[Supplying the standard header, which should have been here from the start. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC).]
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
Bishonen has abused her sysop powers by blocking three Wikipedians ( User:DrippingInk, User:Winnermario, User:Hollow Wilerding) with little to no discussion of as to why and what actions they had pursued to allow the blocks.
The three users DrippingInk, Winnermario, and Hollow Wilerding are currently residing together at a house located in Toronto, Canada. As a result, they share and access the same computer, which holds one IP address. The three of them registered an account at Wikipedia at three separate times during 2005, and agreed that they were not going to reveal that they were using the same computer as to fear of being accused of sock puppetry. However, when an IP-check was conducted, it had become public that they were sharing the same computer. Bishonen demonstrated horrible beahviour toward these three users by accusing Hollow Wilerding of being the main account and that DrippingInk and Winnermario were merely sock puppets. Without any discussion, DrippingInk and Winnermario were infinitely blocked and Hollow Wilerding was subsequently blocked after very limited discussion. Hollow Wilerding subsequently threatened to file an RfC as Bishonen had no evidence or references of the three accounts being sock puppets of each other.
These are just four of approximately eight attempts of Hollow Wilerding's.
(sign with ~~~~)
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
Update 1. (Please note that this update was posted after 29 editors had signed below, so they haven't endorsed this part, nor update 2 below.) It looks like some people have received an exaggerated idea of my "escalating blocks" of the Hollow Wilerding account, so I'll just clarify that. I have only blocked the account twice, both times conservatively. (Of course I've blocked indefinitely the other accounts she has created while blocked, as is standard practice; most recently Siblings WC, Siblings CW, Cruz AFade, Cruz Along, Empty Wallow, and TwoDown.) When Kelly Martin informed me that CheckUser had caught HW using votestacking sockpuppets on FAC, as well as supporting the deceit rather elaborately by posting fake dialogue with herself on her talkpage and I-don't-understand-this-technical-talk protestations on her RFA, Kelly told me I could block the user for up to a month. I blocked for one week, posting my rationale on WP:ANI. [1] A day later HW posted on WP:ANI from an IP, pretending to be a different user supporting HW's view that the week-long block was unfair and abusive. [2] Several circumstances suggested that this was her again (I lay them out here), and CheckUser confirmed it again. I then extended the block from one to two weeks. That's it, that's how and why I've blocked HW: one week, which was later extended to two weeks. Snowspinner blocked her indefinitely a little later. See the block log. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
Update 2: I'm very critical of Search4Lancer's action in endorsing this RFC, thereby enabling a blocked user, who is of course not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, to evade her block to the extent of filing it. That's a violation of policy and a foolish encouragement of HW's illusion that she has, somehow, an inalienable moral right to edit, by hook or by crook, whether blocked or not. But what I see as worse is that an established user should help someone with (obviously) an erratic grasp of Wikipedian probabilities to humiliate herself in the way that's happened here. Please compare my WP:ANI post here (second paragraph) and the following dialogue. HW would presumably not have put her case on show in an RFC without S4L's endorsement; she knew the necessity of RFC endorsing, as her pleas to Search4Lancer (see her thanks also) and to Everyking show. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
User:Hollow Wilerding neglects to mention the part where he/she/they threatened legal action over the dispute with Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NLT. This is grounds for a continued block by itself.
This is ridiculous, but while we're here, let's give Bishonen a big plate of cupcakes for her great work.-- Sean| Bla ck 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~
Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of a particular RfC, it would help if everyone could remain as
civil as possible. Rolling eyes, mocking a person's english, and the like really don't help anything. There is no reason that we can't be nice.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
05:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I'm the administrator who reviewed the CheckUser evidence in this case. Bishonen presented me with evidence to convince me that there was reason to believe that votestacking on FAC was taking place involving these users. Evidence of votestacking (in any context on Wikipedia, not just FAC) is one of the grounds that permits me to examine CheckUser evidence and share my findings with another (non-CheckUser) admin, for that admin to take whatever action they feel is appropriate. (I rarely act myself on CheckUser evidence, except when CheckUser reveals an open proxy; I prefer to report on what I find and let someone else decide how to act.) After examination of the evidence, I concluded that all three accounts were being used from the same computer and informed Bishonen of that conclusion.
The combination of apparent votestacking on FAC and a CheckUser determination that the users are editing from the same computer is sufficient basis for an administrator to conclude that sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) is occuring. ArbCom precedent supports holding that all such users are the same person. Policy supports the blocks imposed by Bishonen as a result.
