Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive16

This page is for enforcement requests relating to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles.

ArbCom resolutions

ArbCom remedy

• To address the extensive edit-warring that has taken place on articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets, any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles may be placed on Wikipedia:Probation by any uninvolved administrator. This may include any user who was a party to this case, or any other user after a warning has been given. The administrator shall notify the user on his or her talkpage and make an entry on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Log of blocks, bans, and probations. The terms of probation, if imposed on any editor, are set forth in the enforcement ruling below.

ArbCom enforcement

Enforcement by block
1) Participants who violate the terms of the probation may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Log_of_blocks, bans, and probations

Terms of probation
2) Participants placed on probation are limited to one revert per article per week with respect to the set of articles included in the probation. Any participant may be briefly banned for personal attacks or incivility. Reversion of edits by anonymous IPs do not count as a revert.

Editors

Named in the ArbCom case

• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giano_II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Rockpocket (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • MrDarcy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
  • BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Major_Bonkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Editing as Alice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[1]
• David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GiollaUidir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brixton Busters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scalpfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Derry Boi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Theoldanarchist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scolaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thepiper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quick Reference (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Badgerpatrol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Betacommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ginggangsgoolies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stramash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Logoistic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Traditional unionist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aatomic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users on probation

• User:Vintagekits (by ArbCom ruling)
• User:Aatomic1 (By SirFozzie [2])
• User:W. Frank (per:User:Thatcher, W. Frank should contact ArbCom via mailing list before creating another account, and should avoid Troubles related articles)

Requests for enforcement

User:Vintagekits

Vk was blocked by User:SirFozzie for 24 hours, 01:57, 25 January 2008. Since then he has continued with abusive talk concerning Rockpocket, such as "He is a fuckin stalker", "he can fuck right off if he think I am going to be a bitch for him", "It's blatant bullying".[3] He deletes Rockpocket's very reasonable response, but leaves his own abusive posts in place, despite my request and replacement of Rp's post.[4] This is unacceptable behaviour and a breach of probation conditions. Ideal action: Vk removes his posts and rephrases to discuss reasonably. If not, the posts should be deleted and, if replaced, his talk page protected until such time as he ceases to abuse the privilege of having a talk page. Any further posting of abusive comments to receive an instant block of 30 minutes, with similar or steadily increased blocks for further abusive posts. Vk is entitled to put his case reasonably and it will be discussed reasonably. Tyrenius (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I, regretfully, support this action. My preference is that Vk absolutely ceases the abusive language and attacks and edits in a harmonious and collegial manner with all editors. In the absence of that I request an admin respond in the pattern described above. Rockpocket 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Request posted on ANI Tyrenius (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Endorsed, with regret. Vintagekits has long exhausted my patience, therefore I don't think I would be inclined or ethically able to exercise my admin functions on him any more. I have done my bit, as have you Rockpocket, SirFozzie, Alison, BHG and Tyrenius. Out of us all, Ty is the only one (off-hand) who Vk hasn't accused of having an anti-Irish bias. I may be wrong. All the same, it is now time for someone else to get actively involved. I hope the AN posting gets somebody else involved. --John (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*Can you back your lies up with diffs - thats a serious accusation - either back that up with diffs or remove through your lies.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

*Didnt think so.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oh course John and the Rocket are going to support each other. Lets get the facts straight I wasnt editing in a disruptive manner, can someone show be the disruptive editing on articles - the distruption was caused by the Rocket following me from article to article. He CAN'T stay away from me - he has been asked to stay away from me by numerous editors including myself to stay away from me but he refuses to - he is stalking me and if no admin are going to address that then I am not going to address any other issues. There was no problem until the Rocket stirred all this up - you just ignore that then eh!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Vk, you restored an article which had been merged at AfD with an edit summary which gave no indication of why that was done. When that was reverted per the AfD you simply restored the article again with an unecessarily dismissive and unhelpful comment "reverting editing who hasnt a clue what he is doing". Your first edit should have included in the edit summary a link to the overturning at Talk:Patrick Joseph Kelly, to make clear what you are doing; you didn't do it in your first restoration, you didn't do it when you restored again, and that led to this discusion on Rockpocket's talk page, where you made five further contributions ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) in which you refused to point Rockpocket to the pace where the AfD was overturned, and instead called Rockpocket's intervention "nonsense", and accused him of following me around like a fuckin stink!".
  I hold no brief for or against Rockpocket, but what he did here was perfectly reasonable, seeking justification for the overturning of an AfD-sanctioned merger. The entire discussion could have been avoided if Vintagekits had included the link to Talk:Patrick Joseph Kelly in the first unmerger, and it could have been curtailed at any point by providing that info. It doesn't matter whether Vk hates Rockpocket's guts, Rock had as much right as any other editor to challenge the unmerger, and Vk could have dismissed Rock's concerns quickly at any point. This was not harrassment or stalking, it was an entirely unnecessary wikidrama, caused solely by Vk preferring to lob insults than to post one simple link explaining his actions.
  If Vk really thinks that Rockpocket is stalking him, then he should lodge a proper complaint with diffs so that others can see how the evidence stacks up, but even if Rockpocket is a stalker, his actions in relation to the Gerry O'Callaghan article were entirely reasonable and responsible. Wikipedia works when editors work collaboratively and interact in a civil fashion, and in this case the only issue is the Vk chose to create a drama rather than to resolve a concern. Huge amounts of energy are wasted by this sort of behaviour :(
  Vk has been warned often enough about this, and the block was entirely appropriate. Further blocks should be for much longer durations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WRONG! Check the time line!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from ANI. I'm not familiar with this arbitration case, but I notice that this user has been blocked umpteen times for attacks and incivility, and appears to have learned nothing from it, as e.g. this edit demonstrates. I see no need why we should have to put up with such conduct. Blocked for 48 hours. Sandstein (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User:W. Frank

