Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive123

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per Wizardman this discussion has done all that it can. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown has asked that his block be reviewed [30] in which he was accused of being a sock and/or meatpuppet of User:Wordbomb. I agree that it should be reviewed in light of recent events. Piperdown explains in a WR thread that it appears that someone monkeyed with his account to make it difficult for him to post to his talk page [31]. Also, David Gerard's actions with respect to anything he thinks is associated with Overstock.com and WordBomb is suspect, the evidence being his block of a town in Utah, stating that WordBomb lived there and falsely stating that the local ISP was an open proxy [32]. Only after a second, independent source confirmed that his statement was false did he unblock the town [33]. I don't personally believe that Piperdown's block was justified or fair and am asking that he get a neutral review from an uninvolved admin. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I read what Piperdown had to say both on his talk page here and on WR, and I have to say that I'm confused as to why he was blocked. He'd certainly seemed to be making perfectly good and valid edits up to the point of his being blocked, and his talk page looks pretty much like any other established editor's. He appears to have been indefinitely blocked without warning, from what I can see from his talkpage history. However, without David Gerard's input, I've very little to go on here so what I'd like to maybe see happen would be for David to post a statement here giving his rationale for indefinitely blocking Piperdown as a sock of Wordbomb, and allowing the admin community to review accordingly. I'm guessing David is unaware of this thread as of now, so I'll see he's made aware of it - Alison ^❤ 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and I admit that I was remiss in not notifying Gerard of this thread myself. Cla68 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused why he was ever blocked in the first place. He needs to be unblocked immediately Bstone (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This page User:Piperdown/1 makes it appear that the user is either Wordbomb or a meatpuppet of him. I suggest we wait to hear from the blocking admin. Since the block was placed several months ago this isn't urgent. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this user subpage seems to have played a large part in Piperdown's block, I've temporarily restored it so people can check out the evidence while this block is being reviewed. krimpet✽ 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Piperdown is probably WordBomb's most vociferous supporter on Wikipedia Review, and his comments on WR leave little doubt that he is highly unlikely to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. It is also not credible that he is only just aware of being blocked; I am sure his ban was mentioned on WR ages ago. This looks like gaming the system, or at least playing us for a bunch of naive fools. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My reading of Piperdown's request [34] is that he was aware of the block at the time it was placed and he is not claiming otherwise. Thincat (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His unblock request from September is all about how what he did was ok, not about how he would drop the subject so he could edit other areas of interest. Considering that, and his deleted contributions, I agree with Guy that he is unlikely to be (or resume being, if he was before) a productive editor. Thatcher 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone contributions on WR have absolutely nothing to do with their ability to effectively write and edit articles on this project. I am shocked anyone would make such a claim. Bstone (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was no overlap between the two, fine. However, Piperdown's deleted contributions (especially User:Piperdown/1) shows that he wants to pursue the same agenda as Wordbomb of attacking certain editors for alleged conflicts of interest on certain articles, and his unblock request from September did not say, "I want to write and edit articles" but "there is nothing wrong with pursuing conflict of interest charges in this case." Thatcher 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he admits that he created User:Piperdown/1 as a result of User:Mantanmoreland/1, at least that's what the deleted page states. Regarding his September unblock request, how about we ask him what the situation is now? I'm not seeing a lot of evidence here other than hearsay and the after-the-fact comments that "he is unlikely to be [...] a productive editor". I suspect he's active and vociferous on WR because he's been indefinitely blocked on here and that he sees his block as being in error. He appears to have always stated that he's not WordBomb and, frankly, if he was a throwaway sock of WB, he's kept up this pretense for an awfully long time now - Alison ^❤ 16:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison, you might want to take a close look at some of the conspiracy-mongering this user engaged in before the block. Some diffs have been collected here, although these only scratch the surface. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit that I've no idea of this editor's background or past history, but I'll take a look. From his talk page history, it looks just like any other, really. I'd like to see David Gerard comment here as he's obviously the most familiar - Alison ^❤ 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If "pursuing conflict of interest charges" is something to be discouraged, we should delete WP:COI/N. Even if the conflicts he believes exist in fact do not - I'm sure there are some percentage of WP:COI/N reports that turn out to be incorrect. He has the right to be wrong. —Random832 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But he does not have the right to harass other users as a proxy for a banned editor. If he wants to pursue COI charges "for the good of the Wiki" he can contact Arbcom privately. I suppose he could be unblocked if he said something like "I disagree on principle but I will avoid that subject and edit other topics" (subject to monitoring by whatever admin took responsibility for him by unblocking) but honestly his defenders here are doing more harm than good. Thatcher 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of avoiding one subject, though. He used to follow me around trying to tie every admin action of mine into his grand conspiracy theory, and I'm probably not the only one he did it to. Can any of his defenders point to any good content he added to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The last time you made such a statement, it led to a flood of meatpuppets blanking pages that Jon Awbrey had contributed to in order to prove a point; right or wrong, I would suggest you ought to do more research before categorically stating (as you did there) or implying (as you did here) that someone has made no worthwhile contributions, since even ignoring the disruptive effect, it is a personal attack. —Random832 17:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:AGF apply here? This is pretty much what the question boils down to at the root. If he may help wikipedia, then an unblock is right. If it's clear that he won't, then the indef block is fine. Since I haven't followed the case, I don't have an opinion personally. Wizardman 19:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked this has gone on as far as it has. This fellow is blocked because he's posting at WR and because of what he might do. Seemingly, he has an opinion held by another blocked editor. Shocking. Unblock this person and be done with this. Bstone (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there's an extensive history of meatpuppet behavior here, which has reached the "quacking louder than we can ignore anymore" stage. Wordbomb and other overstock.com related abusers are not welcome here, in any form. You cannot reasonably ignore the long history of misbehavior that this user has exhibited. What they're saying now here and presumably on Wikipedia Review (I haven't gone to look yet) doesn't excuse or explain their contributions for the last year. 65.200.208.230 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a really, really tough time with a random, anon IP telling me that overstock.com abusers are not welcome at wikipedia. Moreover without any arbcom or other policies to backup your claim I am at the verge of giggles. This whole thing is silly. Unblock the fellow who was a good contributor to this project and enough of these silly games. Bstone (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I will agree with the IP editor that Piperdown's block is about more than OMG he posts to WR. And do you really mean "overstock.com abusers" should be welcome? I assume there is typo in there somewhere, because editors who are associated with overstock.com and its crusade to explain its crappy share price as the result of naked short selling, and who then go on to smear anyone who says otherwise, including Wall Street Journal reporters, stock analysts and Wikipedia editors and administrators, is absolutely not welcome to edit Wikipedia, unless they are willing to leave that behind them when they put on their Wikipedia hat. Tell you what, as soon as Piperdown agrees to stay off the topic, you can personally unblock him, as long as you are willing to be responsible for his edits. Oh wait... Thatcher 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

SV and others claim he was blocked due to harassment, so I don't see how a topic ban would help...unless he was actually blocked due to an unpopular POV. I'm also a little puzzled by this block. Cool Hand Luke 22:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, Piperdown has not been blocked because he posts to WR, he's been blocked because he's been accused of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of WordBomb. That's the issue here, not WR participation - Alison ^❤ 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think he was blocked because he was harassing people, in a way that suggested WordBomb sock or meatpuppetry. But it's the harassment (trolling, wikistalking, conspiracy-mongering) that was the main issue, as I recall. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the "evidence" compiled on Mantanmoreland's sub-page, I don't see any harrassment or incivility severe enough to warrant an indefinite block. In fact, I've seen some of the editors who have commented above, including myself, give opinions on issues that are just as strong. The fact that he spends some of his editing time addressing a few of the issues that Wordbomb took an interest in should also not be an offense worthy of an infefinite block. Looking at his contribution history shows a lot of value-added edits to a great variety of topics. Any association with what may or may not be Wordbomb's past agenda, no matter how tenuous, should not be some kind of "third rail" that results in indefinite blocks for good faith editors. Again, I don't believe Piperdown was treated fairly here or in a manner consistent with how other editors are treated. Cla68 (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue was the harassment, which was similar to the harassment WordBomb engaged in (similar subject matter, similar voice, the same targets), but the issue was the harassment, and it was pretty extensive. Can you supply some diffs showing positive content he added to the encyclopedia? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

One has only to look at his contributions list. In addition to editing a wide variety of topics, he also started at least one article (diff later). Do you have any evidence of what most would consider to be harrassment? Cla68 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[35] Well, there's one, still looking through contribs. Wizardman 22:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's a response to SlimVirgin's request and not Cla68, since the diff appears to be a productive edit, and I can see nothing harassing about it. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that was a response to SlimVirgin. She asked for diffs, so I provided one. To be fair she asked for diffs, plural. So, here's a few more: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Wizardman 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? "He was blocked because he posts at WR". Better pull out the banhammer then, more than a few administrators post at that site. How about "for what they do/don't do", not "who they associate with, and what 'we' think of their association". I realize it is de rigeur to play the "WR=Troll" card, but it really looks nothing more than petty when stated so clearly. Achromatic (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Struck as a result of misreading Bstone. My sheepish apologies. Achromatic (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant some hyperbole, but they are using his activities in WR to justify the continued block. Bstone (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I think at this stage it would be more useful if diffs of clear cut harassment were supplied to back up the block. Arguments have been stated expressing that the block should be removed, so evidence refuting these arguments should be supplied. If none can be produced, then an unblock is clearly in order. Remember - anyone unblocked can be reblocked, and its unlikely anyone will die in the meantime. ^Avruchtalk 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This block was already challenged and upheld.[41]:

Decline reason: "I don't know about the overstock.com issue, but your stalking page User:Piperdown/1 was unacceptable, and is not less so because another user may have created a similar page. Your personal attacks on the blocking admin do not help to persuade me that you have understood what you did wrong and that you will stop doing it when unblocked. — Sandstein 06:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit fuzzy as to what has changed since then. In fact, his personal attacks on me and other editors off-site certainly don't indicate that he has any kind of deeper understanding that what he did was wrong.--Samiharris (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus can change"... right? If there is new information, anyway? ++Lar: t/c 04:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

