Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Giano II/Archive 2

Link to discussion dealing with Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts

'''Bad block - Giano II unblocked for 'outing', but given a short block for continued disruption/harassment. Nothing else to see here.''' Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Giano_II. Even with the history of Rockpocket's using every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano, this indefinite block stands out. Can this be addressed swiftly without the ArbCom hassle to save on drahmaz? --Irpen 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Once again a sysop is attacked for attempting to enforce the same rules everyone else has to follow on Giano. Of course, it is the same old crowd doing it. 1  !=  2  19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which rule is this? The one against alleging sockpuppetry? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks very much like a bad block to me, but I really don't see this as desysoppable, and certainly not as being desysoppable outside of normal channels. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to desysop anyone over one bad block - there there's a pattern, take it to RfC. Let's just get a quick concensus here to unblock Giano.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather see an unblock of giano, and some other forum to review rocketpocket's activity if folks feel the need (I don't know enought to have an opinion, and it's not an emergency). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to unblock Giano (I believe I'm relatively independent, since I've hardly ever contacted Giano, aside from an article query). This very much looks like a bad block. Rudget   ( logs ) 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur with Rudget, Ryan, Rocksanddirt, etc. Ill-considered block, and I would support unblock. Risker (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This happened 20 minutes ago and Rockpocket hasn't even bothered to report it for review on ANI? An indefinite block of an established editor, and it's not put up on WP:ANI, nor on WP:AE? I can't believe it, are you drunk or something, Rockpocket? You don't know to do a simple thing like that? Of course you do—but lrpen has to do it? Words fail me. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC).


 * Identifying one account as a "sockpuppet" of another account is not by any stretch "outing" an editor, as the Wikipedism has it. Since User:Rockpocket is perfectly aware that "outing" an editor specifically means identifying an editor's actual real-life name, "outing" in this case is a misuse of the vocabulary, perhaps a conscious one. Surely if this was not an intentional effort to intensify a toxic atmosphere, one would expect an admission of error here on the part of an editor— even an administrator— with a sense of honesty.--Wetman (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * RP has unblocked. Rudget   ( logs ) 19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked per unblieveabe consensus that this block was wrong - Let's remember all that mistakes can happen, and it was easily corrected, we shouldn't get the pitch forks out for Rockpuppet.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  19:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) For someone who's filing a report to minimize 'drahmaz', you've sure chosen a neutral, non-inflammatory header for this section, Irpen. Can we wait for comment from Rockpocket – and geez, guys, it's been less than half an hour! – before we get out the gibbet?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sidestepping the specifics of the case, I don't think there's a need for a more rapid/streamlined demotion process, because admins can simply be blocked if they're taking unambiguously abusive action (they can unblock themselves, but that's a sure way to get demoted). Dcoetzee 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Simply unblocking is not sufficient.--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No way this is "resolved" until we find out what happened. I removed the resolved tag. Sweeping it under the rug would guarantee the reruns. --Irpen 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (For the record, this ongoing thread was tagged "Resolved" by | User:Ncmvocalist, at 10:23)--[[User:Wetman|Wetman] (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we're playing some sort of "game" with the unblock now. . I suggest we do not do that. It appears to have been a bad block, there's consensus here that it was a bad block, and, if this continues to be the case, I am going to wait a short while, then undo it. We do not leave editors blocked on bad blocks, to give the blocking admin enough rope to hang themselves with. SQL Query me! 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agreed with Nick because I wished to see what Rocket's interpretation of the matter would be. Thus resulting in an unblock, and perhaps a reflection opportunity for Rocket. Rudget   ( logs ) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I misinterpreted your comment, My apologies. I hope you can see why it appeared that way to me.... SQL Query me!  20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am always happy to clarify. Rudget   ( logs ) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And now we see that Rockpocket does not "consider [his block] a mistake at all". —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiDrNick (talk • contribs)
 * Relax - I am sprung! Now why has this happened, (I see 1=2 was quick to involve himself, sadly, he is yet again dissapointed)Now to the nux of the matter User: Sussexman's return - What the hell is going on? Who gave Kittybrewster permission to argue his case as a sock? Giano (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not disappointed, I expected it. Multiple sets of rules, got it. I have stopped using my admin tools some time ago because I can't keep track of which rules apply to which special editors. 1  !=  2  20:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1=2, you're not on the right track here. Kittybrewster decided to make another account due to what he considered a threatening atmosphere on WP due to past history (actually, considering the amount that has gone under the bridge, I think that word should be all caps and bolded, like HISTORY). Now, that would have been fine, except the new account did all the same things that KB did, and showed a remarkable amount of prior knowledge of the people, personalities and issues of the prior history. To be quite frank, to the extent that any "outing" occured, KB/Berks did it to himself. You're allowed to call the Elephant in the Room an elephant. Endorse the unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say Kitty had it coming, especially with the smug popping the cork on the bubbly each time an Irish Republican editor was indef'd. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1=2, please vent your frustrations over the project in general elsewhere. You can make a pose regarding sysop strikes all you want but I am sure you will never give away your sysop tools voluntarily. We are discussing a specific incident and what is to be done about it. Rockpocket's "hit and run" (block and duck out) adds more bad smell to all this. I raised the issue of desysopping on the spot not because this is an emergency, he is unlikely do anything for a couple of days. But because the abuse is so blatant here that I see no need for a full arbcom case. We do not need to an arbcom to block especially bad editors when the editing abuse is so obvious and in the plain view. Here we have the admin tools abused so outrageously, that I do not see a need for a long arbcom process. But if this is required, fine. Let's have ArbCom look at this. --Irpen 20:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can a desysop be made with less hassle than going through ArbCom? Not really. Should it be possible? Yes. Should it happen in this case? Not according to any uninvolved administrator. This thread is all over bar the shouting. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Explanation
Hello everyone. I'd just like to note that I did not "block and run" as has been suggested above. I am just not a very quick typing and prefer to make considered responses. I spotted the ones on my talk page first, so that is where I have responded first. My position is detailed there at the moment, but I will be happy to explain myself here too, when I get a few moments. Giano has been unblocked so there is no emergency, I don't protest that considering the weight of protest here and elsewhere, but I do feel that my actions were justified and I will explain why. If any editor feels my actions requires a RfC, then feel free to make one and I will co-operate there also. It goes without saying I don't think an emergency desysopping is appropriate, and I'm sure this can be resolved without ArbCom. I'd also like not note that my block was not "Giano specific", in that I treated it differently because of who was involved. I warned twice then blocked as a preventative measure just as I would any other editor.

