Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth

---

I have had enough of the harassment, and personal attacks. His persistent support of the trolling and harassing sockmaster User:Formal Appointee Number 6 is getting old. Andy persistently throws veiled references/accusations whenever and where ever he can. Andy's most recent edit [1] has pushed me over the edge. At what point does this need to reach before its stopped? Werieth (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What topic are you asking him to be banned from? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He accuses you of being a sock of the infamous Betacommand, yes? Are you? If not, it would be best to deny it in some prominent place, such as the SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly denied it. Werieth (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Andy has been warned multiple times to stop the harassment. Werieth (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled? You are a sock of Betacommand. When detailed behavioural evidence for this is presented, your NFC-hardline admin friends threaten (and indeed do) block and ban those presenting it. This makes it impossible to resolve the issue.

Your recent behaviour in stripping cites from articles has been dickish in the extreme and many editors have challenged you on this.

To be absolutely clear here, my last comment was [Werieth's] refusal to either not remove cites altogether, or to at least stop whilst it's being discussed, is just the sort of behaviour that Betacommand was banned for in the first place. and I stand by every aspect of that. It's now at a point where I don't even care about the socking, your behaviour under the Werieth account alone is following just the same path as Betacommand did, and what caused his block.

Why is WP enforcement for socking so random and partisan anyway? Someone who's not a friend of Kww or FuturePerfect is blocked immediately, but if you share the same viewpoint as some friendly admins on another policy, like NFC, it's a free ticket to sock as much as you like. Even someone like Hengistmate, who has been trolling me for years, can finally shoot himself in his own sock by mis-posting, yet he's ignored at both ANI or SPI. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please remind me what NFC is? EEng (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No foreign currency.--v/r - TP 19:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Besides "National Football Conference", here it's being used to mean "Non-Free Content". Betacommand was an extremely obnoxious warrior on the subject, and it took at least a year or two before a sufficient number of admins and other users got sufficiently fed up and saw to it that he got banned. That episode left a very bitter taste. It's understandable that seemingly similar behavior by a relatively new editor would raise yellow-to-red flags. But I say again, it's the behavior of the current named user, Werieth, which Dingley should focus on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it was funny. EEng (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As always, canvas early, canvas often Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise TLSuda Black_Kite. Future Perfect has (as predicted) jumped to your command and has started blanking content from the SPI [2] [3]

If we cannot discuss your behaviour on the ALLCAPS pages, we cannot address the question of your socking behaviour. Future Perfect has been warned for this in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you yourself just mention me in this thread? It would have been your own duty to notify me; be thanful for Werieth for helping you out in your own failure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was notify those administrators who have already warned you about this harassment, and the need for it to stop. Since you failed to take their advice Im taking the next step to end this. The harassment either needs to stop or Im going to leave. I cannot be a constant target of harassment. And yes since the request I have not removed cites. If you look in the related section above I noted a change in methodology to reduce the number of cites that would need removed (which is hopefully just a bare handful) and I havent run into any of those cases since. Werieth (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall TLSuda having been involved in this before. But what the hell, he's hard-line on NFC and I recently dragged him to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Recent_discussions for File:Fredcopeman.jpg, so no doubt you're hoping for another helpful admin from that angle. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you dont remember your own talk page. Please see User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Accusations_of_WP:SOCK Werieth (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a pattern of harassment here, and it needs to stop. There is a long-term sockpuppeter whose agenda is to harass Werieth through throwaway socks, always raising that allegation of him being Beta. However plausible that suspicion may be, the repeated use of throwaway socks for no other purpose but casting aspersions on a user cannot be tolerated. Andy Dingley has for a long time assumed a pattern of enabling and supporting that harasser, by re-posting his rants after they are removed, defending him with spurious claims of "lack of evidence" on SPI reports (all the socks are so easy to spot on behavioural grounds that they are always quickly duck-blocked), and by echoing and multiplying the complaints against Werieth whenever the sockmaster offers him an opportunity. This, too, is harassment, and I am quite willing to block Andy over it if it continues. As for the suspicions against Werieth, people repeatedly had the chance to submit legitimate evidence to the Betacommand SPI; they were repeatedly closed as inconclusive. At some point, when you can't prove your case, you simply have to shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic ban from what? Do you mean an interaction ban? the panda ₯’ 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Im not sure that a interaction ban would be sufficient, as Andy can and does make references/accusations to others about me. A complete ban on the topic would cover that. Werieth (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  An interaction ban does include talking about the other party to others, so that would be covered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  However there are times and discussions (On different notice boards and what not) where we run across each other and nothing happens. In those cases where Andy doesnt take shots at me, there is constructive results. I also dont want to have an issues where we accidentally cross paths on a noticeboard or article and dont notice that the other has done so recently too. Because this problem is isolated to a topic I went that route, as the least disruptive method. Werieth (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What I don't understand is why we tolerate Andy's reposting and enabling of this material. I don't see why the block would only happen if the behaviour continues. Andy has been around long enough to know better. If it weren't for some long-running content disputes between Andy and I, I would have indefed him long ago. This seems like as good of a time as any for someone to pull the trigger.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• SPI and harassment issues aside, I am curious about why Werieth feels the need to canvass completely uninvolved admins on this issue.[4][5][6] Inappropriate. —Dark 16:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @DarkFalls: They are not uninvolved admins. All three of them have warned Andy about the same behavior before and told him it needs to stop. Werieth (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Since when was it common practice to notify admins who have warned the editor in the past? ANI only requires you to notify the reported party. Also, just because they have warned the editor in the past does not make them involved. And naturally since they have warned him previously, they would be more inclined to ask for sanctions. Hardly a non-partisan audience, and a blatant violation of canvassing guidelines. —Dark 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @DarkFalls: I just consider it common curtsey. I could have gone to any of them and requested that a block be placed (Something I dont feel the need for when a TBAN or IBAN would be a better solution) and it would have happened. However I tried to take the less drastic road and maintain a collegial editing environment by coming here and requesting a TBAN. Given that the user in question is persisting in behavior prohibited by three different admins notifying them of the breach and my intended route to resolution would be considered common curtsey. I did not want to create the perception that I was trying to go around them, or "over their heads" as the term is. This is similar to notifying arbcom in cases where arbcom prohibits an activity. I guess its just a perspective issue. Had I wanted to canvass I would have picked better targets, and I wouldn't have worded the notice as neutrally as I could. Werieth (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A similar case can be made for when an admin discusses a block with the blocking admin prior to unblocking. Its not required, but more often than not the simple curtsey results in a better understanding of the situation and a better conclusion to the problem. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think its necessary common for this practice, but some of us have been mentioned in this discussion anyways, so I don't see the problem with it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I now see Andy Dingley had a very explicit warning about administrative sanctions in this matter from TLSuda less than a month ago [7], and his present behaviour is quite clearly in contravention of that warning, I have gone ahead and blocked him for a week. I'd very much recommend we place a formal interaction ban on him too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for that. This has gone on for years, and has gotten way out of control for such an experienced user. Andy is very skilled and has many things to contribute here, but I feel he has let these petty disputes get in the way of his positive work. I would support an interaction ban for Andy in this situation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this whole situation is going to end well.--v/r - TP 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be easy to either point to (if it exists) or create (if not existing) an SPI that collects the evidence of Andy's accusations? Then, that collection could be adjudicated as being acceptable or not acceptable. This wouldn't be the first hard SPI report every done, or reviewed and ultimately decided (I'm thinking of the recent one by DrMies, et.al., regarding a particular long-term prolific banned editor). Repeated (and strident) accusations of socking without evidence is a form of PA, or so I thought. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeSperrazza: such an SPI has already been filed, and closed. Andy isnt happy with the results thus this persistent harassment. Werieth (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the benefit of others, here's the link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Betacommand/Archive#09_December_2013. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in the Betacommand case nor have I interacted significantly with Werieth, but I can see that the SPI case accusing Werieth of being banned editor Betacommand has never been proven one way or the other, the trail being too cold for checkuser. Instead, the case was closed as inconclusive—twice. In March 2013, the editor LessHeard vanU came briefly out of retirement to say Werieth was Betacommand, and this report got the first inconclusive closure. Andy's report in December 2013 got the same treatment. Both LessHeard vanU and Andy Dingley continue to believe that they are correct, that a banned editor has returned, which explains the anger shown by Andy. I think the two SPI cases were poorly submitted rather than incorrect. LHvU and AD should have included more diffs and other forms of proof. If they had, we would not be at this juncture now. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for more when this first came up, and I'm satisfied that they did about as good a job of digging up evidence as could have been done. I can understand the good-faith belief that Werieth is Betacommand, because I'm on the fence myself. The evidence is interesting without quite being compelling. What I have real problems with is the continuous allegations that I'm engaged in a conspiracy to enable Betacommand to evade blocks.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I am in exactly the same position. If one looks at the behavioural evidence presented in the ChildofMidnight SPI above, that was enough to effectively prove a connection even when/if the CU came back negative. If the level of evidence in the Beta/Werieth SPI came up to that standard, like Kww I would block Werieth myself. But it simply isn't, and when Andy repeatedly enables a banned editor to repeat the claims after being told multiple times to stop it or face a block, I don't really see what other outcome there can be. However, after Andy's block expires, a TBAN/IBAN would be the way forward here, I suspect. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was pinged because I previously warned Andy about this behaviour. This will end happily for everyone when Andy Dingley either (a) stops enabling a disruptive (and almost certainly banned/indefblocked) editor whose only raison d'etre is to harrass Werieth, or (b) comes up with some conclusive evidence (we're not even in DUCK territory yet). If he doesn't, he needs to be prevented from doing so; an interaction ban would seem easiest. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible the OP is victim to the unfortunate coincidence of having been created a few weeks after Betacommnd's final edit in the spring of 2012, and from possibly focusing on some of the same issues that got Betacommand banned - hence the yellow flags. Were any socks of Betacommand discovered, and if so, during what time interval(s)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, @Baseball Bugs:

• 5 February 2012 Betacommand's last edit to en.Wikipedia [8]
• 6 February 2012 Werieth commences editing Simple Wikipedia [9]
• 15 February 2012 Betacommand blocked [10]
• 12 March 2012 Werieth commences editing Commons [11]
• 4 June 2012 Werieth commences editing en.Wikipedia [12]

Also, notice how Werieth habitually skips the apostrophe in I'm and I'll. Now search this page and this page and see who uses those spellings. This is Betacommand.

As for socks of Betacommand, there may be other lists, but I just found Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Betacommand.

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum 13:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[13][14][reply]

If you have new evidence regarding the Betacommand suspicion that has not yet been submitted and deemed to be inconclusive at SPI, then by all means feel free to file a reopened case there. Failing that, re-hashing the same suspicions over and over again is disruptive, so don't do it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the earlier investigations. This is such a big fat loudly stomping around saying "I'm a sock" duck, that I don't need to. What I can't figure out is why you and User:Kww are protecting him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I saw recently, simply claiming "this is a sock" without solid evidence can get you sanctioned (and that was on an account that's a really obvious DUCK). Black Kite kite (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth is Betacommand. I'm saying nothing about whether anything should be done about that. His 12-month ban has long-since expired. If he's not being disruptive or breaking the rules, meh. Still, (a) I'd like to know why the socking is being ignored and (b) I think blocking productive users who point it out is harmful to the project. To be clear: Werieth is Betacommand. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Betacommand's ban is now expired, he's still indef-blocked, and creating new accounts is against the rules. Werieth could demonstrate some good faith by e-mailing his personal information to a trusted checkuser, who might then be able to confirm or refute the question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • @Baseball Bugs: I honestly havent done that much research but beta looks to be a free content hardliner, and pushed for almost complete removal of non-free media. On the other hand I have a fairly moderate position and have uploaded about 350 non-free files already and am far from being done. I honestly have better things to do then play politics and investigate bogus claims that I am not myself. If people want to continue supporting Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs) and their style of behavior Ill be more than willing to avoid the toxic environment of this wiki and move to somewhere more inviting. But I do see where the claims from the media, and the loss of editors is coming from. Few people are willing to endure this crap. Ive been thinking for a while if its really worth it to continue to contribute to a project that fails to address toxic behavior? I guess Ill find out with how this discussion ends. Werieth (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My two cents, it appears obvious looking at Werieth's first edits he was/is not a "new editor". No idea if he is Betacommand or someone else (even if the timing between the two accounts and a lot of behavioral affinities would strongly suggest it). --Cavarrone 16:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To come back to the point: unless Andy (or any other editor) has enough evidence to open a second SPI case to put Werieth as Beta, we expect editors to AFG with the motivation of others. Since Andy has repeatedly not shown this, an interaction ban on him towards Werieth (at least, to prevent calling out Werieth as a sock, broadly construed), barring a formal SPI filing, should be placed. Andy should be free to question Werieth's actions as Werieth the editor, but to attempt to connect Werieth to Beta in this manner should not be tolerated. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's just no changing Delta... I slay myself. Well, Werieth is quite an editor, with 54,600 edits to WP since this bright-eyed newcomer arrived at WP on June 4, 2012. Im amazed that we managed to find such an energetic new face to take up the slack for the banned Delta/Betacommand. What are the odds? Carrite (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have new evidence to file against Werieth as a SPI, please feel free to do so. Until then, AGF must be taken by all editors, not just Andy. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AGF refers to the necessity of assuming sound motivations of a person behind a bold edit, not a requirement that Wikipedians pretend that a buck naked emperor is fashionably dressed. The fact is that SPI does not have the ability to make concrete connections between every editor of yesteryear and every editor of today, even in the event that those are one and the same. All we can do is listen for the sounds of quacking and draw logical inferences about the probable existence of waterfowl... Carrite (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: I think we are all wasting our time here. Why do we bother if Werieth is Betacommand or not? Betacommand was (I guess) quite the problem, but so far Werieth isn't and there has been no conclusive evidence that he is Betacommand. Actually, I don't care too much if he is or not Betacommand as long as his contributions are of benefit for Wikipedia. I really dislike these useless time-consuming unfounded witch hunts against editors just because "they might possibly be X, who is/was banned." → Call me Hahc21 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obsessed with the topic myself. However, this particular useless time-consuming unfounded witch hunt wasn't started by Andy Dingley... Carrite (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm kind of surprised that there have been two SPIs and yet no one has ever noticed that there is a strong overlapping interest between the Betacommand, Δ and Werieth accounts in the Learning management system and List of learning management systems articles. List of learning management systems and Learning management system are Werieth's 4th and 7th most edited articles [15], while Learning management system is Betacommand's top edited article [16] and List of learning management systems and Learning management system are Δ's top and 10th most edited articles [17]. That's a little hard to credit as coincidence given the other commonalities. --92.4.162.106 (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally, a new piece of data to consider. I'm giving this one serious consideration.—Kww(talk) 02:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem. #Above, I pointed out that Werieth started editing the day after delta/beta stopped. I also pointed out that both Betacommand and Werieth habitually skip the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll" - this is a very idiosyncratic writing style, not typo's. I see that neither of these were pointed out at the SPIs. This is all new data to consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were studying the matter, I would also look at things like evidence of previous experience at time of first edits, similarities or lack thereof in the use of automation or semi-automation, parallels in subject interest, average editing pace per day, estimated sleep cycle of the two editors to establish geographic coincidence, American v. English spelling and punctuation, and ideological content of the editing (Free Files enforcement v. Fair Use). But that's just me. Anyway, it's really good to have someone like Werieth to come along and pick up the slack like he did at that precise moment... Carrite (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reports at the SPIs note volume, content (non-free images), attitude, sleep cycle, ideology and tool use parallels. The dialect and spelling match. Level of eloquence, ditto. I agree, we got lucky there. What are the chances? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, it's pretty obvious this Werieth is using some kind of semi-automation for non-free-content removal, for example a rapid-fire string of removals on the 2nd. That, of course is the kind of thing that Betacommand got into trouble for, because he was told repeatedly to stop, and wouldn't stop. Werieth's first edit on Wikipedia was on June 4, 2012. He edited sporadically for a while. His eighth edit, four months later, was about the issue of non-free content in lists,[18] which is not something a newbie would likely know much about. Another of his shared interests with Betacommand were/are the whitelist and blacklist, which presumably relates to the contentious subject matter Werieth has been removing. Archiving those pages had been one of Betacommand's regular activities, and Werieth picked up on the same activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth has contributed over 50,000 edits over the last two years, in the course of which he has essentially behaved well and made many useful contributions. Why should it matter a rat's arse whether or not he was previously banned? Unless the guy starts misbehaving significantly, leave him alone. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those 50,000 were accomplished via the Betacommand-like rapid-fire automation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sympathetic to this notion, and if he's behaved well then ArbCom should consider just allowing him to continue.

