Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bishonen: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:24, 5 January 2006

(Bishonen | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Bishonen has abused her sysop powers by blocking three Wikipedians (User:DrippingInk, User:Winnermario, User:Hollow Wilerding) with little to no discussion of as to why and what actions they had pursued to allow the blocks.

Description

The three users DrippingInk, Winnermario, and Hollow Wilerding are currently residing together at a house located in Toronto, Canada. As a result, they share and access the same computer, which holds one IP address. The three of them registered an account at Wikipedia at three separate times during 2005, and agreed that they were not going to reveal that they were using the same computer as to fear of being accused of sock puppetry. However, when an IP-check was conducted, it had become public that they were sharing the same computer. Bishonen demonstrated horrible beahviour toward these three users by accusing Hollow Wilerding of being the main account and that DrippingInk and Winnermario were merely sock puppets. Without any discussion, DrippingInk and Winnermario were infinitely blocked and Hollow Wilerding was subsequently blocked after very limited discussion. Hollow Wilerding subsequently threatened to file an RfC as Bishonen had no evidence or references of the three accounts being sock puppets of each other.

Powers misused

Blocked User:DrippingInk infinitely and accused the account of being a sock puppet with no evidence.
Blocked User:Winnermario infinitely and accused the account of being a sock puppet with no evidence.
Threatened to block User:Hollow Wilerding for misuse of the FAC process without any evidence, and subsequently proceeded to do so.
Stalked Hollow Wilerding by blocking the IP addressed she used every time she attempted to convince the community that she had not committed the crime of sock puppets.

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Assume good faith — disrupted by assuming all of Hollow Wilerding's edits were made to enhance her ability to do no wrong on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:Cite sources — similar to the above, provided no evidence of Hollow Wilerding using sock puppets.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Hollow Wilerding's attempts

One.
Two.
Three.
Four.

These are just four of approximately eight attempts of Hollow Wilerding's.

Other user attempts

Please see a few comments made by User:Search4Lancer.
User:EveryKing's edit presents that he was not in favour of the block, but did not receive a response, despite Bishonen's previous comment stating: "Any objections, comments?"

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hollaback Girl
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding
WP:ANI: Votestacking FAC sockpuppets: Hollow Wilerding
User talk:Hollow Wilerding
What else... oh, yes, about this RFC. The links in the section ""Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"" are really nice. But the "Applicable policies" where I "disrupted by assuming all of Hollow Wilerding's edits were made to enhance her ability to do no wrong on Wikipedia"... are you sure you're an English teacher?

Update 1. (Please note that this update was posted after 29 editors had signed below, so they haven't endorsed this part. Nor update 2, coming shortly.) It looks like some people have received an exaggerated idea of my "escalating blocks" of the Hollow Wilerding account, so I'll just clarify that. I have only blocked the account twice, both times conservatively. (Of course I've blocked indefinitely the other accounts she has created while blocked, as is standard practice; most recently Siblings WC, Siblings CW, Cruz AFade, Cruz Along, Empty Wallow, and TwoDown.) When Kelly Martin informed me that CheckUser had caught HW using votestacking sockpuppets on FAC, as well as supporting the deceit rather elaborately by posting fake dialogue with herself on her talkpage and I-don't-understand-this-technical-talk protestations on her RFA, Kelly told me I could block the user for up to a month. I blocked for one week, posting my rationale on WP:ANI.[1] A day later HW posted on WP:ANI from an IP, pretending to be a different user supporting HW's view that the week-long block was unfair and abusive.[2] Several circumstances suggested that this was her again (I lay them out here), and CheckUser confirmed it again. I then extended the block from one to two weeks. That's it, that's how and why I've blocked HW: one week, which was later extended to two weeks. Snowspinner blocked her indefinitely a little later. See the block log. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Bishonen | talk 05:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Sarah Ewart 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
r3m0t ^talk 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This RFC is nothing more than a troll. FCYTravis 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I don't think I have ever found an RfC statement so hilarious, although I'm not entirely sure what it is that's funny about it. Something about the prose. Also, writing about yourself in third person is rather iffy, especially in such a positive light. Ah well... --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mrs. Wilerding's "attempts to resolve the dispute" look more like "attempts to escalate the dispute". — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wgfinley 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another bad-faith RfC on a good editor and admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Phædriel 05:17, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
Calton | Talk 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC). The lack of response to Everyking, by the way, might have something to do with his complete lack of credibility concerning comments on admin actions.[reply]
Sigh. Per SlimVirgin. 172 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmhmmm. FreplySpang (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bishonen is notable. Obvious bad-faith nomination. (And please inform the Canadian schoolteacher that someone is abusing her name on Wikipedia.) Tupsharru 08:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Tupsharru says, someone really ought to inform the teacher that one of her students is.... Well, never mind that: Bishonen colored within the lines. I had not seen Everyking's objection, as it was not on Bishonen's page nor WP:AN, but on the Hollow talk page; I did not intend to ignore his objection, but it really wasn't in a place where one would see it. Geogre 13:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to see such a clear case after the recent uncivil war at Kelly's rfc. karmafist 13:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
El_C 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations are baseless and groundless. Bishonen has comported herself with aplomb. Wikipedia benefits by the continued absence of Hollow Wierdling. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And Hollow continues digging... Mark ¹ 17:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen acted in perfectly good faith, and did the right thing for the community. Also, in re: The three users DrippingInk, Winnermario, and Hollow Wilerding are currently residing together at a house located in Toronto, Canada — here are two diffs in which Hollow Wilerding claims that she only knows Winnermario "from another website" and that DrippingInk "lives across the street". --keepsleeping sleeper cell 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bishonen acted reasonably here. Paul August ☎ 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
getcrunk juice ^contribs 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with comments of above endorsers. This RfC seems to be in retaliation and bad faith. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute bad faith nomination. They don't come any more conscientious and caring than Bishonen. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with above users. Bishonen shouldn't have to deal with this crap. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dtobias

