Misplaced Pages

But reverting does not remove the content that you say is outing. If there was a true privacy concern, you should immediately revert, then delete (if feasible given the size of the page), and then send a request to oversight. If you did not think that these steps were needed, then it was not outing. Instead, now you seem to be arguing that Giano should not have identified this user. Him and other users appear to think that linking to the old account was appropriate given past issues with the account. They want it known that this user is a past account because they are continuing to speak about the same issues. They have the right to this opinion, even if you disagree. IMO, blocking an editor until they agree not to repeat their thoughts about this account is not a proper use of your tools. It is winning a dispute by using your tools to your advantage. Since it was Giano and his talk page is heavily watched, the issue was quickly resolved. But with a different user, their account might remain indef blocked. That concerns me. I'm asking you to sleep on my comments, and others. Maybe with some time you will better understand our concern. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would take issue with your phrasing, Flo. I explicitly did not block "an editor until they agree not to repeat their thoughts about this account". I made it very clear Giano was welcome to restate his concerns, but not to explicitly name the person he considered to be behind another account (bearing in mind the the real identity is so closely linked with the old account). That is a key difference and I was very careful to make that clear.

It is a proper use of the tools to block in a preventative manner and that I what I did. I wasn't involved with a dispute with Giano, any more than an admin is in dispute with an editor who repeatedly adds someone else's email address. I told Giano by email why he was effectively, in my opinion, providing personal information of someone who has been harassed when there was no need for him to do so. Therefore I strongly dispute my action was about "winning a dispute by using your tools to your advantage." I was using my judgment to try and help another editor from being harassed. Maybe my judgment wasn't the best in this case, I'll hold my hands up to that, but I'm pretty offended by that suggestion that this was about using my tools for personal reasons. Where is the good faith, Flo?

I never got the opportunity to deal with the edits in question after the block prevented them from being recreated. Therefore it is a non sequitur to state because I did not delete or oversight, it is not "outing". Perhaps it was outing, and I didn't follow the preferred method for dealing with it? Anyone familiar with this would be aware it would have made little different to the outcome anyway, since Giano was going to have his say no matter what.

I take your point that using an anonymous account to rehash old issues with old foes somewhat negates the right to anonymity. This, above all, is a mitigating circumstance I can appreciate that would make a block a poor call.

Rockpocket 23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

But what Giano wanted to note was the link to the other account and his concern that this specific user was using a sock to lobby for an unblock. He (and other now) raise the legitimate concern that this user was pushing the bounds of our socking policy by using another account to continue old disputes with out informing the involved editors of the new account. Users in a discussion have the right to know if the person they are talking with might have a prior interest in the topic that is coloring their opinion. That was Giano's concern, I think. He recognized the user and wanted to point out to all their identity. This is not an unreasonable idea. You stopped him from connecting the two accounts which is what he saw as important, I think. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely think that you were acting in good faith. The calls to desysop you over this one incident are not reasonable. But that does not stop me from being concerned that you used your tools in a manner that was not good for the community. You were too close to the situation, I think. That is the main reason that admin make dodgy blocks or other poor calls. You lost perspective, I think. A very human response. Give it more thought and I think that you might come to see my and others concerns. You don't have to agree with us that you acted in error. Just take the constructive criticism on board, okay? FloNight♥♥♥ 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, Flo. I appreciate that and also for your efforts to discuss and explain, rather than join in the damnation chorus.

I do see your point. The more I think about it, I think there is a fair expectation to know who you are speaking to in that situation. Of course, Giano knew who he was speaking to, as did everyone else with any interest in the page. That is part of the issue: everyone who cares to know, already knew. Kb knew this (which is why I can't really see the point of using an alternative account) and Giano knew this (which is why I can't really see the point of outing him so others would be aware).

I think if he were being absolutely honest, Giano would admit that he didn't "out" the account because he wanted others to know, but because he knew it would piss Kb off. I don't honestly know why Kb jumps from one not-very-anonymous account to another when anyone that wished him harm would know it is him anyway, but I bet part of it is because he knows it pisses Giano et al off. And so there it is: its all about the mutual antipathy between Giano on one side and this small group of editors on the other. Now one or more of them are blocked (I don't know the details of the disputed block, but I'm told that it is a solid case of sockpuppetry, which I am happy to accept), Giano takes every opportunity to rub salt in the wound. And that is why I considered it unacceptable for Giano to "out" him, because the potential consequences with regards to real-life harassment are rather awful and yet Giano did it simply as another twist of the knife.

So did I lose perspective? I would say the opposite is true, I have mucho perspective, but to the same consequence. I know how unpleasant it is to be harassed. So when Giano was busy providing nice weblinks for people who like to follow the trails to personal information, simply so he can thumb his nose in a petty dispute, it disappointed me. It disappointed me most of all because Giano is not a harasser by any means, quite the opposite, he tried to help me when I was having similar problems recently and I am very grateful for that. So yes, perhaps I was too close, but not in the way some people seem to be suggesting. I have much respect and genuine affection for Giano (and while I am disappointed now, I know he didn't mean any harm and so will get over that soon enough). I have nothing invested in Kb other than to help ensure he, like every other editor, be permitted to editor without being harassed. So perhaps I'm seeing danger where others see none, and that is why they have concerns. I appreciate that and, now realize that perhaps my own experiences effected me more than I thought. But I do also think we don't do enough to deal with harassment on Misplaced Pages, and wonder how harassment from a first hand perspective would alter the opinion of those that don't see a problem.