And that decision is sovereign and not subject to community review? I think not. Notice that there are many voices chiming in here all saying that there is not enough evidence to show that an indef block is appropriate. Unblock this fellow and let's be done with this drama. Bstone (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about this situation to say whether anyone should be unblocked or not, but the "similar page" to which the reviewing admin refers, has been up since June of last year, even though such pages are "unacceptable". R. Baley (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That page was a collection of diffs, Piperdown's own words. Piperdown responded with an attack page. It was deleted so I can't quote from it. Bstone, you don't have any inkling of the "evidence" so how can you say it was "insufficient"? Why the rush to unblock this character?--Samiharris (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

With a total lack of incriminating evidence, a request from the editor to be allowed to edit and a viewable and demonstratable history of good editing and you want me to side with you on keeping the indef block? Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person. Bstone (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sami, the only allowable circumstance (AFAIK) in which one editor may keep a collection of diffs (or otherwise collect "evidence") on another editor is in a short term situation where there is a forthcoming process to be initiated (such as preparing for an ANI report, filing an RfAR, or starting an RfC on an editor) otherwise it isn't allowed. That page should have been deleted as well a long time ago. R. Baley (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the evidence page was overtaken by events. Bstone, sorry but nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it talk about "life, liberty and the pursuit of editing Wikipedia." Piperdown seems plenty liberated right where he is, which is in the pages of off-site websites where he can give full vent to his conspiracy theories as relates to the stock market and Wikipedia. and where he can now openly advocate WordBomb's cause.--Samiharris (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So without any evidence and with a history of good editing this fellow should remain blocked on your say so? That's a travesty. Bstone (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He was not blocked on my sayso. I had nothing to do with it, or in his remaining blocked, or in his becoming an active and vibrant representative of the WordBomb Chowder and Marching Society off-wiki. He was blocked by Mr. Gerard, and I think it behooves us all to await his return. It is not a travesty of anything to do so, and the Bill of Rights will survive if Mr. Piperdown remains blocked in the interim.--Samiharris (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You mis understand, Samiharris. I never said he was blocked because of you but you are the one pressing for his continued block, but without a shred of evidence. Sans evidence or Mr Gerard, it behooves us to immediately unblock him and allow him to return to editing wikipedia. What he does off-site is not any of our business and I urge you to stop worrying what people do with their time outside this project. Bstone (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of an unblock, this editor has been blocked for nearly 4 months. There's no sudden urgency to unblock him "immediately". Surely we can wait for a bit more community input, or even for the blocking admin to comment? MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It can go both ways, tho. 4 months of injustice, as I see it, and now any lack of incriminating evidence would mean an immediate unblock would be prudent. But I think taking a step back at this point would be wise. Say 48 hours to wait for Mr Gerard? Bstone (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, sorry. This is not up for general review. Meatpuppets of known extremely banned users don't get the benefit of the doubt. And non admins don't get to come to AN and insist that admins comply with their idea of justice.

If someone has good evidence that this was a mistake, then they should have posted it here. Nobody has. Lacking that good evidence, this is functionally (if not labeled properly) a community ban. The appeal process for community bans is Arbcom, or Jimmy. Neither of those venues are particularly happy with Bagley and companies ongoing hijinks, but they will listen to an appeal request. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except Admins (such as Alison and myself) may have problems with it (Alison has said she's reviewing the situation, and personally I haven't looked at it). I find your dismissiveness a bit disturbing, GWH. If there is good reason for the block, present it, and if it's agreed that it fits, fine, we'll get out of your way. But don't try steamrolling folks who have honest concerns. Also. Don't try calling it a community ban, and then say the community shouldn't come in and have their say about it (added On) SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The good reason for the block is why he was blocked - editing related to naked short selling, in patterns and with content that clearly passes the duck test on association with Wordbomb / Bagley / Overstock. Yes, they edited other stuff, too. But there is quite clearly a major focus of editing on those topics, and even a brief review of their edits (to the naked short selling article, to biography articles of people accused of naked short selling, etc) will show that the patterns there are identical to the ones that are Wordbomb signature, and have resulted in quite a large number of sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts to be banned from the site.

This is not new, and not news. That Wordbomb related accounts are banned from Wikipedia due to innumerable abuses from Overstock people is not new, and not news. Any cursory review of the last 500 edits by Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows a clear pattern of that type and content of edit. The duck quacks, and it does not quack alone in a field where nobody notices. It quacks in the usual place, with the usual suspects.

The duck is not welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - on the community ban / input point - a community ban ends when an administrator (any administrator) unblocks. Per definition. It does not end when a random user account, who I AGF about but is not an administrator, insists that it must. Bstone does not have standing to insist on an unblock, though he can of course comment and request etc. Any administrator on this thread can simply unblock. However, I hope that they review the contributions history and consider what's there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

{outdent) WP:MEAT applies to new editors, not editors who are with the project for 7 months. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to back up SirFozzie's reasoning here, and while I have not looked into the block or the edits, I did take a look at both /1 pages and have to echo Alsisons question - why are they so different that one got someone indef blocked and the other hung around on WP for ages? As a WR member I have had contact with piperdown, and have to say, that if he is a sock of wordbomb, that pretense has gone on waaaaaaaaaaaay longer than it had to - making it unlikley that he was ever a sock. The word meatpuppet has also been bandied about, but I find it hard to work out how an established editor can be a meatpuppet. It seems to me that some people might actually just come to the same conclusion, either independantly or through communication, thereby holding their own views that happen to overlap? Independant thought, now there is a novel concept. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There's an extensive history of sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry associated with Wordbomb / overstock accounts. Figuring out who a person is and what the connection is are interesting intellectual exercises, but not necessary - WP:DUCK is behavioral based, and the behavior pattern here matched. Contrary to you and Kendrick's assertions, Sockpuppetry and Meatpuppetry are what they are, established user or not. We ban established accounts for acting as an agent for / reposting stuff for indef blocked accounts. Meatpuppetry is a more subtle version of that. Anyone can start doing that on behalf of a banned user. And an alternate identity sockpuppet is clearly not beyond these people - they've done it a lot before, and are probably, nay almost certainly doing it now with other accounts we have not yet tagged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, I just need to say that your dismissive, condescending attitude to non-admins only furthers to widen the gap between admins and regular editors. You were given tools to help the project but not a platform of power. Your attitude is profoundly disturbing. Bstone (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, please keep the discussion civil and focused on the case at hand, and either ignore attitudes that rub you the wrong way or take your concerns up on the person's talk page. We don't need this to generate unwarranted heat. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, civility is of paramount importance. Which is why I stand to is at all times. Bstone (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Without speaking to the merits of this particular case, it seems to me that if several trusted and informed editors are dubious about the conclusions drawn, then the WP:DUCK test is by definition not met, no matter how convincing others may find it. The duck-spotter should always be willing to show that they have not mistakenly identified a loon or other fowl creature, if a colleague asks in good faith for such assurance. alanyst ^/talk/ 03:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Non admins are as welcome as anyone to point out questionable actions, provide evidence, etc.

To date, you have posted no evidence that Piperdown isn't who David Gerard thought he was. Nobody has yet refuted the point that hundreds of the last 500 edits made by Piperdown fit the Wordbomb edit profile to a T.

Perhaps, despite that, they are in fact someone else and unrelated. However, WP:DUCK establishes a reasonableness test and then shifts burden of proof. We have a historical pattern used repeatedly by ... I don't know exactly how many by now, but I've seen dozens of Wordbomb sockpuppets over time. A large quantity of Piperdown edits match that pattern. Duck test's criteria are met.

This is a rebutable conclusion. But it's a reasonable conclusion, based on the evidence. Any administrator who seeks to overturn the indef block should generate reasonable evidence to rebut that conclusion first.

The observation that you don't have the authority to declare what jurisprudence demands we do ("Sorry, but judisprudence requires the liberation of the person." as you said earlier) is perhaps rude but it's also very importantly correct. Wikipedia doesn't allow just anyone, even just anyone who's a longstanding editor, to make user block decisions (in either direction). That power is reserved for administrators, with appeal to the body of administrators as a whole, the Arbitration Committee, and Jimbo ultimately.

It would be foolish for me or anyone to declare that abusive user blocking never makes mistakes. I have myself made mistakes doing so. Being open to the possibility that a given action (mine, or someone elses) is wrong is an important part of being a responsible administrator.

All of that said, nothing that's been posted here so far has positive information content that changes my mind that the earlier conclusion was correct, that Piperdown is either Wordbomb or acting in concert with them. A couple of people who frequent Wikipedia Review have indicated that they think that Piperdown is not, based on discussions with them over there. However, those opinions don't have any specific WR discussion posts or thread links provided, and haven't addressed the edit patterns here which were the Duck test evidence.

Perhaps we'll have such evidence tomorrow. If Alison or Viridae or you or others post it, I will read it and consider it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

On the face of it, he has a lot of productive edits. What kind of evidence should we have? Are we trying to prove a negative? Can you prove I'm not related to Wordbomb? If I was blocked for this reason, could anyone prove I'm not? Cool Hand Luke 04:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK does not require anyone who opposes a block to take the (impossible) step of proving a negative. It's one thing if only a few people are disagreeing. But as Alanyst says, you can't just declare "WP:DUCK, prove me wrong or go away".

You have very few edits that appear to match the Wordbomb pattern: Naked short selling, Pump and dump, Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation‎, Overstock.com and related topics are the predominant targets, though you have cleaned up Patrick M. Byrne a bit in the last few days, which is also involved. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim based on your edit patterns that you might be WB. The same cannot be said of Piperdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who though they have also edited diverse topics, on first impression appear to be about 50% contributing to Wordbomb target articles (those articles listed, articles about people associated with short selling, etc). People who only contribute tangentally if at all to the target topics associated with Wordbomb, and don't otherwise go on overstock.com related rampages in article or user talk or emails, are rather unlikely to be an active Wordbomb sock, though there are probably some sleepers out there which wouldn't be detectable by the Duck test at the moment.

As I said upwards - Piperdown could be a false positive on the Duck test for Wordbomb. But, hundreds of edits by them fall into the pattern, and it's really really suspicious. Just look at the last 500 edits in history, much less going back further.