I hope this will be more of a discussion about the best way forward, than any single admin jumping in and making a snap decision. Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank W. Frank is using the Alice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppet, which has been used to harass and carry on disputes with editors involved in the Troubles case. For example here, here, and here.

Relevant sections in the ArbCom case are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. W. Frank chose not to participate in the ArbCom to any extent, he didn't present any evidence and when challenged on his claim he received emails containing graphic threats of violence and death threats the emails were not produced, not even privately to ArbCom AFAIK as I'm sure we'd have heard about it and the subsequent decision would have been different. W. Frank had his opportunity to present evidence editors have a COI or engage in biased editing, and yet chose not to do so. Therefore to now carry on the same behaviour with a new account is unacceptable in my opinion. According to this he's not a problem with East Asian articles, so perhaps a restriction involving keeping him away from Troubles articles and editors might be the right step? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look through, so please point out if I've missed something in particular, but although there is some ponderous conversation, I don't see any major transgressions, edit warring or incivility. Certainly I think W. Frank should be warned to stop quizzing editors about their personal affiliations. If that then continues, it would be harassment. Tyrenius (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Choice excerpts:

• [10] Be patient - you've been generally regarded as being guilty of biased editing for some time now
• [11] when there was a conflict of interest between the partisan aims of a particular team of edit warriors and those of our Encyclopedia in presenting a balanced and unbiased summary
• [12] it's just that the general effect of your editing is to emphasise a particular slant and standpoint in our articles above all others - and you do this with a single minded zeal and nitpicking determination that led me to ask (my still unanswered) question about WP:COI

As before, W. Frank had every opportunity to participate in the ArbCom case and produce evidence to support his allegations there, yet chose instead to run and hide. I don't think continued comments of that nature are at all helpful. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a warning at this stage. The fact it's been raised here puts it on record, should it continue. I note User:Alice has now been indef blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a warning is inappropiate, he made some very serious allegations prior to the arbcom, and failed to provide any evidence to support them when he had the chance, I say he should be put on probation at least and given a block for using sockpuppets.--Padraig (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Final warning given to User:W. Frank.[13] Tyrenius (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely a warning is not enough for this editor, seen as he asked for the RtV so as to avoid any sanctions from Arbcom, and then sets up a sock and embarks on a campaign of accusations against myself and Domer. BigDunc (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should go down this route - seems beneficial!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a point Vin request a RtV and set up a sock and you will just get a warning!! I say being sarcastic but it seems that is all that is going to happen to W.Frank BigDunc (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This sort of disruptive use of sockpuppetry should have led to a block and to probation once the block was lifted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, dropping in on this discussion. I agree that considering that Alice was set up as what seems to be a bad hand account to avoid scrutiny after the ArbCom, that W.Frank should be placed under the terms of the ArbCom probation. (SirFozzie, not logged in, on break) 128.222.37.20 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to anyone imposing any remedy they see fit, though to date it's academic as the user hasn't edited for the last 3 days. Tyrenius (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He also stop editing when the arbcom started, and only reappeared when it was over, along with his sock, so he will be back again maybe with a new account or sock so the arbcom probation should be applied.--Padraig (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with all the editors above, BHG put the case well, disruptive use of sockpuppetry. Under normal circumstances it could lead to a block, but having used a Sock to side step the Arbcom to escape any sanction, to then carry on the same behaviour with a new account is unacceptable in my opinion. I think BHG hit the nail on the head. --Domer48 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support putting him on standard probation (but then again, I would have put all the named editors on probation. Conditional 1RR, non-disruption and civility parole is a pretty good standard everyone should be held to in this divisive area). This was not an acceptable use of a sock under the circumstances. Rockpocket 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Should they not at least explaine their actions? They refused to explaine themselves to ArbCom. Or is the approch adopted to be what ever you say, say nothing? --Domer48 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any response, I still think that a block (perhaps for 1 week) followed by long-term probation is appropriate. If W.Frank doesn't want to explain, all he is missing is his chance to defend himself; silence shouldn't lessen the sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Something along those lines seems to be the consensus. Would you care to do it? Tyrenius (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What I find strangest about this is that this account isn't solely a bad hand sock, although I've now seen enough evidence to convince myself they are the same person. The user under the name Alice made some fantastic contributions to East Asian topics. If only we could keep them away from Troubles ones, we'd have a fantastic editor and none of this would be necessary. My suggestion therefore is a topic ban or extended probation applying to this user on Troubles-related pages and editors' user talk pages (given there isn't likely to be a huge intersection between those and East Asia). What say others? Orderinchaos 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this: Probation on Troubles related articles, Civility Parole (meaning if he steps out of line, he gets blocked), and he understands that if we catch him socking again, it will be an indefinite block? SirFozzie (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