I knew this would be controversial (it is Giano, after all), but I honestly thought there was an obvious (though not simplistic) harassment implication here. Either there really is not, or the community does not see it that way. Either way, if my judgment is so out of whack with the community opinion, I need to consider whether it is in our best interest that I continue in this role. I will think it over for a while, consult and let you know. In the meantime, I really would appreciate it if editors could lay of the "Giano feud" rhetoric. It is complete, uninformed nonsense. I will either work this out with Giano privately, or else stay well away from him, but I don't need someone with no clue what they are talking about lecturing me. Thanks Rockpocket 01:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't do it!

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation (and I can see the wisdom on both sides) it in no way reflects on your judgement in general. You've got it right so many times, and you've defused so many crises, to lose you as an admin would be a tragedy! Please don't talk about quitting! Scolaire (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that none of this reflects on your judgement in general, and I also hope we don't lose you as an admin. I'm happy that you and Giano, two editors I greatly respect, are in dialogue. Best wishes. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, don't resign your Administratorship. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-existant feuds!

I have seen it said that Rockpocket and I had a feud. This is not so. For the record, whatever disagreements Rockpocket and I may have had, had been well and truly patched up. I was not aware of any ongoing feud. I thought we had a mutual respect. That Rockpocket has now behaved as he has upset me too. I thought we were working together to solve the problems at The Troubles together. Clearly by encouraging secretive sockpuppetry in some of the most contentious areas of The Troubles, I feel Rockpocket has betrayed the trust I had placed in him. I can imagine the "sob stories" he has been spun, and I do have a very sneaking sympathy for him. I don't think he is a bad man, but he has proved to be a bad admin. That in a field riven with socks making biased and POV edits, he has encouraged another. already known sockpuppeteer to sock - defies belief. Sentiment makes me feel he should stay on as admin, but sometimes one has to be tough to do the job, and the job is to further trust and honesty. Sentiment cannot be allowed to interfere with greater aims. I'm sorry Rockpocket, but you cocked up big time. Giano (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noting that Giano. I understand your stated position, though I think you misunderstand what happened. Perhaps I misunderstood also, because I thought you were well aware of this. It would appear that may not be the case. I also understand your keenness to discuss this in public, but I wonder if I could convince you to agree to something. Would you consider if we attempt to sort this out by email in the first instance? I feel we always have a better conversation free from distraction. In return, I would be happy for you to quote fully and verbatim anything I write back on Wiki at your discretion. That way there will be no whitewash or secrecy. Please consider this. Rockpocket 07:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I can well immagine the sob story that's coming, but you will find me a very tough nut to crack. Deception is one of my black and white areas, in a public forum, such as this, it has to be like that, or no one can know where they are. Sometime one has to take a tough stance to maintain that important trust, you failed to take that stance. Email by all means, but don't be surprised if you find me unsympathetic. Giano (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sob story dispatched. Its really late here and I must get some sleep. I'll email again in the morning if you have more questions or comments. Rockpocket 08:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied. My handkercheif remains quite dry. Your position remains untenable. Giano (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone other than you really think that Rockpocket should be de-Admined (or whatever it's called), Giano? Are we not just starting on another pointless crusade (include me out), with yet more double-standards: sock-puppetry by Vintagekits acceptable, sock-puppetry by David Lauder unacceptable?; 'wiki-sleuthing' by Durova bad, 'wiki-sleuthing' by Giano good? We have to take the rough with the smooth, I suppose, but the price to the community of pandering to your angry mastodon-like behaviour is that it's a boring turn-off to the rest of us.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid as long as your friends behave as they do, then yes, we need to keep them precisely where we can see them. I have not forgotten Kittybrewster's friends arguing black was white with me over the Kittybrewster ancestral pile, until itwas proven without a doubt Kitty was in error. I'm not watching any more rubbish being added to Misplaced Pages by Kitty and co. There is a world of difference betwen Sussexman and Vintagekits, as you well know. I really don't advise you to go there. Rockpocket will no doubt do as he thinks fits, as will I. Giano (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may suggest; the problem with your approach is that it takes what, to most of us, is an engaging and amusing past-time and turns it into a campaign for idealogical purity. I don't know what you're talking about re. 'the Kittybrewster ancestral pile', and I simply don't see why it matters, unless you particularly want to refight old battles. There is a difference between Sussexman and Vintagekits; leaving aside the question whether David Lauder is actually Sussexman, both of those accounts have behaved better than Vintagekits has in the past. And if I'm not watching any more rubbish being added to Misplaced Pages by Kitty and co. (which presumably includes me) means that you're going to be stalking his (or our) edits, have you really not got anything better to do? What a spectacular waste of time! (You'll find that mine include a recent learned discussion on varnishes applied by 12 century Russian icon painters - much good may it do you.) --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lauder is Sussexman! Multiple checkusers have proved it. Kitybrester has pushed his point of view with multiple & accounts. These I suspect are the tip of the iceberg. Now he is going to stop. We need to know who is arguing for what. Sussexman may have three supporters, he may have 300, clamouring for his return. I am coming to the view it is probably 2.5 rather than hundreds.Giano (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to take the claims of the sock-hunters seriously: you previously dropped a broad hint that I and David Lauder were the same person, and One Night In Hackney proposed that I was General Peabody. So what if David Lauder previously edited as Sussexman? Given the nature of Misplaced Pages, the ease of setting up accounts, etc., hunting down sock-puppets is a pointless and never-ending task. The only objective criterion ought to be the content added; and this is the area where you are completely silent; both accounts, so far as I can see, weren't particularly disruptive - the exception being Sussexman's legal letter (which I'm inclined to view as a newbie's mistake) - and added valuable content. And to rehearse ancient history: the only reason that Kittybrewster and, indeed, W. Frank changed accounts was because of the threats (express or implied) made against them by Vintagekits. Kittybrewster felt obliged to keep changing accounts because they were being tracked by One Night In Hackney; none of this is any secret, although it's not widely known outside 'the Troubles' participants'; it's the reason that the ArbCom came up with the principles that they did (esp. 4 and 5).

