Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/Poeticbent: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:41, 7 June 2008 editM.K (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers13,165 edits ?← Previous edit Revision as of 20:46, 7 June 2008 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,769 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 100: Line 100:
: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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:36, 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.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
:: "two cases", "rejected"? Last time I look at the case it was accepted and decided. So not "rejected". ] (]) 20:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC) :: "two cases", "rejected"? Last time I look at the case it was accepted and decided. So not "rejected". ] (]) 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? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:46, 7 June 2008

Poeticbent

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence: Links between IPs and user: Poeticbent.
    • One of the IP signed as Poticbent.
    • IPs and Poeticbent are from the same geographical area; Vancouver, Canada
    • Similar involved articles and many others, due to time and space saving would not post more. Requested clarifications to Poeticbent first second third etc, did not produce any better clarification

Avoiding 3RR violation using IPs and main account

3RR violation using IPs

3RR violation using IPs

Avoiding semi protection

During edit war between one of the suspected IPs and other IP suspected IP filled an 3RR report on other IP, result > semi protection meaning that both IPs would have no possibility to edit main space in the Ustka article , after few hours Poeticbent came with registered account and avoided semi-protection, and made controversial edit

Stalking

  • Stalking account (see edits of 23 September 2007)
  • After the complain was laid down by established editor to protect article (Kraków) from IPs (207.102.64.214; 207.102.64.211 etc.), and after admin left this comment, Poeticbent arrives and delivers these “remarks” on opponent in the same notice board with PA.

Personal attacks

And other controversial edits. Data spectrum show that problematic behavior continues for the quite great time now. And perhaps there more IPs needing an investigation. M.K. (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Poeticbent is Poland-born Richard Tylman who lives in Vancouver, Canada, and the IP range belongs to a library there (Vancouver Public Library), see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman, Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Richard_Tylman. See also related cases Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/134.93.60.170, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive7#User:Matthead_and_User:Poeticbent., Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive22#Digwuren_edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive72#User:Boodlesthecat_reported_by_User:Poeticbent_.28Result:_no_violation.29. -- Matthead  Discuß   11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Poeticbent

This is the last of a series of assaults made by 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. I am a long-time editor whose off-Wiki identity is already publicly known as Richard Tylman.

Meanwhile, our policy on release of data derived from page logs states in point 6 that it is "reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation its users" especially against those trying to discredit their Content opponents via all means available. Their recent joint assault on me through a bogus arbitration case prepared by Matthead and M.K. was of course unsuccessful. --Poeticbent talk 22:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed except for the 76 IP address. If you act in ways that make your IP address obvious to others, it is not a violation of the privacy policy to point that out, and in the case of logging out to avoid 3RR, confirming the name of the user is permitted. (The complaint about logging in to avoid semi-protection is rather silly and not actionable in and of itself. That's the goal of semi-protection, of course.) Acting contentiously while logged out in order to keep your registered account "clean" is considered good hand/bad hand editing and is also a policy violation. Thatcher 01:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've moved Poeticbent's comments concerning the 3RR section to the 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)

Please see my added dates to 3RR accusations from 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. --Poeticbent 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 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| talk 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 Misplaced Pages 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. --Poeticbent 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

  • 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. --Poeticbent 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 Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Circumventing_policy 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| talk 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| talk 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)