W.Frank hasn't been used since 17 December 2007. He needed to get a new account as his RL ID was being used, and, if you remember, there was a lot of trouble relating to that. He'll need to start a new account in order to edit anonymously. Tyrenius (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As the blocking admin noted, we can switch the indef block over to the W. Frank account if W. Frank wants to use the Alice account going forward, so that can be done if need be. SirFozzie (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That's not going to work. W. Frank is his real name. His address was posted on wiki and he felt threatened by this. He was not alone in seeing an element of threat. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Alison. He needs an account which is not linked to W. Frank, so he can edit anonymously. It is now known that Alice is W. Frank, so he'll have to start a new account. It seems unlikely that he will both be able to edit anonymously and edit Troubles articles, as his ID is likely to get discovered again, but that's up to him. Tyrenius (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How about blocking both the Alice and W. Frank accounts indef, and if he starts a new account he must make that account known to the members of the arbcom committee who can monitor it, and he recieves a topic ban from troubles related articles.--Padraig (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he needs to communicate privately, either with ArbCom or preferably with admins to save giving ArbCom more work. Topic ban seems extreme, as no one else has received such a ban. I suggest he makes two accounts, as a legitimate use of a sock, one account to edit non-Troubles articles, and, if he wishes to edit Troubles articles, then one account which can be used for that or other areas, as long as the two accounts aren't editing the same material and supporting each other. The accounts should be known to ArbCom and/or admins to make sure that doesn't happen. Then if the Troubles account gets discovered, at least the other one can continue to do work elsewhere. Tyrenius (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the problem is that by socking and continuing to use his W. Frank account, and earning the probation he has (That everyone above pretty much agrees is a valid restriction), he's put us in a hard place. Because this new account, whatever the name is, will be placed on probation, and probation has to be logged on the ArbCom case, pretty much destroying any usefulness of opening yet another account. SirFozzie (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Probation will only relate to the Troubles, so a different account used on other articles will enable him to achieve an anonymous wiki presence elsewhere at least. He feels he has been threatened and may even be in danger with his RL ID revealed. Editng wikipedia should not subject an editor to such worry. He will not be able to continue to use an account, where his RL ID is known, so probation on such an account will effectively mean a topic ban. This may be what happens. Tyrenius (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, Ty.. but I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. It may all be moot anyway, since W. Frank has not yet replied to any of these. I am willing to let W.Frank create another account, if he stays away from popping up and making more accusations about fellow editors. I am NOT willing to let W.Frank make two new accounts, one for causing yet more drama in an area where we should be reducing drama, not causing it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have no problem with that. So it's just the technicalities of doing it - does it have to be notified or can he just go off and do it? I suggest indef blocking User:W. Frank, because of compromised personal info, unless he tells us he wants to continue using that account. Tyrenius (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the clean start under a new name section of the sockpuppet policy is relevant here. He could have done that, yet chose instead to carry on causing problems. As I said right at the end of my first post here, he's not been causing problems in some areas. Also the timing of the creation of the account was dubious, it was while the case was ongoing.

