Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent

Poeticbent's comments regarding 3RR reports
I'm returning Poeticbent's comments to the discussion page as they were not part of the request to which Thatcher, the checkuser clerk, responded. Please note that the instances cited [without dates and the exact time added by Poeticbent] were part of the report; Poeticbent's comments follow in parentheses. I can't think that placing these comments on this page in any way hides them. On a related note, I suggest that the project page discussion that followed Thatcher's response also be moved to this page - this would be more in keeping with checkuser procedures. 76.64.212.242 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Poeticbent's comments concerning the 3RR section to this discussion page as they were not part of the report to which the checkuser clerk responded.76.64.212.242 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding 3RR violation using IPs and main account 3RR violation using IPs 3RR violation using IPs
 * 1) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 2) 18:14, 25 May 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 3) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 4) 13:25, 26 May 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 1) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by as per  Three-revert rule  - Unwanted edits: bad language (calling Polish people "stupid nationalists"). Origin: Duesseldorf, Germany. See also: WP:TPG. --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 2) 18:05, 23 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by as per  Three-revert rule  - Unwanted edits: bad language (calling Polish people "stupid nationalists"). Origin: Duesseldorf, Germany. See also: WP:TPG. --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 3) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by as per  Three-revert rule  - Unwanted edits: bad language  (calling Polish people "stupid nationalists"). Origin: Duesseldorf, Germany. See also: WP:TPG. --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 4) 14:58, 24 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by as per  Three-revert rule  - Unwanted edits: bad language (calling Polish people "stupid nationalists"). Origin: Duesseldorf, Germany. See also: WP:TPG. --Poeticbent  talk  )
 * 1) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  )
 * 2) 18:33, 28 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  )
 * 3) 04:54, 29 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  )
 * 4) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (rv disruptive edit by --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  )


 * Please see my added dates to 3RR accusations above. This is truly Orwellian, like the accusations of "personal attacks" against... not users, but anonymous IPs engaged in disruptive editing. Do I need to reveal who I am in order to deal with the worst cases of vandalism? No. I don't think so. I have every reason to be afraid of being stalked as a result of defending Wiki content, which the above case proves beyond doubt. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The 3RR violations are all valid and you did not even explain what was supposedly faulty - your added dates only back them up quite neatly. Within little more than a month you violated 3RR five times (three with the IP and two on your account, one of which you were blocked for and another one overlooked at Ghetto benches on May 12). Explanations like you were ony "deal[ing] with the worst cases of vandalism" are completely unconvincing. The same goes for the PA's. Attacks against the messenger rather than the relevant message like "a couple of notorious flame warriors, a nondescript User:M.K and a guy from Germany hiding under the pseudonym of User:Matthead, both trying to gain an upper hand in Eastern European disputes, this time, by demanding access to OTRS nonpublic data about me." only emphasise it. By the way, there wouldn't even be this CheckUser request if you had simply answered the question yourself. At your next 3RR violation or when edit warring on your part in general gains relevance, the certainty in this regard may indeed play a role. Sciurinæ (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, and dealing with disruptive IPs that are clearly single accounts POV pushers/socks. This case here is a pretty obvious harassment of Poeticbent (it would be interesting to see if IPs reverted by Poeticbent don't belong to the editors harassing him).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see what is exempt from 3RR within one click to the 3R-rule and immediately see that no relevant action here was exempt. Also, while alleged vandalism is probably the number one excuse for 3RR violations, accusations of harassment with which to counter valid reports on bad behaviour and attacking the messenger - thereby killing two birds with one stone - are still pleasantly uncommon in Wikipedia otherwise. It was only an informal opportunity offered by M.K to ask him first and give him days to reply (without a positive result) before filing the report. Matthead here only provided solemnly relevant links without even giving his opinion. I only refuted Poeticbent's and your claims that these weren't 3RR violations (I had found the violations), which I wouldn't have to refute if Poeticbent did actually check upon them properly and if you had actually remembered what vandalism is not and bothered to reread WP:3RR. I also took the opportunity to comment on the repeated and troubling personal attacks, whose relevance you and Poeticbent not only highlighted but still highlight (although you were already on the Digwuren list, and Poeticbent has been walking the thin line) and which you somehow need me to have to mention again and again apparently. No one else is to blame if someone violates 3RR and engages in personal attacks but that person themselves, and mentioning or reporting it is not harassment. If your popping-up here with incorrect claims and personal attacks and nothing else wasn't harassment, nothing here is. As for your accusation that someone here could be behind the IPs (presumably because it comes from Germany, from which you know that both me and Matthead come from), anyone with CU rights reading it here can run a check. Apart from that, for me, the case here is closed and unless you two want to turn this into an argument with comments that need long replying to again and again, I hope I won't have to respond anymore. Sciurinæ (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome Sciurinæ. Good to know that you're always there for Matthead during Eastern European disputes and for whomever else wants to harass me over Poland-related articles. I revised the list of 3RR accusations above to show the kind of disruptive editing by anonymous IPs I was trying to prevent. It's much clearer now and personally, I wouldn't mind knowing who's behind those IPs. But please, do not align yourself with this last campaign of harassment that needs to be dealt with via other and more appropriate WP:OTRS channels. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b>  talk  15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User Poeticbent never used sockpuppets, not to my knowledge, to suggest a fraud in voting on AfD or to make an impression more than one person is behind this or that, which would be a serious issue. His 3RR violations are pretty good documented but it's a minor misdemeanor, lots of dedicated to Wikipedia users commit this now and then. Regarding multiple IP issue: It happens to me all the time to sign by IP instead of my log name. Many my edits are signed like that, just because I forgot to log in or to click on "remember me" button, and then the Wiki program just simply logged me out until I finished my lengthy edit. The only difference is I have one IP while User Poeticbent has obviously a dynamic one. Not the big deal until proven guilty of intentional bad faith. greg park avenue (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent, would it not be more effective to present your comments of defence here (or, as the procedures page suggests, on the discussion page), rather than in the actual report? I ask because it is rather difficult to follow and/or respond to each: they have been added gradually (three batches over the course of 38 hours) and not one features information as to when it was placed. The fact that all these comments were appended to the report after Thatcher, the checkuser clerk, had addressed the request adds to the confusion. The reader is now obliged to go on a bit of an archeological journey in order to find the report to which Thatcher was responding. And this is assuming that the reader who comes across this report suspects changes were made after participation of the checkuser clerk. Please understand, this is not a criticism, but a suggestion that might lead to clearer communication.