We could run a whole stack of sample users through "prove or disprove that they're X", but there aren't many that have the problematic contribution histories which are very short selling centric as to match Wordbomb's pattern. Piperdown does. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very big on "you don't get to say what has to happen, that's for us administrators". The community has a voice. The community decides. The community does (be it as a whole, or subsections thereof). You take this approach, and then you start to state that if people have evidence, you will "read and consider it". Consider rewording, as your tone and phrasing implies that the decision is yours to make. You name administrators, and state that they may supply evidence for your consideration. The duck test is inconclusive, especially when there seems to be something very far from consensus here. It is not a crime of meatpuppetry to hold similar opinions to that of a banned user. Out of curiosity, what is an "extremely banned" user? Is that like, with apologies to A Few Good Men a "strenuous objection"? Achromatic (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Similar opinions didn't get Piperdown in trouble. Plenty of people don't like short selling. Piperdown edited on first glance about a dozen articles in the topic in the same manner, and with the same intensity, that Wordbomb and other confirmed WB socks did. Walks like a duck.

Extremely banned would cover things like creating a website dedicated to, among other things, stalking and harrassing Wikipedia editors and administrators, including trying to harrass them at home and at work. Wordbomb and related overstock.com staff are not welcome here. You are welcome to talk to Arbcom or Jimmy about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

George care to provide actual examples where Piperdown edited "In the same manner as wordbomb"? That would certainly give weight to your accusations. Viridae^Talk 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) They are contributing 50% to "WordBomb target articles" (which, as you say, means "articles related to naked short selling"). Are we really banning people for having similar interests to banned users? Or is there only one person in the world who cares about naked short selling? -Amarkov moo! 04:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To the same set of articles, if their edits appear to be of the same nature? And also being an active Wikipedia Review participant? That's what the Duck test definition is, pretty much. It's established policy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

When Piperdown started editing naked short selling, which was within a few days of arriving at Wikipedia, he immediately started edit warring and was belligerent in the extreme. It is not as if a light bulb went on over his head after he had been pacifically editing for some months. He immediately commenced edits that misconstrued sources to twist to his POV. He also was paranoid in the extreme. I remember praising some edits that he did and getting my head bit off on the grounds that I was being "patronizing" or somesuch. In hindsight he is about as obvious a WordBomb meatpuppet as can be imagined. He then attacked me in his attack page, and alleged that I had some connection with a journalist he hates because of clues of a relationship with Chicago, which is where the journalist went to school. It was paranoid, loony stuff and it is a wonder that Piperdown remained unscathed for as long as he did. He was not just quacking like the duck WordBomb but leaving droppings all over the place.--Samiharris (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not like all new users are nice. There are many new users who edit war and are belligerent. In fact, that's probably evidence that he was actually new, since someone familiar with Wikipedia would know how to avoid being viewed as bad. As for Wikipedia Review... that's really not relevant. Unless someone has evidence that I'm a sockpuppet? -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That he complains on WR seems to be a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, unfortunately. He was blocked on September 7, 2007; his WR account was created three days later on September 10. Frustrated people often feel the need to vent, and it looks like Piperdown, like many other Wikipedians who feel sleighted, found WR in the wake of his block and decided to vent there. It's a bit of a shame, since there's really nowhere else for them to appeal and take legitimate complaints to, and they get lost in the muck of frivolous accusations and poisonous speculation that is WR. krimpet✽ 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Another outdent.) The problem with WP:DUCK (which is an essay, neither guideline nor policy) is that it is highly susceptible to confirmation bias: we tend to see what we expect to see and unconsciously ignore or discount evidence to the contrary. If there were a person who shared WordBomb's views on naked short selling, etc. but was trying to constructively contribute to WP, how would we distinguish them from a WordBomb meatpuppet? Aside from the common interest, what criteria would separate the block-worthy from the barnstar-worthy? Can anyone show, with diffs, that a significant number of Piperdown's edits would have been found disruptive if they had been about 18th-century poetry instead of Overstock-related matters? If so, I'm all for maintaining the block, but if not, it seems reasonable to offer another chance at contributing constructively. I'll be honest, what I've seen of Piperdown's comments on WR worry me about inviting a mud-slinger here where too much mud is already slung - but perhaps Piperdown will resolve to interact differently here given the different environment and purpose. I'm sure plenty of people will keep a close eye on him in case he proves to be here to disrupt. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just how is one supposed to wind up with a NPOV article on naked short selling if one side of the debate on it is declared to be "acting for a banned user" and forbidden? *Dan T.* (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Every Wikipedia editor should be capable of writing articles with the neutral point of view. We don't need active Neo-nazi editors in order to write an NPOV article on Adolf Hitler. There are plenty of press reports on naked short selling to summarize, personal knowledge or viewpoints aren't required. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The pattern is not "just editing naked short selling". Piperdown's edits on Overstock related topics in a wider sense are the rest of the pattern. By no means has every editor involved in the Naked short selling article done anything like other Overstock related edits which raise suspicions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piperdown questionable edits

Section break, and new section to list out Wordbomb pattern edits ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So... going back through Piperdown's history. I decided to start at the beginning and work forwards.

A week after signing up, this first edit to Naked short selling, the first in the Wordbomb pattern as far as I spot: [42] restores a Christopher Cox quote that had been added by Errudite (sic) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) earlier that day, which has been specifically added by a bunch of Wordbomb sockpuppets. On closer examination, Errudiate (sic) proves to be an shiningly clear example of Wordbomb sockpuppets, and not previously identified as such and blocked - however, I have just rectified that.

Three edits later, to Patrick M. Byrne - [43], again a link Wordbomb's used before.

More to come, later. Others welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait wait. So, when looking at this evidence you've seen before, you run into another sockpuppet? Does it occur to you that it's far more likely that your sockpuppet detection method is faulty? It's reasonable that most people interested in naked short selling read the same stuff... -Amarkov moo! 05:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually review Errudite (sic)'s edits? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have. I fail to see how they can be reliably differentiated from edits by someone else who doesn't like Gary Weiss. -Amarkov moo! 05:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The only people with a serious beef against Gary Weiss who've showed up on Wikipedia are Wordbomb and his gang. It's not normal for people in the world to have large beefs with financial reporters. Your comment doesn't make the case that they're not in the pattern... it reinforces it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Except the only reason you have to believe this is that everyone who dislikes Gary Weiss has been discredited as being in WordBomb's gang. That's circular logic, which does not help. -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So because he restores a section of text he believes to be valid he is immediatley a meatpuppet. Its not possible of course that he actually agreed with the addition of that text, not necessarily knowing that it was a (possible) sockpuppet? And I am still waiting for evidence of him editing "In the same manner as wordbomb", not just having an overlap in idealogies... Viridae^Talk 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to sign off for the night, but jeez. They have over 1500 edits. I presented two examples in the pattern (not necessarily by themselves conclusive, but in the pattern) in the first fifty edits they ever made. Properly documenting everything that Piperdown did that matches the Wordbomb pattern will undoubtedly take dozens to hundreds of specific edits listed, and probably a day or two of people digging and listing them. If your point is that I have not yet established the case with what I posted here then that's fine. That will take time. If you don't think it's there because it wasn't evident and clear looking only at the first 3% of their contributions so far ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice the huge chorus of community members who are challenging and questioning the validity of this. I add my voice to this growing number. Bstone (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we got that Bstone.

I think Georgewilliamherbert's point is that editing on these topics is inherently unlike, say, editing from a stridently pro-Palestinian position. Many people in the world have the same POV as stridently pro-Palestine banned users, but WordBombesque opinions on Byrne and naked short selling are relatively much more likely to be coming from Overstock.com or its agents. As an empirical matter, I suspect this is true. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason for a ban though. Cool Hand Luke 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His edits on Wikipedia Review confirm that. I'm not suggesting they be used to justify the continued ban, as I don't think it is necessary. But it is worth observing that Piperdown is one of the most off the wall, paranoid contributors to Wiki Review, and it's always "Weiss this" and "Weiss that," and how "Weiss" is the source of all that ails Wikipedia. If there was any doubt that he was a WordBomb meatpuppet he allayed those doubts after he left here.--Samiharris (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're still only giving evidence that he really hates Weiss. That's certainly true, but that doesn't make him WordBomb. -Amarkov

OK, granted. Maybe he hates Weiss because he was involved in an auto accident with him, and just by coincidence also happens to be obsessed with naked short selling. Let's get real about this.--Samiharris (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