Also, the suggestion that I use "every chance to inflame the matters when it relates to Giano" is interesting. I admit Giano and I didn't first meet in the best of circumstances, but in the last few months I would say we have been on excellent terms. I would urge Irpen and Bishonen to review my position the last time Giano was discussed here and also review how Giano and I worked closely together in the lead up to Vk's unblocking recently. Perhaps then they may come to a different conclusion. Rockpock e  t  20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is silly

 * This is silly. Everyone has overlooked the problem of disruptive edit-warring and focused on whether there is 'outing' or not. A user is entitled to remove comments they receive on their talk pages, yet Giano II seems to be a special user that gets to decide (by way of disruptive edit-warring) if his comment is removable or not   and since his unblock, . And predictably, nothing has been done about it. Or am I mistaken in what I've just said? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't an indefinite block seem a bit excessive for removing comments, which weren't interpreted as 'outing' by many of those participating in this discussion? Rudget   ( logs ) 20:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree it was a bad block on those merits, but there is problematic conduct warranting a block imo, given his history, and given that he removes comments from his own talk page at his whim (so he's not unaware). I'm thinking out aloud whether it should've just been a reduction in the block duration instead of a complete unblock - see what edits he's made since his unblock. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The block length was indefinite, not forever. Rock said he would unblock as soon as he said he would stop posting the message on that talk page. It could have been over in two minutes. A message that the user talk page's owner removed and asked not to be returned, as he is allowed to do and Giano put back repeatedly. I see a lot of mischaracterization of events here, and I sure hope people do their own homework and don't just take the summaries presented here as gospel.


