User talk:Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 10/Block cases

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Amalthea 19:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, did you use multiple accounts? If so, which ones? Also, there has to be an explanation about this. --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the diff that got himFlyer blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, George and SarekOfVulcan. I am not male, and I will do my best to explain in the unblock request below. This is a very sad day for me:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Amalthea, I honestly have never used a sockpuppet on Wikipedia. Never. Not only would I not be stupid enough to do so, because, knowing the system, sockpuppets always get caught, but I also respect my good name too much. I have dealt with sockpuppets time and time again and never once thought to use a sockpuppet. In fact, I despise them. Anyone who is familiar with me as an editor knows that. The only thing I can think that has happened here is that someone who is living with me (and, yeah, I know that is a typical sockpuppet response) has used this site as well. Late last year, I'd found out that the youngest of my brothers (who is 19 and is living with me until he "can get back on his feet") had signed up to Wikipedia after I'd complained to him about some issues I have with this site. He'd joked that he would sign up just to follow me and "take care of business." I did not take him seriously! I repeat: I did not think he would do it! So when I found out, I told him to either stop editing or to disclose his relationship to me on his user page. He refused to do so and did not even tell me his Wikipedia username, which made me suspicious of every new account that shared articles with me. I debated with myself whether or not to take the matter to the Wikipedia community in the event that I was ever accused of being a sockpuppet. Finally, he told me he'd been blocked and only then did he reveal to me his user account. I said something to the effect of "Well, if you're blocked, then I'm blocked!" and became dramatically upset, but he quickly informed me that he had been using proxies and thus our real IP address hadn't been exposed. Because of that, I let the whole thing go and continued to edit as normal. If there has been another account that shares my IP address, as well as articles I may have edited, then it has to be my brother. I am being 100% honest here. I never sockpuppeted. What I have had is an IP stalking me and others, supporting me on matters (see #The trolling editor at One Tree Hill (TV series)), and also emailing me with cryptic replies. I never thought to think that my brother may have signed up for another Wikipedia account and continued doing what he did before, essentially becoming my stalker and WP:MEATPUPPET, but now that is the only thing that makes sense. I ask what account has been connected to me? I also ask that you see the truth in my words. I would never abuse Wikipedia in such a way, and just having the block on my good name hurts me to the core. If I have to meet with Wikipedian authority in person to prove my case, then I will. Flyer22 (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Flyer and/or family members;
There's a lot of Checkuser stuff we can't see, a lot of personal stuff that's been revdel'd, and some really strong emotions involved. I really, really don't think this is a matter for WP:AN, or an individual admin to review an {{unblock}} request. I suggest that you contact WP:BASC (contact info at the link). This seems above our (admins in general) paygrade, and probably better handled off-wiki. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have read WP:BROTHER and WP:EBUR, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flyer22, besides the account hinted at above, do you want me to list all the other edits you made? I believe I can make a very good case based on contributions alone to show that this was you, not your brother. I'm not sure that this is what you really want, since I interpret those edits of yours harassment. Up until now I believed the most constructive way forward would be an email discussion in four weeks to make sure this won't happen again. Amalthea 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkinss, I have read that several times, which makes it all the more stupid that I would then concoct such a story. All I can say is that I am being honest. I see that I am accused of being User:Banking honesty. Just seeing Banking honesty's edit summary style associated with mine irks me almost as much as your patronizing tone. You are aware that it makes absolutely no sense that I would create that account, and so late in my "career" as a Wikipedian, right? Or are you that eager to believe I'm lying because of your experience dealing with sockpuppets has jaded you to when someone is actually telling the truth? Or is it because we've crossed paths in not-so polite ways before? Look at Banking honesty's edits. There was no reason for me to sockpuppet at the Clitoris talk page. None! The matter was already worked out for the most part. Then Banking honesty suddenly shows up out of the blue to talk about "its rival"? Its rival, seriously? I do not talk like that. No.
Amalthea, you believe that I was sockpuppeting and even showing up in person with the culprit would not likely change your mind. Understandable since I have dealt with sockpuppets in this way before and felt the same about them as you feel about me now. I cannot say that I did these things when I did not. If I did, for me, someone who knows how this type of thing goes down every time, it would make a lot more sense to admit to it than to play the "It was my brother" game.
Sigh.
Consider me retired. As seen higher on my talk page, it's something that's been on my mind for a while now, and I believe that I can leave this site and never look back. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lightly say that you retire, giving up this hobby after 50k edits is harder then it might seem.
And don't say that you are the victim here. If you want to maintain that my assessment is wrong then I can ask another CheckUser to have a look, or we open up an SPI case (without revealing your home IP).
Amalthea 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just a hobby. I'm in tears even as type this. My reputation is ruined now, and I have no one but myself to blame because I could have initially done something about this. I apologize to the Wikipedia community. And goodbye. Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say this situation is odd. Why would you even sock? (After all these years) It raises my eyebrow tbh... How was this decided btw?Rain the 1 23:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one, do not believe for a second Flyer used a sock. Flyer has been a valuable and helpful ally to me for nearly the entirety of my own wikipedia editing days. We both worked extensively on articles related to major crimes against children, often fighting against endless streams of sockpuppets operated by child molesters over the course of years. It 's not a fun topic and in those cases we were clearly in the right, yet I never once saw anything that even remotely suggested she'd stoop to the same tactics. You should seriously reconsider.Legitimus (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a post that alleges to be from a member of Flyer22's family, and the responses to it. There is no way to verify if any of what was alleged is true, and for the sake of her privacy, we should refrain from posting any mention of this. Flyer, I have worked with you here for years. You're a fine editor and you will absolutely be welcomed back here by me. AniMate 01:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a second message from the alleged family member and have semi-protected this page to stop IPs editing it. I'm not judging whether the comments were true, but personal information should not be divulged here by other people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've lifted the page protection now, as the family member has agreed to keep things more private. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad block[edit]

I think this was a bad block. It appears that the first Flyer22 heard about this was the block message at 19:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC). Whatever happened to the outside world's concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Or Wikipedia's own of WP:AGF? Where is the sockpuppet investigation page where evidence can be seen, weighed and discussed? It's still a red link. Regarding the unblock request: Amalthea says, "I know that two CUs looked into the background as response to the unblock request, but neither seems to have gotten around to act on it either way. I myself am the one person who /can't/ act on the unblock request" and Boing! said Zebedee says, "I'll leave you to take whatever further action you deem appropriate." So that's the end of that apparently, marked "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it."[1]

It seems that, with the best intentions, people who are used to dealing with grizzled old trolls and crusty old abusers have turned the full force of their weaponry onto a hard working long-term editor and, without any warning, discussion or 'good faith', have laughed at their efforts, their contributions, and their personal situation. I think that miscarriages of justice (such as this will turn out to be) do Wikipedia's reputation a deal of harm, and certainly do nothing to help retain and support core editors.

Flyer22 should be unblocked, an apology should be issued, and tactics that have been developed to deal with extremely troublesome, argumentative, and disruptive editors should be saved for those who are in those categories. The rest of us should continue to be spoken to as if we were human beings who are collaborating to create a world-class free encyclopedia, even if you are an administrator. --Nigelj (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the same thing in WP:AN. --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nigelj, you have misunderstood me when I said "I'll leave you to take whatever further action you deem appropriate." I was talking solely about the presence of personal information being divulged on Amalthea's Talk page when it should not have been. I was *not* commenting on the block, and was *not* suggesting that there is nothing that should be done about it. My view of the block, in fact, is quite the opposite - I think it definitely should be examined by an uninvolved Checkuser. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this isn't a bad block. I have worked with Flyer22 for years and we both regularly come to each other for help with problematic articles, and even I think this is a good block. What isn't in dispute is that someone in her household has been using proxies to edit the same articles she has. We have absolutely no way of knowing that this wasn't Flyer22, and someone apparently related to this account is still using proxies to continue to edit in regards to the block and is posting sensitive personal information about her. The situation is somewhat delicate right now, and I don't think opening a public SPI is going to do her any favors. Even more so, I don't think advertising her alleged personal issues here or on noticeboards is fair to her at all, when she apparently has no choice about discussing them. AniMate 00:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I happened across this rather by chance, although Flyer and I have run into each other at least once. Truthfully, I don't think very much good is going to come out of leaving anything below the unblock request in place (which includes this comment), especially comments related to postings by IPs, as more people will happen across this and probably make the situation here worse. Debating innocence or guilt here won't do anything but create more emotional train wrecks; I do think another checkuser or two should look into this, and much as I hate to say it I think Floquenbeam's decline above is probably the best advice for Flyer. I know we normally don't allow people to remove things related to an unblock from their talkpage, but here I think that would probably reduce the number of problems that could crop up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
( non-admin comment ) I'd like to "second" the suggestion that much of the preceding that's still currently in place as I write this could be removed. I can't see the redacted posts, but reading between the lines in what I can see, and assuming full good faith on Flyer22's part (since her explanation seems plausible), I agree that the removal suggested above by a particular admin would be the best plan by far. I'd actually go further, and suggest that the unblock request itself could disappear, too, at least with Flyer22's approval. Another checkuser look-see would be grand, by all means, sure. But those results can be reported via e-mail, or in some other privacy-preserving way. I know that could occasion allegations of some kind of skullduggery, but at least six admins (some not mentioned here) have looked this over now, all of them well-trusted by the community, btw, and I think we, ie the non-admin community, can reasonably rely on their collective opinion, here.
No one's reputation need suffer from this, btw. If Flyer22 still feels like it's important to do so, she can post a brief note in 30 days saying something like, "About my block: I regret it extremely, and I know it's what sockmaster's all say, but in this case it's perfectly true: A well-meaning member of my household was responsible for the edits that prompted checkusers to conclude I'd been socking. That person supposed, quite incorrectly, of course, that he was doing me a favor by supporting my edits and talk page comments. There's no way I can prove this, of course, so I'll simply close my comment on the matter by saying that I'm sorry this happened, both for myself and for the project, and that I naturally regret the disruption it caused." That should do it, I think.
Besides, a break from editing is a good plan for all of us, occasionally. It's just way too easy to take the intensity this place can generate personally, and get all tied up in knots over what other people say to or about you, or because some article is completely wrong on any given point. Despite immediate appearances, none of that really matters a hill of beans when you think about the fact that the majority of kids in the world don't get enough to eat, for example, or that loads of people get driven from their homes and land every day, simply because someone else wants it. Breaks are good to help one maintain perspective, in other words. Thus my suggestion to Flyer22, offered with sincere respect and candid trust in her account of how this problem arose, would be to take the break and use the time to engage in a positive way with the real, face-to-face world. Mow an elderly neighbor's lawn, instead, or learn html, or read Act One, by Moss Hart. ( That was a shameless plug for my favourite autobiography; it's hugely touching, and also far and away the funniest book I've ever read. ) In a month this won't seem anything like as important, truly. Finally, I'll reiterate my support for removal of the preceding, including my own comment here, as per a preceding admin suggestion. I think that should be allowed in this instance, per WP:IAR. As I see it, doing so would be of benefit to the project, as well as to all concerned.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How will those who edited alongside her know whether or not she is okay? Any idea?Rain the 1 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll just have to wait and see - if ArbCom are looking at it, they would not be able to divulge anything personal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BASC[edit]