I'm not hunting through the history of the page to find the case in question, but I seem to remember someone on probation had to ask permission from ArbCom to even change their name. Might it be best to get the input of an ArbCom member or clerk here? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's no secret that I am not W.Frank's favourite person, but I do AGF that his primary and legitimate reason for a new account was to conceal his RL ID. Tyrenius (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume so, but I'm sure you agree carrying on the same disputes isn't the best way to conceal his new account? My point remains that we probably would be best off asking for clarification on what the procedure is for editors on probation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here, 1) setting up a Sock to avoid the Arbcom, and any sanctions they may suggest, and 2) to use the new account to continue to carrying on disputes. Now, what is the normal procedure for an editor who creates Socks to carrying on disputes, and what is the proscribed remedies of the ArbCom for editors who create Socks to avoid their determinations, or account for their actions. I don’t know why W.Frank set up the Sock account? What I do know is they avoided the ArbCom proceedings and sanctions with it. I do know they used it to carrying on a dispute. Tyrenius AGF that his primary and legitimate reason for a new account was to conceal his RL ID. I can see a major contradiction here, were the evidence clearly shows one thing, and an assumption suggests another. I’m not going to suggest any remedies now, this is a matter for the ArbCom not us, that is just my opinion. I assumed good faith with User:Alice and see were that got me. --Domer48 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is W.Frank not answering for themselves here? --Domer48 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions, Did any Admin know that User:Alice was User:W. Frank? Who did he request his RtV to? Or do you just vanish? Or is the excuse that he felt his life was endangered so enabling him to set up a new account, and then go back and start conflict again. Doesn't sound to me like he was in fear of his life. Surely someone can answer some questions and retain an editors right to privacy.BigDunc (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly did not know Alice and Frank were the same editor, and I doubt any other admin did, at least none involved here. Frank did not appear to publicly invoke his right to vanish, because he does not appear to have requested or used any of the measures listed there. He simply stopped using his account (except to !vote on a few issues) and started using another. Any editor can do that at any time without explanation, but if it is appears to be used to avoid valid scrutiny, then it may be a violation of policy and dealt with accordingly. He doesn't appear to have expressed a reason, but he has a talk page where you can ask him. He is under no obligation to answer, though, and demanding that he does is unlikely to influence him. What, exactly, does someone who is in fear of their life "sound to [you] like" on a written medium and why is that relevant? One has a right to edit here without one's personal identifying details being made public. That happened to Frank. Rockpocket 22:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answers Rockpocket. I dont doubt that if he says he was in fear of his life he must have felt he was. But why then go back to doing something that you feel put your life in danger? And where did it happen that his private details were made public? And his blanking of my comments on his talk page saying that he will WP:ABF in his dealings with me puts that option out the window. BigDunc (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As Tyr says, perhaps he felt sufficiently disguised, but didn't reckon for ONiH's detective skills. Perhaps he felt, a bit like I have expressed recently, that it was someone else's poor behaviour (the posting of his personal details) that led to this situation, and therefore reasons he should not be intimidated into avoiding the subject in that way. An attempt at intimidation was, after all, the interpretation of the incident that led to the block, that let to the ArbCom that led here. I'm sure he could still be happily editing as Alice if he had simply informed ArbCom and/or a few admins of his intentions and submitted that account for review. I'm guessing Frank is well aware of these discussions and if he wishes to opine, then he will do so. My feeling is that he is busy editing away under a new account already, and good luck to him. Though if he get involved in Trouble's related antagonism again, and the connection is made, I expect he will no longer be welcome to edit under any account. Rockpocket 00:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The incident in question is detailed here FYI. This occurred around 19 August 2007. The edits in question were oversighted. W. Frank started editing as User:Alice.S on 28 September 2007, presumably as direct result of this with the aim of creating an anonymous user ID. The name Alice.S was subsequently changed to User:Alice by usurpation, but that's neither here nor there and the contribs history is the same: there have been 2827 edits by Alice/Alice.S. Most have been to other areas and, from what I can make out, he has only re-entered the Troubles arena in the last 2 weeks, presumably feeling that his RL ID was sufficiently disguised. Had he not done so, or had he contributed in the Troubles arena properly, there would not have been a problem. Maybe he's learnt the lesson this time. Tyrenius (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But he still used the W. Frank at the same time, and is still answerable to the arbcom, and so far nobody has said if arbcom was aware of this use of a sock, none of the admins involved seem to have been aware of it.--Padraig (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any real overlap (i.e. The Frank account was used to vote in the ArbCom elections and one RfA only. It doesn't appear that the Alice account voted). I don't see that the use of two accounts is the issue here, its the use of an alternative account to avoid valid scrutiny that is the problem. If he told ArbCom, then they dropped the ball since ArbCom are not enforcing their remedies, admins are. I'll drop them an email just to make sure that that wasn't the case, but I think that is very unlikely. Rockpocket 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He had to create a new user name to protect his RL ID. When the W. Frank account was being used, the Alice account was editing a completely different subject area, which is a legitimate use of a sock. When Alice started editing in the Troubles arena, W. Frank was no longer active. W. Frank was not put on probation by ArbCom. Admins can easily do this when needed for existing Troubles editors, or new ones, who can be put in the "added users" section. Alice is no longer a viable account for him because his RL ID is now known and he cannot be expected to edit with it in those circumstances. The only way to protect his RL ID now is for him to create a new account. If he edits abusively in The Troubles, I don't think it will be long before he is discovered: he lasted less than two weeks, but BEANS. Tyrenius (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for a general clarification here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but is it a case of Go on User:W. Frank set up a new account and dont be bold again or we might do something the next time you become disruptive. BigDunc (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Dunc, you are incorrect. See the discussion linked above by ONiH for what the ArbCom thinks SirFozzie (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fozz so does that mean that the Arbcom will make a ruling on this matter? BigDunc (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, the decision is that W. Frank will have to contact ArbCom's mailing list privately if he wants to set up another account, and if so, it's very likely that ArbCom will appoint some admins to monitor him privately. See this diff from Thatcher on how it's likely going to work. SirFozzie (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of that response, are there any objections to the following?