User:Hollow Wilerding neglects to mention the part where he/she/they threatened legal action over the dispute with Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NLT. This is grounds for a continued block by itself.

*Dan T.* 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Ewart 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nandesuka 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I will continue to log on to separate IP addresses as long as I am capable...You are going to pay...A lawsuit is also being filed...a reincarnation account is going to be created...should we be blocked during the RfC, another reincarnation will occur...Prepare yourselves for hell...Legal action is commencing..." Mrs. Wilerding's behavior has been outrageous. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
r3m0t ^talk 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 05:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*rolls eyes* --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threats are right out. Pretending to be one when you are three or three when you are one (and now maybe five) is just as out. Geogre 05:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Golbez 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wgfinley 06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hollow also instructed me not to vote in her next RfA. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-- Phædriel 05:17, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
yep, that too. FreplySpang (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172 07:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
karmafist 13:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepsleeping sleeper cell 17:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giano | talk 17:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
getcrunk juice ^contribs 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Sean Black

This is ridiculous, but while we're here, let's give Bishonen a big plate of cupcakes for her great work.--Sean|Black 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

Nandesuka 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC). Yay, cupcakes! Yay, Bishonen![reply]
Sarah Ewart 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Sure, who doesn't like cupcakes?[reply]
I may eat one first. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Save another for me. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop eating them! Bishonen | talk 05:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
r3m0t ^talk 05:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) if I get one[reply]
Sean deserves one himself. FCYTravis 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure they don't have too much sugar in them :) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambi 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With sprinkles!! Wgfinley 06:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your figure now! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some what? silsor 06:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Magnolia Bakery... --Calton | Talk 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mixing up a fresh batch since the ones Sean brought are nearly gone. FreplySpang (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I brought some cookies to back up the cupcakes ;-) karmafist 13:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark ¹ 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 22:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With real whipped cream. No butter cream for Our Bish. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brownies --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jkelly 02:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by brenneman

Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of a particular RfC, it would help if everyone could remain as civil as possible. Rolling eyes, mocking a person's english, and the like really don't help anything. There is no reason that we can't be nice.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 16:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised at the number of signatures on this one. Really goes to show the level of the people we're dealing with here. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 01:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but possibly not as you mean it. I disagree with being playful on an RFC: it doesn't help. However, I also think that there would never have been so many people jumping in with cupcakes and cookies if "HW"'s actions weren't staggeringly improper and allegations astonishingly self-destructive. In my view, I concurred that we should stick to issues and save the rest for talk pages, but there just aren't any issues against Bishonen here, and what is happening is that this is rapidly becoming an RFC against the individual(s) called "Hollow Wiledering." Geogre 02:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is because (in your opinion) what HW is doing is so laughable, it's alright? Search 4 LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to Hollow Wilerding's venemous insults, legal threats, tantrums, and fake-story after fake-story (I'm not saying any particular one isn't true, but they can't ALL be), the light tone of amusement taken by Bishonen and her supporters is extremely civil. In fact, the only gross incivilty from another party regarding this that comes to mind is... oh, yeah, it's from you. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the level of nastiness that other very recent RfCs spiraled into has made me oversensitive? And we have in the past been guilty of kicking people when they are down. *cough* Brandt *cough*
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, because the truth wasn't being told concerning policies? Yes, when administrators make up policies to suit their needs it tends to aggravate me. Search 4 LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 05:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't even apologetic for your incivility in this matter, Search4Lancer, then endorsing this particular outside view appears to be ugly hypocrisy. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)
If you would actually read and understand what I said, you would see that I have no reason to apologize. An apology from me would be hipocrisy, not the other way around. That's like expecting Ken Starr to apologize to Bill Clinton for prosecuting him. Search 4 LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smokes, but that's almost the most unintentionally ironic thing I've ever seen written. Geogre 04:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
getcrunk juice ^contribs 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kelly Martin

I'm the administrator who reviewed the CheckUser evidence in this case. Bishonen presented me with evidence to convince me that there was reason to believe that votestacking on FAC was taking place involving these users. Evidence of votestacking (in any context on Wikipedia, not just FAC) is one of the grounds that permits me to examine CheckUser evidence and share my findings with another (non-CheckUser) admin, for that admin to take whatever action they feel is appropriate. (I rarely act myself on CheckUser evidence, except when CheckUser reveals an open proxy; I prefer to report on what I find and let someone else decide how to act.) After examination of the evidence, I concluded that all three accounts were being used from the same computer and informed Bishonen of that conclusion.

The combination of apparent votestacking on FAC and a CheckUser determination that the users are editing from the same computer is sufficient basis for an administrator to conclude that sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) is occuring. ArbCom precedent supports holding that all such users are the same person. Policy supports the blocks imposed by Bishonen as a result.

Even if we take the complaintants claim that the three individuals are distinct editors as true for the sake of discussion, Bishonen's initial blocks were not inappropriate. The aggressive and vile manner in which the Wildering editors responded to the blocks, however, was definitely inappropriate, and there is therefore no question that the subsequent escalation of blocks in response to such ill behavior was also not inappropriate.

Bishonen's conduct in this affair has been perfectly reasonable. The behavior of the Wilderings (however many of them there are) has not.

(Note: if this goes to Arbitration, I wil recuse, as I advised Bishonen throughout this affair, and could not fairly judge any Arbitration which flowed from it.)

Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~

Kelly Martin (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, there is good reason to believe that the initial Wiledering account was a block evasion, which would be reason for a block, and the new "siblings" account was a clear attempt at block evasion. What we seem to have here is someone(s) who has consistently and repeatedly evaded blocks. If nothing else had occurred, that would be sufficient. Geogre 06:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a profileration of people recently who seem to be living together in very large houses, all using the same computer, editing the same articles, holding the same opinions — even making the same spelling mistakes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Ewart 06:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per SlimVirgin. I'll add that there has been a troubling proliferation of people who are using Wikipedia as a social outlet and not at all concerned about improving the content of article. This RfC seems to be just the latest in the series of attempts to string up a competent administrator. 172 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lays out the situation quite clearly. FreplySpang (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal clear. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
getcrunk juice ^contribs 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Geogre

The user's duplicate and triplicate accounts were blocked for having been used to vote multiple times on the user's own nominations to FAC. However, the user followed with a legal threat, and so his (and I, too, believe this corporate identity to be a teenaged boy) primary account was blocked for that. Indeed, this RFC is clearly intended to be part of "drastic action" that the user vowed to take if he were blocked. Hence, the RFC is improperly licensed as self-declared revenge. The reason for some of the exaggerated response is probably that petulance. I agree with Aaron that we ought to stick to the case, though: the user has misrepresented in the presentation of this case (Everyking's disagreement must have very recently arrived, as the response on the administrator's noticeboard was, after 48 hours, entirely endorsing blocks), has misrepresented his own behavior, has eliminated any credibility he might have (thus voiding AGF) because stating, first, that the three accounts were unrelated, then that one was a boyfriend and the other a neighbor, then that one was a husband and the other a neighbor, and then that one was a neighbor and the other a brother and now that yet another account must be allowed to be one account for several people. The user was warned that public accounts are not allowed and yet announced an intention to get even if it were blocked. Well, someone else blocked it, and yet the foot stomping goes on. There is no case here to comment upon, except to once more tell the person using these accounts to apologize, behave, and try to be constructive. Geogre 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This background about the conflicting claims is very useful. Demi ^T/_C 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Khaosworks