My problem is with the admins and possibly CU clerks who cannot but have known that he was socking to come back to en.WP 6 months early and that he had evaded discussing terms with ArbCom, which was required before he returned to editing. They're blatantly subverting ArbCom. What hubris. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably take some effort, but it could be interesting to investigate which admins were enabling and arguing for Betacommand, two to three years ago, and see if it's the same ones who are enabling and arguing for this Werieth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epi is endorsing a gross violation of the rules. Socking while indef'd is a bright-line offense which cannot be justified by allegedly "useful contributions". And defying requests to stop doing something controversial, and working to try to get a critic banned, is "significant misbehavior". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose it comes down to whether you want to support building an encyclopedia, or whether you want to pickle yourself in self-rightousness. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the no-socking rule. If you've got a complaint about that rule, start a discussion about it somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a new SPI about Werieth opened? We have two users with a very suspect timeline, who share a bizarre interest for learning management systems, with a common interest on non-free file enforcement, with a common interest for blacklists/whitelists, who both habitually skip the apostrophe in "I'm" and "I'll", with same (bad) interaction attitude with other editors, similarities or lack thereof in the use of automation or semi-automation,average editing pace per day. Frankly I consider the new evidences above by Baseball Bugs, Carrite, Anthonyhcole and the IP, blatantly enough for WP:DUCK. --Cavarrone 12:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And this sudden retirement announcement, apparently an attempt made to avoid scrutiny, makes me even more certain about the sockpuppertry. --Cavarrone 12:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ive been debating it for several weeks. See my first public post, I just cannot support a project that continues to attack, BITE and drive editors away. Werieth (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly I consider that argument totally unimpressive. You ARE a free content hardliner, and looking at your profile you were also blocked for edit warring about the removal of several non-free files. I see enough evidences you are Betacommand. If there was not the common interest for the learning management systems, maybe, I would still had a very thin doubt... --Cavarrone 13:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess my uploading and using ~350 non-free files means Im a hardliner? I would hate to see what it takes for you to call someone a moderate. The learning management systems is just one of several articles that have ended up on my watchlist as persistant targets of spam/vandalism. See List of non-governmental organizations in Pakistan and Comparison of survey software for two other easy examples. But like I said Im done here, there is no amount of logic that will prove my innocents, and wikipedia has no interest in stopping the harassment of its users so Im gone. This will be my last post. Goodbye. Werieth (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol, the famous 350 files! I don't expect a Betacommand's sock would act in the same exact manner which lead him to a long block and these images appear just to be an excuse to say "Hey, I am not an hardliner like Betacommand". I am currently too lazy to look for the times your hardline approach towards non-free files was discussed here at ANI, AN/3 and in your talk page, but it happened a couple of hundreds of times. At any rate I don't expect a sock says "I'm a sock". --Cavarrone 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would an admin please block this obvious sock? Is there an admin out there that actually does his or her job? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Enough is enough. --Cavarrone 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Followup discussion about archive.is links

This sub-thread factored out from the above for clarity. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you look the most recent edits I was doing while removing archive.is I was recovering the original url's and hadnt been removing references. But yet again more attacks from you. Werieth (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the most recent edits " means little. You're good at stopping for a moment, only to resume immediately afterwards.

Can you say (I know you can but is it true?) that you have not removed entire cites, since you were requested by multiple editors to stop doing so during the discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's talk page has a number of other users telling him to stop what he's doing with citations, so it's not just Dingley complaining. To me, the sockpuppetry question is a distraction. If the OP is going against consensus, he should be stopped, regardless of whether or not he's a sock of the infamous and banned NFC warrior called Betacommand. Dingley should focus on the OP's allegedly bad behavior under his own ID, and forget about Betacommand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Just because people complain isnt a valid reason to not do something. If that where the case admins wouldn't be able to delete or do anything. Just about every action that an admin takes makes someone upset. As an admin does more work the number of those who show up on their talk page to complain also goes up. It doesn't make the arguments for keeping articles on the user's pet rock any more valid. Find any admin who is fairly active and you will find a number of sections on their talk page or its history of people complaining. More often than not all that is needed is re-educating the user, not sanctioning the admin. Werieth (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins naturally attract trouble. It's part of their job. I didn't know you were an admin. Your user page doesn't have the "admin" logo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Im not an admin, however I do tend to do the cleanup/policy enforcement work. Due to the similar nature of what admins do I thought it would be a good analogy to present, that would be widely understood. Werieth (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're not an admin. If multiple editors tell you to stop doing something, regardless of alleged "consensus", you should stop doing it pending further discussion. Continuing to take a controversial path leads to ANI - and with someone like Betacommand, ultimately to being banned. You don't want to follow in Betacommand's self-defeating path, do you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth's removal of archive.is links is an action agreed to by the community through two (now three?) RFCs about the issue. Yes, there are editors upset with this, but the RFCs clearly have shown no acceptance for these links anymore. --MASEM (t) 19:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus were so clear, I don't think you would have multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be people on the wrong side of an RfC/policy decision that disagree with it. Often those users continue to disagree/complaint long after the fact. Werieth (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors? Usually not. If a given RFC was closed in a way that seems fishy to the "losing side", it will continue to be debated and challenged. That's usually a sign of a poor closure and a lack of real consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first RFC on the matter that included the removal of the archive.is was closed neutrally by User:Hobit (whom I would consider a very good judge of consensus/middle ground from past discussions despite numerous disagreements on other topics). Those that are complaining about that either weren't aware of this issue, or as Werieth says, didn't get their way are may be engaging in forum shopping to get that change reversed) --MASEM (t) 20:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing some, there's only been one RFC closed in support of removing archive.is links Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. There was a second RFC which was closed as malformed Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2. Obviously you can't read anything in to that other than that people have to follow proper RFC procedures when opening one (such as phrasing it neutrally and not canvasing). The third RFC is ongoing Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. As a participant, I don't think I should comment on the likely outcome but I think it's clear it's not WP:SNOW. It's also worth remembering that whatever the community agreed to, I'm pretty sure we never agreed to the removal of legitimate citations in their entirety, when they didn't actually need a URL and the original still working URL could be recovered from the archive.is link which happened in at least one case. (In another case, the original URL was dead but the info that was removed about the citation was enough to find another copy.) I think Wereith has promised to be more careful, perhaps even ensure such cases never happen again (I haven't been following that well) but the fact it took so long to get there (if it's been agreed now, it was only after me and others saying many times that should never happen and getting ambigious responses in reply) is the main reason the whole thing is so distressing to me. Sure the archive.is links need to go and many of them can already go. But is our only choice for removal someone who's going to turn strong supporters of removal (like me) against their actions? And how much time have we already wasted on these silly discussions when we could be removing archive.is links properly? Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threads refactored. The below was in response to the post of Werieth from 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC):