moo! 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

His account on WR postdates his ban from WP. WP:CIVIL or not (and without implying that WP policies carry any weight elsewhere), it would seem to be an entirely human failing to have some anger towards someone you might see (be it correctly or incorrectly) as having played a role in your being banned (and I qualify that by saying that my statement in no way implies Piperdown's blocking/edits at the time were or were not controversial). Also, I'd like to point out that, with exceptionally few exceptions, Piperdown's comments off-wiki have very little relevance here, as a matter of policy, and it is inappropriate to refer to his off-wiki behavior (because, if for no other reason, you have no idea that they are one in the same, though I'm happy to acknowledge that they are, the principle does not change) as justifications for an on-wiki block to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 06:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is zero controversy that meat puppetry on behalf of banned editors has been something that invariably earns the meat puppet a ban. This has remained true for the 3 + years I've been contributing to Wikipedia. The only question is whether it is reasonable to view Piperdown as a meat puppet of Wordbomb. Most of those commenting here weren't even around when WordBomb participated here and was blocked, but I was and remember him well. And viewing the editing patterns of Piperdown, it appears likely to me that Piperdown is indeed a meat puppet of Wordbomb. That being so, I feel that the block was not only reasonable but necessary given our policy and convention on bans and meat puppetry and support the block of Piperdown. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This "meat puppet" claim is really bothering me. What does it even mean to be a meat puppet of someone gone for 10 months? It seems to mean merely that the user shares a POV and that we can't prove they're a sock puppet. There may be good reason to infer that such a user has a COI with regards to the subjects (see my comment above), but we're not banning them for meat puppetry per se. Cool Hand Luke 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not quite what happened in this instance. He was blocked for being a meatpuppet of a banned user who continually re-appeared for many months on Wikipedia via several dozen socks. I believe there were about 40 checkuser-confirmed socks [44]and an larger number of suspected ones[45], all blocked. There are quite a few others blocked for being WordBomb socks who are not on the list. This was not a situation in which one errant fellow was banned and then some poor slob was accused of being like him ten months later. This was a protracted situation over a period of many months.--Samiharris (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So, because WordBomb had many sockpuppets, it logically follows that anyone who shares his views must also be a sockpuppet? What? I mean, that shows that the accusation is not unreasonable, but it is by no means proof. -Amarkov moo! 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that his block was reasonable. For further details on the block, you will have to await Mr. Gerard. All you can get from me is my worm's eye view.--Samiharris (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not what I said. It is reasonable to accuse him of being WordBomb, in the sense that it would be unreasonable to accuse him of being the Roswell space aliens. I have seen no reason to believe that the actual block was justified, because nobody has any reasons other than "but look, they share the same opinions!" If you think David will have better reasons, by all means wait for him. -Amarkov moo! 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone's considered this, but if he's editing productively, does it even matter if the person behind the account was Wordbomb? Yes, I know what WordBomb did. But that would assume the two are one and the same, and I am unconvinced - the "evidence" provided for Piperdown being a sock of WB is really shitty evidence, and Piperdown should be unblocked. By all means keep an eye on his editng and if he acts up, take action then. Neıl ☎ 10:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that, and repeat what I said above: Felonious et al. are misunderstanding WP:MEAT and need to reread the policy. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Simply making the acquaintance of a banned user isn't a reasonable excuse for an indef block, nor simply being an editor with a POV on naked short selling different from the WP:OWNers of that article, for that matter, who seem to find being able to declare any such editor a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb a little too convenient. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way on naked short selling. Wordbomb and overstock.com related accounts are not welcome here due to an obscene amount of corporate sponsored attacks on Wikipedia editors and other related abuse. There's nothing wrong with being against naked short selling and editing Wikipedia in a policy compliant manner to address that, which other editors have in fact done. When the pattern jumps out at you, of overstock.com plus naked short selling plus Byrne article edits, that's not a random opponent of naked short selling, that's someone associated with Wordbomb. And we block them. Making up false red herrings like "everyone who is against naked short selling is accused of being a Wordbomb sock" is just confusing the issue - I don't believe that statement, I have never heard anyone else who's blocked Wordbomb accounts make that statement, and I don't believe they believe it either.

Let's stick with the facts - there's a pattern which ties edit patterns across a wide set of topics together, which is distinctive and unique to Overstock.com and Wordbomb. Dozens, perhaps a hundred or more, accounts matched this pattern. Many of them were using IP addresses inside Overstock.com or in netblocks of homes in the area of its headquarters. Some of them are further afield, but display the exact same edit patterns. This account displays those edit patterns. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Those three articles are intricately linked; this isn't some divine coincidence indicating a "pattern" which should "jump out" at anyone. Patrick M. Byrne is the CEO of Overstock.com, whose article is 2/3s about a controversy over naked short selling, which article also mentions and links back to Byrne and Overstock. Dozens if not hundreds have edited all three articles which relate to a current event an {{ongoing lawsuit}}, you say? I'm completely and totally unshocked. Running around blocking any editor no matter how long they've been with the project because you think they're all the same person, or friends of some person, who got indef blocked within their first 24 hours for violating WP:NPA a long long time ago? If that's not due to POV pushing, then it's extreme paranoia. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wordbomb is indef blocked for a whole host of reasons including real-world stalking and harrassment, creating a Wikipedia editor stalking website, and dozens of checkuser confirmed sockpuppet accounts. Defending him is bizarre and inexplicable. Any account which is associated with him is most certainly not welcome.

Yes, there's a topical linkage. However, contrary to your assertion that it's natural for people to edit the different articles innocently, the vast majority of those who have edited across the set of articles corresponding to Wordbomb's fingerprint have been proven, by Checkuser or self-admission later on, to have been sockpuppets or in a few cases meatpuppets. We did not leap to this conclusion. We have years of evidence that the pattern is used by WB and essentially nobody else. People who are interested in financial matters and aren't WB have made similar edits across smaller sets of articles, but haven't matched the whole identifying pattern.

Piperdown does.

I reinterate - I have no interest in or position on naked short selling or the financial industry/articles in general. I have a strong interest in keeping Wikipedia free of highly abusive accounts and people. I have never been engaged in an edit war or user argument with Wordbomb. But I've seen what he does here and on WR, and elsewhere. And if he pops up, like any responsible administrator aware of what all he's been doing, I block him.

He and Overstock may turn out to have been entirely right about the financial industry ills associated with naked short selling. Even if they are, however, nothing in the world could excuse their grossly abusive behavior towards Wikipedia and Wikipedians. They are not banned because of any conclusion as to the merits of their position on the issue. They're banned because they behave sociopathically and abusively towards editors here, tracking down real names, calling their homes, their employers, their friends, trying to get them fired, urging others to stalk them in real life, threatening violence, etc.

This behavior is categorically not ok. It is not "indef blocked for violating NPA". This case is the single worst case, ongoing and sustained and widespread, of abuse of Wikipedia editors by a particular outside group. Defending Wordbomb is not OK.

Piperdown could be an innocent mistaken identity case in this. But his behavior on Wikipedia Review didn't convince me of that.

The magnitude of the situation absolutely calls for us to apply special attention and care, but also a firm hand to exclude Wordbomb. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Wordbomb mess is an object lesson in WP:BITE. Because he didn't know any better than to just take his concerns to WP:COI/N, he was instead indef blocked and his talk page protected so he could never appeal, and thus we created a rather stalwart enemy of the project, and yeah, all kinds of badness has occurred since. I don't think it had to be that way, though. But, so because of all that, now here, in this apparently unrelated matter, we've taken a perfectly fine editor, indef blocked him on the most tenuous of rationales, and driven him into the arms of our critics at Wikipedia Review, thus making him guilty of association after the fact. Trying to make Wordbomb out to be the Emmanuel Goldstein of Wikipedia, and thus tar User:Piperdown with the same wide brush is more of the same, because trying to make this all about some other editor misses the point that Piperdown doesn't seem to have actually done any of those dreadful things. Thus you're argument -- and in particular the lack of diffs -- have failed to convince me. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a bizarre and historically inaccurate interpretation of how Wordbomb got blocked. People who are ignorant of history might want to not assert stuff about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, you're dismissing some of the worst stalking that Wikipedia has seen as though it were some irritating misunderstanding. People need to spend the time informing themselves before commenting. I know it's dull having to pour through so much material, but there are no short cuts, unfortunately. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"Worst stalking"? We're talking about Piperdown here, not WordBomb. And anyway, are you sure that's an accurate description for what took place with WordBomb? If you'd like, we can open another thread on it, because I definitely have some questions I'd like to ask you about your involvement in that whole affair. Anyway, this thread is about Piperdown and the unfair way he has been labled and treated by a few who apparently don't approve of some of his edits. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick is apparently challenging the block of Wordbomb, incidental to the case of whether Piperdown is a WB sock or not. These are logically unrelated issues. But we cannot not address Kendrick's claims that the Wordbomb incidents weren't that serious. The history there is far too bad to let that sort of claim be made and stand unanswered. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You see, this is exactly the point of this entire thread. If Piperdown simply wants to edit Wikipedia, all he has to do is power down his modem to get a new IP, and create a new account. If he edits well, no one will know it is him.

But instead what is really wants is a giant fuss. The people who know the background can do one of two things: either we keep quiet, in which case he and his supporters get to rewrite history. Or we speak up, and we end up being targets of more abuse.

Cla, I have no "involvement" in this, other than to have blocked WordBomb for trying to out another editor; admin-deleted some of his edits from Gary Weiss; and semi-protected the article to stop him posting more attacks there. That is the beginning and end of my "involvement." All the rest is fantasy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you support sockpuppetry? Wouldn't it be easier to keep tabs on his behavior with an established account? 67.167.0.156 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his WR posts, it seems he might have conflicts with Samiharris, Mantanmoreland, other editors he accuses of sockpuppetry, and David Gerard. After a careful look at his many productive contributions, I support an unblock, but he should have a civility parole in place. He should understand that we won't tolerate personal attacks or idle accusations of non-abusive sockpuppetry. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair and reasonable. I assume Alison is still waiting for a response from Gerard. I hope she will post a follow-up here on what action was taken or not taken. Thanks everyone. Cla68 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's about as likely to work as bringing Willy on Wheels back on Wikipedia on page move parole. — Save_Us † 23:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, geez, you can't discount his expertise! -- Kendrick7^talk ON WHEELS! 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't work, there's nothing stopping us from re-blocking. And since there are people with significant concerns about the initial block, it's worth a try. -Amarkov moo! 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just declare a general amnesty for all banned and blocked users? I'm perfectly serious. The same "logic" that is being employed here can be applied to every single person ever vomited off this site.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

I've absolutely no interest in WordBomb nor his antics, to be honest. However, looking at this case, I see very little reason to maintain an indefinite block. Requests to prove innocence are largely pointless here, as it's nearly impossible to prove. We could equally apply WP:DUCK criteria to just about anyone on the project and have them indefinitely blocked as a meatpuppet of some undesireable. The fact that Piperdown ran over to WR to rant after the fact is hardly surprising given that he was told on unequivocal terms that he was unwanted here. Guilt by association doesn't wash with me either, regardless of whether it's the tenuous WordBomb connection or the WR postings. I find it hard to believe that WordBomb, given that George has suggested that he most likely already is socking here, would be so interested in having one account unblocked.

Yesterday, having read the suggestion from George above, that Piperdown was WordBomb and that he was likely already socking here, I ran a checkuser per policy as I had reasonable suspicion that Piperdown's IP would likely turn up a number of WordBomb socks. That would very quickly put an end to this matter and we could all move on to better things, having dealt with the socks. I was wrong. Not only has Piperdown not been active here on that range, far as I could tell; geographically, he doesn't fit with previous WordBomb socks either. Unless WordBomb has moved far away from Utah, they're quite unlikely to be the same. Then I discovered Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/WordBomb (the latest one) and that only seems to confirm this.

I fully agree that this whole issue is divisive and that either unblocking or maintaining the block on Piperdown will upset a large number of people; it's a lose/lose scenario for whichever fool takes it on. Far easier to maintain the status quo here, right? Well, no. While what WordBomb did was pretty terrible in terms of the stalking, etc, I don't think it's fair to brand another editor with this then pointing to the egregious behaviour of another to ensure they never get unblocked. There have been plenty of real-life cases where a person was so identified and this was used to take them out of circulation without parole for a very long time indeed. These, in time, were also overturned.