 * Yet Giano is allowed to return the post yet again, who dares to remove it? Not me. Giano apparently can blank stuff from his page often, but refuse to let others do the same. 1  !=  2  20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, accounts in good standing are pretty much given a very wide scope of what they can remove from their user pages, while other parties are subject to the usual WP criteria - simply, if anyone posts on anothers talkpage (and it otherwise does not contravene WP policies/guidelines) they need the permission of the page owner for its removal. Just saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the "page owner" made it crystal clear that the edit was unwelcome, and the page shouldn't subject to an edit-war over it. Don't you think so? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is just my point. The user did remove Giano's post, and asked him not to return it. Giano just kept putting it back in, that would get pretty much anyone blocked if they did it over and over. 1  !=  2  21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It regularly does result in blocks, for ordinary established users anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The question remains, who gave permission to one of The Troubles editors to change username, given the massive history of socking all over the place involving just about every one of them? It was an obvious alternate account, and it was doing exactly what the "master" account had done before. And, while I see the point about the reverts, when a block is made for reasons that are so egregiously wrong, and the admin had better ways of addressing the linking of the two accounts than to post about it on one of the most-read user talk pages on Wikipedia (the block button worked, but the delete one didn't?), then the block needs to be rolled back completely and without hesitation, as was done in this case.  Risker (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe one needs "permission" to have a fresh start under a new account, especially when one's personal details are irrevocably attached to their previous account. That said, considering the history of misbehavior and abusive sockpuppetry among Trouble related editors, there was an understanding that editors would stick with one recognizable account. However, there has also been issues of harassment (which I would rather not go into in public). One editor made it clear to me that they no longer felt comfortable editing from an account that is linked to their identity as indicated he would like to edit from another anonymous account. Being aware of the harassment issues, I told him that was justifiable on two conditions, 1) that he make admins familiar with The Troubles aware of it, so that I could be monitored for The Troubles ArbCom rememdies. 2) That he stick to one account and one account only. The editor has since made me aware of his new account (and I believe he made at least one other admin aware also) and I have been keeping an eye on it. A few editors with an interest in the Troubles have expressed interest at who this new account may be and on those occasions I have told them (privately) that I am aware of it and asked them not to out it by publicly speculating. All other those responded in the good faith one might expect from editors: they all said "ok" and never mentioned it. All except Giano.
 * As for the suggestion that I am responsible for the outing: that is nonsense. Lets be honest here. The moment Giano wrote that first comment the game was up, the identity was compromised and the editor in question would create a new account. What is important, and remains important, is that Giano appreciate that he cannot go around linking accounts to real life people (even accidentally, if it was as such) for no good reason other than to irk someone he has bickered with for years. Harassment is a serious issue and it deserves our serious attention. If Giano thinks his jollies are more important than that than I think he deserved to remain blocked until he reconsidered. Rockpock  e  t  21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough about the initial rollback, but are you suggesting the egregiously wrong judgement of one administrator excuses the continuing disruption of the now unblocked editor? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section in question, and brought it up with Giano why he shouldn't add it again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tsk, OK. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Giano reblocked for disruptive editing
Ok, Giano has ignored my request, and readded the section again to Counter-revolutionary's talk page. I'm not sure if he's beyond the electric fence of 3RR, and quite frankly, I don't think I quite care at the moment, this is WP:DE, and I have placed a short term 3 hour block for preventative purposes for disruptive editing on him. SirFozzie (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fully endorse this block. I was writing up a 24 hour block and hit the button a few seconds too late. Giano's actions are beyond unacceptable and 3 hours is a gift. - auburn pilot   talk  21:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Clear case of 3RR. Giano is the first to point out to you that users can remove content from their talk page if they want to. The issue has gotten plenty of attention already so returning the post is just pointy. 1  !=  2  21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I unfortunately endorse this - it was a clear case of 3RR. I thought the first block would have been enough of a warning to him.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse block, clear 3RR violation, and, should have been obvious that this was going to happen if he persisted. SQL Query me!  22:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap. Editwarring is not the answer.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit troubled that Giano seems to have interpreted an admonishment to stop being POINTy and disruptive to mean 'use the next three hours to draw as much attention as possible on your talk page and to attack all the people who were trying to help'. I've asked SirFozzie to have a look, as I'm not sure Giano has taken to heart the reason for his current block.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps Thatcher's post to that page might be of interest; although, at the end of the day, Giano can only be seen to be pointy on that page if people bother to read it. Editors get to be somewhat snippier on their own pages than elsewhere. Anyone who finds Giano to be annoying or pointy need only to remove his page from their watchlist and stop tracking his edits. Risker (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's not lose sight of the issue here, which is that disruptive 'Troubles' editors are being allowed to start new accounts because the original account (where the disruption started) was linked to their real-life identity (apparently), so that for some reason means that they have a ready-made excuse to switch to a new account: (1) resume the old behaviour and get "outed"; (2) switch to new account because of "privacy concerns". I'm not quite sure how that sort of situation can be dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * One wouldn't need to switch to a new account if one hadn't been harassed. Anyone can switch to a new account at any time, last time I checked. The caveat, with the Troubles editors, is that they can not do so to edit in a disruptive or problematic manner to avoid detection. It was preferable that all editors stick with their known account, but there is a harassment issue here. Your use of scare quotes suggests you are skeptical, but if you would like to email me, I can give you a rundown on it. Therefore, unless you wish to penalize editors for being the victims of harassment, the next best thing is to permit an anonymous account that can be overseen by trusted admins. The account in question was not editing in a problematic manner, there was no resumption of "old behaviour" in that sense, therefore there was no good reason to "out" it (not least because Giano has no way of knowing he was outing the right person, which risks someone else being harassed). If the account had in anyway been used to violate The Troubles ArbCom I would have blocked it myself immediately as abusive sockpuppetry. I believe we need to assist editors who have suffered harassment, not punish them because someone else decided to abuse them. Rockpock  e  t  00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've discussed the issue with Giano, and Thatcher is trying to explain things to him now. Hopefully this will be the end of things. SirFozzie (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the rules are there for a reason. Experienced editors should expect less slack, not more. Otherwise we can throw our rules through the window. End of story. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The user in question is certainly running out of rope. If his latest "new" account fails to avoid the behaviors and patterns that got him spotted twice before, I don't think there will be much support for a 4th regeneration. Thatcher 01:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Having the same "behaviors and patterns" is human, it does not mean you should be outed, because someone is able to spot you by your characteristics. I just don't think we should be encouraging editors to go around outing others, when there is no good reason in policy to do so. That said, I has been made clear to me that it is one thing to edit in the same subject area, another to get involved in more personal debates. I appreciate that and it is difficult to justify anonymity when one gets involved in personal disputes. Rockpock  e  t  01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been several cases in the past where a user has started with their real name and felt the need to change to an anonymous one because of varying (and sometimes extreme) degrees of threat. They have reappeared and it may have been obvious to some established editors who they were. The responsible thing was to respect the reason for the name change, not to announce it. The original "real name" editor in this case was not under any sanction, or trying to avoid such, but stated what would normally be seen as a legitimate reason for changing their user name. The old account stopped editing and there have been no overlaps. I've taken a quick look through the edits of the new account, and don't seen any egregious behaviour. The points put forward by the new account have been perfectly acceptable, even if others might not agree. Surely it is the argument that counts, not the person proposing it, the edits and not the editor. I don't see any advantage the user is trying to gain with the new name or any abuse. As pointed out, it is easily identifiable: there is not even any significant attempt to dissemble. Presumably the editor accepts that others may know who he really is: that is very different to it being announced and publicly linked. I suggest the old account is marked as defunct and when the editor returns with a new account, his wish to not have his real life identity linked to it is respected. WP:OUTING makes this clear. I have no wish to reopen the debate over what has happened, but would rather look at how to address what might happen next.  Ty  02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something to keep in mind is that this particular user has previously been found to have used alternate accounts abusively, and in addition was publicly advocating the unblocking of another editor who has been been community banned for violation of Arbcom ban and sockpuppeting. Other editors who have encountered his previous reincarnations may or may not be aware that he has stopped using them or that this has been authorised, although it's unclear exactly who authorised it or whether or not any conditions were attached. He was editing in a way that drew attention to himself and made it obvious who he was. In this situation, any obligation of Wikipedia, its admins, and its editors to maintain the fiction that this was an independent editor unrelated to his previous identity becomes preposterous. Editors who change their account names for "security" reasons hold primary responsibility to ensure that their accounts are not obviously linked. If this editor is going to proceed under another username, and he expects the rest of Wikipedia to go along with it, he will have to change his editing behaviour so that anyone watching his favourite articles and talk pages will not be able to identify him. Risker (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been highly aware of this situation for a very long time. Any misuse of socks in the past was considered minor, and he has not been blocked for it. Hopefully he has learnt the lesson. There is currently no abuse. Editors are allowed to advocate unblocking of another editor. I don't see the problem there: there has never been any suggestion that they are other than two separate individuals (and not always in support of each other for that matter). There are other editors whose now anon-identity is equally clearly linked to a previous identity, but we respect it. I trust you do, or would, also&mdash;or does your reasoning have wider implications? There is no onus on editors to create watertight disguises. WP:Harassment is a policy and states:
 * Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.
 * There is a big difference between being able to identify someone and posting that identity publicly for the whole world to see. If you don't agree with that, then you should address it in the policy.
 *  Ty  03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ty, except none of that happened. Kittybrwster'slegal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information was not exposed by Giano, so there was no outing here. The only people really arguing that tying the two accounts together is outing is you and Rockpocket. I have sympathies for the situation that KB was in, which is why he wanted to create another account to edit WP, but are you going to tell me that he didn't give away who he was in his FIRST TWO EDITS? If anything Giano revealed what was an open secret? If you don't want to be associated with "Editor X", do not immediately step into all the articles/feuds that "Editor X" participated in, with the exact same knowledge and viewpoints as "Editor X". SirFozzie (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me me make something clear. I have been hearing lots of talk of "permission" or "authorization" been given to Kb to create sockpuppets. Giano is particularly keen to push this in the interests of his ArbCom conspiracy theories. I may be responsible for spawning it, but I would like to put that to bed once and for all. There was no "permission" or "authorization", official or otherwise. All that happened was that I (and again, I don't believe I was the only admin that was informed) was told by Kb that, due to certain other factors, he no longer felt comfortable editing from his old account and intended to edit from another account. He didn't ask for "permission" or "authorization" and I did not offer either. I did tell him that considering those other factors (which, by the way, not one editor who is so keen to criticize my reasoning has even asked me about), I could understand why he would want to do that and felt it justified. I therefore told him that I would not block his new account, but keep an eye on it. I also told him that if he edited from more than one account at the same time, or that if he used the account in any way that would have resulted in his old account being sanctioned, he would be violating the spirit of the Troubles ArbCom and would be blocked. Thats it. I then watched his account to ensure it was not used abusively and, when people began to ask about his account, I told them that I was aware of it and there was no need to be concerned that it was being used abusively.
 * I did this because I am aware of the effect of the harassment that Kb felt threatened by, and I did not believe there was any harm to the project so long as his edits were good and his comments were not inflammatory. On the other hand, there was a huge benefit because the chance of his good edits sparking further harassment were minimized if there was no link to his personal details (via he old account). Admins are asked to use their judgment, so I used my judgment. If that was a bad move, then I am accountable for it. But I don't think editors - even those with a less than perfect record themselves - should have to put up with harassment and I stand by that.
 * Do I think it was foolish that he then entered a discussion that all but outed himself to those that were familiar with him? Yes. Does that somewhat temper his "right" to remain anonymous? In retrospect, probably yes. Would en email to Kb stating "if you plan to get involved in those sorts of discussions then you face the consequences on your own" have been a good idea. You bet. Do I regret those things? Hell yeah.
 * But that all said, there is zero substance behind the suggestions that there was some sort of back-room deal being made involving Lauder's unblock request. I have said before and repeat here: I don't have a clue what the story is behind Lauder's block. My only involvement was to offer to help draft an appeal to the community in the same way I did for Vintagekits, and only then if ArbCom agreed. They didn't, so that was the end of it as far as I am concerned. I urge editors to stay focused on the issue here - and I am happy to accept the responsibility for my actions in regards to that - rather than get seduced by conspiracy theories being promoted here and elsewhere. Rockpock  e  t  03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to say something along the lines of told you so.... As auburnpilot says, 3 hours was a gift. Hopefully the misconduct ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going to be sorted
I have not retired. I walked away for a while to restore my normal good temper, and this subject will not be quickly archived and thrust under the already very dirty dirty wiki-carpet. I am disgusted that an admin encouraged and kept secret a troublesome editor socking in an area already know to be riven with socks causing problems. To the extent than anyone who rumbled this strange behaviour was to be blocked. I want that admin desysoped.

