User talk:BernieW650

Longtime IP editor, finally creating an account. BernieW650 (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring.
Why did you remove the edit war template? You reverted me twice in under 5 minutes, that is edit warring. You are supposed to observe the WP:BRD cycle, which is impossible if you are't giving other editors a chance to post on the talk page. V7-sport (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I hardly need a warning when I gave you a warning, obviously I know about it. All I'm asking you to slow down and use the talk page first to gain consensus for big changes that are opposed, instead of reverting with edit summaries. Can you just please slow down and discuss first, and get some agreement with others? This is supposed to be a collaborative effort. Per WP:BRD, when your being bold was opposed, you were supposed to go back and discus FIRST, then first revert and the discuss. BernieW650 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You reverted me, twice within 5 minutes. You didn't read what I wrote on the talk page because I hadn't had the time to post anything on the talk page. Further, posting "I see you have recently been blocked for edit warring. This is your 3rd revert. If you revert again, I will report you." after you have edit warred yourself is not only thug tactics, but just as likely to get you banned as well as again, you reverted me twice in under 5 minutes without any chance to post on talk. If you have any class you will self revert pending discussion. V7-sport (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, because you kept removing material before gaining consensus. But now that you are talking about the content dispute on the talk page instead of on the edit summaries, so I'm happy. The way it works is not that you get to make massive changes and have that stay until discussion and consensus is gained its the other way around: if your edits are contested, then first gain consensus with discussion of them (as I'm asking you do first), and then we can collaboratively agree about what should be changed so there are not disputes. You want to put the carriage in front of the horse. BernieW650 (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Those edits were originally made by Jehochman with consensus after another AFD. Despite you reverting them I went through them on good faith and picked out what was arguably not synthesis and restored it, only to have you blindly, without discussion revert the entire thing, run it up to 3rr and resort to threats. I HAD discussed the reasons in both the edit summaries, the talk page AND your old talk page. Again, those edits were originally made with consensus. You restored, I reverted. Use the WP:BRD cycle for restoring instead of simply reverting en masse and resorting to edit warring. V7-sport (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We disagree about this. The bold edit by Jachoman was challenged first by me (as an IP), but when I was challenged, I did not edit war. I left it and brought it to talk and another editor restored it. I note that Jachoman when he was opposed, did not edit war either. The edit, though, was without consensus. The long standing consensus version is the larger section on Japan. Removing it was the bold move that needs to be discussed first per BRD. No where on talk is there any consensus for this, which starts under the section "too long."BernieW650 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
I have blocked the other editor who has a long history of this type of thing. You get off with a warning because you don't. All the same, be careful please. There is always a better way to improve an article than edit-warring. --John (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, John, for the warning. I will be careful and I agree with you. I didn't plan to personally revert again after I saw he had gone back to his pattern, even violating 3RR by making 4 reversions within 24 hours. The block against him was certainty was warranted. I've been trying to get him to work collaboratively, and was making some progress working with him to implement some of the changes he felt strong about, so it's regrettable he lapsed back to a disruptive pattern after he was recently warned against repeating by another admin.

I notice the article is now, regrettably, protected. Since the editor is now blocked, can we lift protection, being unnecessary now? There will not be any edit warring on the article, now, as it was just that one editor who was causing the problem. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest you agree to a 0RR on this article? If you and the other protagonist can do this I can unprotect the article. --John (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Thank you for the suggestion. I have no problem with not reverting if the disruptive editor who keeps getting blocked appropriately for this conduct would finally learn his lesson or is simply stopped from forcing his contested changes into the article. We are talking about mass deletions based on flawed reasons that have been pointed out to him. He has problems working collaboratively with others, tends to lose his cool quickly, gets uncivil, and fails to assume good faith. If he understands the need to first gain consensus for the mass changes he wants, and works with other editors to implement those changes collaboratively, there would be no need to revert him. He seems to think that just posting his reasons, mostly quite flawed in his understanding of policy, gives him free reign to edit war. Ironically, he started to edit war again after we were making progress at least identifying what he wanted to change and why. It turns out he was confusing the SYN policy as meaning the author of the work cited committed the Synthesis, and he disagreed with that author's claims and logic. He was letting his own personal opinions about the subject matter interfere and didn't seem to be able to dispassionately work on this article to improve it along policy guidelines.
 * Currently, the article is locked after SportV7, again, deleted the long standing and sourced content prematurely. So my main concern is to restore that material first (if not me, another editor can). After that I'd agree to no reverts provided V7 is likewise unable to resume, except for the talk page where agreed changes can then be implemented by another editor. Thinking about this, how about a 1RR policy? This would be in keeping with BOLD policy. I think given SportsV7's track record he would be best not to edit war at all, and just use the talk page. I remain open to working with him in good faith and understanding his concerns, and working with other editors, to see that all legitimate issues are addressed according to what the community finds best. BernieW650 (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Giovanni33 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. TFD (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of indefinite block sought. Dear Wikipedia Administrators and Wikipedia Community. I believe an honest mistake has occurred. I've been linked to a notorious user because he frequently edited on an article I've been working, in a SPI case opened by an editor I was having some trouble with. I thought this would be carefully investigated and cleared up. I honestly did not take it seriously thought it would be dismissed.

