User:Arcayne/busywork 2a

Okay, let's dissect this high-spirited story:

''The first article I edited with him can be found with this most uncontroversial edit here:, another editor improved the wikilink I polished it and then Arcayne excised it. I replaced the edit and added additional support in talk. It was removed again. ...''

While I am actually thinking we might have intersected before this, the anon is correct only in that this served as the basis for the anon's future behavior. As indicated by the diffs provided, I asked for citation of the information being provided, and after it was reverted back in (with the incorrect edit summary that it was linked elsewhere), I removed it again, asking for the anon to use the discussion page to seek a consensus..and to find a usable citation. To date, one hasn't been provided, but that's more of a content issue.

Arcayne however took it upon himself to follow me back to Fitna and remove all trace of the mention from the Encyclopedia. and then immediately in an excellent example of psuedo-sockpuppetry used his own edit'' without mentioning his actions as the basis for this comment in the other article:. That is correct - Arcayne denies the wikilink because the name is not mentioned in the other article, immediately after reverting the name out of it. All while writing a comment that suggests that he is merely a neutral observer making an observation, quite manipulative and hardly good faith actions in discussion.''

First of all, I think the anon is failing to understand the word sock-puppetry, which is okay as (at the time) I misunderstood it as well, having painted the successive IPs as socking. That aside, I did in fact remove the uncited reference from one article and looked into the other article; most of us follow our noses when falling into new articles. So I guess it is in fact true that I followed the anon's (and others') edits back to Fitna. I also removed the uncited reference to Scarlet Pimpernel being "a pseudonym for an unknown person". The anon's assertion that I removed the information from one and pretended it never existed in the other is absurd; his own diffs note that I said that no citation as to the reference existed.

He starts a RfCU, then goes to AN/I to lock the article:, followed by his seventh'' of many reverts of the edit:. At that point it had been, and as noted also on the talk page, 7 reverts of 4 separate editors - dismissed on the talk page and on the mainpage with Arcayne's edit summary, "Still wrong". ''

From the text of the linked RfCU, I did in fact (unintentionally) misinterpret the dynamic IP as sock-farming, and was corrected by Thatcher; therefore the code letter for the request (C and E) was incorrect - it should have been at best, simply A. I wasn't really used to RfCU's at that point. However, the IP accounts were in fact SPA. As well, the AN/I request to soft-protect the article was to ensure that discussion took place, as the anon was having none of it. While I did revert seven times (and it was over a period of days; no 3RR there). Editors kept adding the Pimpernel moniker to the infobox, pointing to a citation in the the Notes section. The problem with that was that the citation didn't match up to the text in the article (it was eventually removed, when folk realized this). That four editors didn't look at the citation is a bit surprising, but when they did, all of us found ourselves in agreement - all except for the anon.

''Arcayne was still not done. He next takes it to the Notice board for "No Original Research"...

Yep, I did that. I asked for some guidance, instead of possibly making a (or further) mistake(s) in regards to translated citations. The anon, tracking my edits by then, responded less than twenty minutes later. The entire discussion of the section boiled down to me learning (thanks Vassyana) translated material is in fact a "long-held exception to no original research." It's why I asked; I wasn't sure. I'd do it again, and in fact have, with other matters. I think that's what a responsible editor does.

accuses multiple editors that oppose him of being "socks"...

The "multiple users" referred to was in fact one particular editor, whose shining example of behavior can be summed up in this post. I has asked the editor to stay away from my usertalk page, and he ignored me. That a subsequent RfCU found the two unrelated was at the time sill being processed. I admit that I should not have labeled the editor in question as a 'sock'; he was in fact a troll. A short note about the four RfCU's filed: as I first started editing with this anon: he/she was editing at a fairly skillful level (though not as skillful at interpreting wiki policies/guidelines). Usually, that tends to imply someone who has edited for a while, and usually, that's accomplished under an ID. What prompted the RfCU's was the lack of civility coming from the anon towards not just myself but others; anon IPs are usually rude, but skillful anon IPs often imply a former indef-blocked or banned user. Trying to figure out if our time was being wasted by interacting with someone who was persona non grata.