In any case, I did want to address your last edit. I disagree on two counts: I suppose a very weak case might be made that the author of this statement is in some way insulting certain editors, but I'm assuming in good faith that this is not the case. 76.64.212.242 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * while one might consider the term "stupid nationalists" less than refined, even crass, it is not "bad language";
 * the user did not call "Polish people 'stupid nationalists'", as you write, rather he stated " You people actually hurt our polish heritage because readers get the impression we are stupid nationalists."


 * I agree that the term You people used once by Ross Perot while addressing African-American citizens, was politically incorrect and had cost him his presidency bid; still, I presume, it's not a big deal in reference to Wikipedia editors as long as the policy WP:AGF was not violated or proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. greg park avenue (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for such eloquent and certainly most balanced responses. As we can see (above), anonymous IPs can easily prove themselves to be good contributors without the trouble of manufacturing pseudonyms in order to make their points. However, I’m not as eager as 76.64.212.242 to believe smoke-and-mirrors which is NOT confirmed by a Domain search. Here we have an anonymous dynamic IP from Duesseldorf, Germany, purporting the so called “our polish (sic!) nationality” in order to sound likeable first before going out on a limb. Not for a moment did I believe it to be true and I acted accordingly. I have never used sockpuppets. I would like to use this opportunity to refute the accusations of the "possible WP:SOCK violations" delivered to me in an email by yet another editor on May 31st. Not logging-in is not a violation and indeed might turn out to be quite popular among established users if such CU searches were ever warranted. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a side note to that about the IP: (One thing I can't get into my head if you actually believed the person behind the IP not to have been Polish back then as well, why couldn't you simply bring it up rather than remove the comment and start a revert war? You do know that there are also people of Polish descent in Germany, at least you could have thought of that, since you don't live in Poland, either, and naturally Polish people in Germany would be especially interested in Polish-German matters. In any case, you can express your doubt productively instead of leaping to conclusions and biting at the earliest possible opportunity. For example, you might have asked for proof or just challenged his or her in Polish. Whether you would have liked the answer if you had risked trying to find out is another question but everyone would be a little wiser.) Sciurinæ (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

After the waves of recent personal attacks and ad hominem "arguments" by Poeticbent towards me, I thought I should remain away from this board, however continues misinformation just overwhelmed me. like the accusations of "personal attacks" against... not users, but anonymous IPs engaged in disruptive editing., writes Poetibent, even if we presume that IPs should be treaded as second class editors on which are allowed personal attacks; such Poeticbent excuse collapses soon afterwards. Not mentioning that one of his IPs was dedicated to stalk an established editor. Not mentioning that, that in presented diffs there are no worst cases of vandalism as was pointed out already. Even if there suspicion about vandalism, it should be reported in proper venue and not dealt with it using logg in/ loog out tactics, trying to avoid 3RR, semi-protection. Moreover SOCK clearly states ''Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits.'' therefore there are no excuses for this contributor's systematical revert warring. I would not go in details about calling Polish people "stupid nationalists" as it was done already. As noted in initial report there are additional controversial edits, which not covered here, which looks not good either. As this board is not assign to deal with contributors additional behavior patterns, apart of Sock puppetry, any additional investigation should be redirected to different boards and if contributors will continue to investigate Poeticbent's editing pattern and behavior on different venues, let me know I would definitely add some comments. M.K. (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * M.K., you have filled two ArbCom cases against Polish editors. Both were rejected, but perhaps you'd like to start another one? If no, please stop harassing Poeticbent.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "two cases", "rejected"? Last time I look at the case I started it was accepted and decided. So not "rejected". M.K. (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. I should have said: all of your arguments, claims and proposals were considered and discarded by the arbitrators. Better? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem again? This board serves for different purposes, mainly to run a checkuser, and not to absorb ad hominem remarks. I hope that this board's main purpose will be regarded, M.K. (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would be highly advisable if ad hominems and harassment directed at Poeticbent would stop, I agree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You've used the accusations here before and I have responded to them elaborately. Their repetitive assertion don't make them true, either. But it's really becoming bothersome to continue to respond to them. Either one accepts the patently false claims or one responds to them only to be faced with yet another, with the original case getting blurred in the process. Sciurinæ (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)