Now, of course, I can't believe I've been blocked. Mistakes do happen so I don't take it personally. I have never used multiple accounts, but I have used multiple IP addresses, since I'm at various locations at Standford University often, esp. before I created an account. I've disclosed these when I forget to log in.

I examined the banned editor I'm suspected of being, Giovanni33, and the only commonality I had with Giovanni33 was one article/subject. It's my misfortune that I choose to edit that article first, but I would hope to have the benefit of the doubt. My editing history involves many other articles and interests that do not share any history with Giovanni33, and that appears to have been ignored. It's a bit far-fetched to assume that just because someone's from SF Bay Area, and edited an article 3 years after Giovanni was around, that I'm the same person.

It seems really unfair that I'm blocked based on mere suspicion. Can someone please take another closer look and reconsider this decision? I know you all have the best interest of the project in mind, and I would like to contribute further.

I wrote the blocking admin and gave as his reason that I had five articles in common with Giovanni using this link: Using fuzzy math

I call it fuzzy math because it only shows two articles, not five: 1. The US and State Terrorism article, and 2. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and their respective talk pages--not separate articles). John is the admin who is actively moderating, and he is not an article, either. My message to John was only a response to a message he had left me. This has no real connection to the user Giovanni33 that I can tell.

Also, the two articles are linked/related with the same subject; the section I've been working on in one was Atomic Bombing section, and we were trimming it, and so I moved over material to it's related main article. This means its just one article/subject that I have in common with the banned user. Just one. Not Five.

Regarding the SPI case that was opened:


 * A large amount of the links posted had nothing to do with me, and were simply posted as a means of making it look like there was evidence. Most of the links were just things that Giovanni33 had done, with no mention of why they were connected to me. Really they should be removed from the SPI case unless there is some specific reason that they indicate that I might be connected to Giovanni.


 * The administrator did not specify exactly which "behavioral evidence" made him decide to block me, other than the 5 articles, which really turn out to be two of the same subject.

I've been editing collaboratively, and abiding by the rules, working with others in good faith. If I had known this article is a kind of "third rail" of Wikipedia, I'd have avoided it. If I had really been Giovanni, would I not have known that going back to the same article as my first article would be highly suspicious in the least? I find that highly unlikely.

Again, I respect the work all of you do, and do not take any decision you ultimately make against me personally, but it is a mistake. I'm wondering now if I should just give up on Wikipedia, accepting my fate at this time, or if one of you can maybe see some basis for reasonable doubt if not outright good reason why this indef block is invalid. I'd greatly appreciate an opportunity to continue editing peacefully.

Help.BernieW650 (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your e-mail
This is in reply to your e-mail. You are not blocked from editing this talk page and can make your unblock request by logging in as this account and making your unblock request here, as per WP:GAB.  Sandstein  22:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. I noticed that now. BernieW650 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of indefinite block sought