Since User:Piperdown/1 has now been restored as evidence for all to see, it's remarkable in its similarity to User:Mantanmoreland/1 which, Piperdown tells us, was set up "In response to" the latter. This certainly lends perspective to the matter and to be honest, its contents, in terms of offensiveness, aren't all that dissimilar really.

Here's some background to my own rationale here. I indefinitely blocked an extremely disruptive and abusive editor last year. He had been caught red-handed harassing another editor by outting his home address on-wiki, sneakily inserting it into comments. This was the final straw in a long litany of abuse and blocks. Given that they were on the opposite sides of a disagreement involving certain paramilitary groups, and given the editor had previously made threats of bodily harm against an administrator here, I considered this a serious matter indeed. "We know where you live". So this guy deserved to be banned, and banned for good. Instead, what happened was the whole matter was sent to Arbitration in what would become known as "The Troubles" arbcom case. And, to everyone's amazement, ArbCom ruled that this guy, rather than be banned, would actually be put on parole on terms agreed by ArbCom. This was done and said editor was unblocked where he went on to be a reasonable productive editor, and is largely reformed. Okay, so he had a few glitches just today, but nevermind :)

Point is this; previously banned "incorrigible" editors have turned around and changed their ways. Not to say that Piperdown is incorrigible or that his ways were "extremely disruptive and abusive" - not that I can discern, to be honest. Just that people change, things change and folks should be given a chance to prove their worth, especially where doubt has been cast, as in this case. In the case of Vintagekits, I was largely proven wrong, and I'd stood my ground and refused to unblock him for quite a long time, too.

Given that David Gerard is back on-line today yet hasn't commented here, I'm willing to try to compromise here, though it won't be easy. There appears to be quite a body of opinion here that Piperdown be unblocked forthwith, dusted down and sent on his way with a gruff apology. There are also a number of respected editors here who are saying that he should stay indef'd and the key be thrown away. May I suggest the following? I'm willing to unblock Piperdown myself here - sticking my neck out somewhat, and putting my (murky!) reputation on the line - but under certain conditions. I'm certainly amenable to discussing these conditions with the community here and, of course, the editor in question would need to agree too. Per what's happened before in Vintagekits' case, I suggest Piperdown be unblocked but be placed on parole for a number of months. An admin would be assigned to liaise with him - a neutral admin - and if he persist in stalkery, etc and behaviour that the community finds offensive, he may be re-blocked for progressively longer times until blocked indefinitely, as any other editor would. I will personally re-block him myself if he re-offends, much as I am loathe to get involved in all that Overstock.com nonsense. While I understand that there's something in this rough plan to annoy both sides of this, it may make a useful compromise. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 01:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you again to take a very close look at his posts about me and others, here and on WR, and ask yourself how comfortable you think any of us would feel if you were to unblock him. Forget the WordBomb link and just look at his own posts. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example of his comments about me on WR, which I kept. It's from a list of insults about me: "post menopausal socializing. editing in sexy icons to go with your sexy name is really useful in trying to get laid on the nets, and getting your way with the boy editors. Double Useful !!!" (Wed 12th December 2007, 2:01pm)

Is this someone you would feel comfortable editing with, Alison, if he were making that kind of comment about you? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't link to the Wikipedia Review posts which, if they exist, is allowed because the BADSITES nonsense was rejected by the community and the ArbCom. Anyway, under Alison's proposal, if he were to violate any polices after his block is lifted, he would lose his editing access. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asking Alison whether she would feel comfortable if she had recently been discussed in those terms by someone I was planning to unblock. In addition to wondering whether I'm post-menopausal, how about his speculation on my "Cunning Linguistic Skills in 69 Days or Less!" (Tue 4th December 2007, 11:05pm) or (about me and another woman admin):

SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Slim, google shows exactly 18 pages the two of you ever edited at the same time, or were both mentioned on wikipedia.[46] Indeed, you two had a bit of a dust-up after you accused him of being a sock back in May, with ensuing drama which definitely went on waaay too long, but nothing really out of bounds that I see. As for WR, well, you are an honorary piñata over there. Like it or not, razzing you is such a part of the culture on that site, I could even imagine it's part of the sign up process -- heck, it might even be in the form of a captcha. I'm not going to waste my time crawling around there for relevant threads though. I don't think we can blame Piper for trying to fit in, when you yourself could long ago have just taken your own advice.[47] "But instead what is really wants is a giant fuss." -- Kendrick7^talk 03:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, could you show me some diffs of me interacting with him? My memory is that he wikistalked me. I have no memory of otherwise having had much, if anything, to do with him. I'd appreciate some diffs in case I'm misremembering. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You claimed about four posts up he said somehow unworthy things about you here. He didn't AFAICT. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if User:Alison would accept taking a degree of responsibility if Piperdown were to continue being disrupting after an unblock. Her terms sound reasonable, but perhaps adding in this corollary would make the other side not as opposed to it. Wizardman 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying "other side" makes this sound like a content dispute. Alison has found evidence that an indef block wasn't justified and Gerard's silence on the matter is deafening. The right and fair thing to do is to give Piperdown another chance. If he violates the community's trust with that chance, as with any other editor including me, then procedures are in place to deal with that. Cla68 (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think letting Piperdown edit Wikipedia, pending more abuse and harassment of more editors is simply ludicrous. If a psychopath who violated your mother and your sister, say, wanted to live with you, would you let him, until he violated your wife too? Crum375 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Crum, that's a personal attack. Cla68 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Crum, I STRONGLY suggest you either self-revert, or strike through your comments. We don't want it said that folks are trying to use cheap emotional ploys to try to change what reasonable discussion has brought forward, do we? SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's over the top, but reading what Piperdown writes on Wikipedia Review doesn't give one much hope that he's going to be civil and policy-compliant if he edits here again.

That said, Crum, that sort of language debases the whole discussion and feeds the trolls. Please don't do things like that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about unblocking a vile individual from WR, who has repeatedly attacked our editors here. Letting such people edit until they offend again is offensive to their victims. Crum375 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Even so, we can make that point here without using language which is offensive to those participating in the debate. I'm (I guess) on your side in this, and I'm offended... Please, tone it down. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The language has to reflect the feelings of the victims and the severity of the offense, which it does. We will not tolerate attacks or harassment of our editors. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It may reflect the feelings of the "victims", but as for the severity of the "offense", you aren't just making a mountain out of a molehill by comparing verbal jousts, no matter how hateful, to someone raping "your mother and sister" and then moving in with you, you are making Mount Vesuvius out of an anthill. I REALLY suggest you consider what you've just done, and apologize to all and sundry. SirFozzie (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On what authority to you speak for the "victims" of his offenses, Crum? Are you telling us you are qualified to do so? Oh, and along with SirFozzie, et al, I really suggest you strike under NPA re Piperdown, and by implication, anyone who supports the unblocking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Offensive? Such as is your constant shrill, over-the top attempts to inject OMG MOAR DRAMAHZ into a reasoned and reasonable discussion, Crum. Once again, as Georgewilliamherbert suggests, why don't you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down? You do your argument no good by coming in, and doing the Wiki-equivalent of stamping your feet and threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue, or everyone reverses course. SirFozzie (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow Crum, that was way over the line. Either apologize or remove that personal attack. Wizardman 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the object of my "personal attack"? Crum375 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Piperdown is, and incidental subjects are everyone else here who finds it objectionable. NPA applies to everyone, including personal attacks on banned users. Please knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're billing us as allowing psychopaths to ravage our homes, plus you're comparing Piperdown to a psychopath. It's twofold in a way, but mainly against Piperdown. As GWH said, WP:NPA applies to all. Wizardman 04:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a post by Piperdown this evening on Wikipedia Review. The title is "Alison & SlimVirgin: A Comparison, ...vive le diff-erence":

"Alison - Edits with a name that isn't sexually provocative in a venue full of young hormonal youths with banhammers of the opposite sex

"- Doesn't edit the BLP of the person that fired her, with some very nasty BLP violations that are WP:OR to boot, then get it oversighted by a rogue oversighter

"- Doesn't cover her talk page edit button with the cartoon of "silver naked lady" mudflapper. Points for that.

"- Doesn't forward evidence during a sensitive off-wiki request for BLP/COI evidence from the submitter to the accused under false pretenses

"- Appears to write what she thinks, does what she says, and calls it like it is.

"- Doesn't exaggerate to dramatic effect things that have only very tenuous attachment to a related point, and then disallow any debunking evidence of said exaggerations.

"- Doesn't sock puppet.

"- Doesn't double vote

"-Doesn't edit in 20+ hour continuous sessions that often lead to increasingly unreliable judgement toward the ends of those sessions, and bans on sight without prejudice.

"- Doesn't administer BLP's of former schoolmates who made her cry (that's an assumption on my part)

"SlimVirgin "- Does

"Alison, perhaps you should listen to admins types who aren't SlimVirgin, Crum375, Thatcher, Gerard, FloNight, and Bauder. There are a thousand more out there to listen to. Or consider the diffs for yourself, which you appear to be doing a fine job.

"I am also amazed at how many assumptions about who I agree with and what I believe are being posted on the AN review. I edited in material from reliable sources in all of the articles I edited, and never my opinion, which is not suitable for article content. I saw articles with amazingly one-sided inclusion of sources, articles that were shockingly poor, and people who were up to no good in having their way with WP's power structure.

"I still haven't seen anyone be able to point out any editing on WP I did that was bannable, uncivil (I just can't bring myself to wish people 'fuck off' on WP, although I do like to drop effbombs on WR in the afterglow, makes me feel better! You'll note I was banned on 9/9 and became a Slim WR Virgin on 9/10. Perhaps if I had used the fuckword on WP like Gerard and JzG more often I'd be on the super sekret mailing list too!

"Context, folks, context. Mantan's subpage is a list of soundbites that one needs to read the conversation around them. My most strident back-arching was usually done while the Mantanmoreland-Samiharris sockteam was blanking reliable sources they didn't like, then just telling me I'm crazy (sound familiar, Patrick?), then just telling me to stop or be banned.

