Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop

Sorry for harsh remarks

I'm sorry that I wrote snide remarks and uncivil words. I'm afraid that the helpful comments were written long ago and I felt that they went ignored (this will be evident when I submit my evidence this weekend), and now my frustration with Abd is making me write very harsh messages. Unfortunately, arbs don't know the context and they won't understand what I am talking about, so I'll make a serious effort to be way more neutral and clear, and not use any sarcasm. I will be grateful that people leaves a note on my talk page when they see that I am making unhelpful comments. I won't comment more until I finish the evidence, so I can support my statements properly. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and efforts, Enric. This is undoubtedly going to be a very heated case in any event, and the arbitrators and myself as case clerk would all very much appreciate everyone's commitment to keep careful watch on themselves and their comments. Should anyone notice that a comment has been made which does cross the line, please feel free to email me - I'm not as active during the week as I'd like due to work, but I will be sure to take a look and handle things as necessary as soon as I can. My talk page is similarly open, but if you feel you're being attacked, email may be a better option to reduce drama levels. Thanks again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently arrived user

• Arkady Renkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With only 70 edits to his name before today and no apparent experience with noticeboards/ArbCom, this recently arrived user shows complete familiarity with wikipedia jargon and processes. WP:DUCK suggests that this might be a sockpuppet account. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly a user who had previously used another name (*), or a user who mainly doesn't bother to log in or a user who lurks a lot or ... Just a reminder that sockpuppet is defined as "an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies". Would you like to say which of those you are accusing me of, or would you like to take your accusation to WP:SPI and back it up with evidence, or would you like to withdraw now before ArbComm sanctions you for trying to intimidate other participants in this case? Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(*)The correct answer BTW Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not permitted to edit policy pages with alternative accounts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Arkady is obviously a matured sock of some kind. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilby has independently suggested A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on my talk page. It's hard to say. I previously contacted MastCell about this, because a similar thing happened during the Fringe Science Cold Fusion ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC) [Refactored - it was Martinphi editing as Durga's Trident.]

If it's hard to say then don't say it. I note that it is permitted to leave off one account name and take up another. I note neither of you make these accusations in the proper place. I also note that you have strong positions in this case and hence are highly motivated to discredit and discourage anyone who expresses a contrary view. This is not proper behaviour in an arbitration case. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in ArbCom cases as Spartaz has just written. Please disclose your alternative WP account(s). Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I havent blocked you already but why don't you say what your previous account was so we can see whether your contribution is permitted? Quack Quack! Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because this isn't WP:SPI. I'll let Arbcomm look after the intimidation. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris asked me to look into this. I ran checkuser on Arkady and turned up several other possible sockpuppets, although insofar as I can tell none of them has been used to violate policy other than the Arkady account's edits to the arbcom pages. I've started a discussion on the checkuser mailing list. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose the real question – aside from the plain 'who was this guy before he changed account names' – is what previous interaction has he had with the parties to this Arbitration. It rather strains the limits of my ability to assume good faith when a 'new' account shows up after fifty edits and three-month vacation to immediately dive into an Arbitration with a full set of draft remedies (including a desysopping). The ArbCom has in the past made quite clear that it won't (and shouldn't) tolerate sniping from anonymous shadows. Absent clear, convincing identification of Arkady's previous account(s), he should be barred from this process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note: I've talked with some checkusers and arbitrators and can confirm that Arkady Renkov is abusively using sockpuppets to comment on this case. I have blocked that account, and assume the CU's will be taking similar action elsewhere. I will also be removing Arkady's evidence from the evidence page, and any remaining comments on the Workshop page. I'll be removing Enric's analysis section as well simply to keep things tidy; there's no reason to analyze evidence that has been dismissed.

For future reference, should you feel a post should be removed from the case pages for any reason, please let a clerk know and do not complete the removal yourself. We are here for a reason, and by allowing the clerks to take care of matters like this, we reduce confusion about whether removals are legitimate. Additionally, we may have additional instructions from ArbCom to handle certain matters in certain ways. Thank you for your understanding. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the surest ways to create disruption in this community is to block an editor based on secret evidence. And that's what just happened. We have a claim that Arkady Renkov is a sockpuppet, but no identification of the puppet master, nor any clear confirmation of policy violation, just an ArbComm procedural violation, in a case where those are rampant. The editor did not, as others have done here without any consequence except more warnings, ignore warnings. For a clerk to remove inappropriate content is one thing, but to block an editor for posting evidence to ArbComm, and for all this sock puppet attention to be focused, so rapidly, makes me quite worried. Here is what puzzles me: Hersfold writes, "Arkady Renkov is abusively using sockpuppets to comment on this case." Okay, who are they? Or does Hersfold mean that someone else is using a sockpuppet to comment?

I'm not questioning the exclusion of the evidence and the proposals. It's my view that we should be responsible for what we present and propose; hence, if anyone has evidence or proposals to present, I'd be happy to receive it by email, and, if I'm willing to take full responsibility for it, I could put it up, and I'm sure there are other editors willing to do similarly. The key is that someone is willing to take responsibility, to stand up and be counted. Yes, if we are going to remove the cloud of suspicion over factionalism at Wikipedia, we are going to have to take the risk that, yes, there is not only a cabal, but it is powerful. My continued participation here, given what I know about the cabal that does exist (which is probably not a conspiracy, though it might appear so), is based on my understanding that whatever power is improperly exercised by the cabal is not supported at the highest levels, nor is it supported by the consensus of the community. If I'm wrong about that, you wouldn't have to ban me, I'd be history as soon as this was clear.

I'd appreciate some assurances from arbitrators about block of Arkady Renkov. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Clark Action required concerning Proposals from Arkady Renkov

Can a clerk please remove them as they have clearly been added by an established user in violation of the policy that alternate accounts are not to be used to edit policy pages to hide the identity of the main account. [1]. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, as stated above. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)