Kittybrewster is a known sockpuppeteer, and nothing seems to have changed. What was Rockpocket hoping for? That Vintagekits would unwittingly address Kittybrewster and then he could ban him for breach of conditions? This plan was so ill advised, and likely t cause trouble, it beggars belief. I think we need to have a whole list of Kittybrewster's socks published and made known. In the present atmosphere of mistrust there is no way an unblock of the infamous  Sussexan/Lauder sock can be be considered. Can we believe a single word they add to the project is without some bias. I have been accused of "outing" Kittybrewster, someone should actually take the time to red what I wrote! Then tell me what is not true and accurate - and where the outing is? 
 * "I'm afraid the problem is with you people is that you think you can all sign in and out with different names and that the rest of us are all too stupid to see it. For instance you, Berks, are quite clearly Kittybrewster or another of the "gang" - if indeed you are all separate people rather just one adult with an identity crisis. So you see, there is not a lot of confidence placed in any of you is there? The question is not, when is Lauder returning, but who do you think you are fooling? "

I am not dropping this matter, as it strikes at the basic honesty and trust we attempt to achieve here. I have spent a great deal of time, with minimal success, trying to help calm the trouble at The Troubles, I will not sit quietly by while naive and deplorable admins allow any editors there, to start weighing in, as socks. Don't bother trying to revert me here, because I will go elsewhere and say what I have to say. This problem is going to be sorted, and sorted properly and honestly and openly.Giano (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you wish to know, Giano? How about rather than raising the temperature with references to mysterious "naive and deplorable admins" (plural), we talk specifics. You are already well aware of all the accounts Kb has used since he chose to abandon his old account. Lets not keep up the charade that this is a surprise to you, because you mentioned at least one to me in an email weeks ago. As for Lauder, what are you afraid of exactly? I have already made it very clear that ArbCom will not unblock him, so who exactly is considering an unblock? No-one. He and his supporters can complain all they want. Unless ArbCom is satisfied he will remain blocked.  Rockpock  e  t  07:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Rockpocket, we are not going to have an army of socks clamouring for the return of an multi-banned editor. You were aware of the socking at The Troubles, yet you chose to condone socking. Where was Berks going to edit next? On VK's page in boxing? I can't beleive you fell for this? Giano (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As per my talk page, I am discussing this with Giano by email. Rockpock  e  t  07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, please add updates as they come. Cheers - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an update for you just showing the tip of the iceberg of the prolific socking that seems to happen arownd these editors. It does now appear though that Robert1/Sussexman/David Lauder/et al will not be rejoining us in the near future, despite an army of socks (with or without permission) clamouring for his return. Giano (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, if you have issues concerning sockpuppetry, you are well aware of the appropriate forum - WP:SSP. The community as a whole have made it clear that Rockpocket is not going to be desysopped over this matter, even if you and Irpen continue to scream that he should be. If you still feel strongly about it, then go to the next step of dispute resolution. Do you understand why you were (validly) blocked the second time? If so, then this matter is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we are not going to supress debate to get Rockpocket off the hook. In answer to your question, I understand perfectly that a group of admins stood idly by and watched a known contentious sock puppeteer enter into a debate to restore a multiply banned editor. I also understand that the very second I spotted it, Rockpocket realised he was in the shit, panicked and banned me - indefinitely if you please? When I still would not be quiet a second ban was implemented to try and silence me and shove this disgraceful behaviour under the carpet. This whole sorry episode does nothing more than confirm the mistrust felt by one group of editors at The Troubles. Rockpocket and Co should be ashamed of themselves. Not one of them lifted a finger to say to Kittybrewster "WTF, hang on, back off here" they allowed it to happen. One can only speculate as to why. And as usual on Wikipedia when Admins are found behaving in a disgraceful way it is "shoot the messenger". Sadly, this particular group of editors are going to lead them into serious problems. So you think Rockpocket's behaviour commendable. I think it stinks, but hey - the carpet is big, and he's an admin - why worry? well if you can't work that out for yourselves - then.........Happy editing. Giano (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, Giano, Enough of your fantasies that I blocked you to try to "shove this disgraceful behaviour under the carpet". I let you accuse me privately of being "an ArbCom cabalist" and let you ask me repeatedly "Who (on the ArbCom) cooked this up and told you (me) to do it?". Why? Because I figured you'd come to your senses, and realize how absolutely absurd you sounded. Guess not.


 * You are a big crusader to remove items you don't want from your talk page. Well, C-r removed your item from his talk page and asked you not to post there. (It's still on his page). You continued to be disruptive and continued to reinsert it. Multiple people have tried to tell you, including Bishonen, your biggest supporter   that you were acting badly on this. If you expect others to leave you alone on YOUR talk page, you'd better provide the same courtesy to others.


 * After the block/unblock and this discussion here, going back and breaking 3RR by inserting it one more time was the final straw.. At least TWO completely uninvolved (unless you were going to claim AuburnPilot is somehow a member of the ArbCom Cabal, as well?) admins were going to block you. I said it before and will say it again, you were lucky I was there first, because you would have been blocked for 24 hours, not 3. I said it before and I'll say it again, Giano. When you're right.. I will say so. And when you're acting like a complete prat (like with the statements above), I will also say so. Your paranoia has gotten the best of you here. I'd say I hope you start providing others with the common courtesy you want from others, but I guess it's a waste of time to ask, huh? SirFozzie (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, Ncmvocalist; it isn't just Giano and Irpen, it also seems to include One Night In Hackney, which makes five.

Can't someone be bold and move this 'discussion' off AN/I? --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No thay can't - the problem is with Fozzie's theory is he was one of those idly watching Kitytybrewster arguing as a sock for Robert1/Sussexman's return - yes, it is easy the churn out the usual Giano is paranoid spiel, but then of course with you all emailing your deep joy to Rockpocket that is hardly surprising is it. However, I am still here, still bringing unwelcome attention to the fact that certain Admins condoned Kittybrewster socking over Robert1/Sussexman's return, allowing the community to be deceived. And no action to stop such behaviour being repeated is being taken? Giano (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Giano, have you considered filing an arbitration case over this? If you have the evidence, they would probably take the necessary action, despite what you might think of them. You are more likely to get a reasoned response from them than a consensus at ANI over what to do. They will also deal with it better if there is private evidence that needs to be considered. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Now there is a fork, if I say I don't rate the Arbcom then I am paranoid. if I go to the Arbcom, Fred Bauder, or his substitute, will probably want me blocked for a year. Giano (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is getting more and more tendentious and pointy and disruptive. I've closed this discussion once already, and Giano reopened it with this heading - it has gone no where, and the message has not sunk into his head, and the assumptions of bad faith are getting more and more disgusting. I'm definitely sick of it. I've closed it again - I suggest the community impose a 6 month ban if it's opened again without merit, and this continues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, give someone a six month ban for being angry at admins encouraging socks to influence debates on the return of 3xbanned users - a great idea. Ah I see someone else has already reverted your edit!Giano (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see the pointiness continuing, and no change. The ban is not critical of your anger, but its unfortunate effect on your behavior and judgement (which has led to a block already). In any event, I'm now convinced that this is a matter for ArbCom - the community will not be able to consider all important issues. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with ncmvocalist's suggestion. There is at the very least the perception of a real problem regarding the use of alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny by a user with a history of abusive sockpuppetry. There might be very good reason to allow the user to retire on account and get away from previous poor behavior. That does not appear to be what is happening, what is happening is that a user with a history of abusive sockpuppetry opened a new account and continued in the same editorial vein as the previous account. A comment from the user, and admins who know the user on the real status of this would help imensely. In addition, if the user is really trying to move away from previous association, they really need to do that and topic ban themselves (or those who know of the new account need to do it). The solution is easy, but relies on a user with a history of abusive sockpuppetry to move on from past behvior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppetry is just one issue (a major one at that) - it does need to be addressed, but not at the expense of other issues. There is a lot of deplorable conduct and poor judgement - some very serious concerns too. This began by overlooking core issues, and continues to do so.
 * I'm washing my hands of this discussion here in protest - all issues (including sensitive information) need to be considered, and this can only be handled appropriately and sensibly via ArbCom, even if it needs to be done privately. That's all - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree, this can easily be handled by the community, and the user in question. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor formerly known as Kittybrewster
Time to bring this discussion back to the root cause of this particular conflagration - Kittybrewster's attempts to game the system by changing usernames on a serial basis. Depending on who's telling the story, it's because his original account is linked to a real person, or he is trying to avoid what he thinks is harassment by one or more other editors, or there is personally identifying information around somewhere. Speaking generally, these might well be good reasons to change accounts, and WP:SOCK does address the opportunity for a clean start. It's clear, however, that KB changed usernames and then immediately returned to many of the same disputes he'd been involved in with his original account, which appears to violate the spirit if not the letter of WP:SOCK. In addition, we have the overlay of KB's previous abuse of socks, and the recurrent and repeated use of multiple socks by many editors related to The Troubles.