If you want to hunt down sock-puppets, you could start by having a look at these: Name dropper, Stramash, and, possibly, Brixton Busters. I know who I link those to, and all in their own way shit-stirrers. I'm surprised, in retrospect, that the ArbCom didn't simply run check-users for all of the participants in 'the Troubles', which would have answered a lot of these questions at the time. --Major Bonkers (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So many words, so little intelligence, and so few contributions to Misplaced Pages other than trolling editors who have accomplished far more than people like you ever will. Never once did I seriously suggest you actually were General Peabody, it was merely suggested in satire given you are so similar. Sussexman's legal threat was demonstrably not a "newbie's mistake" given that your comrade was previously banned by the Arbitratation Committee as User:Robert I for, wait for it, making legal threats. Unbelievable! What Bonkers claims was a "newbie's mistake" was something he had already been banned for. Were you previously a propagandist? Oh and this isn't new information that has just come to light, it's was known prior to the ban discussion but you conveniently try and airbrush it out of your revisionist history. Proof that W. Frank changed accounts for the reasons you claim? There is none, as he said nothing beforehand and nothing after he was exposed for shit-stirring with a sockpuppet. But oh wait W. Frank is an innocent victim, bollocks he was. He chose to make POV edits, abuse and provoke, and then do the same with a sock after his editing was exposed as a sham (for example see the Colombia Three article, where W. Frank masterfully reverts an edit I had reverted as a POV edit, which introduced Irish republican POV as fact). I was tracking Kittybrewster's edits? That's a new one! What actually happened is akin to an old adage - the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. Not that I'm even suggesting Kittybrewster is a criminal of course, perish the thought! He just can't help in behaving in ways or editing articles that give him away. Take Berks911's very first edit, you may as well just hold up a big sign saying "I am a sockpuppet". Which brings us nicely onto sockpuppets, and time for some sekrits to be exposed to the wider world for the first time:

• User:Name dropper was me and wasn't a violation of WP:SOCK, and ArbCom were well aware of who it was as I emailed them from my account within five minutes of the evidence being posted. Right there Mackensen confirms ArbCom were aware of it. Not a crime against presenting evidence is it, unless it defeats the strategy usually used by people like you of when you can't argue with the evidence, attack the person presenting it? For example see the history of the talk page of the latest Sussexman sock (that's David Lauder, in case you weren't paying attention). And if at first you don't succeed, try try again.
• User:Stramash was me and wasn't a violation of WP:SOCK, and Alison and Bishonen were aware of it beforehand (see here for example), and ArbCom were made aware of it by email during the case. You can probably ask clerk Penwhale if he recalls forwarding an email from me to the committee, not that it matters one way or another. What was I just saying about people like you? When you can't argue with the evidence, attack the person presenting it. The nominated version was a glorious example of the twaddle written by people like you, compared to the version written by people unlike you which does merit a place here.
• User:Brixton Busters was not me, and whoever he was I feel sorry for the poor sod having to put up with non-stop accusations of sockpuppetry. Here's a lesson for people like you, if you want to accuse people of sockpuppetry do it properly. If you're not sure how, here's some ones I have done that have had spectacularly, brilliant, wonderful, amazing results when certain people who thought they were so big and clever got what was coming to them.... Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas, Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank (needs archiving by the way surely?) and last but certainly not least Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. Even a cursory check of BB's contributions shows a different editing style to mine, since when did I leave religious categories on articles?

So you've got two out of three right, which is a long way short of my 100% success record in sockpuppet investigations. Sadly those two were already known about by the people that matter (present company excepted obviously), and the diffs on-Wiki show there was nothing underhand going on. Exactly what is the reason behind your obvious hatred of me, based on your non-stop digs on talk pages? Is it because I'm responsible for all your little chums (plural may well be wrong there, but I'll assume good faith...) looking like fools? It is because you're jealous of the fact that someone who only got a 'C' in GCSE English and can write far better articles than you, despite your so-called "better" education and three (?!) university degrees? You dare to lob "shit-stirrer" accusations in my direction, yet the amount of shit-stirring you do on talk pages is clear for everyone to see. I'm not in the habit of giving free advice but here's some for you, stop your little "David Lauder should be unblocked" campaign as everyone knows it's not happening any time soon if ever.