• • • • You have to decide what your priorities are. I've been hassled off and on by a particularly useless troll for the last five years, at least. I've stopped contributing pictures and mostly stopped contributing to articles. But I still think Wikipedia is worth defending. Wikipedia is a victim of its own success, and it won't change its rules to allow better prosecution of trolls who make Wikipedia look stupid. Your best bet is to find something relatively non-controversial to work on and let the warriors fight the battles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doing the manual work that was mandated by a properly closed RFC to remove links to a highly questionable site seems like non-controversial work (granted, the issue of removing complete citations is a fair point but Werieth stopped to fix that), and we're here now. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • One might think so, sure. But as soon as something becomes controversial, that's a good time to leave it alone and go do something else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • How can someone doing the actions of a properly closed RFC be controversial, from the larger standpoint of WP? That would mean no work would ever get done on WP as long as someone raised a voice to complain. If there was no RFC, or the actions were not those described by the closer of the RFC, you'd have your argument, but we're talking something that is supposed to be the result of a consensus and yes, there will be people unaware of that result and will go "Well, wait...", that happens, but there's also people that did not like that result and want to challenge it further, but that's not how RFCs work, where you keep tossing things at a wall to get them to stick. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it was "properly" closed, you wouldn't be having multiple editors complaining about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's... not correct. If we have an RfC where 200 people participate (this is a big website), which ends with a result of 150 against 50, you can reasonably expect multiple users from the minority to go and complain. You'd be correct if you phrase it this way: you wouldn't be having many editors complaining about it, but multiple? → Call me Hahc21 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If there is true consensus and a proper close, the No-voters will usually see reason. If it looks fishy, or like it was ramrodded (which, believe it or not, has been known to happen), then you've got a problem. But the core problem is the amount of energy being expended on such a trivial matter as to whether to retain certain links. How does such a fight serve the average reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • By reducing the number of links in Wikipedia to sites whose owners appear to illegally compromise other people's computers for their own ends.—Kww(talk) 01:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There's a reason we have DRV which often gets populated with "I didn't get my way" complaints. There is almost always negative response to how a RFC or the like is closed. That's fine. You don't take it out by trying to smear the name of an editor if you have a beef with them. --MASEM (t) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's why I say that Dingley should forget about Betacommand and focus on whatever he thinks the OP here is doing wrong. And looking at those RFC's, there was by no means a "clear consensus", and that likely accounts for the ill will it generated. There's plenty of speculation about the "legality" of whatever the archive guy is doing. The better approach would be to treat it as simple spam - and to retain the template that points out there could be dead links. Those two things would serve the reader better than this brute force "there's clear consensus because I say so" kind of argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I think we're against a problem akin to presenting highly technical evidence to a jury. Most of the people that actually do networking for a living or spend their time looking at proxies, botnets, and whatnot look at the edits and say that the chances of that being a legally obtained set of proxies is vanishingly close to zero. In the true Wikipedia way, we have people that say "I don't know anything about IP addresses, but no one has presented any evidence of illegality". Our opinion about whether there's a problem is weighted equally in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 02:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don'l think I;ve ever commented on the archive.is issue< & at present I have no clear opinion about it > But I consider the indiscriminate removal of the links while AfC3 is underway to be uncooperative editing' ; because it will take a good deal of work to undo if the AfC does not sustain the present position, and that clearly is at least a distinct possibility: I'd suggest that the removal stop for the present. (I will now go look at the RfC, so if I do express an opinion there, that's not a contradiction that I'm presently of no fixed opinion.) DGG ( talk ) 11:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Everybody, can we please keep separate the issue of what to do with the archive.is links and the issue of what to do with Andy Dingley? The two are only tenuously connected. This here is supposed to be the thread about Andy Dingley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also about the possibility that the OP is simply trying to eliminate a roadblock to the controversial activity he's engaged in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bugs that the concerns of Andy regarding the overall edit patterns of Werieth appear to have face-value merit and the larger circumstances merit deeper scrutiny. Jusdafax 22:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Andy should be able to construct his SPI himself (indeed, if he'd done this, there would have been no issue). Whilst he continues to enable a banned editor, however, he's going to continue to be blocked whether his suspicions about Werieth are correct or not. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Will someone block this sock User:TryNotToFly/sandbox? Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is that, so I am told, the banned editor who is the source of all the socks against Werieth also has a good faith account here known to a number of admins, strange that I don't see them commenting on this if that is in fact the case. I'll say no more. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have information to that effect I suggest lodging an SPI, which is the correct forum for it. That applies equally to people who have accusations against the OP. On the wider issue, AndyDingley should be free to lodge an SPI against the OP if he wishes, and have the matter properly considered without blanking of his posts. But outside that potential SPI, he should drop the issue on other pages.Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find the irony more apparent in that the same admins saying 'We cant block based on inconclusive CU/Need more evidence' have previously and routinely duck-test blocked on far less conclusive evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are these comments (or those from Black Kite) directed towards me? I have no knowledge of the blocked editor TryNotToFly being linked to any legitimate account, nor did I block based on WP:DUCK. A check showed that the account was clearly socking and was blocked accordingly. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, mine were in reference to Kites, not yours. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too. Your sock block was entirely correct. If there's evidence the sock also has a "good faith account" then that should also be published via SPI. Euryalus (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, I meant to post my comment at the end of the previous section (editing on my phone); it was nothing to do with that sock or that block, which was entirely correct. Black Kite kite (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who it may be. But frankly, I would suggest that Andy Dingley, or anyone else, seriously reconsiders any support for this sockpuppet. Anyone who thought it was a good idea to ping BB (and me) to their sockpuppetry either has so little experience with these matters that they're not likely to help anyone, or is just trolling and not actually intending to help. Either way, not an editor you want on your "side". Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

[19] The user name "Werieth" has been retired. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would an uninvolved admin please give serous consideration to unblocking User:Andy Dingley? He has been harassed, bulied and insulted for a long while now by Werieth and the same bunch of admins, including the admin who just blocked him. He may have crossed some lines out of very understandable frustration, but I'd say there are exculpatory extenuating circumstances in this case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What are you talking about? Last time I looked, it was Andy Dingley who was harassing Werieth, not the other way round. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I concur that the issues have been at times in both directions, the reason Andy is blocked because he refused the basic rule of sock accusations: file the SPI and live with the results, or STFU. Not only did he fail to abide by it, he was told flat-out to stop with the accusations whether well-founded or not. Unfortunately, he didn't stop and got unfortunately blocked for it. Personally, I WOULD happily unblock based on a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request that addresses the reason and the way forward. the panda ₯’ 13:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just unblock him, won't you? Really. Look at this thread. Look at what's been going on here for years. Of course Andy was frustrated. He deserves our appreciation for turning up this fetid mess. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked enough in to the history for informed commentary on the block (but it does look like Andy Dingley received ample warning). However I do think Andy Dingley needs to "put up of shut up" (as I've said before in other cases). I don't know that much about Betacommand but I admit the evidence I saw when I looked in to one of the complaints a while back did seem suspicious. But ultimately, unless someone actually files a successful SPI (or similar, e.g. a community ban or arbcom case), it's fundamentally unfair to continually use innuedo or even point blank accusations of sockpuppetry to harass or annoy other editors. Of course, you should never be enabling sockpuppets either, even if they are allegedly exposing another sockpuppet.

If Wereith does retire, then I guess it's a moot point but if not, Andy needs to stop with the silly business. Andy is free to believe whatever he? wants, but shouldn't bring it up on wikipedia except as part of a case to block or ban. For better or worse, the nature of wikipedia and our strong privacy policy and limited data retention, and how the internet works, means there's always going to be some sockpuppets who "get away with it", I have no idea if that's the case here but if it is, Andy needs to accept that.