Even if we take the complaintants claim that the three individuals are distinct editors as true for the sake of discussion, Bishonen's initial blocks were not inappropriate. The aggressive and vile manner in which the Wildering editors responded to the blocks, however, was definitely inappropriate, and there is therefore no question that the subsequent escalation of blocks in response to such ill behavior was also not inappropriate.
Bishonen's conduct in this affair has been perfectly reasonable. The behavior of the Wilderings (however many of them there are) has not.
(Note: if this goes to Arbitration, I wil recuse, as I advised Bishonen throughout this affair, and could not fairly judge any Arbitration which flowed from it.)
Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~
The user's duplicate and triplicate accounts were blocked for having been used to vote multiple times on the user's own nominations to FAC. However, the user followed with a legal threat, and so his (and I, too, believe this corporate identity to be a teenaged boy) primary account was blocked for that. Indeed, this RFC is clearly intended to be part of "drastic action" that the user vowed to take if he were blocked. Hence, the RFC is improperly licensed as self-declared revenge. The reason for some of the exaggerated response is probably that petulance. I agree with Aaron that we ought to stick to the case, though: the user has misrepresented in the presentation of this case (Everyking's disagreement must have very recently arrived, as the response on the administrator's noticeboard was, after 48 hours, entirely endorsing blocks), has misrepresented his own behavior, has eliminated any credibility he might have (thus voiding AGF) because stating, first, that the three accounts were unrelated, then that one was a boyfriend and the other a neighbor, then that one was a husband and the other a neighbor, and then that one was a neighbor and the other a brother and now that yet another account must be allowed to be one account for several people. The user was warned that public accounts are not allowed and yet announced an intention to get even if it were blocked. Well, someone else blocked it, and yet the foot stomping goes on. There is no case here to comment upon, except to once more tell the person using these accounts to apologize, behave, and try to be constructive. Geogre 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
As I pointed out on WP:AN/I, if from the outset HW had been honest with us and said that this was a shared computer and thus might have activities that look like sockpuppetry but please, sir, it really isn't, something might have been worked out. But even taking him at his word, they deliberately acted in concert to obfuscate this, because they feared that they would be accused of sockpuppetry. I can only come to the conclusion that they knew precisely what sockpuppetry is, were prepared to engage in it and had no intention of coming clean - until the CheckUser discovered them.
As a result, what may be a perfectly good FA is now tainted, goodwill in the edits they have perpetrated has evaporated, and trust has been taken away. Of course this would happen. They knew this would happen, but instead of coming forward and going "mea culpa", they continued to hide. I have no doubt that these people are adolescents because they certainly act and think like it (no offense to the other, much more sensible adolescents I know out there). They should not be surprised that this is happening.
And on top of that, rather than coming, hat in hand to the community, they start bitching and whining. Instead of attempting to find some kind of compromise that makes sense, they threaten legal action. They do not see the wrongdoing here. They do not even admit wrongdoing. So why should we even countenance this obvious lack of remorse? It's not even as if it's a grey area - sockpuppetry is verboten, and that's that. And as I said, HW admits he knew this.
You'll forgive me if I don't prefer HW's judgment on the matter over Bishonen's, who is much more attractiverespected. But this isn't really about HW, it's about Bish's actions, and any doubts I may have had about them at the start of this affair have been completely extinguished by HW's behaviour. --
khaosworks (
talk •
contribs)
06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Just an observation: In looking at the main namespace contributions of both DrippingInk [3] and Winnermario [4], I find it extremely hard to believe they are different people when almost all of their edits have been confined to music bands, albums, and singles. You would think two different people would have been active in other subjects at least. But that's right ... guess who also has a majority of her mainspace edits confined to the music bands, albums, and singles articles too. [5]
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen is a strongly biased person. She tends creating small, similarly biased cliques and limiting others by misusing her position. Such persons should not be given access to common projects like wikipedia, since they completely miss neutral point of view. antifinnugor 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Bishonen fails to explain where she had solid evidence that DrippingInk, Winnermario, and Hollow Wilerding are one person. She also ignored it whenever Hollow Wilerding asked her several times. The three editors contributing to similar articles is not enough evidence, as they could have the same interests. Also, this is not unlikely. Perhaps that's why Winnermario is a roommate of Hollow Wilerding's: they share the same interests. 64.231.128.150 21:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
[Supplying the standard header, which should have been here from the start. Bishonen | talk 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC).]