Oh and we'll give Lauder a bit of time too, seeing as I'm bored. You and Kittybrewster seem to have bought into his little story that he logged in as Sussexman to tidy up his user and talk pages, which is unsurprising seeing as Kittybrewster originally suggested it in the first place here then Lauder tells the little story for the first time here the very next day. Uncanny! Even more uncanny is that back in February Lauder didn't know Sussexman from Adam, and Sussexman didn't know David Lauder either. Yet we are expected to believe that Sussexman emailed his password to David Lauder for some reason despite them not knowing each other from Adam, yet this startling fact was not mentioned until almost three months later, and only after Kittybrewster has suggested it as a possible reason for the positive checkuser! <sarcasm>Yes that's obviously a plausible explanation, and in my spare time I enjoy fisting Lord Lucan, who I keep locked in a shed on the 200 acre estate of my stately home.</sarcasm> One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It must be very hard for you . Personally, I suspect you are all a wagonload of monkeys. Just how many monkeys, that is the question? Giano (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer the MB's original question: "Does anyone other than you really think that Rockpocket should be de-Admined ". Yes, I think so. And IMO, the reason why is the block, his behavior preceding it and his behavior following it. Rockpocket may say that (unlike 1=2) he has no personal beef about Giano but I tend to give greater weight to actions and diffs than to words if former contradicts the latter. I do not follow Rockpocket's comments on Giano but those I remember are threats, baiting and taunting some of which I had to remove myself .

Rockpocket's enabling an abusive editor through "permitting" him to continue under a different name may not be grounds for desysopping. But his response to this conflict is. When the conflict arose, Rockpocket's series of posts to Giano's talk could not have brought anything but escalation. He raised the stakes in each subsequent post and finally resorted to block threats which he later implemented. Everyone knows what would be a result of threatening of the superior editors. The whole thing looked fishy and concocted behind the curtain in the first place and whatever message Rockpocket had to Giano, he would have had a by far better success delivering it in a humble tone without snide references to things that he can't tell. His invoking of privacy and "outing" was a blatant strawman and his actually implementing his block threat with an indefinite (!!!) block was the last straw. Further, he then ducked out (it was me who had to post that block for a review at ANI rather than Rockpocket himself) and while the thread unraveled he remained silent leaving those with no access to #admins guessing in the dark. Escalating the drama looks bad. But what is worse of this all is the block, a blatantly abusive one.

Established editors' indefinite blocks without a discussion and conferring and ever reviews are outright outrageous and should not be tolerated. Indefinite block of Giano is certainly a matter that cannot be decided upon by a single IRC admin. I just do not buy these stuff about secrecy and not being able to tell when none of this is warranted. There are few reasons when privacy is indeed needed and here we have none. --Irpen 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I welcome discussion, but your comments are riddled with inaccuracies, Irpen. In stark contrast to most other commentators, including Giano himself (who, incase you missed it, confirmed there is no person beef). Your other inaccuracies have been addressed at length elsewhere, which you either chose to ignore or didn't read. You seem to be taking a new tack now, though, which is yet another complete falsehood.

• Indefinite block of Giano is certainly a matter that cannot be decided upon by a single IRC admin.
• he remained silent leaving those with no access to #admins guessing in the dark

I have never used IRC in my life and am on record as saying I disagree with its use for admin actions. I know exactly what your implication is there, and it is disgraceful. Its ironic you have the gall to accuse me of a straw man, because that is exactly what you are doing. And in doing so you completely undermine your call for desysopping. Please withdraw your uninformed accusations or else keep them from my talk-page. If you want to make things up, then do so at RfC or ArbCom, where you will be held properly accountable. Rockpocket 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, you threaten me with an ArbCom? Nice. Sorry about the IRC thing. I thought I remember that Giano-talk at the IRC from you but that must have been 1=2's I guess. Your beef about Giano is inferred from the diffs I gave above. You may say that you actually like him and threatened him despite that. I find it difficult to believe but diffs up there speak for themselves. My main point remains that "Indefinite block of Giano is certainly a matter that cannot be decided upon by a single IRC admin" and that the escalating messages on his talk topped with threats could have brought nothing else but this outcome. Your actions in these matter were utterly unhelpful and with the past history of escalating drama in Giano-matters, your admin judgment cannot be trusted. This is my view. If the community disagrees with me and laud your actions, you will stay an admin until the next incident. My impression is that admins who display arrogance in treating superior editors never change and that your actions in this matter show so glaringly poor judgment that you cannot be trusted with buttons. But that may be just me. --Irpen 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No Irpen, I was suggesting you take your accusations and present them to ArbCom or open an RfC about me. If I have done all the things you accuse me of, for the reasons you claim, then it should be rather easy for you to do that and get your wish. Instead, of course, you prefer to propose a lynching at ANI and then spread complete untruths on my talk-page based on mistaken identity. As I said, you in particular are no longer welcome here. Take your uninformed accusations to an appropriate forum. Rockpocket 20:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Irpen I appreciate your friendship and loyalty - a friend in need etc etc etc, but we don't want the wicked elf arriving to further cloud the issues. We need to concentrate on one issue at a time, I am "a bear of very small brain," which is the failed and miserable campaigne to restore Robert1/Sussexman to us. Which is how we all come to be in this mess. Personally, I think the lot of them should be kicked off and told never to darken our doors again, but that is not going to happen. So we have to look ahead to see what preventative precautions can be taken to stop a repeat of this miserable saga. The most obvious is no socking at all. Kittybrewster is Kittybrewster is Kittybrewster and all his friends are subject to the same rule. If that happens, we might just begin to restore a little trust. Rockpocket's, and the other admin who condoned this secretive folly, future is a matter for his own conscience, but if he stays an admin, I suggest he starts to follow some of my advice. Giano (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement

Given the above section has turned into the same old score settling, combined with an opportunity for certain editors to trumpet their own favorite causes célèbres (I hate IRC - so lets get him for that too!), I will not be commenting there any further. If anyone has specific questions, then feel free to ask below or you can email me. Those people who have a reasonable criticisms I have listened to and will continue to listen to. Those who chose to mislead and misrepresent simply to push their own agenda, I ask to depart from my talk page and implement formal mechanisms where your untruths will be exposed.

As for Giano, I have explained my position to him and he knows as well as I do that his extreme indignation over Kb's socks is just part of the show. He knew about this for a long time. He is angry about me blocking him and I understand that, as a consequence Giano gets to posture for a while. That is how it works. There is nothing more I can do for him than apologize, but his parroting that "my position is untenable" does little to move me. Anyone who dares cross Giano puts themselves in an untenable position in his eyes, so I'll just join the list. I'm sure I'll be hearing that from him from now until eternity, but so be it. Rockpocket 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You LIAR! Rockpocket knows very well I had no idea at all, he had given Kittybrewster permission to return and advocate Sussexaman's case. His whining email cut no ice, and he cuts none here either! Giano (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats not a question, but I'll treat it as one. Almost exactly a month ago you sent me an email that said "I wonder if kitty will abandon his Milkfloat to and make an apearence I do hope so, I have a one line waiitng for him". You knew then he was using another account and you knew that I was aware he was using another account. Why, then, wait until now to be completely outraged over this when you have known for months? Rockpocket 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because at the time we both knew he was still editing as Kittybrewster! I thought we endorsing the same true course. I was unaware you had given him authority (an authority you had no right to give) to argue Robert1/Sussexman's case as a sock. When I suspected he was truly abusing Misplaced Pages, I turned him in, incidentally it was only a hunch, note my wording:

"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?"

You, Rockpocket were the fool who confirmed it. A pity you became impressed by them and did not chose to act responsibly. Whatever. Giano (talk) 20:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When you sent that email (27th May, at 10:23 PST) he was not still editing as Kittybrewster. And even if he was, all the more reason to be outraged about it then. But no, you were perfectly happy to watch then, so why all the indignation over his socks your caps key can muster now? That email was perfectly clear: You knew about his new account. You emailed me about it because you knew that I was aware of it. So you can shout LIAR all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. So, as you are fond of saying, who has got caught with their pants down now?

No-one, that I am aware of, gave Kb "authority" to Robert1/Sussexman's case as a sock. I certainly did not. I have told you that numerous times now. Rockpocket 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is Rockpocket, whether you like it or not - you did! You trusted Kittybrewster, which was a very naive and stupid thing to do - wasn't it? Giano (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Just change the subject, right? I have admitted my errors and apologized. You are the one calling me a LIAR when your very own words prove I am telling the truth. Shame on you, Giano. I thought you were a man of honour. Rockpocket 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket, do calm down, the whole of Misplaced Pages, except you it seems, knew Kittybrester was socking , that you then encouraged an even more secretive sock, and sat idly by while it advanced Robert1/Sussexman's cause is to be deplored. You have forfeited the right to be an admin. Giano (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who is the LIAR, Giano? Rockpocket 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this rather answers your question. Please do not attempt to deceive the community again. Giano (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you. Giano, the editor who has recently made a career hay out of accusing others of lying, gets caught doing the very thing himself. Please go away now. When you withdraw your accusations of lying, rather than desperately scrabbling around to change the subject, you will be welcome on my page again. Rockpocket 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To Giano and Rockpocket, I just want to apologize for characterizing your relationship with the words 'pissing match' and 'feud'. Since you both deny it, I must have been very wrong. Sorry. Also, Rockpocket, I realize you asked me to 'go away', so my apologies in advance for posting here - I'll understand if you revert. --Duk 00:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine, Duk. Thanks for coming back to apologize. I too am sorry for being so sarcastic in response. Rockpocket 00:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Timeshift9

Regarding this edit it is obvious he has not learned to be civil to other users, despite your previous warnings and actions. Corey Temperature (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Corey, but I don't think now is a good time for me to intervene. Perhaps one of the admins who commented above might have a look for you. Rockpocket 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record

Let me just state that I, too, was aware that Kittybrewster had created the Berks911 account and that he was going to immediately migrate to it because he felt he had genuine concerns for his safety. I am obliged to respect that and I'm not about to argue that one given his history on here and given that he may do exactly that within policy providing he's not doing so for nefarious purposes. When he told me this, I was informed by others that they were also told, so I checked into his background stuff and noted that all was well. I forwarded the email to the Arbitration Committee, as well as the checkuser private mailing list, to ensure that others were at least aware of that so that 1) though there was privacy, there was also a certain accountability (within reason) and 2) so that other eyes could monitor his account for abuse. I had been checking and there has been no abuse to-date.