• The probation is placed on the editor known as W. Frank and Alice.
• W. Frank's account is indefinitely blocked.
• A message is left on the talk page of both accounts (and by email if anyone really wants to) informing them not to edit until the situation has been resolved by email with ArbCom.
• ArbCom are informed of the situation obviously...

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't have any problem with that. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems ok, --Domer48 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Applied, then [14] SirFozzie (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:David Lauder, User:Chelsea Tory and User:Counter-revolutionary

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman for details of sock and meatpuppetry, and also proof of a COI situation. I make no recommendations, I'm just a messenger but I'll be happy to clarify anything due to my knowledge of the rather complex checkuser and evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

From reviewing the situation.. I'm... just.. wow. This is something that needs to be taken care of, and quickly.

Per the evidence, the confirmed accounts should be indefblocked immediately. This is gang-war editing at its worst.

Sussexman (already banned for NLT violations)

Chelsea Tory

David Lauder

I also would look favorable on an indefblock on Counter-Revolutionary, who has also edited from the same computer at the same time and place as the above but not nearly as often (from the checkuser report).

I would also support the following: Any account tied to the four accounts above, is hereby topic-banned from all articles pertaining to the Troubles ArbCom case, and any account tied to these four found to be editing Troubles ArbCom related articles is to be indefinitely blocked. This is to follow up on the CheckUser that Counter-Revolutionary has other accounts, but is not using them apparently abusively. SirFozzie (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with SirFozzie. --John (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The three non-blocked accounts have now been blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just popping this in your toaster and seeing if it pops up. If you check the recent edits on the non-Lauder accounts you'll see COI editing on some of the Tory related articles listed in the checkuser, might it be worth extending the articles to cover them? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'm just the messenger"! Give me strength! Ever heard of WP:Assume good faith? The COI bit on my part was dealt with a long time ago. So why the ressurection? This is the biggest load of conspiracy theory balony that I've ever read and I naturally deny it. I have no connexion with any of the others mentioned there. Anyone who has any proper knowledge of ISP numbers will know that entire blocks of houses can have virtually the same ISP number. Moreover, broadband numbers can change at random. But surely the question here must be what has brought this up and what relation has it or any of the people mentioned got to do with 'The Troubles' ArbCom? And interesting how it is yet again an Irish team behind this harrassment. What is it with you people? David Lauder (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm English born and bred.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.

Not much more to add to that is there? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any experience or care the slightest about the disputes which preceded the CheckUser request. But David Lauder is a substantial content contributor, and in my experience of him (when he edits medieval history articles), he is not a tendentious editor. I have his word that he is not the same as these users. Can I request David Lauder's case and block be reviewed before action as permanent as an indefinite block is sanctioned? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is conclusive, detailed and substantial. There are absolutely no mitigating circumstances that could possibly justify this type of carry on. This was a coordinated attempt to undermine the policies which govern us all. The premeditated nature of these efforts has been exposed and there is an obligation on both Admins and the ArbCom to deal with this in an equally coordinated fashion. David Lauder (who ever they are) should be blocked now! Like wise all their socks and meat puppets! Only then should what happens with them in the future be discussed. It is because of this we have had an ArbCom, it’s because of this we have had Admins and editors burned out having to deal with it. It’s because of this we have Admins who do not want to be caught next to near these articles! I personally don’t give a flying **** how good they are on other articles, while they lie, cheat and abuse the ones I’m interested in. The simple fact is they were caught and have to pay the piper. --Domer48 (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have either of these three usernames made edits at the same time? If not, we should request that they do. If they can? they're innocent; if they can't? Uh oh. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The puppet master could get a friend to log into one of his account and edit at the same time as him I would not make them innocent. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As Barryob says that would in no way confirm inocence.BigDunc (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, things don't look good right now, for David Lauder. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please study the RFCU page carefully: three user names "have edited from the same computer, sometimes within a minute of each other" (my emphasis). Tyrenius (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like sockpuppetry to me. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Conclusive. I have had my eye on User:Chelsea Tory for a while as a fairly obvious sock, and am unsurprised. Black Kite 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A logical problem of glaring inconsistency

The evidence seems overwhelming, and I support these blocks and topic bans. Well done to One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) for the detective work that got us here, but very very badly done ONIH for this edit, repeating the destructive gloating over the ban on Vintagekits (talk · contribs).