I defend myself and he deletes my comments again.

Yep, I deleted the off-topic personal attack, as indicated in the diff. I should have simply reported the anon at that point.

He then initiates an AN/I against me again full of blatant falsehoods and third person references to his own actions used as support for his misrepresentations.

Actually, PelleSmith, now retired, initiated that complaint, I just agreed with his bang-on assertions that the anon was in fact trolling the article.

Then a stop at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard....'

Yep, I did in fact post there. Both noticeboards were in my watchlist, and the anon opened a discussion there when (s)he was not finding any footholds for inclusion of an uncited pseudonym explanation. While the term was finally included in the article infobox, the resolution was arrived at in spite of the anon's forum-shopping, not because of it. And yes, it's [[WP:PARENT|forum=shopping when its presented as a personality clash as opposed to seeking guidance when one isn't sure about how to proceed.

Followed by still another stop at AN/I.

Also true. I filed the AN/I in question (section content here), as the anon kept deleting a banner which identified their previous IP identities, an action which was approved of by three different editors, two of them admins (LessHeard vanU and Delanoy). The solution presented was to maintain the IP banner (set in place by LessHeard here), a decision agreed to and summarized by Delanoy: "There is no reason to remove the banner, as it could be useful if a range block ever became necessary". Rather prophetic, I think. Speaking of the banner in question, the user discarded it once their IP changed, and in fact renewed their IP each time shortly after the banner was added to subsequent IPs. To date, the banner has yet to make an entry on the anon's page. This is part of the problem with tracking anons - there's a lot of maintenance that the user is gambling a lot of admins and productive editors won't have the time to make. It's what makes the anon's numerous IPs suspicious on the face of them.

And yet another separate AN/I action against me.

Actually, its the same complaint initiated by PelleSmith (it even has the same name); I just responded to input from others there.

Then one of the several visits (I doubt you need the 6 so links to separate admins...) he makes to administrators talk pages in still another effort to mention his own actions in the third person, as if he were just a neutral observer:.

In point of fact, I was inquiring as to the possibility that the '75.anon' I was dealing with was related to the concurrent difficulty another editor was having with another '75.anon', not only reasonable but - at the time - quite possible. As for presenting myself as "neutral observer", I was posting a comment to an editor who had just responded to my AN/I complaint; no intention (or expectation) of neutrality was intended or interpreted (outside of the anon, I guess).

(Just a note, the 'factual reference' that Arcayne fought tooth and nail against still stands in the article and continues to enjoy support through community consensus)

Yes, and with my support, as a reliable citation was in fact being utilized and supported by subsequent citations.

''♠ [theory by the anon that the symbol in question unambiguously identifies the anon, etc.]

I think WMC has already addressed this issue on the anon's page Closing remarks: In response to the 75.xxx anon's actions over the past eight months, I have been summarily accused of relentless bullying, intimidation, forum shopping and false accusations over my "pet article". While I am not perfect (and have said so on many occasions) and should have not called the anon a sock-puppeteer (an inaccurate term, as 'evasive, abrasive contributor' is far more accurate). That said, most of the anon's early accounts were single-purpose accounts in that they were devoted to the Fitna article and discussion. Other accounts were created - strike that, as a better descriptor might be "subsequent IPs were initiated" - over the next eight months, the sole content of which consisted of chasing after my edits to revert and berate me for the horrible crime of being difficult, stubborn and not at all enamored of the anon. While editors are allowed to edit anonymously, this freedom can be abused by editors engaging in protracted disagreements, and lead to misunderstandings of the anon's intent (as per the C and E reasonings for checkuser). It is compounded when the anon studiously ignores the unambiguous requests by no less than a half-dozen experienced editors and admins (not including me) to start an account. That the anon has refused to do so, and has refused to use the banner they were restricted to by an admin in AN/I is telling indeed. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)