Given the previous case, Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Kittybrewster, it's obvious that Kitty tried to do this in the past but told nobody, and that was to his detriment. I believe that yes, he has a right to disappear, start again and edit the wiki in peace and that if he's up-front about doing exactly that, then it's okay. However, I've no sympathy for his going straight back to his old haunts and basically getting involved in the same contentious issues again! No, common-sense applies here and Thatcher pretty-much summed up my own take on all this, earlier on. When he used his new account to get involved in the Lauder case, and others, he was pretty much using his new account to evade scrutiny and that is not a Good Thing. And if someone comes along and points and shouts, well ... it's kind of inevitable, really - Alison 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes it more difficult to trust an editor, when he/she does that. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison, for stating that publicly. I was 99% sure that you and others were also aware of this, but didn't wish to throw anyone else to the wolves. While I appreciate that this has no bearing on my decision to block Giano - that was my call and my call only, and I take the responsibility for that alone - I do hope this now puts to bed the ridiculous accusations that I cooked up some deal with Kb. It also, I hope, puts to bed the suggestions that I took it upon myself to give "permission", or that I "authorized" Kb to go ahead with this. Like you, all I did was obey our policy to the best of my judgment, and apparently came to the same conclusion as you and others. Sadly, I fully expect this will just create more people for Giano et al to declare "untenable", but hopefully more reasonable observers will not now realize that the only issue here is my decision to block Giano, nothing more than that. Rockpocket 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant "more reasonable observers will realize". I think the "not" is a typo. On the other hand, I might be wrong. :-) ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm. Yes. Thanks, Bielle. I actually meant to say now. Rockpocket 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rocky, I just wanted to put that out there for honesty sake; put my hand up to be counted. As checkuser, it also has serious relevance and as it's related to same, I'm obliged to keep matters confidential. I'm also notorious for over-applying WP:AGF betimes and while Kitty has not broken any rules here (apart from the Lauder bit yesterday - that was being somewhat deceptive), he needs to cop on a bit. As for your revertions and block of Giano - I honestly can't condone that in any way, as you know. That was totally out of order but then again, I think you now know that and understand why - Alison 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Rockpocket 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just popping in to corroborate what Alison said about the disclosure aspects of this, it did get disclosed to the CU list. ++Lar: t/c 23:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Lar - Alison 04:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated?

Rock, I've read elsewhere some of the things you said to Giano via email. I know you're utterly frustrated with the whole situation, both with the lack of support you may feel you've gotten for your point, and with yourself over the whole thing. But if you're saying the things that are in that email that was posted, can I please suggest you take 24-72 hours and de-stress, just let things go? You sound like you need the time away from WP and the wars.If you need someone to talk to, my email is open, man. SirFozzie (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Foz, but I'm not particularly stressed any more actually. I fully appreciate the criticisms that have deservedly come my way from those people that care about the project. But It is now perfectly clear to who chose to use this to spread lies, jump on a bandwagon and push their own selfish agenda. Those are the harpies I referred to and that is what they are.

I will take full responsibility for my mistake, and in time will act accordingly to ensure it will not happen again. But one thing I have not done is lied, and I am not going on wiki-break while Giano continues with those accusations. He continues to try and mislead everyone to justify his pathetic conspiracy theories. Today he says "I am so angry because admins, I thought I could trust, sat back and watched this editor gaming the system." Yet its perfectly clear, justified in his own words, that he too sat back and watched the editor do the same thing for months. That is nothing more than sheer hypocrisy. There is no anger here from Giano, there is no shock and there is no surprise. All there is, is a coldly planned attempt to hi-jack my mistake to further his own ends. That is what I am concerned about, because it was my mistake that precipitated this.

I gave Giano permission to post my communications with him so I cannot complain that he did so (though of course, he selectively quoted, he declined to quote all my pleas for him to accept my apology and let this go, which he completely rebuffed stating he would "have me fired"). As I'm sure you know, Giano is no shrinking violet, and his concern over a "particularly nasty email from Rockpocket" is laughable considering some of the stuff I have received from him: "Just shut up for once...", "stop being so fucking sensitive.." blah blah blah. The fact that he claims concern over a nasty email from me is just more hypocrisy.

My main regret (apart from the block itself, of course) is my incorrect and unfair use of the word cowardice when I really meant fear. That is unfair because they people that emailed me are not cowards, they are just understandably and justifiably afraid of drawing Giano's bullying tactics their way. And so they should be. Rockpocket 19:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Refocus of discussion - seeking community opinion on KB's use of alternate accounts