To Flyer22 or the IP, if you are seeing this. Please contact Ban Appeals Sub-Committee (BASC) as soon as possible with your explanation on the situation, I'm sure they are interested to hear and give Flyer22 a fair review. E-mail address is arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (Redacted)[reply]

A note to Flyer22[edit]

I know we haven't spoken in some time, and I realize you may not even see this message but I had to give you a word of encouragement. Your work on this site is exceptional and I hope this block case is resolved in your favor. I've also worked with Amalthea on a number of occasions and have only known him to operate in good faith, so I hope given the circumstance you won't hold a grudge. I just hate seeing good editors pitted against each other due to unusual situations like this. As for whatever may being happening in your personal life, my sincerest hope that you come out of it happy, healthy and full of life. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 22:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Appeal Subcommittee review[edit]

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has reviewed your block, and declines to unblock at this time. As I'm sure you're aware, your block will expire later this month. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way for the wikipedia hoi polloi to have a look at these proceedings? Or are they strictly reserved for the Wikipedia Star Chamber? -- Wlmg (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wlmg, unfortunately I'm not sure there is. In this instance, we received an email from Flyer22's brother (or alternatively, from Flyer22, depending on which version of events you believe) which contains information that has not been made publicly available. That said, I can say that within the committee there was a range of views, and differing interpretations of events, however there wasn't a consensus to unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing the above statement, Phil Knight, and in particular the phrase "which version of events you believe", it would appear that you are in receipt of an e-mail which you, or some members of your group, believe to have been written, or possibly written, by Flyer22 pretending to be Flyer22's brother. There isn't any other way to interpret your statement, I don't think.
This being so, I'd have to say that the people who believe this are almost certainly wrong and probably underqualified, intellectually, for being on this type of appeals board for a major website, and that it's reasonable to infer that the appeals process was likely shot through with egregious incompetence.
Furthermore, it's probably not a good idea to publicize the notion that members of the appeals board think that Flyer22 is in the habit of forging emails. It's embarrassing. Not for her, but for you, since it shows you as incompetent clowns, and for us, since we are unfortunately required to be associated with you.
After all, we don't go around saying that, "depending on whom you believe", you (Phil Knight) and your precious appeals board may or may not be pig-fuckers.
But maybe we should. Herostratus (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to believe Flyer22, but since few people on wikipedia ever interact face-to-face or through any other method other than wikipedia itself, its not at all possible to say with absolute certainty that everyone is exactly who they say they are. Just because you and I (or anyone else) may take Flyer's word at face value (and be happy to do so), there is no reason to attack someones intelligence for being skeptical. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reply[edit]

Hello, everyone. As I'm home for what may be a short period, I felt that I should drop in to let you know that I'm okay, and to say some things about my block. I thank all of you who have supported me, have sent emails to me showing that you care and have believed in my words about what transpired while I was editing and what subsequently led to the block. For those who know the personal details, it's true that I compromised my health, and I apologize for that information having been publicized via a family member instead of having come from me personally and for those who were looking to make contact with me having had their emails intercepted by the same family member who was using my email account to make contact with those he couldn't contact without it. But just know that my email is back under control (new password exclusive to me) and please understand that my brother was suffering and felt that he was doing right by me by informing others of my situation. It is deeply upsetting to come back here to see him having run all over the place defending me, people reprimanding him and people thinking that it was (or possibly was) me doing this. While I don't condone his actions, I ask that you try to remember that he is a 19-year-old kid who had a great deal of guilt on his shoulders and clearly didn't know how best to cope with that. He's still dealing with that guilt. And although I am sorry for how the information got out, I'm not sorry that it is out there, with the exception of users like Kim van der Linde who felt the need to take time out of her "retirement" to make light of my situation, which in turn spurred on my brother. That bit has not yet been censored, and since it shows the conduct of someone I don't see being suitable of the title administrator, I'd rather it not be censored. I thank those who emailed me about that and for your sympathies regarding it. I'm not embarrassed about the information being public because it's not something I should be embarrassed about. For those who know how one gets to this point, the mental processes are not something that are the person's fault. What I am embarrassed about is how I let moments of feeling immense scrutiny cause me to react in a way that was detrimental to the psychological well-being of my family, in a way that I never thought I would put them through again. My emotional issues are what they are, but I have always strived to maintain a level of professionalism while editing Wikipedia and to leave any personal demons I may have in the off-Wikipedia world. I failed in that area on March 21, 2012 and, for that, I am sorry. If it helps, I want to say that despite KimvdLinde's belief, it wasn't about needing to separate my real self from my online self. My online self is also my real self, and all you have on Wikipedia is your reputation. To know that any time someone checks my block log, they are going to see "Abusing multiple accounts" and think "Dishonest editor," and that they may bring this up in some dispute I'm in with them, it's tough. I let that and people being skeptical of my situation get the better (or rather worse) of me. It was piled on top of previously existing issues and just culminated from there.

It's upsetting to see anyone I've worked with for years thinking that I did or may have sockpuppeted. I know that none of us know each other that well, unless we took the time to get to know each other via extensive talk page conversations, email or some social networking outlet, if not in person, but I feel that my true character came through in most of our interactions and that anyone who knows me through my editing and principles should know that I wouldn't sockpuppet. I can understand why there would be skepticism, especially from the ArbCom committee who only know that an IP and two alternate (registered) accounts were making edits that I generally would have made (the majority of the time) and were, at times, supporting me in disputes. But looking at my brother's first account, I can't see any rational reason that anyone would think that I would have made that account. It was created in July 2011, made a few useless comments on the talk of an article I was heavily invested in at the time, then reverted to something I reverted to before leaving me to deal with the rest of that article (which was a very stressful environment during that month and months following it). Some time later, this account showed up to heavily edit another article that I've contributed to, but I wasn't heavily editing it at the time and I had no reason to create an extra account just to edit it. There wasn't any active dispute going on, not a serious one anyway, so I can't understand the perception that I operated that account. For the second one (Banking honesty), it is just as illogical, perhaps more so, to think that I operated it. And for the proxy IP socks, a few of them having made comments (some to my talk page) that I can't fathom making, I'm possibly most confused about being linked to those. Not to mention, the notion that it was me pretending to be my brother all this time and that I would fabricate something as serious as an illness that I've battled for years.

I know that there will be people who will always believe that I was socking. It doesn't matter how many times I say that I wasn't. But being believed by some, and that includes some of the ArbCom committee (it would seem), is a good thing. I stated before that I can understand the skepticism of my innocence. What I don't understand is why anyone on the committee felt they only had to rely on my and my brother's words and edit histories. I know that IPs can reveal private information, but I sincerely doubt that it could have revealed whether or not my discussed circumstances were true. This is why I'm in agreement with my brother that assessing the case beyond our words and edit histories would have been most ideal. Either way, I take full responsibility for the sockpuppetry because I did not report it the first time I was told of it, although I wasn't sure where it was happening and didn't know that proxy IPs were being used independent of that first account until after he was blocked that first time. It's also my computers and video game system that were used for the socking. I realize that saying I was the one that socked, acknowledging why I was blocked, that further disruption won't happen again, and that I will make useful contributions in the future would have likely resulted in me getting unblocked before the set time period, but that's not something I could do. Not because of my reputation, which is harmed by this regardless, but because it just isn't true. As simple as that. I thought that I was done with Wikipedia. But, like a lot of people who find that they just can't leave it, I'm not done with it quite yet. Not until I do the things I planned to do before the block happened. I thought that if I come back to this site, I'd close myself off and become one of those editors who don't participate in discussions, revert without putting up a rationale, barely leave any kind of edit summary, and ignore comments posted to their talk pages. But those kinds of editors annoy me to no end and I generally don't view them as being of great benefit to the project. So, in short, I plan to be better than I was before. I'm well-aware that I may never be trusted in the same way again, but I'm not leaving my Wikipedia "career" as it currently stands. Those who know me personally know that I’m one to jump back on the horse soon after falling off, so I do plan to continue editing soon after the unblock. I know what's best for me, and going back to the same (but improved) routine after a difficult time is what's best (as it's always been).

That brings me to my brother. Even though he's said that he's stopped editing, I don't know what to believe. I read where he was warned and why, but he does what he wants. It's always been that way, aside from having been respectful to our parents and other authority figures while growing up. However, about eight hours ago, he told me that he had demonstrated restraint for my sake, forcing himself not to make a comment on a talk page since not doing so meant not getting my account into a more serious restriction. The talk page in question is the Anal sex talk page. He was upset that someone has removed the religious information from the lead of the article and that this goes against WP:LEAD. I can't say that I'm all too concerned about it, because although cultural issues, which naturally include religion, should be in the lead of that article, the exact paragraph that was removed doesn't need to be there. However, because my brother is often insistent upon keeping things the way I edited them, he would likely have reverted to the previous version on the spot. His editing is usually not independent of his concern for me. To put it simply, he is overly supportive (much like our 27-year-old brother), and the support is often based on our being siblings. This is why I'm not sure that letting him have an account is smart thing to do, no matter that it's been given the go-ahead by an administrator. He's shown over and over again that he can't help but track me to articles, that he will target and make enemies out of people I have either disagreed with or people he decides he doesn't like for whatever reason, and that he isn't willing to give up his proxies. He's still trying to figure out exactly how he got caught, admitting that he used Wild Tunnel as an IP in a sockpuppet investigation the day he was find out, and wondering why he wasn't caught by others who have CheckUser prior to that day since he's used that site countless times. All in all, my brother having an account worries me. My brother not having an account worries me. The latter does because proxy socking is most likely to occur. And both do because I don't know how to make sure something like my March 21, 2012 block doesn't happen to me again.