"My subpage /1 is straight-forward, linked, and shows more bannable offenses than any "I object!" talk page edit I ever made."

He's on his best behavior, as you can see, trying to impress everybody here that he won't resume his old ways.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the accusations and constant crap thrown at him from this thread, I suggest this phrase from the King James bible, "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're far less poetic when you post on Wiki Review, SirFozzie. Bravo!--Mantanmoreland (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What can I say, this "discussion" has brought the best out in me. SirFozzie (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the worst in me, because I of all people have been quoting from an attack site! Well, others have as well to demonstrate the behavior of this particular editor, and I thought that a post from Piperdown this evening is of some significance, as it was particularly vile and sexist. Yes, I realize he was provoked by all the indecent behavior of us curs on Wikipedia, and is blameless etc. etc. If anyone wants to see what this wounded soul posted this evening (in addition to what I posted already, which was deleted and then restored and then deleted......), I have a copy and can email it.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I say he was blameless? No, I'd be one of the first to admit it was a damnfool move. I'm just saying that before accusing the otherside of throwing mud, make sure one hasn't reached down and grabbed a double handful yourselves. SirFozzie (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I forgot this is "Take a Stalker to Lunch Week." --Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but I hear there's a buy 1, get 3 free special on Ad hominem attacks. You and Crum must shop at the same place. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And a violation of the GFDL. Users have been blocked by the Foundation and the content oversighted for importing others' words verbatim like that. krimpet✽ 05:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to proposed "compromise" unblocking Piperdown; walking in the footsteps of indef banned troublemakers is sufficient reason to block, and this editor as failed make any substantive contributions to Wikipedia in his time here, but seemed more interested in creating and feeding disruption which continues in his absence by those seeking to enable him. No substantive contributions + fanning the flames and disruption = Piperdown is a very, very low return on the community's investment. Enough is enough people, time to move along and return to building an encyclopdia, instead of fighting factional battles. FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'm seeing personal attack, after personal attack, after posting of attack site messages, with a side of mudslinging here. If I see another comment resembling a personal attack, whether to another editor on here, piperdown, or otherwise, I will issue a block without further warning. We're editors of wikipedia, most of us being administrators, some of us for an awfully long time. We know better, enough! This applies to everyone making any posts in this topicspace. Wizardman 05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm extending a final warning to the users who continuously add in/remove the verbatim WR chunk of text above. It adds little to the discussion, so stop edit warring over it. I will block the next person to touch it, right or wrong. I think some of you are close to violating 3RR on it anyway. Wizardman 06:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to stop issuing warnings, making threats and enabling troublemakers. No, really. You're not helping. You can expect any block you make related to this issue that is not solidly supported by policy to be undone. FeloniousMonk (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two cents from Jimmy

On Talk:Gary Weiss from October 2007, regarding cleanup from immediately after Piperdown was indef'ed - [48] . Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I particularly like the last comment from that section. Not saying I fully agree with it, mind you, just noting that. SirFozzie (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean by that is, yes, it's useful to have the God-King on your side in any argument. However, don't just point to Jimbo's supporting someone and use that as a substitute for discussion. That's the same wolf, just with a different sheep skin on top (if you will excuse the horribly mangled simile) SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to suggest that discussion should end here and now on that point, of course not. My point is that the Piperdown incident was previously tied in to the Wordbomb harrassment and sockpuppetry, that tie in was run up the WP user discipline process review channel all the way to the to the top.

There's been a lingering suggestion that rouge admins were responsible for an ill-considered block. It and other actions at the time were reviewed in context, and given a green light. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Time does not legitimize misbehavior. As Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar demonstrates, meatpuppets do not merit the standing of legitimate editors simply by dodging scrutiny and continuing to proxy for banned editors for some unspecified length of time. Small quantities of useful edits were overshadowed by a campaign of harassment and disruption. Piperdown was blocked for legitimate reasons, and since then has behaved offsite in ways that affirm the legitimacy of the original block by continuing to profess the same things that led to the ban in the first place. The particular venue this person selected is beside the point. This is someone who has shown an unwillingness to abide by site standards; nothing has changed. Durova^Charge! 05:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is Durova (and no disrespect intended), is there a meatpuppet relationship between the two accounts. There are a lot of mentions up above that just does NOT see that relationship. That's all. SirFozzie (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has yet answered the obvious question. If he only wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, why does he not simply power down his modem, get a new IP, and create a new account? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically SV (I'm not him, thankfully, so I can't answer for him).. what happens if this new account steps just a bit over the line, or worse yet, gets caught up in a CU request looking for REAL WordBomb socks, and gets tied to the Piperdown account? Are you telling me that folks would not consider that proof of guilt and imemdiately usher him off the Wiki yet again? SirFozzie (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not answering the question, Sir Fozzie. Anyone who really wanted to edit the encyclopedia would simply abandon that account and edit. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Slim, it's late here (past 1:00 am), I'm tired of arguing (I'm sure you are too), I've been cautioned privately by someone who's judgement I trust to try to avoid crossing that line, and it's a minor point (you may be right, and I may be imagining things), so I'll just say, I was trying to answer the question, and I will leave the argument there. SirFozzie (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, SV. Abandoning the account and starting anew makes sense. Here's the rub though. If he were to make a new account, what would he edit? Similar areas to where he's edited in the past, most likely. Would this be an issue if he were to return to these articles? Since I don't follow this particular articlespace we're discussing, I can't say. But it would be disappointing if we were to end up here again. I actually think he should take your advice, though there's some big potholes that may cause problems. Wizardman 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman, Piperdown wants to make the point that he didn't only make WordBomb-type edits, didn't only stalk and attack people, but also made good contributions to other areas of the encyclopedia (or rather, he is not saying that, but his supporters are saying it on his behalf). If that's true, all he needs to do is create a new account and do those things. No one would notice it was him. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If he's reading this then hopefully he'll listen and slide back in under a new account. Wizardman 06:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if his Piperdown account remains blocked; that would be sock puppetry to evade a ban. I hope you are not encouraging Piperdown to use sock puppetry to evade his ban, or saying that you support anyone doing so. If so, you need to read WP:SOCK and WP:BAN before participating in such discussions. If he is unblocked a returns, returning to his old ways is not advisble and will only cement his intent in the minds of those supported the ban and give them the ammo they need for another one. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You could utilize that same logic to issue a pardon to Mr. WordBomb and his five dozen sockpuppets.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't we do a checkuser on everyone in this thread and see who is using sockpuppets and who isn't? What do you say, Mantanmoreland? —Viriditas | Talk 05:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. While you're doing checkusers, can you do one on this?[49]--Mantanmoreland (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Right Fozzie. As my departed Irish grandmother used to say: Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly. One admin will say it's ok, another will come in and block as a sock. The old Mutt and Jeff as it were. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Kendrick, in tune with Wizardman's request, I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, or might even happen. I'm just trying to find a way around any possible problems, so we don't have to go through this insanity again in the future. SirFozzie (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean that's it's an actual on purpose ruse, it's only that this would be the outcome. Slim's not the spider, the community is. Honestly, I've made the same suggestion Slim is making to users in similar straights myself, but I don't think it's practical when a matter as high-profile as this. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To put my point more systematically, here's a numbered list. Apologies in advance to people who object to the terminology:

1. Is Piperdown a meatpuppet?
2. If so, does proxying for a banned user for a while make it okay?
3. If not, was the account's conduct okay in other ways?

I'm not sure about no. 1, although I have a hunch there's merit to it. No. 2 is demonstrated by the arbcom decision I cited. As for 3 - I think the ban was merited. As a standard rule I'll support an unblock after six months if an editor doesn't evade a ban on socks and refrains from bashing Wikipedia at offsite fora. Sometimes I've reduced that on good faith when I see evidence that the person has turned over a new leaf. The leaf hasn't turned. And I ask both sides to turn down the heat on this discussion. Durova^Charge! 05:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of us, Durova, are still just patiently waiting for diffs to support all these allegations flying around. What "campaign of harassment and disruption" are you even talking about? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll defer to the blocking administrator there. And I ask you to please tone down the discussion (above). It's easier to get a resolution if we don't personalize things. Durova^Charge! 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I clarified my remarks. We've been waiting for the blocking admin, but he or she isn't eager to show up, it seems. Allison knows more about the status there than me. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I do wish he'd show up too. Would you like me to add my signature to the request at his user talk? Durova^Charge! 06:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I really think that one of the contributing factors to all this is that David was aware of the discussion and has been editing (I guess at least lightly), but hasn't stepped in and said anything. That's allowed things to fester. It could have nipped this in the bud. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting point. Granted, the conflict didn't hit full speed until about 24 hours ago, and David appears to have no edits the past 24 hours. I really would like to hear his say on the matter, perhaps it will help resolve the conflict quicker. In either case, I'm glad that things are starting to calm down now. No need for anybody to get overexerted on the matter. Wizardman 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock and retire? Thoughts about P's own proposal

I have mixed feelings at this point. I'm inclined to think that Piperdown was inaccurately labeled a meatpuppet and thus the indefinite block on those grounds was unjustified at the time, though I do not impute bad faith on the part of those who advocated it. However, his comments at WR demonstrate that he's picked up the Sword of Great Justice against those he believes wronged him and is brandishing it in a terribly offensive way, and my chief concern is that he may not be willing (or able, at this point, given his WR history of attacks on editors) to beat it into a Plowshare of Civil Cooperation if allowed to return here. As I understand it, at WR he is offering a solution involving an unblock to clear him of the meatpuppet accusation, whereupon he will retire his account. This might actually be a relatively drama-free way to resolve the issue. He's also asking for some sort of action or inquiry against the editors involved in his banning, as I understand it, but I think that would be a counterproductive thing at this point and would not be in favor of his solution if he insisted on that part of it. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He says "I never asked to be allowed to edit WP any more, folks. I'd like my account unbanned, all mentions of Wordbomb, Overstock, meat puppeting, sock puppeting, etc. removed from my user and talk pages, and the people who violated WP rules in that banning, and in the article skirmishes that led to it, be treated the same way as anyone else that violates WP rules as shown in diffs and checkuser evidence." I agree with him. He should never be "allowed to edit WP any more." This whole thing is moot, and any further time spent on this person would be wasted. And no, he deserves no ritual unblocking so that he can clean his "record." --Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning to how this thread originally began, I requested a neutral admin review the block. One has. Alison's well-considered opinion is explained above in great detail. She definitely took serious pains to back-up her opinion by examining the evidence and even ran a checkuser. I believe her proposal is reasonable and fair and look forward to its implementation which will end the unnecessary drama in this thread which followed. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two cents from Jonathan

Virtually every comment Piperdown makes to other editors is snarky. They are unhappy right from the start:

• [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

The appearance is that this person was never intending to do anything besides stir up trouble. They have a rather obvious hatred of the project. Why do we want them here?