Hi Rockpocket - I have attempted to refocus discussion on the root cause that has led to the current conflagration here, and hope you will participate in the discussion. Risker (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved here, and there are responses to your suggestion. I do not know what account KB is editing under now, and hesitate to post on his old user talk pages, but if you have a way of letting him know of this discussion, I'd appreciate it if you did so. Risker (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should he bother? The whole discussion proceeds on the basis that Giano's sock-puppet is good, everyone else's are bad. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah Major Bonkers...you really need to go back and read WP:SOCK from one end to the other. And no, the discussion proceeds on dealing with one specific issue and only that issue, without going off on tangents. If you want to open a thread or an SSP report, go ahead, but keep it out of this thread. One way or another, and for Kittybrewster's benefit as much as everyone else, we need to clarify his situation and tell him what is expected of him. It's better to do it in such a way that neither KB nor anyone else has to wade through conspiracy theories and eye-rolling and distractions. If we're going to have all this drama, the least we can do is find one issue that can be resolved, and then resolve it. Risker (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Risker, Major. Irrespective of whether Giano's hypocritical hyperbole has misled the community to this, the community (and by that I really do mean the community, not just the aformentioned harpies) now feel there is something to discuss here. I would prefer to discuss it in a focused manner, rather than let the issue of "Giano's sock-puppet" (in quotes, because I have no idea whether that is what it is or not and cannot therefore endorse your view) cloud the issue. For me the issue is one of privacy and whether or not we permit abusers and harassers to win by assisting them with their goals. Kb hasn't made things easy for himself, and I completely misjudged the consequence of that, so therefore some boundaries probably need to be set. Lets do that in a rational way, rather than get distracted. Anyway, those with obvious agendas probably have bigger fish to fry after today's developments. I expect we will see less of the drama merchants on this issue now, leave those who actually care about the issue (rather than about knifing people in the back) to resolve it. Rockpocket 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Scandalum magnatum et enormitate memborum. Giano's crusade over the last couple of days started with a call for Rockpocket's 'de-Admining' and has then moved on to encompass (firstly) Kittybrewster's, and (secondly) One Night In Hackney's, use of alternate accounts. The focus of the complaint has also changed from 'why are Admins allowing this' to Kittybrewster's allegedly 'abusive sockpuppets' (to which the only sensible repost is to add a 'citation needed' tag every time this canard is repeated).

It's no great secret that Giano doesn't like Kittybrewster; the Catherine de Burgh User page contains a slighting reference to Kittybrewster's real life identity, and Giano's typically not slow in attacking Kittybrewster's associates, David Lauder and Counter-revolutionary, either. In doing that, he creates the very harassment that leads Kittybrewster to keep changing his identity in order to try to avoid it. You, Risker, are confusing cause and effect: the simple solution to this issue that you are looking for is for Giano to leave Kittybrewster alone and stop engaging in a process of trying to needle and provoke him.

Rather than airy references to the generalities of WP:SSP and WP:SOCK, I suggest that the whole issue can be summed up as one sock-puppeteer complaining about another. It's a continuation of personal abuse (in which Rockpocket was collateral damage) dressed-up as a policy complaint.

('A great scandal and a load of rubbish' is a broad translation.) Major Bonkers (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Bonkers, you know exactly what you can do, I have explained it to you already. I'm not out to solve all the problems in the wiki-world; I'm sticking to just a few at a time, and right now Kittybrewster's use of alternate accounts is one I am focusing on. Using an obvious alternate account on the talk page of a checkuser-verified sockpuppeteer is, at minimum, a dumb thing to do; it placed the administrators who had supported him in an untenable position and demonstrated a lack of self-control in an area where self-control is already mandated by Arbcom. I am not advocating for any particular solution to the Kittybrewster problem. I just want to see one that is acceptable to the community - not to any one user, to the community. I do not want to see the community being put through this wringer again. Risker (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Having read your latest commentary on Giano's Talk page, I really can't see why Kittybrewster would accept the invitation to participate in your discussion, in which you are holding yourself out as an honest broker. Why not try One Night In Hackney; as he admits, above, his sock-puppets were known about by, respectively, Alison, Bishonen, and Mackensen, and Giano has professed outrage at his circumstances as well. I don't know why you refer to the Kittybrewster problem; all of the Admins more intimately associated with 'the Troubles' (Alison, Tyrenius, SirFozzie and Rockpocket) have confirmed in the AN/I thread that Kittybrewster was editing perfectly acceptably: a more accurate title might be the Giano problem. I'm afraid that I can't see the community not being put through the wringer again, as long as Giano has a de facto license to behave as disruptively as he chooses. Major Bonkers (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kitty was editing perfectly acceptably ... until he got embroiled in the Lauder case again. Then the whole matter turned into one of deception, IMO, and that wasn't acceptable. Giano pointed the finger and the game was up for Kitty. In all honesty, KB was being incredibly naïve if he thought he could get away with that sort of thing - Alison 09:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of his post (which might be more accurately described as a lapse of judgment rather than the 'abusive sock-puppetry' alleged on AN/I) just as there is a difference between undressing in front of your doctor, on the one hand, and streaking across the Wembley Stadium pitch on Cup Final day, on the other, so there is a difference in posting on an out-of-the-way Talk page and emblazoning everything across AN/I. It was, perhaps, naïve of all concerned not to expect Giano to stalk edits and start another rampage when it suited him: it is we, of course, who are all guilty.