Given that history, I believe that Kittybrewster has taken advantage of the community, and the good faith of a few administrators, once too often by advocating for the unblock of an Arbcom and community banned editor when using an alternate account. I propose that KB (and any of his existing socks) be blocked temporarily while the community discusses conditions under which he may continue to contribute, or even if we want him to continue editing. The Vintagekits editing restriction process could be used as a model to develop similar editing restrictions for KB - for example, that he must avoid contact with certain users, that he may not edit specific subjects, etc. We need to discuss specifically whether or not he should be permitted to edit under another account name, and whether or not that account name should be widely known or there should be specifically agreed-to mentors to whom any concerns may be directed.

There's been poorly considered behaviour on the part of a lot of people when it comes to this particular incident, but none of it is particularly relevant to the cause of the incident, which was the use of a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny and give the appearance of greater support on a contentious subject. Risker (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Risker, though am unsure about the type of editing restriction needed (not being a close troubles follower). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At long last someone can see what the problem is here. I am so angry because admins, I thought I could trust, sat back and watched this editor gaming the system. I agree with Risker's proposal 100%. Giano (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker, I'm good with that, esp. given that's he's abused the trust of many, including me and is effectively gaming the system at this stage. I've been emailed about another account he's migrating to and at this point, I think he needs to stop and go back to his original Kitty account. Enough is enough - A l is o n  ❤ 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just community ban him? KB, in his numerous incarnations, has been brought up at AN/I numerous times, and wasn't he also through ArbCom once? He games our systems non-stop, and he's incapable of stopping. He's got a bizarre obsession with his family's baronetcies and his own ego. His pursuit of his own ego masturbation, in his mind, surpasses all our considerations and rules. Get rid of him. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If, Rocksanddirt, you are not a close follower of 'the Troubles' participants, why are you so convinced that there's been a history of abusive sockpuppets? Do you have any evidence for this, or do you simply - gasp! - take Giano's uncorroborated word for it?


 * I also think the time might have come, finally, for a check-user on Catherine de Burgh. --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. Absolutely! Checkuser that horribly disruptive account, what's taking you so long? Bishonen | talk 18:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC).


 * Oh please! Not going to happen and checkuser is not going to be used for tit-for-tat vengeance. No way! - A l is o n  ❤ 17:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The ssp/checkuser (for KB or any other banned user for that matter) should've been done to begin with, rather than the continued screaming (among other things) so far. But this part still fails to acknowledge private correspondance leaking onto wiki - only ArbCom is going to be treating this incident as a whole, properly, as it deserves. I'm off - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Or at least speedy that user page and all attached images, which have no other purposes. ThuranX (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (rply to majorb) While not a close follower, so i don't know the ins-outs-pov's-and whatnot of the regulars, There are a number of usernames tagged as sockpuppets of kb Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kittybrewster, and a number of regulars (other than Giano) have indicated that abuse/gaming using sockpuppets is an ongoing problem in the area. I assume good faith of users, until I have a reason not to.  In my limited wikipedia experience, giano is usually if not right, on the right path that an issue needs investigation.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion focused on how we as a community want to address the Kittybrewster issue and set the rest aside for a bit. There are several suggestions here already: Other options? Are people leaning in any particular direction here? Risker (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Kittybrewster edits with only his own account +/- editing conditions
 * 2) Checkuser to identify any other accounts (possibly to see if there is evidence of further abusive socking)
 * 3) Community ban of Kittybrewster
 * 4) Allow Kittybrewster to open a new account +/- restrictions from areas of previous dispute