Frankly I'm bored of all the sockpuppets, alleged false flag attacks and whatever else. Actually one thing which Wereith and Betacommand I believe share, which doesn't really demonstrate any connection, is they seem to be their own worse enemy. I think it was commonly suggested that Betacommand alienated many against the causes they were trying to achieve. As I've hinted many times in many places, Wereith seems to have managed the same with this archive.is fiasco. Of course the sockpuppet, and to a lesser extent Andy seem to be doing a similar thing with Wereith (i.e. alientating people against their cause or making Wereith seem more symphathetic). Ultimately there both sides seem so ridicilous that I would hope people are able to put it all aside and concentrate on what matters.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above, User:Kww says, "I looked for more when this first came up, and I'm satisfied that [SPI] did about as good a job of digging up evidence as could have been done. I can understand the good-faith belief that Werieth is Betacommand, because I'm on the fence myself. The evidence is interesting without quite being compelling. What I have real problems with is the continuous allegations that I'm engaged in a conspiracy to enable Betacommand to evade blocks."

User:Black Kite responds with gee, yeah. It's a hard one. Mmm I'm on the fence too. Is the emperor wearing clothes or is he not. I doubt anyone has the obsession or energy necessary to do the right thing wrt them. (Was User:Mark Arsten involved in this? He seems to be Kww's enabler wherever I see the two of them in one controversy.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The overlapping interest in Learning Management Systems was enough to push me off the fence. Werieth is blocked as well as retired.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think there was a conspiracy, at least not with very reliable admins such as Masem or Kww as involved parts, however this is a major setback for WP, and I am frankly amazed we permitted this sock to operate for so much time. Probably the block of Andy was correct, even if I think Future Perfect at Sunrise was too involved and he should not be the one who blocked Andy. However I would suggest an early unblock, given the circumstances. Cavarrone 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt there was a conspiracy too. I suspect Betacommand was very useful to them so each on his own just chose to do nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I have unblocked Andy Dingley, as the block evidently serves no further purpose now (which doesn't vindicate his earlier behaviour though) [20]. Cavarrone: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of misuse of admin tools; put up or shut up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No need for rudeness, Fut. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Future Perfect, my note was just a very civil good-faith personal remark, at any rate I thank you for the savy unblock of Andy. Turning the page, before the thread will be closed, I invite everyone to keep the eyes open as Betacommand's sock records suggest he will back in the next few weeks/months under a different name. Please let's avoid this shameful history repeating itself. Cavarrone 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think more accurately his record indicates he will be on another project for 3 months while checkuser goes stale, *then* he will be back here. Rinse and repeat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of whether Werieth was a Beta sock or not, a key point to walk away is that if one files an SPI which fails to show that user's case, it is unacceptable behavior to go around continuing to accuse the targeted editor as a sock outside of that. If new evidence comes up, good, file a new SPI, otherwise that behavior is intolerable. (I am aware this might be a simplification of a number of long-standing issues here, but the general point remains). --MASEM (t) 15:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my bitter experience, too often the admins and checkusers won't do anything beyond a bare minimum. SPI's are generally a waste of time and effort. By users Dingley and Cole confronting the sock in this more public forum, the truth came out. It's unfortunate that they tipped him off to the "tells", as his next sock might be more careful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went looking on google to see if that name "Werieth" had any kind of subliminal meaning. I didn't find that, but I did find that someone on a Wikipedia-attack site called Wikipediocracy had figured out the Betacommand/Werieth connection in February. So much for the value of SPI's here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's funny how you can find, in Wikipediocracy, people who has long ben expelled and removed from our community. Like Kelly Martin, for example. → Call me Hahc21 03:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I found it on Google, which linked to this Wikipediocracy thing. Not a place I'd been before, and not a place I ever hope to go back to. I just found it interesting that they had figured out the Beta-Werieth connect months ago. Most of their other commentary was repulsive and useless. But even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Hahc21: Kelly Martin is in good standing here, and appears to have rejected this project, rather than the other way round. Block log. If you intend further opining off-topic, please open another thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good standing? Not that I remember. But you're right that I went off-topic. → Call me Hahc21 06:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting here that ArbCom received an e-mail (on 3 July) about this from a source similar to that used to leave the allegations on arbitrator talk pages and others - I think an example is here, reverted by Kww here. I seem to recall similar messages were left on my talk page earlier in the year and reverted as well (having looked it up, these earlier messages were December 2013 and February 2014). I've not been around much the last two months, but had the time to look at this yesterday and I (independently) noticed the spelling tell pointed out by Anthonyhcole above (that is very distinctive and set alarm bells ringing in my head) - that and the tone used is what convinced me that something was amiss here. As Cavarrone notes, this was handled really badly. I think there is a need to look long and hard here at whether some people were (whether consciously or unconsciously) turning a blind eye here to what had been going on. I personally feel I should have looked more seriously earlier at the allegations being made, and I'm not happy that blanket reversions were being made to messages left on my talk page. I am going to try and track down how often that happened. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It happens pretty much any time someone I blocked for socking left a message on your talk page. It doesn't suppress or undo the notification to you that a talk page message occurred. In fact, it provides you with an extra notification, because you get notified of the reversion as well as the original message notification.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. I realise that. An earlier reverted notification, that I carefully noted for the record, can be seen here. That was back in December. As I said above, it came up again in February and maybe a few other times (I stopped bothering about the time a banned user started pestering me with messages about something else). It is a pain to note the reversions for the record, but I would much prefer to be told that I've been left a message by a now-blocked user, than to have the message reverted and to go to the trouble of constructing a little reminder note for myself like that. What I'm trying to say is that reverting those messages didn't really achieve anything, did it? I know it is not always possible if mass rollback or something is being used, but I would much prefer that you (and others) didn't revert such messages on my talk page. Is there a way to do that at all? (Maybe we should take this discussion to one or other of our user talk pages?) Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Carcharoth, if that comment is basically "please don't revert sockpuppet's edits to my talkpage because it makes more difficult for me to communicate with banned users", then there's not much to discuss. No, I will not refrain from interfering with efforts by banned users to communicate via sockpuppets. The better solution would be for you to simply ignore them.—Kww(talk) 23:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww, I'm not trying to communicate with anyone, someone is trying to communicate with me (I hope you can see the difference). While I can't stop you and others reverting the edits, I will at some point need to do due diligence and look more closely at what is being said (rather than just skimming it quickly). I believe I have a duty as an arbitrator to read through what has been said, no matter how outlandish the claims might be, and especially when someone tells me I should ignore something. That is why I've made a note on my talk page relating to the edits you and Future Perfect reverted. It is so I can look at them later when I have more time (I've really been on an extended wikibreak since April). Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I do see the difference: you aren't blocked from editing Wikipedia, the people attempting to communicate with you are. The lesson learned from this fiasco shouldn't be "sockpuppets of banned users can be valuable in identifying sockpuppets of other banned users, so let's allow them to use talk pages". It should be more along the lines of "when ambiguous cases like Werieth's show up, checkusers should make a proactive effort to obtain information from other WMF wikis to determine whether there's an identity match."—Kww(talk) 01:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Carcharoth: the standard response to block-evading trolls is R-B-I. You are forgetting the "I" part; it's crucial. When it comes to serial harassment and wikihounding trolls, the "I" is not only the only practical approach; it is also the only ethically responsible one. That harasser had no business communicating with you in the first place. By expressing an interest in his posts and increasing their visibility, you were enabling him and thus supporting his harassment campaign. This is not justifiable, no matter if you're an arbitrator or not. I recently said it on my talkpage, but it bears repeating it here: on Wikipedia, nobody has the right to hound and chase down an opponent and push an agenda through by aggressive socking – not even if they are right. Nobody on Wikipedia must be subjected to wikihounding and harassment – not even if they are Betacommand. Nobody, not even a legitimate user in good standing, has the right to aid and abet and make common cause with a sockpuppeting harassment troll – not even if that cause would otherwise be just. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm well aware of RBI, Fut. Perf. The point here is whether you and others can make that 'ignore' decision for me. You are doing the revert and block part, I have no problem with that. But when you go around telling others to ignore things, you are crossing a line and making decisions for them. If I hadn't made that talk page section back in December 2013, reminding myself of what happened back then, I would have struggled to dig back in the page history to find that edit again. The same applies to these edits (and there were others that I haven't yet noted down). At some point it may (hopefully not) be necessary to look very closely at everything that happened here, and keeping track of various edits will be important evidence as to what happened and how things played out. So rather than ignoring it completely, I'm making notes for the record and putting it on the back burner if you will. If it ever becomes necessary to look at all this more closely, then those notes will be there to refer back to. I'm not endorsing what is said in those edits (it comes across as rather desperate hyperbole even if the central point looks to have have been correct), but I don't want to lose track of those edits if it ever becomes necessary to refer back to them. There may be better ways to keep track of those edits, and I'm open to trying different ways, but what I don't want is for you to take a decision for me that I should ignore something. Carcharoth (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Edits of blocked socks get rolled back, without question, everywhere on the project, no matter on what page, period. Your personal page is no more exempt from this rule than any other. The rule that you cannot restore a blocked user's edit unless you want to be personally held responsible for its contents just as if you had written it yourself applies to you just as much as to anybody else on this project. Your tactics of not restoring the posts themselves but only a diff link to them is hardly more than a transparent subterfuge. If in such cases you wish to keep records for administrative purposes but want to avoid the impression you are enabling and aiding the banned users, I strongly recommend you keep the links offline. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My views on the original allegations were "hmm, there might be something in what is being said here, I'd better keep a record of this in case it turns out to be true". Given that the user in question is now blocked as a sock, it seems my judgement there to not completely ignore this was correct. So I make no apologies for making the same decision about these edits. If you want me to move my notes on these edits to a page in my userspace and link to that page from my talk page and talk page archives, I'm happy to do that. I will try and do that by the end of the weekend. What I will then do is examine them more closely and see if there is any substance to the other allegations made. What appears to be at stake here is whether this was someone attempting to be a whistle-blower, or someone engaging in harassment. It might well be both, but given your defensive response here and for my peace of mind I need to follow this up and be sure there is nothing in what has been said there. If the consensus at a suitable venue (not just your opinion) and after a suitable period of time is that I should take the diffs offline, I will. I'll check back on Monday or Tuesday and see if there has been any progress on this. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggestion that there might have been a case of a legitimate "whistleblower" is breathtakingly absurd. No good-faith editor in good standing would ever have been in trouble for submitting legitimate SPI evidence about a legitimately banned user through the appropriate procedural channels. The very insinuation, on your part, that you find such a scenario plausible is an insult to those of us administrators who deal with socking issues on this project, for which you should apologize. It's not as if Betacommand was particularly popular in the community, now, is it. And no, the fact that the allegations turned out to be (probably) true does not justify what the harassment troll was doing, nor does it justify lending an ear to them. I'm asking you straightforward: which of the following three propositions do you disagree with? (a) if somebody creates a series of single-purpose accounts over a period of many months with the sole purpose of hunting down another user and getting him blocked, they are engaging in wikihounding. (b) Wikihounding is reprehensible. (c) Wikihounding is unjustifiable even if the target is himself guilty of a breach of project rules. I'd really like to know, so I can judge your level of ethics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with all three of those propositions. What I don't agree with is using those propositions as an excuse to ignore the allegations. On the face of it, that appears to be what you have been doing. As for apologies and ethics, in your shoes I would have apologised to Andy Dingley for the block you carried out. It is still quite possible that (as I said above) this will all need to be looked at closely to see what went wrong here. I would hope that more time would be spent examining your actions than mine. What I'm doing here is saying "hang on, take a step back and consider whether this needs to be looked at more closely". For obvious reasons, you are going to say "nothing to see here, move on". I'm not sure yet whether a closer look at all this is needed, but I'm not going to agree with you on the 'ignore' part without having taken the time to look at it in more detail myself. My initial impression is that this does need looking at more closely. The problem is, to persuade me otherwise, you are gong to have to pay this more attention than you think it deserves. So we appear to be at an impasse. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not interested in persuading you of anything. Yes, we are at an impasse: I firmly know that I did the right thing, and I find your attitude morally repulsive, so I don't want to have anything more to do with you. But let's cut to the chase: by your repeated cryptic announcements about "looking at" things more closely, are you insinuating you are planning to play the Arbcom card? Not that I care what some people on Arbcom think, mind you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for preventative technical countermeasure Assuming there are no copyright issues, if this is a recurrent, perennial problem (conflict over deletion of links), link/content archiving might help solve or ameliorate it, should WMF have the IT resources, and the evaluation criteria were solid regarding the material to be archived.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been considered, as I recall. There was a proposal over at meta two Februarys ago that WMF take over WebCite, which was supposedly about to die off. I don't think WebCite died off, and the proposal languished. Part of the issue, of course, is that there are copyright issues. Significant ones at that. You can only claim fair use for so much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendaliv: That's good, so there should be a decent amount of discussion to consider in the event something like that comes under consideration again.