This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
Bishonen has abused her sysop powers by blocking three Wikipedians ( User:DrippingInk, User:Winnermario, User:Hollow Wilerding) with little to no discussion of as to why and what actions they had pursued to allow the blocks.
The three users DrippingInk, Winnermario, and Hollow Wilerding are currently residing together at a house located in Toronto, Canada. As a result, they share and access the same computer, which holds one IP address. The three of them registered an account at Wikipedia at three separate times during 2005, and agreed that they were not going to reveal that they were using the same computer as to fear of being accused of sock puppetry. However, when an IP-check was conducted, it had become public that they were sharing the same computer. Bishonen demonstrated horrible beahviour toward these three users by accusing Hollow Wilerding of being the main account and that DrippingInk and Winnermario were merely sock puppets. Without any discussion, DrippingInk and Winnermario were infinitely blocked and Hollow Wilerding was subsequently blocked after very limited discussion. Hollow Wilerding subsequently threatened to file an RfC as Bishonen had no evidence or references of the three accounts being sock puppets of each other.
These are just four of approximately eight attempts of Hollow Wilerding's.
(sign with ~~~~)
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
Update 1. (Please note that this update was posted after 29 editors had signed below, so they haven't endorsed this part, nor update 2 below.) It looks like some people have received an exaggerated idea of my "escalating blocks" of the Hollow Wilerding account, so I'll just clarify that. I have only blocked the account twice, both times conservatively. (Of course I've blocked indefinitely the other accounts she has created while blocked, as is standard practice; most recently Siblings WC, Siblings CW, Cruz AFade, Cruz Along, Empty Wallow, and TwoDown.) When Kelly Martin informed me that CheckUser had caught HW using votestacking sockpuppets on FAC, as well as supporting the deceit rather elaborately by posting fake dialogue with herself on her talkpage and I-don't-understand-this-technical-talk protestations on her RFA, Kelly told me I could block the user for up to a month. I blocked for one week, posting my rationale on WP:ANI. [1] A day later HW posted on WP:ANI from an IP, pretending to be a different user supporting HW's view that the week-long block was unfair and abusive. [2] Several circumstances suggested that this was her again (I lay them out here), and CheckUser confirmed it again. I then extended the block from one to two weeks. That's it, that's how and why I've blocked HW: one week, which was later extended to two weeks. Snowspinner blocked her indefinitely a little later. See the block log. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
Update 2: I'm very critical of Search4Lancer's action in endorsing this RFC, thereby enabling a blocked user, who is of course not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, to evade her block to the extent of filing it. That's a violation of policy and a foolish encouragement of HW's illusion that she has, somehow, an inalienable moral right to edit, by hook or by crook, whether blocked or not. But what I see as worse is that an established user should help someone with (obviously) an erratic grasp of Wikipedian probabilities to humiliate herself in the way that's happened here. Please compare my WP:ANI post here (second paragraph) and the following dialogue. HW would presumably not have put her case on show in an RFC without S4L's endorsement; she knew the necessity of RFC endorsing, as her pleas to Search4Lancer (see her thanks also) and to Everyking show. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC).
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
User:Hollow Wilerding neglects to mention the part where he/she/they threatened legal action over the dispute with Wikipedia, in violation of WP:NLT. This is grounds for a continued block by itself.
This is ridiculous, but while we're here, let's give Bishonen a big plate of cupcakes for her great work.-- Sean| Bla ck 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~
Regardless of the merit or lack thereof of a particular RfC, it would help if everyone could remain as
civil as possible. Rolling eyes, mocking a person's english, and the like really don't help anything. There is no reason that we can't be nice.
brenneman
(t)
(c)
05:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I'm the administrator who reviewed the CheckUser evidence in this case. Bishonen presented me with evidence to convince me that there was reason to believe that votestacking on FAC was taking place involving these users. Evidence of votestacking (in any context on Wikipedia, not just FAC) is one of the grounds that permits me to examine CheckUser evidence and share my findings with another (non-CheckUser) admin, for that admin to take whatever action they feel is appropriate. (I rarely act myself on CheckUser evidence, except when CheckUser reveals an open proxy; I prefer to report on what I find and let someone else decide how to act.) After examination of the evidence, I concluded that all three accounts were being used from the same computer and informed Bishonen of that conclusion.
The combination of apparent votestacking on FAC and a CheckUser determination that the users are editing from the same computer is sufficient basis for an administrator to conclude that sockpuppetry (or meatpuppetry) is occuring. ArbCom precedent supports holding that all such users are the same person. Policy supports the blocks imposed by Bishonen as a result.
