anonymously then what we are saying is that harassment is a successful tactic. No. Its is not the responsibility of the harassed person to leave when all they want to do is contribute in a policy complaint manner. We should, instead, be making the harassers leave, and we should also be asking all editors to think before they let their petty personal disputes contribute to a harassment problem. That is what I asked Giano to do privately, I sincerely hope he will consider that next time he spots the elephant in the room. Rockpocket 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking about a 12 year old kid who needs protection here, RP. We're talking about an adult who is responsible for his decisions. We must not assume responsibility for protecting people who insist on behaving in such a way as to attract their supposed harassers. Nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not and must not guarantee a safe editing experience for people who behave recklessly. In fact, enabling this editor by permitting these serial "clean start" accounts is a slap in the face of all of the editors who have stayed on their one account, who have behaved in such a way as to not attract negative attention, and who have faced any problems head-on. I agree with FloNight's post down below. This cannot continue. Risker (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, don't bring your admin tools into feuds you have with other editors. Any administrator who needs to be told this should not be an administrator. You're involved in a long standing feud with Giano. You two should avoid each other. Stay away from Giano and stay off his talk page, doing otherwise is simple disruption. You have no admin buisness within a mile of Giano.--Duk 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Though, as a courtesy, I would ask you express informed opinions. I have no feud with Giano, and I would ask you to review my interactions with him over the last few months and provide a diff that supports your assertion. As it happens your allegations are entirely false, Giano and I have worked together rather constructively over the last few months and have exchanged over 20 very pleasant emails. Rockpocket 22:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I just pulled up a total of four edits from you two and this is what I see;

Of course, It would be too much to ask Giano to quit agitating whenever the fancy takes him...

None at all! Rockpocket has been cooking geese and burnt his fingers!

This is the same pissing match that goes back months. Do you really claim you're not emotionally invested in this? So you two have exchanged some pleasant emails, wonderful, now don't bring your admin tools within a mile of Giano and don't make delusional claims of impartiality which waste everyones time. --Duk 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Duk, both of those are a effect of this block. You are stating there is a feud that was the cause of the block. You do understand the difference between cause and effect, right? Perhaps you could provide the diffs that show the months long pissing match you refer to which caused me to block Giano. Rockpocket 23:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. --Duk 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer mine. I'll go first: see my response in the section below. Rockpocket 01:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"outing"

Rock, I don't want you to be recalled, or de-sysoped, or what have you. What Giano's done on CR's talk page could be considered disruptive, (reinserting a section against the user's wishes on that user talk page) sure, but it's NOT outing. Let me copy the section from Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information

Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment,

Has Giano done ANY of the above? No. No he hasn't.

If you had blocked him for Disruptive editing, then fine, you would've gotten a lot less flack (I just reblocked him for that!), but you instead try to base it on outing, which this is most certainly NOT. SirFozzie (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Foz. I know its not in the simple sense, but I think if you consider the situation that is exactly what it is. An editor created an account that was (probably by his own fault) irrevocably linked to personal details such as name, email address etc. Said editor then gets harassed (or at least, makes a credible complaint) and realizes his error revealing personal information, so then wishes to edit without being linked to those personal details. Someone, who is fully aware of these circumstances, purposely and for no obviously justifiable reason, links to the account that has the known details. That is "outing" in my book.