That's it for now. Thanks for reading all that. And, Ohiostandard, yeah, I'd thought about addressing people in that way about my block too. Thanks for the tips. Flyer22 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's great to hear from you and to know that you're well. While your brother might not have acted as well as he could, it seems clear that it was only out of concern for you - and a few of us who removed some of his comments did so out of concern to keep your private matters private, and we only spoke a little forcefully to him to achieve that end. Anyway, the key thing is to put yourself first now and take care of yourself - Wikipedia is far less important than your health and well-being, and it'll still be here for you to carry on contributing to whenever you feel up to it. Take care. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you back Flyer. I had a problem last week and wondered WWFD? As for your bother I don't want to give him any tricks of the trade. Likely he got sloppy with multiple logons and user names. Every socker never thinks they'll ever get caught, but always do. It doesn't end well; someone is inevitably better at the game.--Wlmg (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very relieved to see you're ok. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear from you again, Flyer. Welcome back. --Nigelj (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I again thank all of you. Wlmg, my brother only used two registered accounts. Like I stated, the first one was blocked last year without being tied to me. And we know what happened to the second one. Most of his edits were proxy IP edits. The Blade of the Northern Lights, no, leave it on for several more days, to keep my brother from posting here. He may still be very upset about this, and he's likely to rant when he's upset. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; that's why I checked first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary block: Brother again[edit]

Hi Flyer22, I've temporarily blocked this account again, as your brother appears to be on it again while logged in as you - see the revision history for evidence. Unfortunately, if he continues to do this kind of thing, he's going to get your account permanently blocked as compromised, which would most definitely not be fair to you. I'll drop you an email too, and will unblock the account as soon as I'm satisfied that you have made him go away and you are back in control - you really need to make sure you don't leave your computer logged in while he's around, and make sure he doesn't get your password. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I have to get off to bed now - anyone else is free to unblock without waiting for me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you, Boing! said Zebedee. In this case, my absence was apparently taken advantage of. This is both tiring and embarrassing, and I don't know what to do about this issue anymore. I didn't have a block log, as in any markings on it, until this year. I discussed containing my brother with a member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, and I explained that I can't keep him from editing Wikipedia, and even pointed to the fact that my brother is still sparingly editing under our IP address, sometimes going as far to use my particular phrasings (not sure what the phrasing matter is about...unless he wants to make it look as though I'm editing). He may even be still using proxies elsewhere on the site. But there seemed to be agreement that as long as he doesn't edit to support me in any way or create another registered account, everything should be fine as far as affecting my account goes. Even if I were to discard this account and edit under a new one, it wouldn't be a true WP:Clean start because I wouldn't be willing to leave the topic areas I edit in, which means that my brother would soon recognize me. It seems that I might need to have the aforementioned ArbCom member weigh in here, because this has gotten ridiculous and what I consider to be a more serious line has been crossed, since he dared edit under my user name. As far as I'm aware, that has never happened before. Although there were times in my earlier editing days in which I didn't look back at my contributions, that was before my brother had any interest in editing Wikipedia and I now look back at my recent contributions each and every time. My Wikipedia password has always been secure as well, as I have never revealed it to anyone. But seeing as I use this password for other things, including for my computer account, and my brother may know of it from any of the other instances, I will now need to change my computer password and my Wikipedia password. Unless knowing my Wikipedia password, if I was still logged in as Flyer22, he still would have needed to enter my computer-account password before being able to edit under my Wikipedia account.
I truly am sorry about this, and will look at and reply to your email now. Since I am the only one with access to my email password and it is different from the above mentioned one, you can trust that it is me you are talking to. At least I hope that you do. My editing should at least prove it afterward. Flyer22 (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Got your email - as you say you have now secured your computer login again, I have unblocked your account. I wouldn't worry about having a couple of blocks in the log - you have the evidence in this talk page history to show it was someone else's doing (and some of our best contributors have lots of blocks :-) And I don't think you need consider a clean start either - you haven't been doing anything wrong yourself. Should you have any related problems in the future, there are a few of us who know what's behind it and will be able to help (and you have my email address, so you can always contact me independently of this account). Cheers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. I understand what you mean about the block log matter. As you may remember, at the recent Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion concerning my interaction with User:RJR3333 (per above on my talk page), as well as at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333/Archive, I mentioned that a lot of good Wikipedia editors have extensive block logs. So I know that blocks don't necessarily signify whether an editor is a good contributor or not, and I've gotten better about not being hung up on it in my case. Mine isn't excessive yet anyway, and I can assure that it will never be.
Your help and support has been much appreciated, and I'm just glad that he only made that one edit to the talk page. If we go by his word, he's never vandalized Wikipedia. So I suppose I can at least take comfort in the fact that he's not a vandal, aside from my talk page of course. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of blocks is nothing to worry about: battle scars is all they are, to be worn with pride. You should see my block log! Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, Malleus Fatuorum. Thanks. I think I have looked at yours before now, seeing as I've seen you around sometimes and believe that you copyedited the Todd Manning article before, but I simply viewed (and still view) you as a good editor with an extensive blocklog. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is blocked[edit]