The logical problem is simple: if sockpuppetry and votestacking leads to an indef-block for some users, why not for all?

Arbcom was presented with evidence that Vintagekits had engaged in sockuppetry and had actively recruited meatpuppets: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits and many more links at Rockpocket's evidence to arbcom. So why exactly are David Lauder and his sockpuppets being indef-blocked when Vintagekits has been unblocked, despite Vk's many many other infringements as documented on the evidence page?

This isn't a rhetorical question. I genuinely want an answer to this, because on the face of it, we have an utterly perverse and illogical situation here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment stuck out. After information received by email from SirFozzie (talk · contribs), I'm satisfied that the sockpuppetry by David Lauder (talk · contribs) et al falls into a different category to that by Vintagekits. Many thanks to Fozzie for the clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the person who they're sockpuppeting for is a person who has been blocked for about 18 months after violation of Wikipedia's policies on legal threats (to the point of sending a solicitor's letter to threaten a Wikipedia opponent), for one. SirFozzie (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with BHG. Either VK should be indef blocked (which I don't agree with) or Sussexman should be allowed to edit one account (perhaps David Lauder) after a much shorter block. I also think the champagne gloating on ONIH's talk page should result in a short 24 hour block for that user. Right now this issue should really go to the arbitration enforcement page and I would strongly suggest that if wikipedia chooses to take sides in the Troubles bickering (as this latest act appears to do) that this will have a negative impact on both the encyclopedia and our treatment of this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that's a very fair question indeed, BHG. As the checkuser who ran the case, I've been reluctant to comment either way but have to say I was surprised that David Lauder was indefblocked, given that I see his being a largely constructive editor who indulged in sock/meatpuppetry and got caught. A quick glance at RFCU cases shows that as long as they're not a banned editor, sockmasters generally get one or two weeks of a block for a first offense. Same with Counter Revolutionary - I don't believe he's a sock but he most certainly has been involved in meat-puppetry and collusion and all of them have been editing from the same locations at various times. Sussexman, however, should remain blocked due to legal issues and the fact that he'd been editing anonymously - Alison ^❤ 18:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because these accounts had multiple-voted in things like ArbCom elections (against editors they had conflict with, RE:Giano), etcetera. Also, to block One Night In Hackney for a celebration (while even, admittedly in poor taste), when the FIRST celebration (of VK's block) didn't result in a block would hardly be fair either. Also, I've been made aware of a PREVIOUS ArbCom case (courtesy deleted after the ArbCom case was completed) regarding the same target of David Lauder's edits WRT to legal threats, and I'm quite willing to turn this into a Community BAN discussion if you wish. SirFozzie (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There was a previous ArbCom case involving Lauder??? Why were we not informed of this before, esp. during the Troubles case?? - Alison ^❤ 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Involving something related, Ali. I just became aware of it about three hours ago. I've sent you a link to the (courtesy deleted) ArbCom case) via email. BHG, I'm willing to do the same to you if you wish. SirFozzie (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, Foz. I'll look it over - Alison ^❤ 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