Did Giano do it to harass? Of course not. Giano is not a harasser and is not in the business of assisting those who are. I fully expect he just wanted to have a dig at someone he clearly has an immense dislike for. However, that isn't really the point. The point is there is a very good reason this person should be allowed to edit anonymously (so long as they are doing so within policy). Of course, Giano isn't unnecessarily expected to know that. But when an admin (especially one that has worked closely and in good faith with you over the last few months) asks' you not to do it because there is a good reason, then warns you not to do it because there is a good reason, and you continue to do it, then one might expect you would consider that it would be a good idea to stop. Something, incidentally, that other editors have done without question when I asked them. The point is this: Giano continued to do something that I considered a harassment risk (even if unwittingly). There was no good reason for him to do it in balance. Therefore when he didn't stop after a few requests, I blocked him as a preventative measure. What Giano has to learn is that he doesn't know everything on Wikipedia, and that - when people ask him to stop something for a good reason - he should assume good faith, rather than see it as a dick swinging contest. Rockpocket 22:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, we'll agree to disagree.. and I hope you'll see that there's not much support for your theory on ANI and elsewhere. But what the hell, I seem to like being accused of shit by all sides... Do you think I'm a masochist and didn't know it all this time? SirFozzie (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, Foz. I made a call and the consensus appears that it was a bad one. That doesn't necessarily do much to convince me I made a bad call, because 90% of those commenting don't know the details and a sizable minority made comments that are a stones throw from clueless (cf. the ridiculously uninformed comment above about Giano and me "feuding". Ironically enough, before this the last email I received from Giano signed off with: When I'm running the show you can be on the Arbcom :-). Does that sound like a feud?) Nevertheless, the community gets their way. Thats how it works and I accept that, irrespective of how informed that decision is. However, I do take your opinion seriously because you are aware of most of the facts. My concern is this: do you disagree that an editor who is editing within policy and with admin oversight, should be able to edit anonymously for fear of harassment linked to a previous account and real life identity? If you agree with that then is it not right that we take steps to stop other editors "outing" such editors for spiteful reasons? Maybe I went about it the wrong way, and I'll take the heat for that, but I'm more interested in resolving this question, because this is going to happen again otherwise. Rockpocket 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question, Rockpocket - if you thought that Giano's initial post constituted "outing", why did you not delete it straightaway? That is the textbook response to the revelation (whether intentional or unintentional) of personal information. Risker (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons 1) Because I suspected that it made no difference to that particular account, I suspected the editor in question would abandon it. As I mentioned above I had hoped Giano could be reasoned with. He doesn't like to be censored, and in the past when edits are deleted it usually results in rants along the lines of "The admins are trying to hide their conspiracy blah, blah, blah". So I requested he make the same point without naming names hoping he would be reasonable. He wasn't. Rockpocket 23:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

my unsolicited advice to you then, is to tell the person behind the kb account to formally retire kb, and to not edit is a way that users will recognize as kb, if the intention is truely to move on from past unpleasantness. If the intention is purely to avoid scrutiny, I'm not sure what the answer might be, except that when even lightly involved folks recognize the user it's not working. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd refer you to my fundamental concern with that explained in the section above. Nevertheless, that is good advice should the editor in question wish to take it. Rockpocket 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, the possibility of Sussexman returning in any form, has the potential for major disaster. As for KB situation? it's usually not a good thing, when a former account assumes a new account & doesn't mention it to others (it creates an aura of suspicion). GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Sussexman has to do with anything. The new account was mentioned to certain others. Mentioning it publicly kind of defeats the purpose of creating a new account in the first place. Rockpocket 23:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But reverting does not remove the content that you say is outing. If there was a true privacy concern, you should immediately revert, then delete (if feasible given the size of the page), and then send a request to oversight. If you did not think that these steps were needed, then it was not outing. Instead, now you seem to be arguing that Giano should not have identified this user. Him and other users appear to think that linking to the old account was appropriate given past issues with the account. They want it known that this user is a past account because they are continuing to speak about the same issues. They have the right to this opinion, even if you disagree. IMO, blocking an editor until they agree not to repeat their thoughts about this account is not a proper use of your tools. It is winning a dispute by using your tools to your advantage. Since it was Giano and his talk page is heavily watched, the issue was quickly resolved. But with a different user, their account might remain indef blocked. That concerns me. I'm asking you to sleep on my comments, and others. Maybe with some time you will better understand our concern. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would take issue with your phrasing, Flo. I explicitly did not block "an editor until they agree not to repeat their thoughts about this account". I made it very clear Giano was welcome to restate his concerns, but not to explicitly name the person he considered to be behind another account (bearing in mind the the real identity is so closely linked with the old account). That is a key difference and I was very careful to make that clear.

It is a proper use of the tools to block in a preventative manner and that I what I did. I wasn't involved with a dispute with Giano, any more than an admin is in dispute with an editor who repeatedly adds someone else's email address. I told Giano by email why he was effectively, in my opinion, providing personal information of someone who has been harassed when there was no need for him to do so. Therefore I strongly dispute my action was about "winning a dispute by using your tools to your advantage." I was using my judgment to try and help another editor from being harassed. Maybe my judgment wasn't the best in this case, I'll hold my hands up to that, but I'm pretty offended by that suggestion that this was about using my tools for personal reasons. Where is the good faith, Flo?