Maybe a scaled back version would suffice. Say, a system where a user like "Werieth" claims a link should be deleted because the host is distributing malware, then Wikipedia backups up the link and corresponding content and includes a pointer to that in the article. You could prevent socks (or whoever) from being disruptive by preemptively implementing a system for handling such concerns.

It's obviously a valid concern that the deletion of such links for spurious reasons would have a serious adverse effect on the WP article content built upon the basis of such links/web-based content. That's practically vandalism undertaken with a spurious yen ostensibly legitimate reason of WP reader security.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Andy was blocked? Sorry I haven't read all this thread yet. IMHO Andy's style was a bit too abrasive but the stuff he said was basically legitimate and would have been fine if phrased more diplomatically. The SPI was unconvincing in part because there was no evident attempt to match CU data against known Betacommand activity on other sites (I think he was active on Commons and I know he was active on Toolserver, which hopefully cooperated with WP sock investigations though it was non-WMF itself). I know that some other SPI's used cross-wiki CU data. It really did look to me like the SPI was shut down for political reasons as Andy said, and that various admins at different times in the saga showed, if not deliberate obtuseness, then at least sufficiently clouded judgment I couldn't consider them "uninvolved" (I can dig up some diffs if the matter becomes relevant again). I remember looking at Werieth edits at the time of the SPI and not being sure Werieth was Betacommand, but I think the evidence grew stronger after that, so by yesterday when I saw this thread, I was pretty convinced.

  Regardless of the socking question, I don't think Wereith's practices should have been tolerated: BOTPOL should have been enforced rigorously against him, resulting in an indef block long ago, sock or not. This should certainly be done in the event of a reappearance of someone with the same MO. Sooner or later I think the WMF will have to intervene and deploy technical measures to stop unauthorized bot editing, and I do hear some noises in that direction, which I find encouraging.

  As a general matter, I'm uncomfortable with any editors who operate persistently in the pure realm of rule enforcement and who never contribute any content. The thread from a couple days ago about that person placing speedy tags was another example. This is an encyclopedia, whose purpose rests in what the stuff in the articles mean to the humans who read them. Ignoring that is one possible definition of perfect bureaucracy and (I've come to believe) is a form of battleground editing that should not be allowed once there is significant pushback. And in case anyone is confused: I don't think Betacommand really cared very much about NFC or that he even understood why we have it (enforcing a policy that one doesn't understand is another sign of bureaucracy). He simply used it as a vehicle to justify his bots flogging the human effort of Wikipedia until nothing was left of it but a poor lifeless carcass. The first Betacommand arb case was long before he got in the NFC business, and among other things involved using bots to block people (he was an admin at the time). If and when he reappears it will probably be something different. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