Another suggestion would be to let kittyb retire, and open a new account known to a few, that is topic banned from 'troubles' areas? This would require the afirmative participation of kb. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope this isn't a case of "sentence first, trial later". Is there a WP:SSP, WP:RFCU or WP:RFAr case somewhere out there that I'm not seeing? From the contents of this thread so far, there is no consensus that abuse has occurred. It seems to me that this user is making repeated attempts to get away from the Kittybrewster account name, and other editors are trying to prevent that.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Our alternate account policy points out that editors trying to make a clean break are likely to be recognized if they edit in the same areas in the same way; that is exactly what happened here. If he had been staying away from the contentious issues related to his reason for wanting to change usernames, there would probably not have been valid reason to question him. Deliberately returning to those issues and expecting not to be identified with his previous account was, at best, unbelievably optimistic and at worst, arrogant and abusive. If it is the first, then KB needs a firm hand to protect him from himself; if it is the second, then the community needs to be assured that provisions are in place to prevent him from abusing its good faith. Risker (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that I completely agree this is the crux of the issue (and it was my failure to recognize this that got us here). The issue I feel we need to resolve is what "edit in the same areas in the same way" actually means in practical terms. Rockpock  e  t  20:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, Risker. My only statement is this: Kb made a very credible claim that he was being harassed and therefore I believe he should be permitted to edit from another account without being outed if he is not editing in a disruptive manner. We should not assist harassers in the goal of chasing people away from subject areas with threats. I don't believe he was editing in a disruptive manner. That said, if he chooses to get involved in discussions that are significantly related to his old identity, then his reasons for remaining anonymous are significantly undermined. This is where I messed up, I responded to his outing without considering he put himself in that position. Mea culpa. However, I do not believe Kb has done anything, that I am aware of, to deserve a community ban. My suggestion would be that he be permitted to edit from any single account name of his choosing, but be warned that he may not use it to involve himself in disputes that relate to his previous incarnation. A fresh start should mean a fresh start, not just a fresh identity. Rockpock e  t  18:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate this sort of 'solution'. KB is subject to ArbCom restrictions for 'The Troubles'. Now we'll have a 'new' editor, whose restriction is only known to a few. It will be wholly incumbent upon those few to rigorously regulate his contributions. This relegates otherwise valuable editors and admins to the role of babysitting KB. This is an attrition in force that cannot become a precedent, otherwise half or more of our admisn will be spending their entire editing time each evening checking up on people like KB, who has a 'troubles' related agenda, as well as his ego tripping baronetcies of his family thing. Those editors will either get sick of it or complacent, and he'll start doing the same shit again. Alternately, those who volunteer will find their sympathies to KB making 'grey areas' where his editing won't seem 'bad enough' to do something about. Better to ban him and be done with the problems he makes. ThuranX (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One aspect of the troubles remedies is that they apply to "any user who hereafter engages in edit-warring or disruptive editing on these or related articles" (subject list is "articles relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner and British baronets"). If KB cooperates, they could easily do something minor and get logged as under probation on that case fairly readily, without having to give the new account away publicly.  It probably wouldn't be hard for an admin looking at those articles closely to come up with 5-10 editors who have done minorly disruptive things recently ... thus hiding KB's new account name in the noise. GRBerry 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So... in other words 'Who cares if one more person's disruptive, when we're already fighting 10?' that attitude of permissive abuse of process does nothing to improve the project. ThuranX (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket, thanks for posting; I've added your suggestion up above. I think we have to be very clear upfront what actions will be taken if KB is allowed to start a new account and then is found to be re-entering the areas of previous dispute, both for him and the community. What would your proposal be?  Risker (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly fond of this solution either, ThuranX. But the implications of the alternative scares me. It would mean you can harass or threaten another editor off wiki because you want them to leave a subject area. That editor then has to tolerate that harassment or else leave the subject area, but are not permitted to create a new account and continue to edit. It is tantamount to assisting harassers to get what they want.
 * When you say "re-entering the areas of previous dispute", do you mean Troubles related articles or talk pages? I don't have any problem Kb editing those articles as long as he does so in the spirit of the ArbCom findings (no revert-warring or incivility). My meaning of "re-entering the areas of previous dispute" is the tedious and pointless arguing that continues over who said what months ago, or who deserves to be blocked and unblocked for past sins. If he wants to get involved in that, then clearly he can't be too concerned over his security.
 * Therefore my proposal is simply this. If Kb wants to make a fresh start free from the past potential of harassment he should leave the past behind. If he continues to comment on past issues from the safety of a new account, then he loses that right and the account gets blocked as a sock puppet incompatible with policy. If he does this more than once, then he gets a choice: edit only from his Kb account or don't edit at all. Rockpock  e  t  19:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Kittybrewster's having used a different account & not disclosing it to the Wiki public? creats distrust & unconfortness. Indeed he should be restricted in some form. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He should be restricted in some form if, and only if, his editing is causing a problem. He should not be restricted just because he needs to change account because some other thug harassed him. Whether you feel distrustful of a red linked account is beside the point, we should not assist harassers in chasing editors away. Rockpock  e  t  20:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not care what name Kittybrewster edits under, so long as he is not permitted to comment on matter where he has previously caused problems, from AFD to The Troubles. The problem now with this idea is, that as the Admins, once trusted to ensure this did not happen, actually condoned it, (thus betraying all confidence placed in them by Troubles' editors) how to enforce it. Who can one now trust? We have here Rockpocket, who I hold largely responsible for this mess daring to talk as the elder statesmen, when he should in fact be handing in his tools. So there is the problem. Who does one trust, and perhaps more importantly, can one trust Kittybrewster? Giano (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO Rockpocket should not resign his Administratorship. As for Kittybrewster? he should be restricted & his other accounts blocked. Trust must be restored. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If and when I resign as an administrator, it will be because I decide to, or because the wider community advises me to. It will not because Giano is peddling untruths, or as a result of the co-ordinated attempts of his harpies to pin everything under the sun on me (first IRC, now bad sites... Let me state in advance that I have never set foot in the Texas School Book Depository).
 * I have been thinking about this over the last 24hrs or so. If my interpretation is correct, Giano's (and other's) concern is that editors were allowed to edit in and around the sphere of the Troubles/baronets under a different accounts, with the prior knowledge and - it follows - tacit "permission" of a number of admins. If I ignore the mitigating circumstances that these editors may have had for using different account, I can understand why that is of concern. But, and I think this is the point Major Bonkers has been trying to make, if this is the issue, then we should address all the occasions this has happened, of which Kittybrewster → Berks911 is just one. Here are a few more:
 * We have → . A sock puppet used simply to nominate an article for deletion that was about a British noble, which was created and expanded by Kittybrewster and Co. One would think, per Giano's reasoning, this would be an issue also. But no. Though I'm sure that that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that  was the admin giving permission on that occasion.  For the record, I don't have a major issue with this either (see my comment at the time), but then I'm not the one hypocritically calling for action currently.
 * We also have a Mystery Gianophile → . An obvious sock puppet whose sole contribution is to poke fun at the upper classes in general and Kittybrewster in particular (I will not identify the quote in question, because it slyly reveals knowledge of personal information about Kb). One would think that getting involved in discussions with Kb and Co. from a sock puppet account would also ignite Giano's ire, but apparently not. Once again, I stress that I, personally, don't have a particular issue with this account (and it is undoubtedly humorous), but then I'm not the one hypocritically calling for action currently.
 * So, I say that if Giano's shock and anger over this (albeit delayed months until he could engineer a drama out of it) is to be served properly, lets clean out the entire sock drawer and hold everyone accountable for their roles in operating, and permitting the operation of, sock puppet accounts in the sphere of the Troubles. If that truly is the goal, that is. Rockpock  e  t  22:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I will thank you not to put your own spin on anything I have said. There was no "permission" involved in my legitimate use of an alternate account, which if you check the contribs wasn't even used at the same time as this account. I notified two admins of my use of the account in advance but never sought "permission". Are you aware of the exact evidence submitted to the Arbitration Committee by me regarding the use of that account? Silly question really as I know the answer - no you aren't. That was a legitimate AFD nomination of an article I had previously prodded, and the prod was removed without improvement. The use of an alternate account (at a time my main account wasn't even editing!) was to attempt to delete what was an article which did not assert notability and to judge the reaction of certain parties to the debate. The reactions of the usual suspect/suspects (delete as applicable) were predictable -  . Should an AFD nomination be judged on the basis of the nominator's arguments, or the identity of the nominator? The latter is irrelevant.