I never got the opportunity to deal with the edits in question after the block prevented them from being recreated. Therefore it is a non sequitur to state because I did not delete or oversight, it is not "outing". Perhaps it was outing, and I didn't follow the preferred method for dealing with it? Anyone familiar with this would be aware it would have made little different to the outcome anyway, since Giano was going to have his say no matter what.

I take your point that using an anonymous account to rehash old issues with old foes somewhat negates the right to anonymity. This, above all, is a mitigating circumstance I can appreciate that would make a block a poor call.

Rockpocket 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But what Giano wanted to note was the link to the other account and his concern that this specific user was using a sock to lobby for an unblock. He (and other now) raise the legitimate concern that this user was pushing the bounds of our socking policy by using another account to continue old disputes with out informing the involved editors of the new account. Users in a discussion have the right to know if the person they are talking with might have a prior interest in the topic that is coloring their opinion. That was Giano's concern, I think. He recognized the user and wanted to point out to all their identity. This is not an unreasonable idea. You stopped him from connecting the two accounts which is what he saw as important, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely think that you were acting in good faith. The calls to desysop you over this one incident are not reasonable. But that does not stop me from being concerned that you used your tools in a manner that was not good for the community. You were too close to the situation, I think. That is the main reason that admin make dodgy blocks or other poor calls. You lost perspective, I think. A very human response. Give it more thought and I think that you might come to see my and others concerns. You don't have to agree with us that you acted in error. Just take the constructive criticism on board, okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, Flo. I appreciate that and also for your efforts to discuss and explain, rather than join in the damnation chorus.

I do see your point. The more I think about it, I think there is a fair expectation to know who you are speaking to in that situation. Of course, Giano knew who he was speaking to, as did everyone else with any interest in the page. That is part of the issue: everyone who cares to know, already knew. Kb knew this (which is why I can't really see the point of using an alternative account) and Giano knew this (which is why I can't really see the point of outing him so others would be aware).

I think if he were being absolutely honest, Giano would admit that he didn't "out" the account because he wanted others to know, but because he knew it would piss Kb off. I don't honestly know why Kb jumps from one not-very-anonymous account to another when anyone that wished him harm would know it is him anyway, but I bet part of it is because he knows it pisses Giano et al off. And so there it is: its all about the mutual antipathy between Giano on one side and this small group of editors on the other. Now one or more of them are blocked (I don't know the details of the disputed block, but I'm told that it is a solid case of sockpuppetry, which I am happy to accept), Giano takes every opportunity to rub salt in the wound. And that is why I considered it unacceptable for Giano to "out" him, because the potential consequences with regards to real-life harassment are rather awful and yet Giano did it simply as another twist of the knife.

So did I lose perspective? I would say the opposite is true, I have mucho perspective, but to the same consequence. I know how unpleasant it is to be harassed. So when Giano was busy providing nice weblinks for people who like to follow the trails to personal information, simply so he can thumb his nose in a petty dispute, it disappointed me. It disappointed me most of all because Giano is not a harasser by any means, quite the opposite, he tried to help me when I was having similar problems recently and I am very grateful for that. So yes, perhaps I was too close, but not in the way some people seem to be suggesting. I have much respect and genuine affection for Giano (and while I am disappointed now, I know he didn't mean any harm and so will get over that soon enough). I have nothing invested in Kb other than to help ensure he, like every other editor, be permitted to editor without being harassed. So perhaps I'm seeing danger where others see none, and that is why they have concerns. I appreciate that and, now realize that perhaps my own experiences effected me more than I thought. But I do also think we don't do enough to deal with harassment on Wikipedia, and wonder how harassment from a first hand perspective would alter the opinion of those that don't see a problem.