As I pointed out on WP:AN/I, if from the outset HW had been honest with us and said that this was a shared computer and thus might have activities that look like sockpuppetry but please, sir, it really isn't, something might have been worked out. But even taking him at his word, they deliberately acted in concert to obfuscate this, because they feared that they would be accused of sockpuppetry. I can only come to the conclusion that they knew precisely what sockpuppetry is, were prepared to engage in it and had no intention of coming clean - until the CheckUser discovered them.

As a result, what may be a perfectly good FA is now tainted, goodwill in the edits they have perpetrated has evaporated, and trust has been taken away. Of course this would happen. They knew this would happen, but instead of coming forward and going "mea culpa", they continued to hide. I have no doubt that these people are adolescents because they certainly act and think like it (no offense to the other, much more sensible adolescents I know out there). They should not be surprised that this is happening.

And on top of that, rather than coming, hat in hand to the community, they start bitching and whining. Instead of attempting to find some kind of compromise that makes sense, they threaten legal action. They do not see the wrongdoing here. They do not even admit wrongdoing. So why should we even countenance this obvious lack of remorse? It's not even as if it's a grey area - sockpuppetry is verboten, and that's that. And as I said, HW admits he knew this.

You'll forgive me if I don't prefer HW's judgment on the matter over Bishonen's, who is much more ~~attractive~~respected. But this isn't really about HW, it's about Bish's actions, and any doubts I may have had about them at the start of this affair have been completely extinguished by HW's behaviour. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, although I, personally, do not agree with multiple users on a single account (a single computer for several people with several accounts is permissible), and I really don't know that a confession would have made things better once the user began voting for himself. The biggest thing, though, is just as you have said: the temperament(ality) shown when "caught." There is mens rea. Geogre 17:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for chuckles, let's note that "she" has added a complaint that "her" accounts were blocked every time she tried to get one to tell everyone that she wasn't using sockpuppets. In other words, she is announcing that she is continuing to try to evade blocks and that not being allowed to evade a block is, in fact, an abuse of administration! Wow. Just wow. Geogre 02:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
getcrunk juice ^contribs 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 #[[User talk:Hollow Wilerding]]
 # What else... oh, yes, about this RFC. The links in the section ""Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute"" are really nice. But the "Applicable policies" where I "disrupted by assuming all of Hollow Wilerding's edits were made to enhance her ability to do no wrong on Wikipedia"... are you ''sure'' you're an English teacher?
+'''Update 1'''. (Please note that this update was posted after 29 editors had signed below, so they haven't endorsed this part. Nor update 2, coming shortly.)  It looks like some people have received an exaggerated idea of my "escalating blocks" of the [[User:Hollow Wilerding|Hollow Wilerding]] account, so I'll just clarify that. I have only blocked the account twice, both times conservatively. (Of course I've blocked indefinitely the other accounts she has created while blocked, as is standard practice; most recently  [[User:Siblings WC|Siblings WC]], [[User:Siblings CW|Siblings CW]], [[User:Cruz AFade|Cruz AFade]], [[User:Cruz Along|Cruz Along]], [[User:Empty Wallow|Empty Wallow]], and [[User:TwoDown|TwoDown]].) When Kelly Martin informed me that CheckUser had caught HW using votestacking sockpuppets on FAC, as well as supporting the deceit rather elaborately by posting fake dialogue with herself on her talkpage and I-don't-understand-this-technical-talk protestations on [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hollow Wilerding|her RFA]], Kelly told me I could block the user for up to a month. I blocked for one week, posting my rationale on WP:ANI.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=33520792&oldid=33520776]  A day later HW posted on WP:ANI from an IP, pretending to be a different user supporting HW's view that the week-long block was unfair and abusive.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=33601115&oldid=33600045] Several circumstances suggested that this was her again (I lay them out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=33631655&oldid=33630824 here]), and CheckUser confirmed it again. I then extended the block from one to two weeks. That's it, that's how and why I've blocked HW: one week, which was later extended to two weeks. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] blocked her indefinitely a little later. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AHollow+Wilerding the block log]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
 Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):