Piperdown is into naked short selling.

• [61] [62] [63]

Wordbomb is obsessed with naked short selling.

With all respect to Alison, I think this is possibly Wordbomb, or somebody doing his bidding. A determined puppetmaster can defeat checkuser. This account should not be unblocked, except by appeal to ArbCom, or upon approval of the blocking administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 06:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? If we decide that Piperdown is not in fact a sockpuppet, why do we need Arbcom approval (or David Gerard approval)? -Amarkov moo! 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Because you're not supposed to unblock without consensus or approval of the blocking administrator or ArbCom. There's no consensus to unblock here. However, the other two options that I mentioned are available. Jehochman ^Talk 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Where in the blocking policy does it say that? It doesn't, and for good reason. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I was once accused of being a sock or meatpuppet of Wordbomb by a once-respected contributor [64]. Like someone said above, anyone with an agenda can argue all day that someone is a meatpuppet if that editor, no matter how tenuously, appears to support the supposed agenda of an editor who is no longer allowed to edit in Wikipedia. It's unfair to Piperdown, especially since the admin who originally applied the block is purposefully keeping silent on why the block was applied. Piperdown's edits weren't perfect, but an idefinite block was way over the line. It's time for it to be lifted. If he doesn't follow the rules, well, we can deal with that. Somehow I think he's going to be watched rather closely based on some of the emotional comments I've seen by some of my esteemed colleagues above. Cla68 (talk) 06:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You asked for a neutral administrator to review the block. Jehochman is a neutral administrator. If, despite this, you feel you must continue to press your case, is it absolutely necessary to refer to SlimVirgin as a "once-respected contributor"? --Mantanmoreland (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla makes a valid point. If he wants to come back and edit under this account, he's going to be watched like a hawk. I'm sure all of you who oppose the unblock would be paying attention to all his edits, and rightfully so. It's something to take into account, I think. Wizardman 06:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Noo. As soon as they step one inch out of line, I predict they will be blocked, and major drama will follow. Let's get the facts right first, then act. Jehochman ^Talk 06:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Major drama will follow? I dunno, it seems like there's consensus here that a re-block is certainly fine if he steps out of line again. I'd be surprised if it caused drama. Then again, I'm not often involved in controversial matters, I may be completely wrong. Wizardman 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The length of this thread suggests major drama. I've been at ground zero a few times. Please, let's try to avoid that. Jehochman ^Talk 06:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there was an unblock/reblock and drama started to boil, we could simply refer to this very thread. However, it may backfire and cause another similar topic. So you're actually probably right on this matter. I'm off for the night though, hopefully things will remain relatively calm around here while I'm away. Wizardman 06:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, administrators should not engage in controversial use of tools, including both blocks and unblocks. If an admin blocked you without good evidence, I am sorry for that. With Piperdown, we should get everybody, or almost everybody, to agree before anybody starts using sysop tools. If this user is unblocked now, that will be a recipe for huge drama. Want an example? See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. Jehochman ^Talk 06:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If anybody doesn't like the result here (no consensus, block remains in place), please lodge an appeal with ArbCom. The user can email arbcom-l directly to request a review. Jehochman ^Talk 06:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a misinterpretation, and way over the line. See above. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I skipped over a bit of the discussion above, and it turns out I shouldn't have done that. I have to agree with you now. If someone really wants Piperdown unblocked, then convince Arbcom to do it. -Amarkov moo! 07:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Until Alison weighs back in on her proposal, this isn't closed. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the answer is somewhere along the lines of "no". -Amarkov moo! 07:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And my own two cents (unfortunately American cents, which with the rapidly declining dollar don't buy much these days): Well, Piperdown has now done a very good job of undermining any prospects he may have had for getting un-banned, by going out of his way to cheese off the person who was trying to help him. This "validates" the decision to ban him, in the minds of opponents, though one ought to look also at the words and actions of "the other side" and inquire into whether incivility and bias are really found only among Wordbomb and "friends", and not in the clique that is up against them. But there's a lot of "cheesing off one's allies" all around, as seen by Crum's ill-conceived rape analogy managing to offend some of those on his own side. And, to risk being accused of once again beating my favorite dead horse, I find it amusing that some of the more fervent supporters of the concept that "one must never link to, quote from, or reference attack sites under any circumstances!" are the ones who are edit-warring in favor of adding such material this time. I guess "under any circumstances" has an exception for when you find it desirable. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I could add one more final thought to those well-said words...it wasn't just the support for the BADSITES censorship initiative that greatly damaged the credibility of the members of a small clique of editors, but also their support for helping protect a certain POV in the naked short selling article and protecting the bio of an obscure financial journalist who has a vocal opinion in the naked short selling debate. This support has included the defaming (like in the diff I provided above) and sometimes banning (Piperdown) of editors who have taken a contrary view or who have tried to introduce neutrality or tried to ensure that the rules were applied equally to everyone and every topic. Unfortunately, this thread shows that the issue still hasn't been laid to rest. Although many of the secrets and lies of this issue have been brought to light, there appears to be more to come until the entire, sordid episode is fully exposed. I think it would be to the project's benefit if it was sooner rather than later. Cla68 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify something here, because the conspiracymongering and innuendo is a bit much. The "diff that you provided above," which is here did not "defame" you or anyone. It accurately and neutrally describes your active partisanship for banned user WordBomb, which was the reason why your RfA was unsuccessful. In that diff, it was discussed how you restored edits that had to be oversighted in the article of the "obscure financial journalist" who is WordBomb's, Piperdown's and your obsession. Working out your bad feelings concerning that RfA by calling SlimVirgin, who raised that point, a "once-respected contributor," as you did earlier, is just not acceptable. The "issue" as you put it, is not some deep dark conspiracy but constant efforts to stir up trouble by WordBomb and his partisans.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That diff has the infamous "based in the same state as WordBomb" accusation, which takes the concept of guilt by association to a Looney-Tune high that's never been equaled since. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that, and it also says, "I don't know what Cla's intentions were, but there's no question that he was repeating libelous and toxic claims made on Wordbomb's attack site and on Wikipedia Review." I think that is more representative of the statements made in that RfA. So I guess there is a defamation issue here, but not the one stated by Cla.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm based in the same state as the Wikimedia Foundation (at least until they complete their move to California), and some of the things I believe in and espouse sometimes coincide with ideas held by them; therefore, I'm a meatpuppet of theirs. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good! It is a fine organization and does a lot of good work. You should stop hanging out with the fruitcakes on Wiki Review and spend more time at the Foundation while you can.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are unblock per Alison. Blocks shouldn't be implemented without warnings, and especially not for expressing controversial opinions. Granted, some of Piperdown's comments on WR since then may have been particularly heinous, but Wikipedia has given people second chances before and if P resorts to such behavior on-site it would be easy enough to block again. Amerique^dialectics 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I might support a second chance if the editor provided an indication that they wanted one, and that they would work cooperatively. They have not done so yet, so an unblock would be premature, in my opinion. Second chances do sometime work, but we need to use them carefully. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether this counts as a second chance, or the fellow even got a first one. Relata refero (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, feel free to lodge an appeal with the Arbitration Committee, or better yet, Piperdown can email them directly. Several administrators are on record opposing the unblock, myself included. It does not seem like this thread has any chance whatsoever of resulting in an unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that if someone is blocked that a community ban now means not just that no admin will unblock them, but that the unblocking admin also has to find consensus? My understanding was that if an admin is willing to unblock, then that ends the community ban. I suspect this isn't fully resolved, but don't believe stopping the discussion on that basis is really correct. If he wants another chance to edit productively, or wants a different label on his talk page, I think we should do either. Mackan79 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, please review the definition of an indefblock: a block that not one admin is willing to undo. I see several admins willing to undo the block here. You would have to take it to arbcom to desysop them, or undo them yourself and have arbcom investigate the wheel warring. Neither sensible approaches. (Please note that I really don't have an opinion on whether this chap will be a positive effect here afterwards.) Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has become uncomfortable editing due largely to Wikipedia’s inability to address this situation, a thought: if NPA is going to be restored here, what we need is a return to neutral principles for what is acceptable on the encyclopedia. These should be straight-forward, like no personal attacks, no hinting at conflicts or personal identities, etc. Indeed, these basic rules seem to be what legitimately got Piperdown into trouble. Trying to say that this is somehow about meatpuppetry, on the other hand, or intemperate comments in another forum (I don’t know about others, but based on the various attacks he has endured here I cut him a fair bit of slack -- to the extent these comments can be relevant here whatsoever) only ends up violating the much more sensible principle that editors should stay away from this kind personalization. This would in my view be a much better way of dealing with this kind of thing. Mackan79 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In discussing whether to unblock a user who engages in vile conduct off-site directly related to Wikipedia, when he is engaged in that conduct at the time his unblock is being considered, it's unrealistic to not take his vile conduct into consideration. In the case of Piperdown we're not talking about isolated events, but pretty much every word he has written off-site. His off-site comments are simply less restrained versions of the open contempt and "snarkiness" recorded by Jehochman. His Piperdown/1 attack page is filled with innuendo, personal attacks, and hinting at real identities and supposed conflicts of interest. It's unfortunate that his advocates here have, on one or two occasions, engaged in the same conduct. This kind of thing has gone on for a long time and I think that it really needs to be halted.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think our problem is that once you ban someone, it's not reasonable to expect them to respect Wikipedia customs and mores. Like them or not, snarkiness and innuendo are part of the real world. As such, I disagree; to raise the whole issue of whether someone's conduct offsite is "vile" is necessarily to invite a discussion that Wikipedia is much better off without. You're right that Piperdown/1 shows inappropriate comments, but if a person is willing to not make such comments, Wikipedia simply isn't in a position to block them based on discussions they are having somewhere else. All I have seen says it does a lot more harm than good. Mackan79 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not only has Piperdown shown not the slight inclination to be "willing to not make such comments," but he feels such comments are jim-dandy and that the rest of the world is wrong and he is right. It was pointed out that he makes vicious sexist remarks. He reads that and responds by making even more vicious, more sexist remarks about an administrator who wanted to unblock him! It is impossible to ignore that kind of atrocious conduct in an unblock discussion.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be much better than making these kinds of characterizations about a person who is not allowed here to defend himself. Really, Wikipedia should aspire to more level headed discussions of what is allowed and what isn't. In that regard, if you'd like to present something he said offsite as a reason for banning him, I'll likely disagree for the reasons above. If it gets to the point where you have to characterize it as "vicious" and "vile," then I think we've lost something further -- including the basic principles behind NPA and BLP. I don't think it's necessary at all. Mackan79 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he hasn't shown any interest in moderating his ways. That's the issue here. Please present evidence that he has. When you make a comment that is not factually accurate, don't berate people for pointing out that your comment was not only inaccurate, but conspicuously so. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't spoken to what he is willing to do. It looks at this point like he simply wants his name cleared, which I think is appropriate. My opinion is that when there never was an initial discussion of what he should have done differently, it's not reasonable to keep him blocked without finding out if he's willing to adjust (which would then include not editing). Mackan79 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Walking in the footsteps of banned editors is never wise and almost inevitably leads to suspicions about meat puppetry and blocking. So the block appears completely warranted to many. Equally troubling has been the response of many of Piperdown's supporters here and their association with WR and its history of being a launching pad for organized disruption of Wikipedia. I'm seeing the same names here again and again that I've seen in other disruptions and unneccesary dramas. There's a level of disruptive factionalism going on around a certain set of editors who use Wikipedid to fan the flames of certain offsite campaigns against particular admins far, far more than they edit articles or contribute meaningfully to the project. That is what needs to stop. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are some names that come up again and again in the context of disruptive factionalism.... yours is one of them. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you could stop throwing all this backroom drama around and boring the uninitiated (such as myself) and focus on the block being discussed. Relata refero (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dan, ever hear of WP:CIVIL? Care to explain how your comment is not a trollish personal attack? FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Saying I'm bored by irrelevant discussions of other commenters' affiliations is a trollish personal attack now? A suggestion that we stay on-topic is hardly a personal attack, any more than Wizardman's warning below is. Neither is this. Discuss the block, please, or wait for David to come back and discuss it, which is what I would prefer. Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing Dan. But to your point, if a long running campaign is being conducted offsite to attack the administration of this site, and one is, then dicussing it on the administration pages of this site is not only useful, but necessary; hardly irrelevant. You're welcome to skip the comments that don't interest you, but don't expect others to act as if this is some isolated incident; it isn't. David Gerard was right when he said some years ago that WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and letting a coordinated group game the system by hiding behind AGF is never going to fly. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Of course, as far as the uninvolved can see, there appear to be two coordinated groups demanding AGF, which is why the finger pointing is useless. AGF is not a suicide pact, but a circular firing squad is equally deadly. If we stick to the facts of an individual case, we are more likely to get things right than through guesswork and innuendo. This goes both ways. Relata refero (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