Yes, again. You've been repeatedly using Singaporean proxy IPs to avoid detection and to set up sock accounts, all abusively. There are too many IPs to enumerate, but this, this and this are just three samples. Fireflies36 (talk · contribs) is you, Fireflies35 (talk · contribs) is you, as is MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs), just for starters. There are plenty of others - lots of them. It's hard to even know where to start. But they're all you,  Confirmed by two checkusers now. This time, given the subject matter and how the edit times sync with your own, nobody is going to accept the "younger brother" excuse this time. You've gone to great effort to cover your tracks to avoid being detected in your interesting LGBT POV-pushing spree, but you're done now. Once I get the time, I'll likely to to AN/I and push for a site ban, something I rarely do - Alison ❤ 23:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Alison's block and checkuser findings. AGK [•] 00:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Allison, that's not true. I'm not User:MikeFromCanmore or his socks, or Flyer22. Am I her brother? Yes. But I am not User:MikeFromCanmore or his socks. Please check again. And have others check. It doesn't make sense to have edit warred against myself. There's no way that MikeFromCanmore or his socks were editing from the same computer/same true location as me. I was trying to keep User:MikeFromCanmore from removing the material. 220.255.2.150 (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It started with the Lesbian sexual practices article. I saw User:MikeFromCanmore remove material that my sister had added some time ago. I reverted him there and elsewhere on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. I then reported him at WP:LGBT and at Drmies's talk page. Look at the vast differences between our rationales and at the edit times, where we were replying almost back-to-back. That would be an insane amount of work to comment back and forth with myself, using valid rationales vs. idiotic rationales, trading IPs, etc. That is not going to "great efforts to cover [my] tracks." That is us being two very different people. And most importantly, what would I get out of it? That's insane, as insane as User:MikeFromCanmore's rationales. My sister has never socked. And I mostly haven't been editing the same articles she edits anymore, and definitely not in a way to game the system. I've still been using proxies because she doesn't want me editing Wikipedia because she doesn't want my edits tied with hers and doesn't want me editing any of the articles she edits or talking to her while on Wikipedia. That's why she at one point had our IP blocked so that all I could do is use proxies. See here. When I was debating with User:MikeFromCanmore, he was soon calling me a proxy IP -- see User talk:142.161.182.190 -- which is correct. And he knew exactly what type of proxy I was using. We got into extensive debates, not just there, but also at Drmies's talk page. Given that he knew what proxy range I was using, it's not unlikely that he started using it. I had noticed the sudden vandalism to User talk:Widr because I kept getting vandalism warnings about it today when my IP would change, and I figured that User:MikeFromCanmore was using it, trying to get me blocked. I had almost commented to Drmies about this or with one of the other users I'd developed a sort-of friendship with there on Drmies's talk page. My point is that if you compare most of User:MikeFromCanmore's IPs to mine, you should be able to see that I did not operate those. I stayed on one proxy IP range and never used it for disruption or vandalism. I used it to edit a few aricles and mosly to combat User:MikeFromCanmore. To allign me or my sister, but especially my sister, with User:MikeFromCanmore, is a grave mistake. 220.255.2.101 (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are telling a pack of utter lies. Why did you use anonymising Singaporean proxies? Was it perhaps because you thought you could make a bunch of anonymous edits to contentious articles about sexual topics while maintaining the facade of a legitimate account? AGK [•] 01:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having spent a fair amount of time dealing with these socks, I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by this - not that Mike was the sockpuppet of an experienced user, but that the Singaporean proxies were also Mike's. They posted a tremendous amount of text in arguments against him, including at User talk:Drmies, User talk:Dennis Brown, and my talk page. If CheckUser confirms that this account is the puppeteer of MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs), then it looks like that's settled (and I clearly have no interest in defending "Mike" or whoever he/she actually is), but could one of the CheckUsers clarify the Singaporean IP situation? Did someone actually argue with themselves for hours on end? I'd say that the proxy part were just a misunderstanding in a situation with proxy IPs on both sides (a misunderstanding which has already happened several times in this whole mess), but seeing that whoever's using those proxies doesn't deny being Flyer22's "brother," I must say I'm a bit confused. So, to be clear, this entire edit war was actually between sockpuppets of the same account? — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Without going into too much of the technical details, I can confirm that the 220.255.2.0/24 SingNet IP range was certainly used by Flyer22 (talk · contribs). Furthermore, I can confirm that the following open proxies were also used, and I'm just collating them here for transparency;
I spent some time looking into this tonight. It looks like MikeFromCanmore shared a common proxy with Flyer22 at one point and this is where the link came from. However, I'm going to say that the MikeFromCanmore group is a separate sock group at this stage. In fact, one of the 220.255.2.0/24 range was checked as part of this overall investigation and this was when the Flyer22 IP sockfarm was discovered. Sockpuppets warring with sockpuppets - Alison ❤ 05:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on this below (after the unblock request). Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Flyer22 Frozen/Archive 10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As this is a CheckUser block, I know that the CheckUser who blocked me, Alison, must agree to my being unblocked for the unblock to happen. I see what has been stated about my perceived guilt above, but here I am anyway. I have taken a couple of hours to review the disruption. And much like Alison, I don't know where to begin. It appears that no matter what I state, I won't be believed. By some anyway. But I need to state this regardless: Above, in the section now marked as "WP:DENY," my brother mentions that I added the content to Lesbian sexual practices that MikeFromCanmore was persistently removing. This is true, at least regarding some of the material, and it can be confirmed by checking that article's edit history.[2][3][4] Because I am the one who added some of that material, and this is an article I have heavily edited, this is no doubt why my brother repeatedly reverted MikeFromCanmore and got into an edit war with him over this material.[5][6][7][8] This is not the first incident where he has used a proxy to revert disruption at that article; he also edit-warred against Freedamordistat/Francaiselesbienne[9][10] (as he's admitted to me). When I saw the edit war with MikeFromCanmore, I decided to stay out of it, especially because MikeFromCanmore cannot be reasoned with and I recognized the IP who was adding back the material as a proxy IP. I'd discussed with Dennis Brown and others, by way of email, that there was (still is) nothing I could (can) do to keep my brother from editing Wikipedia, short of kicking him out of the house, and that he was still editing Wikipedia as proxies. He linked to a discussion about it above. As confirmed there, it is true that I agreed to IP block exemption, after it was suggested to me to do so, to keep my brother from editing Wikipedia under our true IP. That wore off after a month, and I didn't bother requesting for another. Because I feared that the proxy IP at Lesbian sexual practices was my brother, I stayed out of the edit war and debate and instead emailed three users about the edit war, asking them what I should do regarding that situation. These three users are: Gwen Gale, Siawase and Nigelj. You can obviously contact them for verification. Above, AGK called what my brother has stated about this drama "a pack of utter lies," but what my brother stated is the only thing that is logical. To believe otherwise is to believe that I persistently edited out material that I added, by way of fighting with myself, reporting myself at a WikiProject and administrator's talk page, and by having lengthy debates with myself, all for the sake of somehow drawing suspicion away from the fact that I am committing vandalism at various articles as various IPs. To that, I can only state that I am not a sockpuppet; nor am I a vandal. It was bad enough when I was accused of being my brother, but to now be accused of being MikeFromCanmore is far out there, like "out of this world" out there. For me to have been MikeFromCanmore, for my brother to have been MikeFromCanmore, goes against everything I am, everything he is; to persistently damage an article I contributed significantly to, and any LGBT article, would not happen in either case. People who know me as an editor, and how much I care about the articles I have significantly built, know that. I don't have that much time on my hands to go about such an elaborate ruse, and I can't grasp why anyone would go about it for so long, especially while using a proxy. Last time, I wasn't accused of vandalism. And now, not only am I accused of being a sockpuppet, multiple sockpuppets at that, but also an extremely disruptive vandal. My brother doesn't care what proxies he uses. He just uses proxies, and anyone can edit with those proxies. I highly doubt that he committed any vandalism under any of the proxies he's used. And if I had ever sockpuppeted, I would not risk being blocked again, let alone indefinitely blocked, after that embarrassing first ordeal earlier this year. The second ordeal, where my brother used my account, was almost just as embarrassing. But this third ordeal is by far the worst, not just because of the indefinite block, but also because of what I laid out above about MikeFromCanmore. Above, my brother requested to have more CheckUsers look over this. I could not endorse that request any harder if I tried. A thorough combing over the IPs to show that while my brother and MikeFromCanmore may have eventually used the 220. proxy, considering that MikeFromCanmore knew about the location of the proxies and was using various IPs (proxies or otherwise) to damage the articles Lesbian sexual practices and Lesbianism in erotica, my brother and MikeFromCanmore are not one and the same. And neither are the three of us. Seeing what IPs that my true IP has proxied under should also help. I ask that the CheckUsers consider more extensively examining the IPs (proxies or no proxies) and the computers (brands, files, etc.) that have been used during these edits. Once MikeFromCanmore goes back to disruptively editing the articles Lesbian sexual practices and Lesbianism in erotica, which I have no doubt that he eventually will, using whatever IP he'll be using at those times, that will also confirm that he is not me or my brother, assuming that CheckUsers will be able to see that even with his use of proxies, considering that proxies yet again did not protect my brother from being connected to me. Flyer22 (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking per email/Skype discussion and per the agreement below - Alison ❤ 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I'm just going to note here that the MikeFromCanmore account group may well be separate to these. There have been so many IP ranges and open proxies used by these accounts that there may well be overlap. The useragents are also different between the Canmore group and these sets of proxies above. Can you at least explain what exactly is going on here with the open proxy IPs? This is not okay and, given the level of disruption here, looks a whole lot like WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY right now - Alison ❤ 06:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not what to believe here. I've been working with Flyer22 on this for month, although not recently. Flyer, you and your brother sound a lot alike, although not like Mike. I don't have access to CU data, so I can't tell if you are being honest or if you are just a clever troll playing all three roles. This wouldn't be the first time someone has done this, after all. Why would your brother have been so much on my talk page? I can see why you would Flyer, I've believed you when no one else would, but I just don't know what to think here. An Arb has been involved in this as well (Alison can email me for info), again months ago. More importantly, regardless of everything you say is true, Flyer, this has been an ongoing source of drama for a long time. At some point, WP:DE kicks in and "why" no longer matters. Again, I'm not sure what to believe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alison, for looking further into this and confirming that I am not MikeFromCanmore and neither is my brother. Also try to forgive me for this long post: Concerning the IPs confirmed as having been used by my true IPs, it's as I suspected/knew, and as my brother admitted; he has continued using proxies to contribute to this site. If he made a lot of the edits that belong to those IPs, it also shows that he has been somewhat honest about no longer editing the same articles that I edit. For example, concerning his 115.111.7.248 and 37.72.10.253 IP edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Amanda Todd, I'd never heard of Amanda Todd until now (that may make me seem dense, but it's true). The only similar thing there is my brother talking about pedophilia, reiterating things I've commented on before. I have not been evading/trying to evade scrutiny. There's nothing that I need to evade scrutiny for; my block cases are mentioned/listed higher up on my talk page. And, like I mentioned last time, I would have commented on things under my Flyer22 account instead of as an IP. These contributions show my brother outing User:Acoma Magic, but I'm not as familiar with that user and would have outed him under my account. I see edits that can make people think that I'm my brother, except for the de-capitalization edit summary style, and I see edits like this one that are completely unrelated to me (not familiar with that user at all). Even though my brother has continued to use proxies, this is something that some administrators and one ArbCom member (one to my knowledge) knew about, and he (still speaking of my brother) doesn't appear to have been a vandal. From what I can see, this particular case was not a case of a registered account or proxy IPs reverting to support my reverts or commenting in discussions to support me.
To fully understand the proxy issue, you'd need to read over my email exchanges with SilkTork, Boing! said Zebedee and Dennis Brown. But to relay a shorter version here, my brother has always used proxies when using the Internet, stating that it gives him his privacy. That didn't stop when he started editing Wikipedia. He started editing Wikipedia to try to help me, but he went about it wrongly, starting by using proxy IPs to persistently watch over and report Pass a Method's edits because he considers Pass a Method a highly problematic editor (sentiment that has been expressed by various other editors). As mentioned back in September 2012 on John Carter's talk page (also linked in my unblock request), he stalked/complained about editors he viewed as "having caused me trouble" and/or as having problems in their editing. I stated, "Since my original and second block, efforts have been taken to contain my brother's editing, and his editing in relation to me, on Wikipedia, which is briefly commented on in the following edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee and Dennis Brown are two editors I have privately discussed this matter with. ... As for editing times, my brother was shown to edit Wikipedia at or around the same time as me as well; when I was blocked the first time, there was a close editing time in addition to spacing of editing times. So it's not just when I'm not at home, such as during my 6-day absence from Wikipedia when I was blocked again. Looking at the 23:33, 10 July 2012 edit and the July 16, 2012 edits I made to my talk page show that 6-day absence. I have a job (my brother does not), a job that I just got home from, and I do not have the time or interest to stalk Pass a Method all day (even though it appears that Pass a Method has been stalking my edits). Furthermore, I would not have asked others to deal with Pass a Method for me. It doesn't appear to have worked out much for these IPs so far; seems 50/50 most of the time. And I would have edited any of these articles attached to these IPs while signed in; they are often not controversial edits. The edits that show vandalism in some of my brother's proxies, I believe to be committed by others who used the proxies days, weeks, or months before he did, since he changes IPs often and is not a vandal. Well, not typically a vandal at least. I stated before that I cannot control my brother's access to Wikipedia (editing or simply reading it). I have made sure that he cannot edit Wikipedia using our IP address, but he never seemed to use it for most of his edits before, and he no longer supports me in disputes. Other than that, what he does here is something I try not to concern myself with if I do spot him. For example, if IP 94.76.201.77 is him, then I am all the more inclined to ignore this request.."
Dennis Brown also commented: "The other day, I blocked Flyer's IP and gave her IP block exemption. The IPs in question are anonymous proxies. I'm not sure what Flyer can do about this. Either you believe Flyer, or you don't..."