I knew this would be controversial (it is Giano, after all), but I honestly thought there was an obvious (though not simplistic) harassment implication here. Either there really is not, or the community does not see it that way. Either way, if my judgment is so out of whack with the community opinion, I need to consider whether it is in our best interest that I continue in this role. I will think it over for a while, consult and let you know. In the meantime, I really would appreciate it if editors could lay of the "Giano feud" rhetoric. It is complete, uninformed nonsense. I will either work this out with Giano privately, or else stay well away from him, but I don't need someone with no clue what they are talking about lecturing me. Thanks Rockpocket 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it!

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation (and I can see the wisdom on both sides) it in no way reflects on your judgement in general. You've got it right so many times, and you've defused so many crises, to lose you as an admin would be a tragedy! Please don't talk about quitting! Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that none of this reflects on your judgement in general, and I also hope we don't lose you as an admin. I'm happy that you and Giano, two editors I greatly respect, are in dialogue. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-existant feuds!

I have seen it said that Rockpocket and I had a feud. This is not so. For the record, whatever disagreements Rockpocket and I may have had, had been well and truly patched up. I was not aware of any ongoing feud. I thought we had a mutual respect. That Rockpocket has now behaved as he has upset me too. I thought we were working together to solve the problems at The Troubles together. Clearly by encouraging secretive sockpuppetry in some of the most contentious areas of The Troubles, I feel Rockpocket has betrayed the trust I had placed in him. I can imagine the "sob stories" he has been spun, and I do have a very sneaking sympathy for him. I don't think he is a bad man, but he has proved to be a bad admin. That in a field riven with socks making biased and POV edits, he has encouraged another. already known sockpuppeteer to sock - defies belief. Sentiment makes me feel he should stay on as admin, but sometimes one has to be tough to do the job, and the job is to further trust and honesty. Sentiment cannot be allowed to interfere with greater aims. I'm sorry Rockpocket, but you cocked up big time. Giano (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that Giano. I understand your stated position, though I think you misunderstand what happened. Perhaps I misunderstood also, because I thought you were well aware of this. It would appear that may not be the case. I also understand your keenness to discuss this in public, but I wonder if I could convince you to agree to something. Would you consider if we attempt to sort this out by email in the first instance? I feel we always have a better conversation free from distraction. In return, I would be happy for you to quote fully and verbatim anything I write back on Wiki at your discretion. That way there will be no whitewash or secrecy. Please consider this. Rockpocket 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I can well immagine the sob story that's coming, but you will find me a very tough nut to crack. Deception is one of my black and white areas, in a public forum, such as this, it has to be like that, or no one can know where they are. Sometime one has to take a tough stance to maintain that important trust, you failed to take that stance. Email by all means, but don't be surprised if you find me unsympathetic. Giano (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sob story dispatched. Its really late here and I must get some sleep. I'll email again in the morning if you have more questions or comments. Rockpocket 08:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied. My handkercheif remains quite dry. Your position remains untenable. Giano (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone other than you really think that Rockpocket should be de-Admined (or whatever it's called), Giano? Are we not just starting on another pointless crusade (include me out), with yet more double-standards: sock-puppetry by Vintagekits acceptable, sock-puppetry by David Lauder unacceptable?; 'wiki-sleuthing' by Durova bad, 'wiki-sleuthing' by Giano good? We have to take the rough with the smooth, I suppose, but the price to the community of pandering to your angry mastodon-like behaviour is that it's a boring turn-off to the rest of us.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid as long as your friends behave as they do, then yes, we need to keep them precisely where we can see them. I have not forgotten Kittybrewster's friends arguing black was white with me over the Kittybrewster ancestral pile, until itwas proven without a doubt Kitty was in error. I'm not watching any more rubbish being added to Wikipedia by Kitty and co. There is a world of difference betwen Sussexman and Vintagekits, as you well know. I really don't advise you to go there. Rockpocket will no doubt do as he thinks fits, as will I. Giano (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may suggest; the problem with your approach is that it takes what, to most of us, is an engaging and amusing past-time and turns it into a campaign for idealogical purity. I don't know what you're talking about re. 'the Kittybrewster ancestral pile', and I simply don't see why it matters, unless you particularly want to refight old battles. There is a difference between Sussexman and Vintagekits; leaving aside the question whether David Lauder is actually Sussexman, both of those accounts have behaved better than Vintagekits has in the past. And if I'm not watching any more rubbish being added to Wikipedia by Kitty and co. (which presumably includes me) means that you're going to be stalking his (or our) edits, have you really not got anything better to do? What a spectacular waste of time! (You'll find that mine include a recent learned discussion on varnishes applied by 12^th century Russian icon painters - much good may it do you.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lauder is Sussexman! Multiple checkusers have proved it. Kitybrester has pushed his point of view with multiple [15] & [16] accounts. These I suspect are the tip of the iceberg. Now he is going to stop. We need to know who is arguing for what. Sussexman may have three supporters, he may have 300, clamouring for his return. I am coming to the view it is probably 2.5 rather than hundreds.Giano (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to take the claims of the sock-hunters seriously: you previously dropped a broad hint that I and David Lauder were the same person, and One Night In Hackney proposed that I was General Peabody. So what if David Lauder previously edited as Sussexman? Given the nature of Wikipedia, the ease of setting up accounts, etc., hunting down sock-puppets is a pointless and never-ending task. The only objective criterion ought to be the content added; and this is the area where you are completely silent; both accounts, so far as I can see, weren't particularly disruptive - the exception being Sussexman's legal letter (which I'm inclined to view as a newbie's mistake) - and added valuable content. And to rehearse ancient history: the only reason that Kittybrewster and, indeed, W. Frank changed accounts was because of the threats (express or implied) made against them by Vintagekits. Kittybrewster felt obliged to keep changing accounts because they were being tracked by One Night In Hackney; none of this is any secret, although it's not widely known outside 'the Troubles' participants'; it's the reason that the ArbCom came up with the principles that they did (esp. 4 and 5).

