Misplaced Pages

While I understand that arbitrators have the misfortune to have to make comments based only on snapshots and summaries, to anyone who remembers the relevant events of 2009 this will read like so much ill-informed twaddle. CIreland (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I mistaken that the dispute started with the Jeremy Dunning-Davies article? I would welcome any assistance in understanding the history of the conflict. I am aware that things are not always what they seem, which is why I am thinking that a case to examine evidence might be helpful. SilkTork 11:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken, SilkTork. A.K.Nole created one of his first sockpuppet accounts on 2 March 2009, before A.K.Nole had made any edits as part of The Wiki House (talk · contribs). That account was Holding Ray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Things are far more complicated than you imagine and, as Cireland writes, what you put on the RfAr page was "ill-informed twaddle". Please wait for the LTA to be prepared when I am less ill. Whether or not A.K.Nole was active before that, I don't know. Somebody did tell me that his WR username is Grep, which goes back to 2008. He certainly had it in for Elonka: his name is Elonka spelt backwards (as various admins have pointed out) and he edited the article on Simutronics, where she used to work. Holding Ray was blocked by CU Shell Kinney as a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole after I left a note on her talk page. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Mathsci, pardon any repetition) A.K.Nole was part of web of sock or meatpuppets (more likely the latter) - see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive for example. The A.K.Nole account itself seems to have been created originally to target User:Elonka who identifies as Elonka Dunin (Obviously A.K.Nole is Elonka reversed; some of the account's earliest substantial edits targeted Simutronics, the company Elonka works for). I was never really sure why Elonka was singled out; it could have been just a result of the prior controversy concerning the Elonka Dunin article (see the AFDs) or maybe it all stemmed from one of the areas of dispute resolution Elonka was involved in: since A.K.Nole was obviously not a first account, it's impossible to be sure.

As to where the harassment of Mathsci started, it's again impossible to know. Maybe it was a chance dispute at Jeremy Dunning-Davies; maybe a sock had had a prior run-in with Mathsci; maybe s/he was just stirring the pot. What is clear is that immediately after the deletion of the Jeremy Dunning-Davies the harassment of Mathsci began in earnest; following Mathsci to obscure mathematical articles, editing the article Mathsci, some kerfuffle about Mathsci's name being trademark infringement or somesuch. And, if we assume, as seems highly likely, that the A.K.Nole account et al. are related to the Echigo mole sockfarm then that pursuit has persisted for over three years now and has increased in severity in include "We know where you live" style edits to articles on Mathsci's town, street and nearby landmarks.

Some arbitrators have suggested that Mathsci "step back" from the "dispute". If there ever was a "dispute" that started all this then it is no longer tenable to dignify it with that title; there is now only harassment. As for "stepping back" - the socks deliberately target articles on obscure advanced mathematics (just as A.K.Nole did) so that only Mathsci will spot them or they inject themselves into other content disputes so that when Mathsci points out what is going on, those unaware of the history may misinterpret Mathsci's understandable impatience as battleground conduct. Mathsci tries to do what is recommended - files SPI reports, informs admins, asks for help at ANI etc., and is absurdly told by some that if he just stopped chasing the socks all this would simply stop.