1-2 weeks for each of CR and DL sounds very fair to me, plus of course a warning that this will not be tolerated again. Nobody is suggesting Sussexman's blo0ck should be up for review. The point re the partying is the same general point in that we should not take sides, ie everyone should be treated the same, so if nobody got blocked re partying over VK nobody should here but at least a warning not to gloat, its basic wikipedia civility that you dont go yay when someone you have been in editing conflict with gets blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was just David Lauder and his other two accounts I think a slap on the wrist and with an assurance that he would not do this again would be in order, no matter how annoying its been for us all to have been dealing with what we have all recognised for quite a while as the same person pretending to be different people. Unfortunately it seems very likely on the evidence presented that all these accounts and Sussexman are one in the same person, which means examining the reason for his permanent exclusion; his legal threat to another editor. Perhaps it is time to do this but this would have to be a matter for the whole community here to decide, not just those currently involved in this case now. - Galloglass 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Having looked into the history of this further it seems there are no grounds at all for re-examing the ban. - Galloglass 21:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in light of further evidence received, I believe David Lauder should remain blocked indef at this time - Alison ^❤ 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say something not unlike what BHG said, and has since struck out, but I too have changed my mind. Looking at the evidence referred to above, I have to endorse the indefinite block. This is regrettable as, at least so far as the DL account was concerned, there were a lot of positive contributions to the project. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to defend meta-David Lauder, esp. as he continues to lie to me by email. I've not seen Alison's evidence, but she's a highly respectable user and I've deduced independently that Lauder is lying to me by his own inconsistencies and inadvertent revelations. Honestly though, if User:Molobo can get a 2nd chance then anyone can. I think if meta-David Lauder after a month or so (some decent but not indefinite period) comes back in good faith and with believable promises of changing, a second chance should be considered. He does make extensive content contributions which should be borne in mind, esp. as an indefinite block is in practice unenforceable. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think second chances are very important for non SPAs who make good contributions. We now have VK back here editing constructively and I feel the same should be the case for Lauder/Counter-revolutionary, as -per what Deacon is saying. People had given up on VK but were forced into reviewing and giving him that second chance and I think the same should happen here. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Squeak: At least in the case of David Lauder, if I honestly thought that there was any chance that he would be allowed back, I would immediately move for a community ban, because the information I've read is that repugnant to me. There's a history here that I've made BHG of and Alison of. There's a courtesy-deleted ArbCom case involved, that I can't go into (the courtesy delete was due to an OTRS request). The legal threats, and now this set of sockpuppets that IS known publically is bad enough. In no way, shape, or form should the PERSON behind the David Lauder account ever be allowed back on Wikipedia. SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox there is a hell of a lot more going on here than you are making out. Vin and DL are leagues apart on this one. Read the discussion again, you might have missed it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what its worth, is that drawing a direct comparison between the Vk sock/meat puppetry and this is only part of the story. I'm not familiar with the additional history alluded to above, but when Vk caught recruiting meat-puppets to stack AfDs there was clearly individuals from the "other side" (perhaps even those we are discussing here) who were doing likewise. Moreover, that was before The Troubles ArbCom. The current case is post-ArbCom, where a strong message was sent out that the type of behaviour that went before would no longer be tolerated. The message was clear: should editors revert to poor behaviour in this new climate, then they can expect to be blocked. I think this sends a strong signal that the last (and last, last) chances that were given before ArbCom will not be repeated.

To that end, I would ask that henceforth we see no more gloating over each other's blocks. Its distasteful and childish and breeds bad feeling. The next time someone mocks, gloats or cracks open a bottle of champagne to celebrate someone else's misfortune then I will block them too. Rockpocket 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That last bit sounds good, there are plenty of reasons to celebrate (VKs unblocking was one) but it is bound to be very frustrating being blocked and we need to be sensitive to fellow editors; other comments to me noted. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a truly wonderful piece of investigative work which resulted in the checkuser, and followed on with blocks. I consider a bottle of Champaign well deserved, when one considers the amount of disruption these accounts were responsible for. That editors who have been the victim of sock abuse, are now to be threatened because they derive satisfaction from their demise is lamentable. That they were caught engaging in the most blatant and coordinated attack on the community and its members, to have this behaviour and the fact that they were caught described as their “misfortune” is puerile crap. The whole community will benefit by seeing the backs of the likes of them, and I will toast any editor who catches their ilk, and make no apologies for it to anyone. --Domer48 (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As they say in the land discovered by St Brendan, "Amen to that" — both to Rockkpocket's champagne-gloating-verboten warning and to the rest.

The additional info which Fozzie supplied was sufficient to make me withdraw my reservations, but I think that Rockpocket's point about before-arbcom and after-arbcom would also have been sufficient. Arbcom sent a clear warning that the old antics would no longer be tolerated, so even without the extra history in this case, an indefblock would have justified for Lauder et al.

I say that with some regret. I rarely agreed with David Lauder, and found him a difficult editor to disagree with (he didn't believe in consensus, so discusion could be futile), but he did make a lot of good and substantive contributions of encyclopedic content, and it's sad to see that coming to an end. But the circumstances here are serious enough that it has to be terminated, and I suggest that Fozzie should now seek a community ban on Lauder et al, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that in this case an indefinite block is also a permanent block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SF is working away and I suggest he tries for this community ban when he is ready (and we shouldn't be hurrying over this one, really). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to get a key part of this evidence undeleted for all to see (and should it be undeleted, I will mention it to all).. and with yet another contentious RfArb in front of me, I am a wee bit distracted, but eh. If I couldn't take a joke, I shouldn't have let them nominate me for an admin in the first place :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Filed under "Now It Can Be Told"

I got the ok from the original person who deleted the key bit of the timeline to restore it for this discussion. I invite everyone to read and chime in on this discussion on WP:AN#Placing_community_ban_on_User:David_Lauder_et_al SirFozzie (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other side now...