 * [Redacted] If you consider that ArbCom were aware of this and did nothing do you really think anything will be done about it twelves months later? I bet you can't even show a violation of WP:SOCK with that account, go on if you can? One Night In Hackney  303  23:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You miss my point, Hack. I completely agree with you. Completely. I presume ArbCom (or admins) used their judgment when you notified that them why you used that account (which was within policy). I am not aware of the exact evidence submitted to the Arbitration Committee by you regarding the use of that account. But I trust that ArbCom or those admins you informed were, which is why they were content for you to do it. Likewise, you might ask whether Giano aware of the exact evidence submitted by Kb regarding the use of his accounts? Silly question really as I know the answer - no he isn't. My point is simply that if we are working on the principle suggested then we should also apply that principle to the examples I provide. If one was to do that, I think we would realize that the principle is flawed. It is perfectly acceptable for you to use those alternate accounts so long as you were not doing anything disruptive (and you were not). The same should go for Kb (and Catherine de Burgh). Rockpock  e  t  23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, got carried away over the holding to account bit. I've tried to stay out of this, keeping my opinions on the right and wrongs of the actions of various parties to myself. I only got dragged into it when Bonkers was doing his usual trick of criticising someone who wasn't there to defend themselves from his "unique" view of history. One Night In Hackney  303  23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its alright, Hack. This sort of misunderstanding is why I originally advocated keeping you out of it on my talk page. But the fact is our sock policy is there for a reason, and we should not be talking about banning people from using socks for perfectly good reasons. I used yours as an example for the very reason that it is airtight in policy (I would expect no less from you, of course), yet it would be questionable if we took Giano's bombast at face value... and I hope it is clear by now that I don't.  Rockpock  e  t  23:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

<--(Unindent) Okay, are you boys quite finished? As I have explained to Major Bonkers on your talk page, Rockpocket, this thread is not intended to solve all the problems on Wikipedia, or even to sort all the socks in The Troubles cases. Everyone knows where to go to report suspected sockpuppets, I assume? In this thread we are dealing with the actions of *one* editor, known as Kittybrewster, Berks911, and a few other names. We need to decide as a community how to deal with this particular editor.

So, the options that have been brought forth to this point are:
 * 1) Kittybrewster edits with only his own account +/- editing conditions
 * 2) Allow Kittybrewster to open a new account +/- restrictions from areas of previous dispute
 * 3) Community ban of Kittybrewster

Comments, specifically on addressing the recurrent sockpuppeting by Kittybrewster, are what is being sought here. Risker (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * On the understanding the same principle applies to all individuals associated with the Troubles: 2. Kittybrewster can open a new account per WP:SOCK, but is restricted from commenting on historical disputes. He is, however, free to edit any Troubles related articles - or interact with other Troubles related editors - as long as he does so within the letter and spirit of the Troubles ArbCom remedies. Rockpock  e  t  00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about other articles? There's been forays into the Irish sporting arena from at least one sock, possibly one that isn't known publicly yet so I'm not providing diffs. If VK (assuming he's unblocked....) is supposed to avoid Kittybrewster, it's a bit difficult if he doesn't know which account he's using and Kittybrewster is editing sporting articles. One Night In Hackney  303  00:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was aware of one or two minor, and perfectly good, edits to Irish related sports articles from a Kb sock. I considered even that to be skating on thin ice. If there is anything remotely more significant than that, then - per the understanding of Vk's conditions (that these guys keep to their own sphere) - Kb gets warned. If it happens again then I would say we should consider why the interest in Irish sporting articles all of a sudden and act accordingly. Rockpock  e  t  00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the circus has moved on, and all the circus goers have left us, it would appear. So where does that leave those that actually care about sorting out the problem, rather than joining in the dramafest? I started this mess by overprotecting Kb's anonymity when he had overstepped that boundary himself. Can I attempt to finish it by proposing we close with Kb be made aware that he is expected to stick by option 2:


 * Kb, and anyone else* from the Troubles who feels the need to edit anonymously, can open a new account per SOCK, but is specifically restricted from commenting on historical disputes (that is, anything they were involved in with a previous account). He is, however, free to edit any Troubles related articles - and in doing so interact with other Troubles related editors - as long as he does so within the letter and spirit of the Troubles ArbCom remedies. If in doing that he gets identified, then too bad. If we see people using sock puppets to push the limits to acceptable behaviour, drag up old disputes, or behave in a manner that a previous account has been sanctioned for, then it will be considered they used a sock puppet to deceive and will be dealt with harshly.
 * (*) This does not, obviously, supersede other sanctions that may have been placed on certain editors.  Rockpock  e  t  02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Refocusing is good but this problem has two root causes
What to do with the problem of The Troubles editors' socking needs to be discussed but we've got to where we are for two reasons. Reason one is the disagreement on how to handle this problem. Reason two is the outcome of handling the dispute that arose by Rockpocket. When he saw Giano's actions disagreeable, he made a series of escalating posts to his talk page in an outright arrogant tone, continued with block threats (as if not knowing how the block threats are received by editors who, btw, have done much more for this project than himself), and then went on and proceeded with an indefinite block of an established editor without seeking the community input first. How many times do we need to go through this at ANI and other drama-space?

Blocking is a serious matter. No one gets to block an established editor indefinitely on the whim without seeking a community input on that. Figuring out what to do with the troubles' socks is all good but until the message that whimsical blocking is outrageous firmly sinks in, we are bound to have these reruns. --Irpen 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Irpen. I share your anger too. You are quite right, however, the community does not agree. My view is that Rockpocket betrayed trust, then blocked to prevent his betrayal becoming public knowledge. Let others have this discussion elsewhere. Let's not digress too far from what Risker is admirably trying to acheive above - a solution agrreable to all. Giano (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I offer the following general observation, with a note that its relevance to this situation is obvious. There seems to be a persistent and unfortunate confusion on the part of some editors about what a block of 'indefinite' duration means.  Because permanent blocks and bans have a duration of 'indefinite' in the Mediawiki software and block log, from time to time people may make the assumption that 'indefinite' means 'permanent'.  While permanent blocks should only be undertaken with care, and bans of editors applied with very good reason and (extraordinarily unusual conditions aside) community or ArbCom approval, these are not the only occasions where a block of 'indefinite' length may be employed.


 * Sometimes 'indefinite' means 'indefinite'&mdash;of unspecified duration, no more and no less. An administrator may apply an 'indefinite' block while simultaneously making clear conditions under which the block will be lifted.  Often this is done where it is believed that the blocked editor will be able to contribute constructively as soon as some harmful behaviour has ceased.  (The canonical example is the case where an editor makes comments likely to be construed as a legal threat.  We will block indef for that, but end the block as soon as the threat is withdrawn&mdash;at least for a first offense.)  A fixed-length block in such a situation may fail to be useful in (at least) two ways.  First, an editor may be prepared to correct their conduct immediately, so a block of fixed length may prevent that editor from contributing unnecessarily.  Second, an editor may choose to 'wait out' the block, leaving the initial problem unresolved.  Neither outcome is in the interest of the encyclopedia.  Such an indefinite block does not require advance community discussion, as it is intended to be temporary, and may be lifted extremely rapidly.  Indeed, such an 'indefinite' block can often be – and could have been in this case – very brief.


 * Irpen, you keep making references to unnecessary drama. I hope that someday, after things have cooled off a bit, you might do some honest soul-searching to see what kind of effect your own approach here may have had on the level of drama in these discussions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, I think you are confusing the cause and effect here. Eager and reckless blocking, especially of the superior editors, brings drama. Provocative escalating warnings, threats, bossy attitude, lack of humility of admins when dealing with editors bring drama. Arrogant adminitis brings drama. Attempt to convince the community that such are unacceptable reduce drama in the long run as shown by a simple fact how much more rare such incidents are as bossy admins are more aware of the possible outcome of their actions, fear to loose their admin bit and control their temper more for these, if not for other reasons. We are a long way from the state in the fall 2006, when Tony Sidaway could go on the blocking rampage of everyone who cried foul over outrageous results Carnildo's RfA but we are still not there yet.