 * I'll interject here and ask for a confirmation that the decision reached in Sockpuppet investigations/Giovanni33/Archive can be based on more than "behavioral evidence". – AJLtalk 06:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the blocking admin, and I'm discussing this with the reviewing admin. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer the question, Checkusers can only look back 3 months. Because of that, in many cases we can only use behavioral evidence to determine sockpuppets, which is the case here. --  At am a  頭 19:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Block note
I have requested administrator HelloAnnyong to share the behavioral evidence. I have followed HelloAnnyong's blocks in the past and have not found any issues with even one of them. Given that, I should encourage other editors commenting here - including the blocked editor - to wait for Annyong's reply. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been provided convincing behavioral evidence from HelloAnnyong. I will not revoke the block. I'll leave it here to HelloAnnyong to take a decision on this issue. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  16:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is something that is peculiar or persuasive, perhaps there is at least a good explanation that I could possibly provide that will help to clear it up? BernieW650 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, at least as stated here, provides for a high standard of proof: "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for actions to be taken: "With or without a checkuser inquiry, there are other possible signs that two or more accounts could be operated by the same person... Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sock puppetry is occurring, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sock puppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly."

And:

''"When one or more of these signs are present, this does not automatically mean that sock puppetry or even legitimate multiple account usage is definitely occurring. The more signs that are present, the more likely sock puppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain." ''

''In all, each article (unless it is lacking of proper wikification) is contained in one or more categories, is linked from one or more articles, and is often listed in one or more templates. Those who view the links or categories will therefore be led to view and often edit common pairs or groups of articles. So if any two or more accounts are used to edit common articles in such groups frequently, it is unlikely two or more of them are operated by the same person.''

To me it does not seem that this standard is being applied in my case. My experience on WP is that when an administrator makes a mistake they are not willing to admit to making a mistake. This happened with my first block. And the other administrator who reviewed it took their fellow admins side, over that of someone they don't know and have no investment in. So I'm not hopeful that anything will change this time.

I would be willing to fax over my ID to an admin, if it would be kept confidential. I suppose then it could be argued that this still does not prove that Giovanni's real name was not my own. Having everyone register with a real ID would probably go a long away to resolving this problem. But if the above policy standard would actually be followed, this would also work. BernieW650 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Bernie. Like I mentioned, I've discussed the issue with HelloAnnyong and have given the administrator my suggestions. I also trust HelloAnnyong's discretion on whether to share the evidence with you or not. You should await Annyong's reply - or lack of it - for sometime at least. At the same time, I shall throw up a few suggestions to you within a day on this talk page, which should enable you to weigh options on how to resume editing, post consensus approval from the community. Do feel free to contact me in the meanwhile through email. Kind regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Wifione. I wrote you an email, not sure if you received it. Could you share what suggestions you had in mind so I could weight my options on how to resume editing, post consensus from the community? I know there must be a way forward but quite puzzled by my predicament. In all honesty I'm rather confused, still, but I'm still learning about how Wikipedia operates. Thank you. BernieW650 (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Wifone. I strongly believe in the mission of the Wikipedia project, and want to believe in the good faith of all editors here, especially administrators. Thank you warmly for your encouraging words; I'll wait patiently for what options I may have to continue to be a part of this project. BernieW650 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion on my talk page, I'm not going to reveal the evidence for this case. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect to your decision, I would hope you would at least consider providing the relevant parts of the evidence to BernieW650. Since you are sure the evidence supports this situation, I suspect you would not be revealing anyone else's personal or private information to him (and simply revealing his own information to him). If the information is so egregious that you feel such actions are unwarranted, then perhaps this discussion should be of a ban instead of being a block.
 * On a personal note, having worked in the field, I know I would put greater weight in geolocations and timestamps than behavioral evidence. I suspect you probably already have though, and simply bring it up in case such actions slipped through the cracks. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to give an accused sockpuppet the details on why he's blocked as a sockpuppet. I will say that the bulk of my evidence is on the mainspace articles (not the talk pages) that Bernie shares with Giovanni. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. May I ask if you reviewed the other evidence presented (there was potential evidence both for and against)? I ask only because it's odd that it's been almost 3 years since Giovanni was blocked. Best, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 02:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I glanced at it, yeah. Let's not forget that Wifione, an impartial admin, also reviewed this case and found the evidence to be correct. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noted that. I just hold geolocation information and other such refutable/provable evidence to a higher level than behavioral evidence. But that's probably because when I had to do such things (UUNet, 90's), oft times it was for initiation of, or in support of legal matters. But I cannot apply our (the no longer extant UUNet's) needs and methods of doing things to Wikipedia's. Thanks again, R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 03:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)