User talk:Rockpocket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rockpocket is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

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 23) 2 April 2008 – 18 June 2008

Contents 1 Sarah777 2 Blocked - for what? 3 Comments by Scolaire 4 Giano II 5 "outing" 6 Don't do it! 7 Non-existant feuds! 8 Statement 9 User:Timeshift9 10 For the record 11 Frustrated? 12 Refocus of discussion - seeking community opinion on KB's use of alternate accounts 13 banned user 14 Email 15 Vk and Rlevse 16 Could you have a look 17 Thatcher 18 Thanks! 19 User:Rockpocket/Awards 20 Clarifying a ban's extent 21 Administrator Rockpocket 22 Re: IPA 23 Edit warring 24 Admin Blocking in pursuit of personal dispute

[edit] 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I have now withdrawn from this dispute and apologised for using the terms "smug and facetious" at Talk:British Isles.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)

[edit] Blocked - for what?

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)

[1] [2] [3] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

Rockpocket, don't resign your Administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [4] & [5] 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 [6]. 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 that (unlike 1=2) he has no personal beef about Giano but 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 [7] [8] [9] some of which I had to remove myself [10].

Rockpocket's enabling an abusive editor through "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 finally resorted 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.

Established editors' indefinite blocks without a discussion and conferring and ever reviews are outright outrageous and should not be tolerated. Indefinite block of Giano is certainly a matter that cannot be decided upon by a single IRC admin. I just do not buy these stuff about secrecy and not being able to tell when none of this is warranted. There are few reasons when privacy is indeed needed and here we have none. --Irpen 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome discussion, but your comments are riddled with inaccuracies, Irpen. In stark contrast to most other commentators, including Giano himself (who, incase you missed it, confirmed there is no person beef). Your other inaccuracies have been addressed at length elsewhere, which you either chose to ignore or didn't read. You seem to be taking a new tack now, though, which is yet another complete falsehood.

• Indefinite block of Giano is certainly a matter that cannot be decided upon by a single IRC admin.
• he remained silent leaving those with no access to #admins guessing in the dark

I have never used IRC in my life and am on record as saying I disagree with its use for admin actions. I know exactly what your implication is there, and it is disgraceful. Its ironic you have the gall to accuse me of a straw man, because that is exactly what you are doing. And in doing so you completely undermine your call for desysopping. Please withdraw your uninformed accusations or else keep them from my talk-page. If you want to make things up, then do so at RfC or ArbCom, where you will be held properly accountable. Rockpocket 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, you threaten me with an ArbCom? Nice. Sorry about the IRC thing. I thought I remember that Giano-talk at the IRC from you but that must have been 1=2's I guess. Your beef about Giano is inferred from the diffs I gave above. You may say that you actually like him and threatened him despite that. I find it difficult to believe but diffs up there speak for themselves. My main point remains that "Indefinite block of Giano is certainly a matter that cannot be decided upon by a single IRC admin" and that the escalating messages on his talk topped with threats could have brought nothing else but this outcome. Your actions in these matter were utterly unhelpful and with the past history of escalating drama in Giano-matters, your admin judgment cannot be trusted. This is my view. If the community disagrees with me and laud your actions, you will stay an admin until the next incident. My impression is that admins who display arrogance in treating superior editors never change and that your actions in this matter show so glaringly poor judgment that you cannot be trusted with buttons. But that may be just me. --Irpen 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No Irpen, I was suggesting you take your accusations and present them to ArbCom or open an RfC about me. If I have done all the things you accuse me of, for the reasons you claim, then it should be rather easy for you to do that and get your wish. Instead, of course, you prefer to propose a lynching at ANI and then spread complete untruths on my talk-page based on mistaken identity. As I said, you in particular are no longer welcome here. Take your uninformed accusations to an appropriate forum. Rockpocket 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Irpen I appreciate your friendship and loyalty - a friend in need etc etc etc, but we don't want the wicked elf arriving to further cloud the issues. We need to concentrate on one issue at a time, I am "a bear of very small brain," which is the failed and miserable campaigne to restore Robert1/Sussexman to us. Which is how we all come to be in this mess. Personally, I think the lot of them should be kicked off and told never to darken our doors again, but that is not going to happen. So we have to look ahead to see what preventative precautions can be taken to stop a repeat of this m