• Not an expert of SPI, but would not be appropriate in the current case running a CheckUser to identify any possible sleeping account by BetaCommand/Werieth? Cavarrone 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One was declined back in December. I'm not sure if anything in the interim has happened to change the reasoning behind that decline. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, that CheckUser was asked for comparing Betacommand's and Werieth's datas and it was declined as it was technically impossible analyze Betacommand's account as it was a stale account. Currently we already know Werieth is a sock, but being this account fresh and not yet stale a CU would be helpful in detecting his eventual sleeping (or even active) other accounts. I could be technically wrong but this is the sense of my request. Cavarrone 19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha. Presuming Werieth's status as a Betacommand sock has been accepted, there's no reason not to run a CU. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're funny. Checkusers are lazy. They'll say, "Oh, he's already indef'd, so there's nothing to do. See ya!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone perform a global CU and hang onto the data so that people aren't told next time that it's stale? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pinging the checkusers who commented on this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand/Archive: Reaper Eternal, DeltaQuad. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Betacommand is stale. I could technically check Werieth, but I need a reason to do so. The above is a major TL;DR. It relates to the Checkuser policy and Privacy policy which governs the use of our tools. @Baseball Bugs: We don't make people's cases for them. If someone wishes to put forward a straight forward case that justifies the use of CU, i'll look at it. But i'm not reading thousands of bytes of speculation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. What are we looking for? What is the reason for checkuser in this case? Are there supposed sleeper socks? But then again, I'm just a lazy checkuser so what do I know. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To put it succinctly, it would be so that the next time Betacommand creates a sock, it will be easier to identify. But you all can't be bothered with that. Thanks for living down to my expectations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. If another sock is detected 18 months from now, checkuser data becomes essentially pointless. His IP will almost certainly have jumped around so much that no overlap would remain. Even the geographic region could be different. Additionally, it's not like Betacommand (if this even is him), isn't very technically adept. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This recent sock was created the day after Betacommand was banished, and within 10 edits he was starting in on his old stuff. He managed to fly under the radar for a year or so (a year and a half if you only count Wikipedia). At least now we'll be more on the alert. Especially as the checkusers are unwilling to do anything. Don't give me that "pixiedust" stuff. If checkusers are motivated, they can do more. But that's a big IF. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, blow it out your ear, BB. I'm an SPI clerk and I admit to a bias, but I rely on CUs all the time, and if they decline to run a check, I respect that. They happen to be some of the more hardworking administrators I have the distinct pleasure of knowing.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience says otherwise. There's been a troll after me for at least five years, and every time his diseased head has popped up, the admins have blocked that specific user ID and refused to do anything else. This has happened many times since 2009 or so. So I apologize if I don't share your enthusiasm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to strongly agree with Baseball Bugs here. My experience with CU has been disastrous, time and time again, for the very reasons BB cites. I don't really trust their expertise and their results even less so. I've had to devote considerable time and energy to defending innocent users who have been falsely accused of socking and I've had to invest an incredible amount of time posting diffs and evidence of socks only to be met by stonewalling. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real solution to these kinds of issues is not to keep that burden on the (few) CU folks, but instead disperse the burden by moving into a more general forum, like this one, where all the other admins can take a look and decide if it's a WP:DUCK. Obviously that's also not a panacea, because here you have to fake timestamps in order to not get rotated into oblivion before anyone's seen it (*eyeroll*), but still. Once you get a modicum of a consensus that some repeat offender is indeed so egregiously annoying to be explicitly banned, then that makes admin action easier next time a block is needed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DeltaQuad and Reaper Eternal, thanks for the replies. The tl;dr is that Werieth is Betacommand and has been blocked as such. When people requested a CU in March and December 2013, they were told Betacommand's data was stale and that it was a fishing expedition (despite the circumstantial evidence).

  The question is how to avoid this happening in future. I'm therefore asking whether a CU could be run now and the data retained, and also to see whether there are other accounts. Betacommand is active on Mediawiki if a comparison is needed. [21] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To my understanding, the global CU you propose would require a steward, or at least someone with local CU access on all wikis being checked. I have no idea if that is allowable under the CU policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unless there is crosswiki abuse, there is no reason to perform a cross-wiki checkuser investigation. Anyway, what would it prove? You're already convinced Werieth (talk · contribs) is Betacommand (talk · contribs), so asking for me to compare Werieth here to Betacommand there seems to be an unnecessary use of checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal, requesting a local CU to check for other accounts is a reasonable request in the circumstances. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion about what is requested. As SlimVirgin has said - Werieth is a sock account. Has the editor behind Werieth created any other sock accounts, including sleeper ones? If so, can they be identified by a local CU? Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the idea. Forget Betacommand, the data is too old. The first order of business is to look for socks of Werieth. Then see if it's possible to capture the "technical data" for Werieth, to be compared with the next sock he creates, which could be today, tomorrow, next week... or more than 3 months from now, when he thinks the heat's off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my view it SHOULD be done. This is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill sock case, the Werieth case is one of the worst and most shameful fiascos in recent WP history. If the CU will not give significant results, so be it, we tried. But we need to use every weapon we have to prevent this crap repeating itself, including verifying here and now if this professional sockmaster has sleeping or active alt accounts. It would not be minimally surprising considering his record. Cavarrone 04:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*CU has spotted some Betacommand socks before, but I'm pretty sure Betacommand is knowledgeable enough to dodge CU once it has come into play. So a negative finding (now or in some future incident) doesn't really tell us much. Timezone evidence is also less meaningful than usual in a case like this, unless the person is actively responding to human conversation showing they are awake (bot edits don't establish this). Checking for sleepers is routine practice after a sock block anyway though, and it's (from what I hear) also SOP to keep CU data around regarding persistent sockers.

I don't blame Andy Dingley for not opening a new SPI given the obstruction and threats he faced in the old one (I just looked at the archived SPI again and I see I had forgotten how awful it was). I'd say Andy's judgment is now vindicated even if he might better have said some things a little bit differently. The Wikipediocracy thread that Baseball Bugs found was also interesting though polemical. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could an uninvolved admin look at User:TryNotToFly/sandbox and see if there is evidence there that the community might want to judge for itself? Alternatively, maybe there is something there that CU's might want to hold onto. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It is essentially a message identifying the editor as a sock of GoFormer and urging others to read a section of an off-wiki website. Euryalus (talk) 07:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So us lazy CUs got off our buts and actually read the material above (which I wasn't to thrilled or motivated to do), and ran a few CUs.  Confirmed Smokestack Basilisk (talk · contribs) & Werieth (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! That proves Werieth was a sock/socking, at the very least, and the other account was created before the "Werieth" account.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a sleeper account from 2008/09. Wonder how many more will pop up. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DQ. I'm sorry to throw more annoying requests your way, but I think it's worthwhile to try to close the circle by getting a check on mw:user:Betacommand to compare with Werieth. I have noted a few more behavioural tells that confirm that Werieth was Betacommand but I think it's best to save them for next time. I'd also be interested if you can confirm that Spartay (talk · contribs) and friends didn't seem to be running similar software to Werieth's.

Joy, yeah, one is an incident, two is a pattern. There are probably more and I can think of some ways to hunt for them, but it scarcely seems worthwhile. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, depending on how far this goes but if it does verifyable connect Werieth to Beta, please make sure ArbCom is notified, since Beta is - for all counts - still banned from WP (he has not approached ArbCom about removing the ban so that is still in place), and this might even contravine the second BetaCommand case, which I would thus suspect that if Werieth == Beta, ArbCom will recind the offer to return at all. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In actuality, I would question what difference it really makes anyway. I mean, he returned as Werieth when he was banned, so what would he care if they allow his main acct to appeal or not. He is now forever destined as a sock. That unfortunately is his fate, his legacy. "BetaCommand" is dead. Rgrds. --64.85.214.233 (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: first, we don't have any direct evidence that Beta == Werieth, but the vector of what has transpired plus Occum's Razor makes this conclusion almost inevitable, but for purposes of our AGF policy on WP, we should not be walking around like Werieth is 100% Beta, so as such, there's nothing to do with Arbcom yet. If that can be proven, then it is key to make sure that ArbCom knows as given the transgression from the start, I am confident they'd remove/cancel the offer for Beta to opt to return (as is currently open after the 3rd BC case there). --MASEM (t) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They should be informed about Werieth, though. Trolls will try to imitate another user in hopes of getting him in trouble. True socks try to avoid scrutiny, but they usually give themselves away eventually, even while denying it. The fact that the user gave a non-denial-denial when "retiring" is just another nail in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, when is there EVER direct evidence about someone socking, short of a confession? Checkuser evidence is of course circumstantial and not direct, thus the WP:BROTHER defense. But as the article explains, circumstantial evidence is enough to create an actionable factfinding, even in the most serious criminal cases. Here there is plenty of DUCK evidence already documented, and more that hasn't been. I think the threshold of deniability has been surpassed and W=B can simply be treated as a fact. Baseball Bugs, thanks for the funny thought. The idea of someone doing a "joe job" by spending 1.5 years running buggy bots doing NFC enforcement and getting the support of multiple savvy admins brings a smile to my face. The still-missing piece is how they bring it all crashing down at the end (what we have now is an utter fizzle for such a large effort, so this can't be all there is to it). I'll go buy some popcorn while awaiting their next move.