Per Alison's checkuser findings currently on ANI:

 Confirmed - the following:

1. Sweetfirsttouch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. La voz de su amo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All three accounts have been blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

I think this is the most informed forum to address the completely unacceptable harassment in these posts. [15][16] It is time to stop tolerating such behaviour from anyone. This user has been adequately warned and continues to be a disruptive presence:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. -- Tyrenius (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tyrenius, but I cannot see any harassment in those two diffs. Incivility, perhaps, but please can you explain why you see those two comments as harrassment? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing thing because the consensus went against her at Talk:List of massacres. Thanks Tyrenius for removing the derogatory comments; let me be clear that I do regard this kind of thing as harassment and would like to see something done about it. Sarah needs to learn how to disagree without it becoming a vendetta each time. --John (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I personally don't see them as "harassment". Unfortunately, it's a rather overused and much blunted term on WP. Incivility, yes. Rudeness, probably. Harassment, no - Alison ^❤ 04:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. To me it is a textbook example of "Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter." I can dig out diffs for you if you like but this editor has made a disproportionate amount of nippy comments about me recently. It does begin to feel like harassment. Of course YMMV. --John (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. It's obviously quite upsetting to you and it's been going on some time now. We all kinda know what Sarah is like re. admins, though, but that's no excuse. Ty beat me to it and removed the comments with a warning. Trouble is, if you try something like civility parole, a certain someone will likely call it "censorship". What to do ... - Alison ^❤ 05:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly frustrating. I'm happy with Ty's actions there for now; I have a lot of respect for Sarah's passion but her sniping on the list of massacres article, which Rock asked me to look in on, is getting wearing, as I mentioned a few days ago. I hope she will focus on harmonious editing from now on; I don't come here to be spoken to that way. Thanks for commenting. --John (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It is harassment per Wikipedia:HAR#Targeted_personal_attacks:

Targeted personal attacks: Not all personal attacks are harassment, but when an editor engages in repeated personal attacks on a particular editor or group of editors, that's another matter.

However, it doesn't matter what it is called, it is still unacceptable. It is a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which are policies. It is demoralising and humiliating for an editor to be subjected to this kind of abuse. We have come down hard on other breaches of policy re sockpuppeting, and the air seems rather clearer as a result. There is no reason to treat this case any differently. There is no reason to exercise restraint, because it's going to be called "censorship": that would be giving in to emotional blackmail. Many people who transgress throw counter-accusations to get themselves off the hook. It doesn't work like that. Abusive comments about other editors poison the atmosphere and do not address the issues. There is no excuse for them, especially with consistent offenders, which Sarah 777 is. I suggest a one week block in the first instance, with increasing lengths for further offences. That is better than doing nothing for a year and then imposing a community ban when it gets unbearable. Tyrenius (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The comments on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 18 are worth looking at as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Remarks by Sarah777 from the above deletion review discussion:

• Could this be related to the involvement of some editors in "an article I couldn't give a sh*t about" (List of massacres) by some Anglo editors, one wonders?[17]

[NB change from "English" to "Anglo"]

• I also (personal view) think there is an element of typical British anti-Irishness involved here; the nationality of most of those attacking the project is very clear.[18]

Tyrenius (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• The first part of the initial comment is dubious too - "typical deletionist nonsense. This is an attack on the work of the productive editors by the bureaucrats". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777's response on my talk page: "Kindly sod off."[19] Tyrenius (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

... and blocked for 24 hours. That's more than enough - nobody needs to put up with that sort of abuse - Alison ^❤ 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is worth a look too - under a heading of "Another daft decision" she said "PSB, I see you moved "football" in Ireland to some weird name rather than to a disamb page as was the clear consensus on the matter. Have you ever made a sensible call as an Admin? Please reverse this asinine decision". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

An outsiders recommendation: 1)I think Sarah should personally apologize to the editors who accuse her of harrassment. 2)If no apologies are forthcoming? Then the Sarah VS Troubles committee should go to Arbitration. Good luck everyone. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 24-hour block was justified: the sod-off comment to Tyrenius was definitely out-of-order. However, I think there is a danger here of missing the other side of the story: that John's role as an admin in Irish-related articles has long been regarded as highly partisan by Sarah and some other editors. I don't believe that John is intentionally biased or that he is acting in anything other than good faith, but it's also very undesirable to have ongoing admin involvement from an admin is so strongly perceived as partisan. That perception may be unfair, but it is not without some reasonable basis, and I don't see any reason to believe that John's well-intentioned involvement in these matters is helpful.

Not for the first time, Sarah has lost her temper when frustrated, which is not acceptable: all the old rules of online communication (walk away from the keyboard if angry etc) apply even more on wikipedia than elsewhere. But at the same time as noting the unacceptability of Sarah's outbursts, please can I appeal to John to reconsider his involvement in these issues, because although he clearly intends to help, the reality is clearly that he's not helping, and his involvement is raising tempers rather than cooling them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)