But one of the groups is well-connected with the ruling clique here, while the other isn't, which makes all the difference. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw, Dan, stop with the "ruling clique" stuff will you please? It's a tired and trite expression. Can't you substitute "Wikipedia Administrator Secret Conclave and Bowling Alley Wax Brigade" or something else more colorful?--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If my statement was a "trollish personal attack" then how come none of yours are? One ought to be reminded of adages about pots calling kettles black, or of sauce for the goose and the gander. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And we're nearing the realm in incivility and attacks again. Since it's kinda hidden above, I'll reiterate my warning, I'll block the next user to issue personal attacks in this section here on sight, they're doing more harm than good. Things are starting to get off-topic again though. I would like to see who still supports an unblock after some of the recent drama though, with Alison changing her mind and the like. A lot of smoke and mirrors too, no need for that either. Wizardman 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sidestepping all the accusations of incivility and heated comments: the basic rule is that administrative actions should not be undone without consensus. The user is not banned at this point. However, they are indefinitely blocked, and will remain so until one of the following is true:

1. The blocking administrator unblocks
2. There is a consensus here to unblock, which there isn't
3. ArbCom decides to unblock

Rather than arguing further, please lodge an appeal with the arbitration committee. Please, show respect for each other and for Wikipedia. Run your disputes through the proper processes. Endless debating on this noticeboard is not helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blank and protect, or delete, userpage and talkpage?

From the thread above, my impression is that one of Piperdown's main goals at this point is to have his userpage and talkpage blanked, rather than to resume editing. Is there any reason not to go ahead and blank and protect, or delete, these pages? I certainly don't see that they are serving a substantive purpose at this point and perhaps through this simple step we could resolve the request avoid a need for further discussion, one way or the other, of this former editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Might as well, would be hard to make a case against that. Wizardman 18:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Other that sock and meat puppets benefit from having their tracks covered for them. I've seen far too many Charley McCarthyists over the years get away with a lot of disruption only because their tags removed from their account pages, both main and sock and months later admins not aware of the mindfield wade right and unblock etc. For this reason I don't support blanking at this time. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blanking to remove mentions of being a sockpuppet is something I wouldn't mind seeing someone do. Piperdown's objective in a nutshell is to be removed from being associated from WordBomb and overstock, which I wouldn't mind seeing if the drama was discontinued. By no means do I want him on Wikipedia as an editor, but if he is going to leave, let him leave in peace so he doesn't back on and cause disruption because of the tags. — Save_Us † 18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason on earth to delete his user page. As for blanking, it was blanked for some months and he unblanked it.[65]. In fact, he complained about it off-wiki. I agree with Felonious Monk that a blanking is not warranted. Let's stop being manipulated by this guy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"removed from being associated from WordBomb and overstock" Reading his recent comments on WR, that is certainly not his intent. FeloniousMonk (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What he's saying now is that he just wants to put a retired template on his page now. Might be reasonable. Would it make sense to have both an indefblock and retired template on one page though? Wizardman 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping him from putting a retired template on his page, as long as he doesn't take off any templates put there by administrators.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland, I guess you missed the part where I'm the one who blanked his talk page in the first place. I guess you also missed the part where he also makes silly personal attacks about me on Wikipedia Review as well. I'm not letting him manipulating me in the least, but if he is going to leave, why not have him just leave and it be done with? Why drag on the drama? Why make this thread more unnessecarily longer than has to be? Continuing to keep the page tagged when the basis of the block is highly disputed to the point of legitimate editors wanting the block to be removed, then it's time to blank the page all together or tag it with a standard blocked template and let him leave already.

FeloniousMonk, consider what Mantanmoreland stated today as something Piperdown stated:

"...I'd like my account unbanned, all mentions of Wordbomb, Overstock, meat puppeting, sock puppeting, etc. removed from my user and talk page..."

Unblocking is one thing, which I highly don't recommend, but keeping it tagged is fanning flames. — Save_Us † 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It hadn't fanned the flames one bit in the many months that the indef block notice appeared on his page. I suggest that whether it remains or does not, his and his allies' efforts to start trouble will continue whenever they wish to do so. I think it is unrealistic to suggest that removing an indef block notice will somehow make everything right for this former user.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that would make everything alright. It would take a whole lot more than template removal to actually satisfy him. But the point is the tag isn't doing anything real valuable and keeping has no benefit but complaining from Piperdown. I'd remove a template if it stopped someone from complaining that much. — Save_Us † 19:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He was complaining long before he was banned from Wikipedia. He was unhappy before he was banned. He was griping from day one. Nor do I think that it is our job to make a blocked editor "happy" or "uncomplaining," particularly when doing so is an impossibility, and he appears to thrive on complaining and being unhappy.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To hell if I want to make him happy, but uncomplaining (i.e. not causing disprution on Wikipedia), yes I want that. Why purposely upset someone who is leaving? Just let him leave. — Save_Us † 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) That is my point, actually. I would suggest that if he feels encouraged by anything done here, it will result in still more disruption. Therefore no, I would not extend to him any courtesies (per the comment below).--Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, the comment below is Jehochman's. You say: I would not extend to him any courtesies (per the comment below), yet Jehochman says I support deleting the user's pages. We should try to extend courtesies like this to banned users. Emphasis mine. There appears there is a contradiction there. — Save_Us † 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I support deleting the user's pages. We should try to extend courtesies like this to banned users. We should not turn them into a public spectacle. There is an indefinite block in place. Any administrator who undoes that without going through proper channels would be risking their bit, so I do not think it is particularly important to keep the sock puppet templates in place. Perhaps en entry can be made on their talk page before deletion referencing this discussion so that future administrators will be able to look backwards and see what happened. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he has a retired message on his main page now. Is at least this section resolved now? Wizardman 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. User claims thats all they want. If that's so, I see no need to unblock, and there's no consensus anyway. I think we can be done here. Cool Hand Luke 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and we should delete the subpage when we're done with it. Cool Hand Luke 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think you should have, until a consensus was reached here on whether to use a "retired" template on the user page of a blocked editor who did not, in fact, retire. --Mantanmoreland (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

They're dropping an appeal, so to speak. We accord users a right to vanish anyhow, so why prolong the drama with obscenely petty arguments about whether it's wrong to write "retired"?

Let's get back to working on an encyclopedia, eh? Cool Hand Luke 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what do you hope to accomplish by having a template reinstated to his userpage? The block is still in place, what more do you want? BTW, even Jimbo has granted a banned editor their last wish before they left (see User:MARMOT). I understand your involved in the dispute you had with this editor, but the tagging isn't nessecary at all to confirm his status here. — Save_Us † 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Let's see.. every party got at least something they wanted out of this mess. He remains blocked, a retired template was added, we listened to both sides, etc. As far as I'm concerned this whole situation is closed. We weren't getting consensus on anything, what's now transpired is the best we're going to do. We'll all feel better if we drop this right now. Wizardman 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.