And at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, also in September 2012, I relayed: "I didn't even request [IP block exemption]. It was suggested to me, and I accepted it. But it was really a last resort type of thing because my brother continues to edit Wikipedia, will not stop, and it was suggested by administrators that he create a Wikipedia account. I saw that as a bad idea, even if using a tag on his user page stating that he is related to me. I don't want him to feel welcomed at this site or feel that he is welcomed to communicate with me on Wikipedia. IP block exemption ensures that he cannot create another Wikipedia account under our IP address and helps to keep me better disassociated from him. With or without it, he will still be using proxies to edit whatever part of Wikipedia he wants to. ... So all in all, taking away IP block exemption will hurt me. For instance, if my brother signs up for an account under a proxy, that proxy will be caught sooner or later, usually sooner, and so will the account associated with it if a WP:CheckUser comes across it. If he signs up for an account using our actual IP address, however, then that takes me along with him if he is shown to be a trouble-editor at any article. So far, he hasn't shown himself to be a trouble-editor at articles, except for any time that he followed the meatpuppet route. ... And I have done everything to keep him from editing Wikipedia, with the exception of kicking him out."
That is a summary of my brother issue/his proxy issue, Alison. Now it seems that I should have kept using IP block exemption or simply left before my reputation could be further damaged. During my second block (linked in my unblock request), I'd told Boing! said Zebedee that I discussed containing my brother with a member of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (SilkTork), and "I explained that I can't keep him from editing Wikipedia, and even pointed to the fact that my brother is still sparingly editing under our IP address, sometimes going as far to use my particular phrasings (not sure what the phrasing matter is about...unless he wants to make it look as though I'm editing). He may even be still using proxies elsewhere on the site. But there seemed to be agreement that as long as he doesn't edit to support me in any way or create another registered account, everything should be fine as far as affecting my account goes. Even if I were to discard this account and edit under a new one, it wouldn't be a true WP:Clean start because I wouldn't be willing to leave the topic areas I edit in, which means that my brother would soon recognize me. It seems that I might need to have the aforementioned ArbCom member weigh in here, because this has gotten ridiculous and what I consider to be a more serious line has been crossed, since he dared edit under my user name. As far as I'm aware, that has never happened before. Although there were times in my earlier editing days in which I didn't look back at my contributions, that was before my brother had any interest in editing Wikipedia and I now look back at my recent contributions each and every time. My Wikipedia password has always been secure as well, as I have never revealed it to anyone. But seeing as I use this password for other things, including for my computer account, and my brother may know of it from any of the other instances, I will now need to change my computer password and my Wikipedia password. Unless knowing my Wikipedia password, if I was still logged in as Flyer22, he still would have needed to enter my computer-account password before being able to edit under my Wikipedia account."
Boing! said Zebedee responded, "Got your email - as you say you have now secured your computer login again, I have unblocked your account. I wouldn't worry about having a couple of blocks in the log - you have the evidence in this talk page history to show it was someone else's doing (and some of our best contributors have lots of blocks :-) And I don't think you need consider a clean start either - you haven't been doing anything wrong yourself. Should you have any related problems in the future, there are a few of us who know what's behind it and will be able to help (and you have my email address, so you can always contact me independently of this account). Cheers. --"
Clearly, there was something to worry about. But for me to go out of Wikipedia like this? It makes me extremely sad. I suggested during my first block that I would be willing to meet with Wikipedia ArbCom members in person to confirm that my 19-year-old, now 20-year old, brother exists and that the edits I've been accused of making, as a different registered user and as IPs, are his (or people unrelated to us at times). I am still willing to do that. If using Skype to confirm that there are two of us was agreed to, I'd do that. Anything to keep my Wikipedia account from ending in this horribly false fashion.
Dennis, it saddens me greatly that you have lost faith in me.[11][12] But I understand. "Assume good faith" can only go so far. Still, I would trust that you and others who know the behind-the-scenes matters wouldn't be so quick to think of me as guilty. You are one of the people who knows that I've done a lot, everything, to keep this very moment from happening. You commented that my brother sounds a lot like me. In response, I can only point to what I stated above in my comment to Boing! said Zebedee. My brother has certainly watched me on this site enough, is familiar with my reasoning, and has admitted that he has learned to edit this site (what the policies are, etc.) by watching me. So it doesn't surprise me that he can or would sound like me (he goes as far as to repeat what I say about pedophilia to people in person), or that he would show up on your talk page to discuss things with you about a problematic editor. He's familiar with you through me and you were steadily blocking MikeFromCanmore. Looking at this and his posts about MikeFromCanmore, he also apparently has a fondness for reporting people at Drmies's talk page. Drmies and I have not interacted much, however, so I cannot explain why that is.
That's all I can think to comment on at the moment. I ask that Alison and others be as fair as they possibly can on this issue. When what was likely my brother was scolded by a user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion, he ceased his stalking/complaining to others-behavior of Pass a Method to make sure that I would no longer be caught up in his Wikipedia disputes. I have faith that he would be willing to give up his Wikipedia proxy use for good, considering this latest incident. He apparently truly does just want to edit Wikipedia, and it appears that I should have gone with the advice to let him create his own account and have it publicly connected to mine by a tag on our user pages. I can't help that it just didn't seem like a good idea, for the reasons stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Flyer and the "brother" are two persons or one is no longer relavent. The simple fact is that the level of disruption from this "family" as a whole has gone beyond what can be accepted from the community. Too much energy is being wasted in this game, that could be better used to improve the project. Time to protect the project for good (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The project can be protected without indefinitely blocking me. Disruption... While my brother has continuously used proxies to edit Wikipedia, that is not a major Wikipedia crime. I'm looking where WP:PROXY states, "Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." Proxy blocks are to keep vandals and other such problematic editors from damaging Wikipedia. My brother is not a vandal and I don't see where he has damaged Wikipedia. He is not any of the actual disruptive editors around here. MikeFromCanmore was, and is, an actual disruptive editor, in stark contrast to how my brother behaved, as others from Drmies's talk page have stated. His only similarity with MikeFromCanmore was proxy use, proxies used for very different reasons. There have been true-blue disruptive Wikipedia editors who have gotten dozens and dozens of chances to remain a part of this community and still get chance after chance, either because of their perceived value and/or obvious popularity. And I should be indefinitely blocked because of actions that I did not commit, but went through great means to try to stop? For the continual proxy use by a member in my home because that proxy use occasionally gets mixed up with vandals? Flyer22 (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, I'm trying to assume good faith, I really am. I have devoted a fair amount of time and energy trying to resolve these problems this year. Had the brother been using anonymous proxies only and you had not, then CU wouldn't have made the connection. That is the whole idea behind open proxies, and why we block them. I'm fairly active in that area, being somewhat familiar with networks. But I just don't know what to think here. I want to believe you, and my giving you block exemption demonstrates I have in the past, but the amount of drama and problems this has caused is hard to ignore, regardless of the reasons. My granting block exemption was a "hail Mary", a final, last ditch attempt at making the situation workable. As to what happens next, it is out of my hands, but I'm pretty sure you have two issues you have to address fully: Demonstrate you really are two different people. 2. Provide a path forward that prevent these types of issues in the future. Until those two things happen, and until a Checkuser agrees, I can't see this working out. I won't stand in the way of any resolution, as I genuinely do not know what to think about the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, it sounds like you are stating that I used proxies while using my Flyer22 account. That didn't happen because I didn't use any proxies, and I certainly wouldn't edit Wikipedia as Flyer22 while using proxies knowing that at any moment one of those IPs could be connected to me if a CheckUser blocks it. Alison and/or another CkeckUser should be able to clear that up. As for your block exemption, it obviously did work to keep anyone else from using my IP but me. But it only lasted for a month, and I considered the issue over after that. I was wrong, clearly. But like I stated above, "I have faith that he would be willing to give up his Wikipedia proxy use for good, considering this latest incident." Flyer22 (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Time to WP:RBI - except in this case it's "ban" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, I have no idea if you used proxies as I don't have access to the checkuser data and only a CU can verify that. Since CU linked you, it looks like you may have whether you knew it or not, as my general understanding of CU is that IP address plays a major role in linking, and proxies hide your true IP. Using a proxy is a simple setting in Internet Explorer, so it is technically possible to be using one unknowingly. I was already reviewing the necessity of continuing the block exemption when this issue came up, and obviously my actions will be scrutinized in granting it. For now, I recommend pulling back and allowing the CU to look at the data again, as it appears from their comments above that they are doing just that. As I'm involved in the situation, I can't help you anyway, and again, I lack enough information to have a definitive opinion anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, we get it: You want to throw me to the wolves, because you obviously feel that I am one of the worst of the worst, even though you have come across actual worst-of-the-worst type of editors and continue working with some of them because they are "oh so valuable/popular." But stop commenting on my talk page about it. You know full well that you aren't being helpful in this discussion and are only antagonizing.
Dennis, I don't even believe that I accidentally used a proxy while editing as Flyer22. The first time that I was blocked, I believe that the connection was caused by a weak proxy that my brother had been using when commenting in a sockpuppet investigation, as noted above. I use Firefox, not Internet Explorer; we discussed that before, I think, that my brother is an Internet Explorer user. I'm not sure if editing Wikipedia while using Firefox while his Internet Explorer is still set for proxy use could hurt my editing, or how often he edited at the same time I was editing, which maybe could cause some type of connection, but he's long since stated that he always turns the proxy off after he is finished using the Internet (whether on Wikipedia or at some other part of the Internet). As there is a lot more that goes into CheckUser data, such as computer and browser comparisons, you know that it's not the IP aspect only that CheckUsers rely on; I've witnessed this times over. Because of that, maybe it doesn't matter if even a strong proxy is used; CheckUser will find a connection due to the same brand of computer/useragent. I don't know. But thank you for trying to assume good faith. I agree with stepping back, but that's difficult to do when a dismissive/antagonizing post is made in this discussion; such posts should also pull back. There was already a rush to judgment with assuming that I or my brother was MikeFromCanmore. I ask that editors try to assume good faith on this matter instead of being out to start a lynch mob (except, of course, for those who have that mentality concerning me regardless; meaning the few enemies I've made at this site, as they will only see me as guilty). I'd seen that one editor, who is familiar with a great deal of what I'm feeling at the moment, has assumed good faith and suggested an in-person meeting to show my innocence, and I'm thankful for that mindset. Flyer22 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a further review. Nothing would surprise me - I have seen socks edit warring with each other, and I have seen one editor appear as half a dozen rounded, fully convincing characters (including one alleged to be their own grandchild), and I have seen a serial sockmaster sock to create FAs (unfortunately using copyvios from an expensive academic tome that weren't spotted for some time). Technically the crossover with MikefromCanmore appears to be only one point, so they could be different people, but the 'kid brother' defence is in my opinion just so much rubbish. The 'brother' has continued to edit, anonymously and in volume, throughout the areas where Flyer22 has edited. So it wouldn't surprise me if this editor has created an alter ego with an opposing viewpoint, for whatever purposes seemed good for them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I don't know what else to state. During my original block, I stated that I can't confess to something that I did not do. The same remains the case now. I never lied about any of this. There is no kid-brother defense, as Skype or an in-person meeting can be used to show that we are not one and the same. Even uploading a YouTube video and notifying CheckUsers and/or ArbCom members of it. All I've ever wanted to do concerning Wikipedia is to contribute to it and help it, not damage it; and that's all that I've done at this site for five years. In all cases where my brother has edited in areas that I've edited, they are cases where his help was not needed. Cases such as reverting vandalism on articles, adding content, etc., anything that wasn't the case of two registered users or IPs supporting each other's reverts or each other in discussions, are all things that made more sense for me to do while logged in, and it's a big part of the reason that I'm asking you and others to see that I am not lying here. These sockpuppet and proxy IP issues were never a factor for me until this year, because it is only late last year that my brother started editing this site. He no longer, to my knowledge, has been using proxy IPs to revert in order to support my reverts or to comment in discussions to support me, so I can't state much for why he continued to edit some of these articles other than he has a true interest in some of them and thought that it was okay since it wasn't the type of support that caused me trouble before. But having just spoken to him very recently this morning and afternoon, he has agreed to stop his proxy use and has stated that he surely would be willing to meet with any of you to verify the truth of our words. I'm a hard worker, and all I am asking for here, besides assumption of good faith, is for another chance. I mentioned higher up that some of the most disruptive editors have been given chance after chance to be a part of this community. I'm not even a disruptive editor, so you have no idea how jarring and hurtful this is for me, to be on display like this and to ask for another chance because of actions that I did not commit. But here I am asking. And I would be willing to do anything to remain a part of this community and continue to edit the topics I'm good at editing. Flyer22 (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be possible, in some way, to confirm to the check users or others that there might be two different people who both use the same computer. I honestly don't know how, other than, maybe, to do something like you propose above. Personally, I am less sure that a YouTube video is the best way to go, because people can talk others into lying on such sources, or maybe bribe them in some way. Not saying you would necessarily, but that isn't the most reliable idea I can think of. Maybe sending an e-mail of some sort to a check user or ArbCom in which you reveal your real name, with your brother sending a separate e-mail in which he does the same, with one or the other of you also providing some sort of independent verification that those two individuals actually do both exist, or physically meeting a senior trusted editor in your area who you might be able to individually meet with, for the both of you to physically meet that person and somehow confirm to their satisfaction that the two of you are the separate users of the two accounts. Maybe. I honestly don't know what precedents regarding this might or might not exist, but I can see that siblings supporting each other, maybe on the same computer, might be a problem that will arise elsewhere, particularly if we manage to get more school projects, where we might even have, potentially, identical twins with separate accounts editing the same subject area as a part of a project of a class they are both take. Honestly, I don't even want to consider the difficulties that might pose here. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, John. The YouTube aspect had been further considered by me, even as I'd posted it as a suggestion. A fellow Wikipedia editor mentioned to me in email that with enough bad-faith, people could conclude that I hired an unemployed actor. I have gone with live video communication so far. It's mentioned in the section below that Alison would be speaking to me and my brother via Skype; she has done so, and I'll let her divulge the details about that here on my talk page. I'll respond to your email in a moment. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now receiving abusive emails[edit]