You are dead wrong saying that administrator can block without discussion in such case. Blocks without discussion can only be either blocks directly proescribed by policy (like 3RR) or emergency blocks or the blocks whose need is absolutely clear to any reasonable observer (vandalism, hate speech, obvious trolling, etc.) Otherwise, confer! Conferring never hurts but often prevents drama. Because when a good editor who donates his time to this project is humiliated by its admins (and blocks are humiliating), this is a sure way to get drama. I can't say this enough that admins have to dispense their duty with respect towards the people thanks to who this project is here, the editors. When their posts and action demonstrate who is the boss, this is going to be drama. When someone who hardly wrote 10% of what Giano wrote posts to his page in the tone that says "Do this or..." and "I am in charge..." and threats, there will be drama. When admins act and speak being full of themselves, this causes drama, not the other way around. And the worst thing you can do to an aggrieved editor who tries to make valid concerns about the project he is so committed to is to gag him (block) and demand something using such brute force. Yes, blocks may sometimes be necessary but only as the last resort and asking for feedback helps in reducing drama.

There was none of it here. Clearly Rockpocket and Giano had a good faith disagreement on how to deel with Bad Sites socks. Then Rockpocket brought in a obvious straw man of "outing". The tone of his posts to Giano's talk, threats could only make Giano blow up and he knew it. A block brought drama. When less admins will be so full of themselves, we will have less drama.

Your post strikes me that you still don't realize what a big deal is a block. Quoting yourself, "I hope that someday, after things have cooled off a bit, you might do some honest soul-searching to see what kind of effect your own approach here may have had on the level of drama in these discussions.". --Irpen 18:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about, Irpen viz: "Clearly Rockpocket and Giano had a good faith disagreement on how to deel with Bad Sites socks. Then Rockpocket brought in a obvious straw man of "outing"."? First you jump to some ridiculous conclusion that I am some IRC fiend (which, one can only assume, was why you were so keen to hang, draw and quarter me in the first instance). When you realized you were completely wrong there, you are now inventing some other reason for why my actions were in such bad faith. The only thing clear here is you are desperate to de-sysop me and need to justify it wish some invented disagreement, rather than accept that I made a genuine mistake in my effort to protect an editor from harassment. Give it a rest, man, please. This concocted justification is so off base that I don't even understand what I am accused of! Numerous people have now told you the same thing: if you wish to have me de-sysopped, there is a mechanism in place for that. I urge you to pursue that mechanism, where your inventions require validation to be taken seriously. Rockpock  e  t  22:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Rockpocket, I already admitted that I was mistaken re IRC. I checked the logs and saw that those rants were 1=2's. My mistake is only partially excusable by the fact how similar are things you said. He even also boasted private support on IRC that people are supposedly afraid to voice publicly. Just the same way you did. But this mistake does not in any way invalidate the rest. Your accusation of Giano that he was "outing" anyone was a strawman. Your posts to his page were arrogant and could only make things worse, your unilateral block was outrageous, your failure to bring your block to the community attention yourself shows obviously certainty that your actions were unquestionably right.


 * Above I described some common problems in the ways many admins deal with editors. Your admittance that your block was bad nowhere indicated that you realize that your demeanor was bad. Yes, you made a "genuine mistake" seeing harassment where there was none. That's fine. But by far worse (IMO) mistake was treating the editor (Giano) the way you did, with threats that were bound to escalate the matter and followed by a block. Obviously, there is no sentiment here that you need to be desysopped. But I hope that in the future we will see more humility from you (and other admins) when they deal with editors whose commitment and service to this project is beyond doubt. --Irpen 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What does Rockpocket and Giano had a good faith disagreement on how to deel with Bad Sites socks mean (which is presumably your justification for asserting I was using a "straw-man")? I honestly am without a clue what you are suggesting my motivation was. Rockpock  e  t  23:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to harp on about this, but as the one being wrongly accused of having some nonexistent disagreement and then cooking up a straw-man to block Giano to because of it, I would very much like to you explain what you mean by disagreement on how to deel with Bad Sites socks and what evidence you have to make such a claim. You (again wrongly) claimed I "blocked and ducked out". I would hope you are not making unsubstantiated accusations then ducking out. Rockpock  e  t  16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The disagreement was what to do with KB, an editor from The Troubles case who returned to old ways under a new name. Giano recognized the account from the editing pattern which was obvious and found this continuation of an old pattern intolerable. You, OTOH, knew about this going on all along but thought no action was warranted. This is what I called a good faith disagreement. However, you pulled the outing thing out of thin air, and started to threaten Giano in your admin capacity (that is invoking blocks.) When Giano defied your treatment you unilaterally imposed an indefinite block despite there was no emergency and you could ask for the community feedback. After the block you did not even post your block for a review until someone else posted. Your disagreement with Giano might have been OK. The way you dealt with this disagreement was unacceptable. --Irpen 04:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you as simply wrong. Again. Since you have never bothered to ask, you cannot be aware of the circumstances why I considered it important that KB not be outed as the person using that account. Instead of asking, you have jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion. Quite why you lack such good faith, I have no idea, but I find it pretty shameful. You have the gall to accuse me of arrogance when the most arrogant thing I can imagine is to tell someone else that you know better than them what their motivation was, especially when you didn't even bother to investigate the whole story. When you have some evidence, rather than your own assumption of bad faith, that I "pulled the outing thing out of thin air" then I might take you seriously. Until then I will not be giving your fanciful lies the dignity of further response. (Oh, and btw, I find the casual way you throw "Bad Sites" in there, when there is no conceivable connection whatsoever to any Bad Site, despicable. Let me guess, you are confusing me with someone else? Again?) Rockpock  e  t  05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

KB was one of The Troubles editors renown for bad behavior. He resumed under a new name and if he planned to not be recognized, he screwed that up big time in the way he edited. No one outed him. One editor who occasionally stalks my edits, changed his username 4 times at least and I never had a problem recognizing him because he always resumed acting in his old way. I always call him by his first username? Am i outing him? For god's sake, Bonaparte returned under several dozens of socks but he is so stupid, that he gets recognized (and reblocked) within 10 edits. Is he being outed? Sure, your "outing" claim was "pulled out of thin air". But the worst thing you did here was threatening and blocking. You acted like you were "in charge" pointing a superion editor to his place and showing who is the boss through a brute-force, a block. People get pissed off when treated that way and you should realize that such admin conduct is unacceptable. The last point is the main one. --Irpen 06:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * KB was one of The Troubles editors renown for bad behavior. [sic.] Major Bonkers (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh just leave it alone Irpen. It is not worth spending hours digging the diffs up. I suggest we leave Bonkers, Kitty, Rockpocket and God know's who masquerading as God know's who to stew in their own sauce. Nobody with any wiki-nouse seems inclined to solve the problems here. So there is little one can do. The Arbcom are aware of the truth, so be content with that. Time will be a great revealer. Giano (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)