More seriously, I agree with Cavarrone that the system failed in this episode. We need some postmortem analysis to figure out what happened and what we can do to prevent recurrences. I have some thoughts that I'll try to post later, and I hope others weigh in with their own thoughts. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest evidence would be for a normal CU approach (which would confirm common IP addresses by what otherwise is apparently two separate editors with similar editing interests - which we presume for normal CU evaluation to be too much of a coincidence to dismiss). That is, reportedly, impossible for Beta and Werieth due to Beta's activity having gone stale when Werieth was sufficiently active. I do say Occum's Razor might need to apply since there's almost no other way to explain Werieth's coincidential behavior to Beta with the new evidence given. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the IP 5 messages above, Beta's Arbcom case is moot, Beta will never come back (under that name). As proven by socks Werieth and Smokestack Basilisk, this weary guy has no interest in WP other than testing and free playing his unauthorizated semi-automated bots, something clearly difficult to do as Beta in the previous circumstances (given the limitations he would surely have been subjected if allowed to come back), let alone now. About the rest, this is an obvious DUCK case, and the more I'm investigting about Betacommand the more I'm "surprised" that none of the admins/editors who were closer to this editor under his previous incarnations noted the obvious socking. Frankly, hard to believe. And even here, in the very first section of this long thread, there are a couple of comments by some (now evaporated) admins that retrospectively sound not less than ridicolous. Cavarrone 23:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Masem, yes, I agree that CU matches are almost always convincing enough to nail a case shut. I'm just saying that they're still indirect just like DUCK evidence, and this shows that indirect evidence is perfectly good, we close cases with it all the time, and we shouldn't pretend this case is somehow unsolved just because there's no direct evidence. I don't agree that the CU data was all cold in December since (as mentioned) cross-wiki CU might have found something but wasn't attempted (I would have expected those checks to be routine so I was upset one wasn't done, but you know better than me). I also think the SPI was shut down too early even without CU, as a deeper behavioral check might have nailed the case at that time (I just spotted another doozy, though it's from later than the SPI-- I'm sure others are better at this than I am, and I'm not trying very hard).

I'm not blaming you as I know CU's have a heavy workload and must prioritize, and I know that the sock disruption and admin intervention must have made it hard to proceed. But, the case was quite credible and the incident was not about some routine "friends of gays" vandal attacking a few articles from multiple accounts. Betacommand is one of the worst disruptors Wikipedia has had, doing 10000's of banned edits with considerable tells already documented, so I think a more thorough investigation was more than justified.

Looking forward, I think we should make some cultural and technical changes in site practices in response to this incident, and try to get some unclear policy questions answered. I'll try to write a concrete proposal soon. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @173.228.123.145: Another CU was telling me that there was CU logs that could indicate that it is Betacommand. MediaWiki does not have it's own checkusers, so you will have to go to meta and ask for the stewards to run a CU there. I can share the relevant information as needed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding informing the ArbCom, it was one of the Arbs, Salvio giuliano, who placed the block on Smokestack Basilisk, at 19:17 on 5 July, [22] five hours after Kww blocked Werieth. [23] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmmm, Salvio giuliano blocked Smokestack Basilisk (with the summary "checkuserblock-account") about one day before DeltaQuad posted the CU results about Werieth's sockpuppertry. Am I missing something? Then there was another CU about Werieth...? --Cavarrone 09:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's correct: I ran an independent check and found a sock which I then blocked. And concerning ArbCom, we received an e-mail concerning Werieth on the third, thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DQ, thanks again. I can post something at meta. I'd be interested in your view and SlimVirgin's about whether this is still worth doing. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request posted.[24] 173.228.123.145 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request declined as "fishing", maybe I asked for too much. I replied suggesting a narrower check, awaiting response. Advice is welcome. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 05:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request declined, "there is no reason for a CU to be run on mww. He hasn't violated any policies there that would require a CU, nor is this is a case of cross-wiki abuse." This seems pretty lame. It might have been worth pursuing further in the December SPI but by now with current knowledge, it doesn't seem all that important to put one more nail in the coffin. Let me know if anyone thinks there are further steps worth bothering with. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From how I read the active users and stewards over at MW, the only way they'd run a CU on Betacommand at MediaWiki, is to have a CU from en request it, without other direct evidence of cross-wiki actionable material. As the direct evidence is the CU information, it would appear that DeltaQuad or another CU has to make the request. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be in line with how Commons "handled" the Xanderliptak case: "Oh, he's not bothering us, so 'F.U.', Wikipedia." They only got serious with him when he sent them a bogus copyvio threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Solarra, thanks, Jasper at meta says about the same thing: "what I can say is that should English Wikipedia CheckUsers desire such a check, they would normally request it privately via a mailing list such as the stewards' list or the checkusers' list, or via private messaging on IRC". DeltaQuad, do you want to give this a try? If nothing else it would get you some experience with the process, in case another cross-wiki situation arises. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think leveling scorn at individual checkusers is warranted in this case. The problem actually resides in our checkuser policies. I quibble with some of our checkusers about them being more reticent to disclose IP information than our policy actually allows, but they generally follow our policy. Their reluctance to run checkusers in the first place stems from that. The problem is that our policy treats running the check as an invasion of privacy, which it most clearly is not: only a release of the information can rationally be treated as any kind of privacy issue. The solution is to loosen our checkuser policy and encourage checkusers to run checks on a much more liberal basis. Loosen the policy first, then yell at the CUs if they won't run checks.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do when it suits them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, the controls and auditing on CU are a good thing, and misuse of CU is definitely invasive even if the info isn't released (consider the article LOVEINT about personal conflicts of interest by people with access to private info, or imagine a CU with sympathies in a nationalistic content dispute, noticing that editor X is editing from country Y and then giving that editor unequal attention). But it's WMF-controlled data and so cross-wiki checks are a reasonable thing when there's an issue with someone active in multiple projects. I can imagine the threshold being a bit higher than for a purely local check, but this case warrants it. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @173.228.123.145 and Solarra: I have left my comment at the request page. While not all the evidence usually needed was presented, I disagree with how it was handled. You can view my comment there. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks DQ. I didn't realize they wanted an evidence presentation right there on meta, since all Jasper had asked for was a link back to the enwiki SPI. I'll write another reply over there. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Thank you :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DQ, I've started writing a post for meta about the Werieth/Betacommand behavioural resemblance so I thought I'd mention this in case you're doing the same thing. While I was writing it, we got a response which I think wants actual bad edits that Werieth made. I've asked for clarification and can try to get some of that type of diff together too. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another apparent duck evidence

Credits goes to User:GZWDer, that mentioned this one in Werieth's talk page. Apparently Betacommand (who as said above is still active in a number of other Wikis) here copied a Werieth's code [25] just a few hours before Werieth announced his retirement. Cavarrone 11:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that too, but decided to keep it quiet for now (see tell (poker)). There are a few more such things that I know of but haven't posted. If you spot any more, it's probably better to either sit on them quietly or privately communicate them to a checkuser. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]