I hope I have illustrated why the suggestion you made on the arbitration page that this may all be a result of Mathsci's "manner" is untenable. I hope I also made clear why characterising three years of harassment as "needling" was also not the best choice of words. CIreland (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, both of you. The Holding Ray account had two minimal edits unrelated to Mathsci, then popped up again in 2011. We have no evidence for the connection, and the blocking admin is no longer active on Misplaced Pages. However, it "could" be indicative of a larger pattern. For the purposes of the start of this "dispute/harassment", however, Holding Ray does not apply as the two edits before the Jeremy Dunning-Davies incident are unrelated. Worth bearing in mind though. The Elonka spelled backwards is interesting, and again worth bearing in mind, as these things can count; however, as presented, we have three students who openly set up a joint account called The Wiki House (talk · contribs), they know another student who has an account called Brichester (talk · contribs), who informs them they should use separate accounts. They promptly closed down the joint account and start individual accounts - Groomtech (talk · contribs), Kenilworth Terrace (talk · contribs) and A.K.Nole (talk · contribs). Their edits under the joint account were each identified by the initials of the individual - A.K.Nole using AK, and on their joint user page they list their names: Alex, Jo, Chris. So we have a possibility that A.K.Nole is Elonka backwards, or that it is the users name - Alex Nole. Either is possible. If it is Elonka backwards, and this account was deliberately set up to annoy Elonka, then it has been an elaborate set up, especially as the other two accounts involved, went on to edit until 5 February 2011 in Groomtech's case, and 8 February 2011 in Kenilworth Terrace's case, both productively and with no problems. The sock puppet investigation - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive - came to the conclusion that there was no cause for concern. A.K.Nole's edits to Simutronics are to add positive material and to question and remove material that is dubiously sourced or unsourced, or promotional in nature. Rather similar to what happened on Jeremy Dunning-Davies. The user discusses the matter on the talkpage, and makes good points. The actions are within policy, and - as pointed out - what Jimbo has encouraged people to do. The user keeps up a collegiate discussion regarding the matter, and praises a fellow user for finding some appropriate sources: Talk:Simutronics#possible_references. Difficult to see in that any reason for concern. Looks like appropriate and good editing - the sort we want to encourage. We then come to the interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which occurred on 12 June 2009. Until then, the user had not been a problem The sock puppet investigation cleared the accounts to carry on, and the editing on Simutronics was positive. The interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies by Mathsci is curious. There had been no prior interaction, the user was in good standing, and the query was valid. Mathsci responds with a dismissive "editor doesn't know what he's talkg about", and a hostile "On a personal note, looking at your editing record, you seem to be a somewhat inexperienced wikipedian editor. It is not a very good idea to continue pushing a point of view contradicted by multiple sources, unless you wish to be blocked indefinitely."

Now while the user has gone on to needle/harass Mathsci, it still appears to me from what I can see that Mathsci's manner of interaction was - let's say - not helpful. And that is what I am pondering. It is perhaps part of the whole civility/collegiality issue that is currently concerning the community (in fact has for some time). The way we interact with each other has an impact. We can choose to be reasonable, civil, and use evidence and explanations. Or we can shout and insult, perhaps in the hope that people will shut up and go away. I feel that the concern in the community regarding this, is that uncivil conduct DOES chase people away. And we may have an imbalance of users who feel that bullying tactics work as a way of getting what they want. I have not looked at or analysed Mathsci's other interactions, but what I have seen in this case does concern me, notwithstanding any later discovered network of sock puppets with a motive to target Mathsci as at the time of the interaction there was no awareness of this. The explanations above do not account for that initial poor interaction. SilkTork 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The blocking administrator of Holding Ray was an arbitrator and checkuser, so dismissing their evidence is not tenasble in this situation.

Where have I dismissed the evidence? I have said we don't have that evidence (unless you can indicate to me where it is), and that the person who did the block is no longer on Misplaced Pages so we can't ask her. SilkTork 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it's morally/ethically worse than using deleted articles to try to make a WP:POINT.

The article is the evidence that your interaction with that user was sub-optimal. I like to use reason and evidence rather than supposition, and while I value and take on board the opinions and views of others, I prefer, where I can, to look at the evidence itself. SilkTork 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrators with more competence mathematically than SilkTork have indicated why A.K.Nole's edits to Butcher group seemed to be trolling.

I have not mentioned Butcher group. That happened after the interaction in question. I wonder if you are reading carefully what I am saying? There is a possibility that some people could read your response as being an attempt to divert attention away from the real issue. In order to reassure people that you are taking the issue of your conduct in that interaction seriously, it might be beneficial for you to consider and respond to what I am saying rather than diverting attention elsewhere. SilkTork 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cireland indicates that A.K.Nole was not his first registered account (see the socks below). Others have said he was already active on WR as Grep in 2008. That user developed a fixation on Elonka and me.