I very recently received two abusive emails back to back. One from MikeFromCanmore dated December 13, 2012, 17:02 and one from RJR3333 dated December 13, 2012, 17:17. Surely, Wikipedia email software can show that they sent these. Looking at RJR3333, I see that he has still gone on about me at his talk page. Taking his history into account, I also doubt that he has followed WP:OFFER and that he hasn't been editing Wikipedia under another user name. That he is even aware of what is happening at my talk page shows that he is still obsessing over me. Is it likely that RJR3333 and MikeFromCanmore are one and the same, or is this just a coincidence? What should I do about this? Should I at least reply to MikeFromCanmore? He's certainly made assumptions about my sexual orientation and intentions with the Lesbian sexual practices article and that I'd even be unblocked and free to add the information that he wants. If this information were to be added by anyone, would this be acceptable since it is the request of an indefinitely blocked user?

Below are the emails (with my email address edited out; I've also just sent them to Alison): Flyer22 (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: MikeFromCanmore (Redacted) To: Flyer22 Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 17:02 Subject: This all could have been avoided.

Provided you stopped your pro LGBT biased editing, as you did with "Lesbian sexual practices". I understand your orientation and have no qualms with that, but to try to make an article biased to fit your own personal agenda (trying to manipulate your lifestyle as being superior, and stating this as fact) is extremely disruptive. To make it unbiased you would have to include the Pepper Schwartz study as well as the study by Diane Holmberg, Karen Blair, in the Journal of Sex research that found identical satisfaction, communication, etc. If you actually make it unbiased, then I will have no problem with it. You can keep what's there, but you should present the well sourced article in the Journal of Sex research and the Schwartz study.

http://www.klbresearch.com/KLB_Research/Research_files/Holmberg%20&%20Blair%20JSR%20Vol%2046%20Iss%201%202009.pdf

I'm sending this to see if you're more reasonable than your autistic brother, who I assume is your alter ego, but maybe not. Are you willing to remove bias to make a compromise? Your alter ego couldn't face the truth and repeatedly denied evidence. Again, had you not been such a biased editor, this never would have happened! Interesting how the world works. Some might call it karma. Email back.

-- This e-mail was sent by user "MikeFromCanmore" on the English Wikipedia to user "Flyer22". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: RJR3333 <xxxxxxxxxx> To: Flyer22 Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012, 17:17 Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

I saw that you were banned from editing you stupid kyke. YOU LOSE

-- This e-mail was sent by user "RJR3333" on the English Wikipedia to user "Flyer22". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>. __________________________________________________________________________________________________

Okay, Alison let me know that she's "blocked both those accounts now so they cannot send email." And that I should let her know if I get anymore abusive emails so that she can block those as well. She also stated, "And yes, it's the Canmore guy again, so this socking obviously goes waaay back." So I take it that she means that MikeFromCanmore is RJR3333. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • From their edit interests, they look very similar indeed, but Checkuser doesn't give much visibility on that, for a number of reasons. I'm making an educated guess there. And I've had to redact one of the email addresses above, as it's trivially simple to determine the RL identity of one of those posters. It's probably not a great idea to post email to WP, not even abusive ones like these - Alison ❤ 00:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, Alison. I've seen abusive emails revealed on Wikipedia as evidence, and it seemed that I should post these here as part of my case. As I wasn't fazed by these emails in the way that the above users presumably expected, that is another reason that I didn't mind posting them in their entirety instead of just mentioning them. I'll think better of anything of this sort in the future, if it happens again while I'm indefinitely blocked or during any future time I have on Wikipedia as an unblocked editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, you have an open unblock that you asked for admins to review. I'm an admin, and have reviewed, and will continued to provide my findings and comments as long as it's open - it is, indeed, helpful to the process. Second, I'm very disappointed that you posted the entire contents of private correspondence above - that's not permitted, and goes further towards the point that you should not be here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, welcome to my talk page then. First, the unblock request starts off stating, "As this is a CheckUser block, I know that the CheckUser who blocked me, Alison, must agree to my being unblocked for the unblock to happen." So it is quite clear that any review you could have possibly given was not going to result in you unblocking me, as Alison was still looking over things at that point (and is still looking over things). And knowing how you are, you would have commented here regardless. Also knowing how you are, and how you always assume the worst in block cases, you would have had nothing but negative, snarky things to state here; I've seen you in action countless times, and our few interactions have never been positive, even when my blocklog was clean for years before this hellish year, except for in the case of when you saw RJR3333's harassment of me and WP:COMPETENCE issues for what they were. After that, I'd thought to myself: Hey, maybe that Bwilkins guy is not such a bad guy after all. And that one day we may have a working relationship; indeed, I was wrong. Considering the dozens and dozens of emails I've received stating that I should be here, and this post on Alison's talk page stating so, I'm more indifferent than I am upset/disappointed that you think repeatedly stating on my talk page that I should not be here, usually with as much antagonism as possible, is "indeed, helpful to the process." But we all have our opinions, don't we? The difference between those who feel that I should be here and you (or those like you) is that they are not stirring up needless drama on my talk page; this is why they have refrained from posting here about this matter. They know that it is not helpful. And so do you; you, however, don't care.
Second, while I am aware of every Wikipedia policy and guideline, I had not been familiar with Wikipedia:Email#Abuse handling, which isn't a policy or guideline. And not having been familiar with it does not validly add to the opinion that I should not be here. Regarding Wikipedia:POSTEMAIL#Private correspondence, which is a policy, but one that I was not familiar with despite having heard of it in the past, it begins by stating, "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." This is clearly true, as Alison doesn't see my having posted the abusive emails as a major issue. Still, late last night, I asked her to also block out MikeFromCanmore's email address like she did for RJR3333's (although for my own personal benefit) and told her that I had read the email policy and that I see it turns out that I shouldn't have posted the emails at all without permission, but that it seems very unlikely that one would need to get permission from indefinitely blocked editors before posting their abusive emails to Wikipedia as evidence. I also mentioned that MikeFromCanmore, at least, seems fine with the posting anyway, considering that he gave permission to show his second email (although while claiming that the email address for his second one is not valid). Of course, I won't be posting that second email to Wikipedia. But since he's reading everything that is happening here, and I won't be responding to him by email, I'll mention this: MikeFromCanmore, we will have to agree to disagree on me calling your email abusive. Among other things that can be categorized as abusive, you called my brother autistic; I don't find autism insulting, but your remark that he has autism because of how he interacted with you was clearly intended as an insult rather than a statement of fact. And the information that I added, I mean the bit that you object to, had nothing to do with my sexual orientation or me being biased, and your comparisons are quite off the mark. I improve sexuality articles in need of improving, and all I did in the case of the Lesbian sexual practices article was add on to information that was already there. The Alfred Kinsey and Masters and Johnson studies comparing lesbians to heterosexuals were already there (as seen in the diff links I listed in my unblock request). That stated, if unblocked, I will be adding the information that you propose be added. And, Bwilkins, I'm not surprised that you would be bothered by my having posted the above emails instead of by anything in the above emails. That is another difference between you and Alison. Before you state what you think of the emails is irrelevant to whether or not they should have been posted, I state that, yes, I know you think that way. Flyer22 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, you are mistaken in one respect: the right to overturn this block is not limited only to Alison. Any checkuser may unblock you. (For instance, I'm a checkuser and I could have overturned the block; however, I did not do so, because I reached the same conclusion as Alison—that you have been socking while logged-out on a massive scale.)
Other administrators, with Flyer22 making increasingly lengthy comments (and publishing e-mails without authorisation), and with the only uninvolved administrators being firmly opposed to the block appeal, I suggest that the appeal be formally decided as soon as possible. AGK [•] 17:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that any CheckUser may unblock me. But Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser blocks states, "All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee, and administrators should not undo or alter any block that is specifically called a "CheckUser" block without first consulting a CheckUser." That is the point I was trying to make. And regarding Alison's CheckUser conclusion, as you are aware of, she has since stated that she is comfortable declaring that I am not MikeFromCanmore. She has also stated that she is not completely sure of what has taken place regarding the proxy IPs; she has kept an open mind, especially because a lot of what she has examined is confusing (as it naturally would be, considering that there are edits and edit summary styles that are illogical when attributed to me). She has agreed to Skype with me and my brother later this afternoon, to better get a grasp on all of this.
I disagree that I am making any "increasingly lengthy comments." The first lengthy comment was my unblock request, and the length of it is not prohibited. The second lengthy comment was to summarize but yet sufficiently explain a matter that Alison asked me to explain; it is the longest comment so far. And the comments to others, especially those who are speaking directly to me, may be as long as desired, but have been fairly short. I'm not trying to write a book when replying; I am only replying at the length that I feel is needed during any given reply. But I'm not actively thinking of the length; I will from now on during this block. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 wishes to contact me via Skype to discuss this, and has been in contact via email. I'm okay with that. Let's not close this request out, please, until everything has been reviewed? - Alison ❤ 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got your email just now. I'm currently writing up the details here, so sit tight. I should have something later today - Alison ❤ 19:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking[edit]

Hi Flyer22.

Per our lengthy email and Skype discussion, I'm going to unblock your account based on a number of conditions. I'm now 100% convinced there are two separate individuals in your household who are editing Wikipedia, one of whom used proxies. Ok, per our agreement, I will unblock your account provided that;

  • Your brother gets his own WP account - just one - and sticks to that without logging out. What he's been doing clearly comes under WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY.
  • Your brother quits using proxies while editing Wikipedia. They're clearly not nearly as anonymizing as he thinks!
  • You both try to steer clear of each other's editing areas, otherwise people will assume WP:MEAT, or some sort of collusion is going on.
  • You both indicate on your accounts that you guys are both editing from the same household, for transparency.