If you want to hunt down sock-puppets, you could start by having a look at these: Name dropper, Stramash, and, possibly, Brixton Busters. I know who I link those to, and all in their own way shit-stirrers. I'm surprised, in retrospect, that the ArbCom didn't simply run check-users for all of the participants in 'the Troubles', which would have answered a lot of these questions at the time. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So many words, so little intelligence, and so few contributions to Wikipedia other than trolling editors who have accomplished far more than people like you ever will. Never once did I seriously suggest you actually were General Peabody, it was merely suggested in satire given you are so similar. Sussexman's legal threat was demonstrably not a "newbie's mistake" given that your comrade was previously banned by the Arbitratation Committee as User:Robert I for, wait for it, making legal threats. Unbelievable! What Bonkers claims was a "newbie's mistake" was something he had already been banned for. Were you previously a propagandist? Oh and this isn't new information that has just come to light, it's was known prior to the ban discussion but you conveniently try and airbrush it out of your revisionist history. Proof that W. Frank changed accounts for the reasons you claim? There is none, as he said nothing beforehand and nothing after he was exposed for shit-stirring with a sockpuppet. But oh wait W. Frank is an innocent victim, bollocks he was. He chose to make POV edits, abuse and provoke, and then do the same with a sock after his editing was exposed as a sham (for example see the Colombia Three article, where W. Frank masterfully reverts an edit I had reverted as a POV edit, which introduced Irish republican POV as fact). I was tracking Kittybrewster's edits? That's a new one! What actually happened is akin to an old adage - the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. Not that I'm even suggesting Kittybrewster is a criminal of course, perish the thought! He just can't help in behaving in ways or editing articles that give him away. Take Berks911's very first edit, you may as well just hold up a big sign saying "I am a sockpuppet". Which brings us nicely onto sockpuppets, and time for some sekrits to be exposed to the wider world for the first time:

• User:Name dropper was me and wasn't a violation of WP:SOCK, and ArbCom were well aware of who it was as I emailed them from my account within five minutes of the evidence being posted. Right there Mackensen confirms ArbCom were aware of it. Not a crime against presenting evidence is it, unless it defeats the strategy usually used by people like you of when you can't argue with the evidence, attack the person presenting it? For example see the history of the talk page of the latest Sussexman sock (that's David Lauder, in case you weren't paying attention). And if at first you don't succeed, try try again.
• User:Stramash was me and wasn't a violation of WP:SOCK, and Alison and Bishonen were aware of it beforehand (see here for example), and ArbCom were made aware of it by email during the case. You can probably ask clerk Penwhale if he recalls forwarding an email from me to the committee, not that it matters one way or another. What was I just saying about people like you? When you can't argue with the evidence, attack the person presenting it. The nominated version was a glorious example of the twaddle written by people like you, compared to the version written by people unlike you which does merit a place here.
• User:Brixton Busters was not me, and whoever he was I feel sorry for the poor sod having to put up with non-stop accusations of sockpuppetry. Here's a lesson for people like you, if you want to accuse people of sockpuppetry do it properly. If you're not sure how, here's some ones I have done that have had spectacularly, brilliant, wonderful, amazing results when certain people who thought they were so big and clever got what was coming to them.... Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank (needs archiving by the way surely?) and last but certainly not least Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. Even a cursory check of BB's contributions shows a different editing style to mine, since when did I leave religious categories on articles?

So you've got two out of three right, which is a long way short of my 100% success record in sockpuppet investigations. Sadly those two were already known about by the people that matter (present company excepted obviously), and the diffs on-Wiki show there was nothing underhand going on. Exactly what is the reason behind your obvious hatred of me, based on your non-stop digs on talk pages? Is it because I'm responsible for all your little chums (plural may well be wrong there, but I'll assume good faith...) looking like fools? It is because you're jealous of the fact that someone who only got a 'C' in GCSE English and can write far better articles than you, despite your so-called "better" education and three (?!) university degrees? You dare to lob "shit-stirrer" accusations in my direction, yet the amount of shit-stirring you do on talk pages is clear for everyone to see. I'm not in the habit of giving free advice but here's some for you, stop your little "David Lauder should be unblocked" campaign as everyone knows it's not happening any time soon if ever.

Oh and we'll give Lauder a bit of time too, seeing as I'm bored. You and Kittybrewster seem to have bought into his little story that he logged in as Sussexman to tidy up his user and talk pages, which is unsurprising seeing as Kittybrewster originally suggested it in the first place here then Lauder tells the little story for the first time here the very next day. Uncanny! Even more uncanny is that back in February Lauder didn't know Sussexman from Adam, and Sussexman didn't know David Lauder either. Yet we are expected to believe that Sussexman emailed his password to David Lauder for some reason despite them not knowing each other from Adam, yet this startling fact was not mentioned until almost three months later, and only after Kittybrewster has suggested it as a possible reason for the positive checkuser! <sarcasm>Yes that's obviously a plausible explanation, and in my spare time I enjoy fisting Lord Lucan, who I keep locked in a shed on the 200 acre estate of my stately home.</sarcasm> One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It must be very hard for you [17]. Personally, I suspect you are all a wagonload of monkeys. Just how many monkeys, that is the question? Giano (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer the MB's original question: "Does anyone other than you really think that Rockpocket should be de-Admined ". Yes, I think so. And IMO, the reason why is the block, his behavior preceding it and his behavior following it. Rockpocket may say he has no personal thing about Giano (unlike 1=2), I tend to give greater weight to actions and diffs than to words if former contradicts the latter. I do not follow Rockpocket's comments on Giano but those I remember are threats, baiting and taunting. [18] [19] [20] some of which I had to remove myself. [21]

Rockpocket's enabling an abusive editor thought "permitting" him to continue under a different name may not be grounds for desysopping. But his response to this conflict is. When the conflict arose, Rockpocket's series of posts to Giano's talk could not have brought anything but escalation. He raised the stakes in each subsequent post and started to resort to block threats which he later implemented. Everyone knows what would be a result of threatening of the superior editors. The whole thing looked fishy and concocted behind the curtain in the first place and whatever message Rockpocket had to Giano, he would have had a by far better success delivering it in a humble tone without snide references to things that he can't tell. His invoking of privacy and "outing" was a blatant strawman and his actually implementing his block threat with an indefinite (!!!) block was the last straw. Further, he then ducked out (it was me who had to post that block for a review at ANI rather than Rockpocket himself) and while the thread unraveled he remained silent leaving those with no access to #admins guessing in the dark. Escalating the drama looks bad. But what is worse of this all is the block, a blatantly abusive one. I just do not buy these stuff about secrecy and off line when none of this is warranted. --Irpen 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)