Can you provide evidence for this rather than assertions? At the point of the interaction, as I explained above, there is no evidence to suggest such a fixation, and your conduct was poor to that user. That the user reacted to your poor conduct in that interaction rather than had a prior intent is quite plausible from what I have seen so far, and you have said nothing to counter this. SilkTork 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to try to provide a scientific theory of how or why the wikihounding started, but it became crystal clear with the editing of Quotient group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There can be no "neat explanation" since numerous other sleeping sock accounts predate A.K.Nole's following me to articles/AfDs in 2009, the earliest so far being registered in February 2009. These include Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Laura Timmins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Leon Gonsalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Reginald Fortune (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Rita Mordio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The Phrontistery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The Ringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tryphaena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Taciki Wym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). These do not support SilkTork's attempts to portray A.K.Nole as a normal editor. Krod Mandoon was indeffed by CU Courcelles. Analysis of this situation should use all the information currently available, not a blinkered view based on a snapshot for 2009. Mathsci (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What I am attempting to do is show that at the time of the interaction the user A.K.Nole was presenting as a normal user, and if - as I assume you are trying to argue - the edits on Jeremy Dunning-Davies were designed to bait you, then the baits worked. You behaved in a sub-optimal manner. I agree, however, that there are a number of accounts which were created in 2009 which were then later used to make comments against you. It is disturbing that this is the case. Why this is so, and what the connections there are between those accounts and the Wiki House accounts, is not clear. I am aware from a recent email that ArbCom received that some of those users you have (rightly) challenged, can be very devious, and can steal the identity of another person in an audacious attempt to pass themselves off as legitimate, so you'll note that I have not ruled out the possibility that the Wiki House accounts, including the A.K.Nole account, were set up to hassle you. What I am working from, however, is that it is also possible that something else might have occurred, so I am keeping an open mind; and also that at the time of the interaction on Jeremy Dunning-Davies, the user appeared normal - so even if it was a trap, I am still concerned regarding the nature of your interaction. SilkTork 10:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think a similar thing happened with Scibaby. Scibaby has been a disruptive presence in Misplaced Pages for years, but if you look at how he was treated before he was banned, I think you can see that that a few established editors helped create that monster. This may be a similar situation, but with more wikihounding involved by the original parties. Cla68 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that A.K.Nole is indeed the same person, or group of people, as Echigo Mole? Mathsci has asserted this as if it were fact on numerous occasions, but as far as I can tell no other editor has said so, and there has been no such determination at any SPI. The user page tagging and creation of the sockpupper categories have all been performed by Mathsci himself, in an understandable if regettable anticipation of any such finding. If there is evidence off-wiki that we are not allowed to see, then a statement from someone in authority who has access to the evidence would be helpful. Cireland has stated that it is an assumption. If in fact they are different people or groups then it would explain the anomalous dating of the sockpuppet accounts. Another possibility with the older accounts is that they are disused accounts that have simply been compromised. Meanwhile, Mathsci appears to have published what he believes to be A.K.Nole'susername at another site. Is that permissible? 92.41.189.130 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no comparison with Scibaby, since A.K.Nole has only wikihounded one person and his editing is not specifically related to a particular subject, just whatever I happen to be doing at the time (e.g. as with the creation of Charles Sanford Terry (historian), a biography of the Bach scholar). Regarding Scibaby, I understand that Cla68, still sanctioned under WP:ARBCC, might be confused because he was and might still be too emotionally involved (wasn't the world WP:BATTLEGROUND used to describe his conduct?). In early 2011 there were lots of edits in the vodafone range 212.183.0.0/16 which I initially thought were due to Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me on February 16 2011 that CUs on arbcom had determined that the edits were by A.K.Nole, not Mikemikev. Then three sockpuppets and the iprange were blocked by Shell Kinney in the following weeks. That provided the continuity with the new sockpuppets, which used that range and had similar editing profiles. Prior to that, A.K.Nole's socking was dealt with by CUs on arbcom (mainly Shell Kinney). The continuity with Echigo mole was established with this characteristic A.K.Nole edit to the article Echigo mole by 212.183.140.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at 10:55 20 July 2011. This was followed almost immediately by the creation of the sock account Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 11:00 20 July 2011. The Echigo mole socks frequently referred to edits of the A.K.Nole socks when the SPI page was unprotected and when they trolled on noticeboards, another characteristic of A.K.Nole. Echigo mole was used as a convenient frame of reference after that just for continuity, since previous accounts that had been abandoned were stale and therefore unusable for future CU comparison. The editing style and tell-tale traits, however, did not change and many sleeper accounts from 2009 were reactivated. The vodafone iprange was replaced in December 2011 by 94.196.0.0/16 and 94.197.0.0/16. The tagging of accounts occurs to aid continuity. Mathsci (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note the two IPs commenting here are undoubtedly ipsocks of Echigo mole. They are IPs for the ISP threembb, the same as for the two ranges mentioned above. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

They may be, but is what they are saying correct? I believe a full case is needed to fully examine the history here. The fact that I get in one debate with you in an AE thread, then end up one-way interaction banned even though I've never even edited the Race and Intelligence topic area, should be a sign that something may not be completely right. You might be completely right, Mathsci, or perhaps one or the both of us has lost some objective distance on the situation. I think we need to get it all aired out in an ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I assume that it's ok for me and Mathsci to address each other here since it is related to ongoing dispute resolution. If there is an objection by SilkTork or Mathsci, please let me know and I will make a correction. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)