Can you indicate that you agree to this? - Alison ❤ 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alison, I agree. And so does my brother. I know that this is my last chance, and I thank you deeply for investigating this far beyond your initial conclusions. I'm convinced that any other CheckUser would have closed the door on me. What you told my brother about the proxy use has opened up his eyes more than any other commentary about it because now he knows that he simply is not anonymous while on Wikipedia and maybe not as anonymous as desired elsewhere either. But as we both know, he has a habit of using proxies in general; since he uses proxies to browse the Internet so much, he knows that I'm often going to be reminding him to cut off any proxy use before coming to Wikipedia. He can see it as nagging as much as he wants, but that's part of our personal conditions. Even if he's just browsing Wikipedia as a proxy, this is bad because he could forget that he has a proxy turned on while deciding to edit something. But there is something else that will also help this situation; he will have his own computer by this Christmas. So, hopefully, he won't be using this computer as much or any video game system (he used to edit Wikipedia a lot with the Wii while using proxies, as was probably found out during my first block). He will also be looking for his own home next year for privacy concerns and for independence. As for his registered account, as I've already given you one of his email addresses, telling you that it should be fine that you contact him for whatever you need regarding his Wikipedia identity, you may have already contacted him about what user name he has decided on. If you have, or plan to, feel free to tag his account as related to mine as soon as possible. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks for that :) I'm now unblocking your account, per agreement above. I'd also like to note that your account and your brother's are not related to the MikeFromCanmore (talk · contribs) group of accounts. Thanks for being patient throughout all this and best wishes to both of you going forwards. Sorry for having had to block your account like that - Alison ❤ 03:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also re-added your 'reviewer' and 'rollbacker' flags. I'm not going to add IP Block Exemption at this time, though. Given there should be no other proxy use by your brother, this should no longer be needed - Alison ❤ 03:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alison. Welcome back Flyer! Herostratus (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, as any CheckUser and some other Wikipedians (whether administrators or not) will tell you, the way that you initially acted regarding this case was completely understandable. I don't blame you at all. My brother continued his proxy use even after that meltdown I had earlier this year and after warnings not to use proxies anymore. It can be argued that if that meltdown didn't make him stop, then he must not exist because no (good) brother would risk their sister going through all that again; this is something he's considered. He was even using proxies to continue to comment on my talk page during that time. I, of course, consider him a good brother either way. And I can't read his mind, but I know that he knows that my meltdown was about more than just that Wikipedia editing block. It's like I told you. And, like I touched on higher above, it's apparent that he thought that using proxies in the way that he'd been using them since some time after my first block was okay to do because it's not what got me blocked that first time; he was wrong, and now he knows it.
I had noticed that my WP:Rollback rights were gone. I don't think I've ever had WP:Reviewer rights. If I do have them, I've forgotten that I do.
I additionally thank you for WP:OVERSIGHTING that name-drop per my request to do so; even with having conquered not referring to him by name while on this site, such slips can obviously still happen.
Thank you, Herostratus. Not sure if you got it, but I'd sent you an email. Thank you soooo much for your consistent and strong support of me. You never stop believing in me, and there are no words to sufficiently express how great that makes me feel. Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I'm not trustworthy yet, but I promise to abide by the rules, Ms. Alison. I confess, however, that I don't like that I can't edit the same articles as my sister. I've taken an interest in some of the article topics she edits, and User:MikeFromCanmore is still editing Lesbian sexual practices. See User:TyroneBiggums23.[13] He edited that article soon after she was unblocked, and this was very likely to make it seem that he is me, her, or that we're all the same person. I wanted to revert him so badly. Glad that a different user reverted and blocked him. Why couldn't he just wait until she kept her promise and added that information? Something is wrong with him. I think that my sister should give up editing that article and let me edit it. I know how to deal with MikeFromCanmore and users like him. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Halo Jerk1 (and why'd you choose to qualify "Halo" with "Jerk1," why not just "Halo Jerk"?; the other name occupied?), I won't be retiring from editing the Lesbian sexual practices article at this time. Any article that I've very clearly retired from editing, you can have at it.
MikeFromCanmore, about what you stated in this edit that Alison reverted, I had just been unblocked. I was not about to race to that article to add anything to it. What you have added there is more than fine, though, and it is my intention to keep fixing up that article as time goes on. But I do request that you try to refrain from insulting my brother, especially on my talk page. If there "must" be insults tossed between the both of you, then do it by email. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Phew! So glad that you're back with us. Keep up the good work; I'm sure it is worth all the hassle. --Nigelj (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also glad to see you back, and acquitted of all charges so to speak. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nigelj and Bookkeeperoftheoccult. Not long after my unblock, I closed my computer lid and left a note for my brother (who wasn't home during that time) before going to bed, telling him that he could "have at it" (editing Wikipedia under a registered account) because I needed a break from this site. Worth all the hassle? Sometimes. Flyer22 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard that Alison went beyond the call of duty to verify your claim that your brother really was responsible for those out-of-character edits. I won't say I'm sorry I didn't believe you, because the probability that your defence was genuine was low; but I am sorry for treating you both harshly (if you forget, I was the person who told your brother he was telling us a "pack of utter lies"). I wish you both the very best, and I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Please do not give Alison cause to regret trusting you. Regards, AGK [•] 22:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, AGK. Above, I told Alison that the way that she initially acted regarding this case was completely understandable; I extend that same understanding to you. You guys were pissed, and with good reason. Although my brother wasn't committing vandalism or disrupting Wikipedia in a similar way, at least I trust that he wasn't, he shouldn't have been using proxies and shouldn't have been editing the articles that I have edited. I did contact CheckUsers about this problem earlier this year; I just got through looking through my contributions to find my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, where I spoke to you about this. Here and here. I didn't get any help about this at those places and so then I went to ArbCom member SilkTork, and non-ArbCom administrators, about it via email.
I can promise that Alison will not regret trusting me. As for my brother, I also feel confident assuring that she can trust that he won't be using proxies to edit Wikipedia anymore and won't be stalking my edits to the point that it results in him editing articles that I'm currently editing. If not "no article that I'm currently editing," I'm sure that the reality of foolishness will keep him from editing anything beyond two or three of them. I've looked at his registered account contributions and have observed that he has recently edited/commented at the List of fictional supercouples article. He must see that page as an article that I've retired from. He's correct in that deduction, if that is what he's concluded, but I'm still not certain that it's okay for him to edit that article since I've played such a big role in editing it before him. It's almost like he's trying to carry on my work (not my best work in this regard, obviously). So I'm mostly going to leave things like that to the administrators and CheckUsers alike. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring on Human sexuality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   the panda ₯’ 10:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bwilkins/DangerousPanda, given our history, you know very well that this block makes you WP:Involved. Like I told you before, "as someone who does not like me (but watches my talk page just waiting for a moment that I will 'act up,' ever since my brother's actions resulted in my blocks, and has clearly expressed their dislike of me on this very talk page, you should not find it surprising that I take any warning you issue me to be dubious." The same goes for this block of yours. Your reply at the time: "I do watch this talkpage to help to ensure that you do not act up again."
So not only should your block be overturned because you are so very much WP:Involved when it comes to me, it should also be overturned for the following reasons: I reverted twice because I disagreed with Mrdthree's edit. As you know, because it's also something you do, editors revert more than once all time with perfectly good reason and with no threat of WP:3RR. I was engaging the editor on the talk page, he was engaging me, and I was about to respond to his latest comments. I did not revert again after he put that ill-advised warning on my user page and then on my talk page (ill-advised because he was essentially warning me not to revert again so that he could WP:Game the system and revert to his version). From what I see, Mrdthree is a significantly less experienced editor than I am, which is also indicated by this message, and I was going to guide him in the right direction as soon as I finished typing up my reply. But then I was hit with your block, a quite unnecessary block that has further stained my block log (but is at least based on my own doing this time). Blocks are supposed to prevent WP:Disruptive editing, such as further WP:Edit warring, and there was no indication that I was going to revert again. As my edit history shows, I had moved on to reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits. Flyer22 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have little recollection of our history, and have not edited the article. We, as far as I know, have only become embroiled in the past through admin action - if there's something else, I honestly don't care because I personally grew out of "grudges" ages ago and it was a rather freeing moment when that happened. Besides, you cannot argue some kind of technical issue - I blocked you and the other edit-warrior for 12 hours - yours should have been longer based on your past, but the intent was to protect the article and thus prevent further issues. If I were to unblock you, I'd be ethically required to do the same unblock to the other editor - which wouldn't be wise without proper proof/promises from them not to continue the panda ₯’ 11:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, your "I have little recollection of our history" (something you've essentially stated in the linked discussion above) does not fly with me, and I'm sure it won't fly with anyone else familiar with our history, such as Herostratus, including your taunting, inappropriate behavior during my other block cases (where you were proved dead wrong). And it is that history that led you to watch my talk page all this time, just waiting for a chance to strike, by your own admittance (linked above). Well, you chose the wrong time to strike, not that any striking could be valid on your part with regard to me anyway, given our history. You are WP:Involved, plain and simple. This block is inappropriate for that reason and for the other reasons I cited above. Your "the intent was to protect the article rationale" does not fly since I am not a WP:Disruptive editor, know what I am doing when it comes to editing Wikipedia, had stopped reverting and was engaging the editor on the talk page. And, no, the block should not have been longer given "my past," since "that past" relates to WP:Sockpuppetry I did not engage in...and not WP:Edit warring. Any other WP:Administrator would have given me a WP:Edit warring warning, if they felt the article needed protecting. But you chose to go right to a block several minutes after I had ceased reverting. I view that as only being a result of you being WP:Involved. Either way, if you think this block will dissuade me from reverting two times, any more than any other very experienced Wikipedia editor, including WP:Administrators, who revert at least twice, you should re-think that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DangerousPanda: Wait, you blocked on two reverts and no warning? Have I got that right? --NeilN talk to me 12:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have that wrong. The other edit-warrior was "kind" enough to provide the warning. Thanks for your AGF though :-) the panda ₯’ 12:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you just couldn't wait to stain my block log with "WP:Edit warrior," though I suspiciously made it several years on Wikipedia without being afforded that badge. Yes, do what you must Bwilkins/DangerousPanda to "prove" that Wikipedia is a much better place without the terrible Flyer22 running amok on its territory (something you've essentially stated before; all one needs to do to check on your commentary in that regard is look in my block archives; linked higher on my talk page).
Well, if I'm unblocked by a different editor for your faulty block, hopefully, he or she notes the WP:Involved nature of your block. Flyer22 (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, I'd already stopped reverting "[t]he other edit-warrior," had moved on for several minutes; besides blocking a very experienced Wikipedia editor on two reverts, that was surely NeilN's point. Even if you had warned me, it would have been futile. Flyer22 (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the timestamps, am I right in thinking you got the warning (on the incorrect page) after your second revert and did not revert again? --NeilN talk to me 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, you're making this a WP:BATTLE that doesn't need to take place. I personally 100% support your edits on this project, and you know that. If we had some dust-up in the past, I've long since forgotten it and it's no longer a part of my working memory, nor does it need to be - bury that hatchet and move on. I have no desire to target you, stain your block log, whatever. Get that into your head that I never was "involved", and nor will I ever be "involved" - repeatedly stating it does not make it so - especially now after so much water under the bridge. You admitted above that you were edit-warring - that's all this is about. I see your acknowledgement of that above, and I see your way-forward. If I see a similar parallel from the other edit-warrior, I'll unblock you both, but I cannot ethically unblock one side the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you've made interaction with me a WP:BATTLE, and this latest block is a continuation of that. As far as I can see, you've screwed up my block log even further than it was already screwed up, even with all of clarifications that are in it, knowing very well that many editors here look at the block log and see "problematic editor" when it has as many blocks/block descriptions as I now have...no matter what is clarified in the blocks. Stop telling me that you don't remember our tempestuous history, tempestuous history that you started with your highly inappropriate taunting, tempestuous history that indeed makes you WP:Involved with regard to this block (as made very clear by the WP:Involved policy). Repeatedly stating that you don't remember our tempestuous history or that you have not carried a grudge against me, even when such claims contrast your own past words concerning me and the fact that you have been watching my talk page for two years since that point, does not make it so. Your block of me is completely unjustified, per my statements above. You and I also have very different definitions of what it means to seriously edit war, a definition that also contrasts the general Wikipedia community's definition, judging by how many well-known editors here revert at least twice day in and day out. And, as I've already noted, you are no stranger to reverting at least twice as well.
Leave me alone, or can you not even do that, just like you refused to leave me alone when you were spouting off about how much better Wikipedia would be without me? No interaction between us is ever good, and yet you continue to watch my talk page and monitor my Wikipedia business and condescend to me. I won't be asking or begging you to unblock me. So you can go away now. Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, this will (I expect) be my final post here, and that saddens me on many levels. The first level being that I will not/cannot post on an editor's page whom I admire (based primarily on the types of articles you end up wading into). Second, I'm a firm believer in forgiveness and relationship repairs - I personally traditionally use the New Year as a date of personal forgiveness, both in real life and on Wikipedia. It therefore saddens me that we have been unable to recover from whatever slights that occurred in the past, even though I'm 100% sure I have apologized for them - I'm sad that you focus on the original actions, and not the sincere apologies and goodwill since. That is unfortunate, but I cannot control that. I recognize that a block is not a good step towards such repairs :-) I am taking the following steps: 1) I will not act on any ANI, AIV, AN3RR report that involves you - I may comment, but will not formally take action; 2) I do not need to un-watchlist this page, as it's been off my watchlist for ages. Although not a formal exchange, I would ask of you the following in return: review my past and current sincere apologies. Whatever I have done in the past - and even this block - were never about you, the person. At some point, I hope that you personally will find the ability to forgive - and when that happens, let me know. That doesn't mean we have to be "friendly", nor does that mean that I will ever need to post here again ... but do find it in your spirit to at least try. I do wish you all the best not just on Wikipedia, but as you go forth off-the-project as well. the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have given your "15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)" comment consideration, attempting to weigh whether or not I should heed the WP:Assume good faith guideline and trust your words. I can't trust all (or close to most) of what you state regarding me, however. For example, you stated that my talk page has been "off [your] watchlist for ages." But it was on your watchlist as recently as this discussion in 2013, where we got into a spat again. And the fact that you blocked me relatively fast (even if characterized as 20, 30 or 40 minutes later in different comments) indicates to me that you were, possibly still are, watching my talk page. As usual, I don't accept your explanations concerning me. And because of how upset I am by this block, though I took time to cool down during my several-hour break from Wikipedia, I can't even attempt to be positive regarding your supposed extension of a truce/good-faith. I have never sought you out, but, since 2012, it seems that you have sought to concern yourself with my dealings on Wikipedia. If you truly do admire me, then, yes, it would be best that you cease involvement with me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to escalate this? As far as I'm concerned, this was a pretty bad block and I'm willing to write up something for WP:ANI. You can of course ask for an unblock formally but I think the initial admin action merits a review. --NeilN talk to me 14:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urgh - this became personalized very fast. That aside for a minute, I'm seeing two reverts by both editors and both editors were blocked. Neither went over the 3RR limit yet they were both clearly in conflict. I saw good, clear edit summaries from both editors and further dialog on the talk page. And it's clear that Flyer22 had dropped the issue, at least for the moment, and moved on to other edits before she was blocked. Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive - we all know this already - but I'm not seeing much prevention here. And as 'edit wars' go, this would have to qualify as one of the tamest; two reverts, no antagonism of any substance, and ongoing dialog between both editors. And to add to the mix that DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) has previous history with this editor, yet swooped in to block a full 20 minutes after the short dispute? Nope, sorry. Flyer22 had clearly moved on, even if she had been rude and dismissive of the warning message that the other editor posted - Alison ❤ 16:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a note, having seen this brouhaha come across my watchlist: regardless of what else is going on and whether the block was warranted, Flyer22, you seem like you might be slightly misunderstanding edit warring policy by saying that since you'd only reverted twice, you can't have been doing anything wrong. In truth, three reverts is the absolute last straw, not the first sign of a problem. It's not at all uncommon for users to end up in trouble for fewer reverts than that, if their behavior indicates edit warring otherwise. Now, let me hasten to add that I haven't looked at the reverts involved here, just this talk page discussion, so I don't know whether this was that. But it may be worth your while, either for the purposes of requesting unblock or just for your general understanding, to be explicit about whether or not you understand that 3RR isn't an entitlement in a dispute situation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, this block gives the appearance of an admin being able to impose WP:1RR at will. As I alluded to on the Panda's page, what veteran editor won't have two reverts lurking in their history? If editors in good standing are going to be blocked for this, better make that known far and wide. --NeilN talk to me 16:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, that "3RR isn't an entitlement" is explictly stated in the relevant policy. That doesn't mean that any admin can go around blocking willy-nilly for any set of two reverts, but it does mean that "if [an admin] believe[s] a user's behavior constitutes edit warring" (again, policy quote), they can block for fewer than four reverts. It's generally expected that experienced users will be familiar with the boundaries of edit warring policy. So, again, I'm not saying Bwilkins made the right or wrong call here; I'm just saying that the existence of only two reverts doesn't, in and of itself, mean that any block for edit warring would always be wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fluffernutter is a sandwich!, I understand WP:Edit warring well. Most very experienced Wikipedia editors such as myself do understand it well, and many of them, including me, have told others that a WP:3RR violation is not needed to violate the WP:Edit warring policy. I didn't state that I believe that I did nothing wrong because I only reverted twice. I called the block unjustified for the reasons that I, NeilN and Alison stated above, and others stated at WP:AN. Like I told Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves above, there was no serious edit war going on, and it is very common and very accepted for very experienced Wikipedia editors, WP:Administrators included, to revert twice on a matter. NeilN does it. Alison does it. Just about all of WP:MED does it. Just about all of the Wikipedia community does it. And it is expected and usually the case that blocks are not issued unless those blocks are truly protecting Wikipedia; there is a reason that WP:3RR exists and is taken more seriously than two reverts or even three reverts. Like Alison stated above, "Blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive - we all know this already - but I'm not seeing much prevention here." And that is my problem with Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves's block of me in this case, besides his being WP:Involved. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has previous history with this editor" -- May we see the evidence please? Jehochman Talk 18:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We may get to. I think this would be a good time in Panda's admin career for the community to take the time to discuss his career in detail and assess what role is best for him going forward in helping to build the Wikipedia, and the best way to do this is probably through a reconfirmation RfA. Though rare, these have been run (I've gone through one myself), and they're not complicated, they're like regular RfA's except the subject is already an admin. I've asked Panda to do us the favor of agreeing to this, and I'm confident he'll see his way clear to agree. In case my confidence is misplaced, I urge all interested parties to watch this space for future developments. Herostratus (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, the aforementioned edit history is at User talk:Flyer22/Archive 10/Block cases (which I pointed to, though didn't link to, above). And other editors (most of whom emailed me about it) were also able to see, from this discussion, that Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves likely does not have a positive view of me in the least, though only one of those editors (who also didn't email me about it) explicitly stated as much in that discussion. Also, in that discussion, and even in the WP:AN discussion about this block, Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves continues to disrespect me by not referring to me by the correct gender pronoun. It has been made repeatedly clear to him that I am female, even by Alison who chatted with me via Skype during my second block case, and yet he continues to play something similar to the pronoun game when it concerns me. Seems that I will need to chat with him via Skype before he ever accepts that I am indeed female. I'm not sure if he thinks I identify as female but am physically male or what, but, yes, Bwilkins/DangerousPanda/EatsShootsAndLeaves, I was born into the world every bit a female; my DNA reads as female, I look and sound female and I identify as female (though, like some girls when very young, ages 3, 4, 5 or 6, I was at one point confused about my gender identity). Similar to you telling me to get something through my head, get it through your head that there is no need for a pronoun game when referring to my sex/gender. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked and commented at ANI. Side note: can you archive your talk page? It takes a bit to load it all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the particular circumstances here but my general impression is that Flyer22 is a helpful contributor to the Wikipedia community, based on my general impressions. Also, I agree with Ed17's idea about setting up archiving.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you had to go through what I went through a few months ago Flyer22. This was very much an improper block as a result of poor judgement and overreaction on the part of BWilkins/Dangerous Panda/DP/EatsShootsAndLeaves/ES&L. By the way, is there some reason this admin keeps changing names and signatures? It's confusing and possibly a little misleading.- MrX 22:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, The ed17 (Ed). Yes, I know that my talk page needs to be archived; I'll archive it soon. I also thank the others who supported me during this block, including Tomwsulcer and MrX. Your words are very much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ladies and gentlemen, if you have concerns about a pattern of behavior by an admin, you can go straight to arbitration if you have a way to present a compelling case in 500 words or less with a sampling of diffs and links. If things are too diffuse to present that way, you can utilize WP:RFC/U as a means of gathering evidence and opinions from the community. Badgering the admin isn't really a good way forward. (I've been on both ends of that treatment, and it doesn't work out well for anybody.) Jehochman Talk 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flyer22, I'm sorry I didn't see this until now. (I found it while reading the archived discussion at AN/I.) I too remember your past interaction with BW/ESL. I remember it partly because of the textbook example of WP:BROTHER and partly because of the way BW seemed oddly eager to throw you under the bus. If I had seen this in a more timely manner I too would have unblocked you, with a note in your block log that probably would have gone a bit further than the very reasonable note that The ed17 left, and I probably would have also unblocked the other user as well. Anyway, I thought I'd drop a note with my condolences. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flyer22: I not familiar with your past history with the blocking admin, so I can't comment on whether or not it was motivated by revenge. Like others have already done, I can, though, personally vouch for your integrity as a Wikipedian, fair approach towards editing, and valuable contributions overall to the website, including the sexuality pages. My condolences and best wishes, Middayexpress (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late replies, Adjwilley and Middayexpress: Thank you for your support. Flyer22 (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting review of EatsShootsAndLeaves block of Flyer22. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda[edit]