Even if we take the complaintants claim that the three individuals are distinct editors as true for the sake of discussion, Bishonen's initial blocks were not inappropriate. The aggressive and vile manner in which the Wildering editors responded to the blocks, however, was definitely inappropriate, and there is therefore no question that the subsequent escalation of blocks in response to such ill behavior was also not inappropriate.
Bishonen's conduct in this affair has been perfectly reasonable. The behavior of the Wilderings (however many of them there are) has not.
(Note: if this goes to Arbitration, I wil recuse, as I advised Bishonen throughout this affair, and could not fairly judge any Arbitration which flowed from it.)
Users who endorse this summary sign with ~~~~
The user's duplicate and triplicate accounts were blocked for having been used to vote multiple times on the user's own nominations to FAC. However, the user followed with a legal threat, and so his (and I, too, believe this corporate identity to be a teenaged boy) primary account was blocked for that. Indeed, this RFC is clearly intended to be part of "drastic action" that the user vowed to take if he were blocked. Hence, the RFC is improperly licensed as self-declared revenge. The reason for some of the exaggerated response is probably that petulance. I agree with Aaron that we ought to stick to the case, though: the user has misrepresented in the presentation of this case (Everyking's disagreement must have very recently arrived, as the response on the administrator's noticeboard was, after 48 hours, entirely endorsing blocks), has misrepresented his own behavior, has eliminated any credibility he might have (thus voiding AGF) because stating, first, that the three accounts were unrelated, then that one was a boyfriend and the other a neighbor, then that one was a husband and the other a neighbor, and then that one was a neighbor and the other a brother and now that yet another account must be allowed to be one account for several people. The user was warned that public accounts are not allowed and yet announced an intention to get even if it were blocked. Well, someone else blocked it, and yet the foot stomping goes on. There is no case here to comment upon, except to once more tell the person using these accounts to apologize, behave, and try to be constructive. Geogre 06:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
As I pointed out on WP:AN/I, if from the outset HW had been honest with us and said that this was a shared computer and thus might have activities that look like sockpuppetry but please, sir, it really isn't, something might have been worked out. But even taking him at his word, they deliberately acted in concert to obfuscate this, because they feared that they would be accused of sockpuppetry. I can only come to the conclusion that they knew precisely what sockpuppetry is, were prepared to engage in it and had no intention of coming clean - until the CheckUser discovered them.
As a result, what may be a perfectly good FA is now tainted, goodwill in the edits they have perpetrated has evaporated, and trust has been taken away. Of course this would happen. They knew this would happen, but instead of coming forward and going "mea culpa", they continued to hide. I have no doubt that these people are adolescents because they certainly act and think like it (no offense to the other, much more sensible adolescents I know out there). They should not be surprised that this is happening.
And on top of that, rather than coming, hat in hand to the community, they start bitching and whining. Instead of attempting to find some kind of compromise that makes sense, they threaten legal action. They do not see the wrongdoing here. They do not even admit wrongdoing. So why should we even countenance this obvious lack of remorse? It's not even as if it's a grey area - sockpuppetry is verboten, and that's that. And as I said, HW admits he knew this.
You'll forgive me if I don't prefer HW's judgment on the matter over Bishonen's, who is much more attractiverespected. But this isn't really about HW, it's about Bish's actions, and any doubts I may have had about them at the start of this affair have been completely extinguished by HW's behaviour. --
khaosworks (
talk •
contribs)
06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Just an observation: In looking at the main namespace contributions of both DrippingInk [3] and Winnermario [4], I find it extremely hard to believe they are different people when almost all of their edits have been confined to music bands, albums, and singles. You would think two different people would have been active in other subjects at least. But that's right ... guess who also has a majority of her mainspace edits confined to the music bands, albums, and singles articles too. [5]
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen is a strongly biased person. She tends creating small, similarly biased cliques and limiting others by misusing her position. Such persons should not be given access to common projects like wikipedia, since they completely miss neutral point of view. antifinnugor 12:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Bishonen fails to explain where she had solid evidence that DrippingInk, Winnermario, and Hollow Wilerding are one person. She also ignored it whenever Hollow Wilerding asked her several times. The three editors contributing to similar articles is not enough evidence, as they could have the same interests. Also, this is not unlikely. Perhaps that's why Winnermario is a roommate of Hollow Wilerding's: they share the same interests. 64.231.128.150 21:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.