Rather like Rockpocket, I expect that there might be a bit of a reduction in the drama level now. When I see the Savonarolas of Misplaced Pages holding - for example - Bishonen to account, that will be the time that I start taking the matter seriously. Major Bonkers (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Misplaced Pages should have a new policy concerning multiple accounts. Perhaps restricting an editor to one account (allowed to change the name, but must let the Wiki public know). Editors with multiple accounts (good or bad intentions) can be a headache. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, GoodDay; the basic principle is that we give Admins the tools to exercise their discretion and trust them to do so in good faith. A few mistakes might be expected along the way, but the joy of a Wiki is that mistakes can be undone. If Rockpocket now thinks that he made a mistake, that's a matter for him; I've got no problem with it. A post, that ordinarily might have been seen by half-a-dozen people, half of whom were aware of the change of account, is in some way evidence of an intent to mislead? Doubtful, I'd have thought; no-one, after all, has actually claimed that they were deceived so any deception was purely theoretical. For my own part, having come across Berks911 on Sarah777's Talk page, I thought that he was the reincarnation of Mark Thomas, which, I suppose, merely goes to demonstrate One Night In Hackney's point that I'm not a natural 'sock-hunter'.

Sorry to take up so much of your Talk page, Rockpocket (but you're always very generous on that part). Off to read the newspaper before I go to bed (I always enjoy the letters page for helping me doze off)! Best wishes to you all. Major Bonkers (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well no. There's two parts to sock "hunting", although in fairness the way most of the people abuse them there's little "hunting" involved they just magically appear on your watchlist as obvious socks. The first part is spotting they are a sock, which you managed quite well. The second part is spotting who they are a sock of and, if you are that way inclined, finding enough evidence to satisfy a checkuser or someone dealing with an SSP report that they are a sock. If you had attempted to gather evidence to support your suspicion, when you looked at Berks911's contributions in depth you would have realised your original mistake and compensated accordingly. And on that note, I'm out of here for quite a while. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at WP:AN/I before I logged out. <sheesh>. More drama. Major Bonkers (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about your comments and agree that the ONiH and CdB incidents fall under the same principle. I believe we need to come to a solution that encompasses all such incidents, so that editors are permitted (that word again) to operate policy compliant socks if they chose. Though I have never operated a sock puppet in my life, I am seriously considering doing so after this dies down. I have seen the effect of incurring Giano's ongoing wrath has had on others, and it ain't pretty. Rockpocket 01:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be sad if Rockpocket disappeared, even if I knew the person behind the green signature was still contributing somewehere. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

banned user

I did not know that. It would have been nice to have that in the first of your edit revert summaries as I had no idea, but I do not revert banned editors without special cause. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. You are correct, I should have done that first time around. Rockpocket 01:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Email

Hey, I just got an email from someone whom I usually believe is a reasonable person. It was an ugly, uncalled-for attack on my personal integrity. It hurt.

I figure that if I got that much just for asking for fewer pitchforks and more calm discussion, I imagine that you've been getting a much more substantial river of nastiness in your inbox. Email's a great way to get a dig in at an opponent. It happens out of sight of the crowd, and usually no one but you will know you've been mauled.

So here's a public message of support to – hopefully – balance some of the private little 'fuck you's that you're likely getting. Best wishes, and good editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, ToaT, but yes - welcome to my world. I am extremely grateful for your willingness to speak out for calmness and reason, in the face such intimidation.

I'm slowly coming to realize that the persistent nastiness: the emails, the threats against me and my family, the posting and sharing of my person identifying information - the harassment - has taken more of a toll on me than I had thought. You are right, it does hurt. It didn't happen overnight, but I look at how I respond now, compared to those before I attempted to mediate the Troubles mess, and I realize I am somewhat embittered and over-sensitive to the threat of harassment. I know how to address that though, and I will.

You truly are one of the best we have, Toat, and your thoughtful message means a lot to me. Rockpocket 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vk and Rlevse

Rock, We have a serious problem with you awarding "unblocking rights" to the blocking editor who is clearly taking an unbending hard-line view and more importantly has made it clear the reason is that from his POV that Vk's remarks were "offensive" contrary to Term 6. This does not make me very confident that we have a judge who is suitable to have the final say here. I thought there was some rule that Admins who get too involved in these rows should recuse themselves? Sarah777 (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't awarded "unblocking rights" to anyone, Sarah. This was all done long before I was aware it it. If there is anything I have learned from the last week or so, it is that it is worth taking things to ANI first when they will be controversial. But the blocking admin followed that letter of the terms, so I don't think we really have any grounds for complaint. Allie's alternative proposal appears reasonable, but there isn't a huge amount of support for it (yet). Rockpocket 15:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"If there is anything I have learned from the last week or so, it is that it is worth taking things to ANI first when they will be controversial."

I applaud this conclusion you finally made. This was what I was saying all along. I also hope that you learned that in addition to conferring before doing anything controversial, admins need to stop talking down to the editors and threatening them as if they are in any sort of position to tell editors what to do. If you also agree with that, I think that the incident brought some positive changes too. --Irpen 15:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've learned that there are some editors who claim that they are interested in limiting drama, but that they are astoundingly bad at it. Irpen, if you want to have at me, then come to my talk page. Leave Rockpocket alone—your self-righteous lecturing is entirely unhelpful here.

You're a good guy, Rockpocket, and you made a good-faith mistake—with 20/20 hindsight, it's easy to say that you did the wrong thing...but you did it for the right reasons. Don't let the cheap shots from the peanut gallery get to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Right reasons? I suggest you shut your ill-informed mouth right now TenOfAllTrades, before you deliberatly cause further drama. Giano (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)