Well, hmmm, User:DangerousPanda responded to my request that he voluntarily submit to a reconfirmation RfA by erasing it without comment. (It's a little confusing because User:DangerousPanda reverted to the version of the page made by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves; my understanding is that these are the same person, and that User:Bwilkins is also in the mix here; sorting all this out is prone to error, and I hope I have got the players right.)

Anyway, we'll take that as a "no" and and that's fine and so let's move on to the next step, which is to see if there's sufficient demand for an RfA, which would be a "reconfirmation RfA", also called a "recall RfA". To determine this, the approved next step is a petition for recall. Normally this would be posted User talk:DangerousPanda but under the circumstances I think a better place would be my talk page, so it's here: User talk:Herostratus#Petition for reconfirmation RfA for User:DangerousPanda, where editors are best directed to ask questions and discuss the matter (as well as sign the petition if they want to). Herostratus (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You realize, of course, that there's no such thing as a "petition for reconfirmation RfA". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is, see Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Cases involving admins who haven't specified otherwise devolve to the sample process, I'd have to say. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. The only way for an admin to be desysopped against their will is Arbcom. Period. Recall is a wholly voluntary thing; if one chooses not to participate in it, they are not bound to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Jehochman suggested above it's either arbcom or an WP:RFC/U and I doubt arbcom will take the case without an RFC/U being done first. --NeilN talk to me 02:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enh. I'm not a huge fan of involving ArbCom in stuff like this. They're busy, and we can solve stuff like this ourselves. Nor is an RfC/U required here. What's wanted is an RfA. I know exactly what I'm doing (which is not the same as being certain I'll succeed) so trust me on this. Here's what: sign the petition if you want to, or don't if you don't; I'll take it from there. Herostratus (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may think you know what you're doing, but what you're doing has no basis in policy whatsoever, so it will never be acted on by the 'crats. Again: the only way to involuntarily desysop someone is through Arbcom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. A reconfirmation RFA is equivalent to a self-initiated RFC: asking the community for feedback, and then either continuing or resigning based on what's heard. That's a voluntary process that cannot be forced on anybody. If you need enforcement against an unwilling admin, you must use WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR. Trying to force somebody to use our sham recall process will be very divisive (based on my experience), and should be avoided. Use the normal processes with a big dose of civility for best results. Jehochman Talk 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be forced on anybody until it is. If you think that it shouldn't be forced on anybody, that's OK, we can disagree on that. If your point is "If you need enforcement against an unwilling admin, you must use WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR and that works well enough" then that's reasonable position although possibly wrong. If your point is more in the nature of "If you need enforcement against an unwilling admin, you must use WP:RFC/U and/or WP:RFAR simply because those are the bureaucratic processes that we have inherited and thinking beyond that is not useful" that's not very satisfactory. Not sure which of these you are saying.
Yeah the recall process is not entirely satisfactory. Don't know as it's a "sham" though.
Yeah I know Crats are off the table. There're other avenues. They might work or they might not. Who knows? I addressed this in detail on my talk page where the petition resides, and where it'd probably be a good idea to centralize the discussion and give Flyer back her talk page. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flyer22_Frozen/Archive_10/Block_cases&oldid=1142746984"