Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/Duck box

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was No Consensus for deletion, but there was a consensus support for moving the information to a subpage of WP:LTA. The debate revolved around the definition of “timely manner” in WP:POLEMIC and whether a period of 2 months failed that criteria. However, no firm definition was clearly established here. The information has now been moved to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime and the user page is no longer necessary. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Montanabw/Duck box

User:Montanabw/Duck box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Violates WP:POLEMIC, specifically point 3, " laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems" Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For the following reasons:
  1. Per WP:POLEMIC: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."
  2. I have done this in the past and the pages kept following AfD per previous attempts to remove similar pages here. I can as easily accumulate links and diffs offline, but it's easier to do it on-wiki due to ease of wikilinking.
  3. Per item #1 above, I might also point out that one of the users I am accumulating diffs for has an active SPI open trying to determine if they are the banned user User:ItsLassieTime, and two of the others were subjects of SPI concerns that they were socks of ItsLassieTime, who was a highly problematic editor with a penchant for copyvio, close paraphrasing and was a massive sock drawer where I was involved in the "bust" and the massive CCI cleanup that resulted. Specifically, this case (user currently blocked for other reasons); and this user (still under investigation). Further, the third individual is currently accumulating diffs and links about me here.
  4. I presume one of these three users has emailed you about this; I am aware of at least one of them is emailing admins in hopes of getting their block lifted.
  • Lists are allowed if you are preparing for an Arb case or AN/I case ("timely manner"), but medium or long term storage of lists has never been permitted. I don't think you are trying to be a jerk, and I'm not commenting on the merits, but the format is exactly what the policy excludes, making it inappropriate for onwiki storage. As I said on your talk page, stuff like this is best stored off-wiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needed to be onwiki so that others can contribute. There is a continuing problem here re worries that ItsLassieTime has returned. There should be an on-wiki way of collecting info as suggested by SandyGeorgia that there should be a central place to keep evidence on ItsLassieTime. She said this after a recent SPI on ItsLassieTime was filed and dismissed for lack of behavioural evidence. Since then at least one other SPI was filed, the one by Diannaa closed and then requested to be reopened, against ItsLassieTime and is failing for the same reason. This is needed for community peace of mind and in the long run will save community time and angst. Others can contribute to this so it can be a community effort to collect that behavioural evidence on ItsLassieTime in one place. EChastain (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a community effort EChastain, the list is under Montana's username. Can you provide any evidence that the users listed on the "duck page" have been made aware of it? How many SPIs have to be run before editors realize they are barking up the wrong tree? If you think ItsLassieTime has returned then please provide some concrete evidence through an SPI rather than supporting other editors who gather evidence behind the backs of other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I did not know this existed but have found it enlightening. An editor that is being tracked has interacted with me in a menacing way and I now leave them alone. Whatever is happening here, it is a useful gathering of information and should be left to exist. I trust that this gathering project will reap its intended consequences in due time. Fylbecatulous talk 13:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
amended to add after comment below: (diff:[1] that the editor I am referring to is TheGracefulSlick. I remain relieved that someone besides me is noticing and that Montanabw is maintaining their duck page on Wikipedia. Fylbecatulous talk 13:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons articulated by EChastain. Also, this sort of behavior (passive/aggressive superficially civil bullying) is one of the greatest deterrents to editor participation in Wikipedia. Preserving examples for others to see is important. Intothatdarkness 14:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Comment. If this request (or suggestion) came from a 3rd party, I'd rather see that on wiki. No reflection on Dennis; but rather, I make that statement as someone who was pointed to the "Duck" page by an editor in email. Also: IFF the "timely' part of this expires, I think a simple blanking of the page would suffice. I don't see anything more than a collection of diffs which actually happened - so I don't see a need to expunge things from our collective history. — Ched :  ?  14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really don't care if this is kept or deleted. As one of the subjects of this "investigation" I know I have nothing to hide, and Montanabw can keep all the diffs she wants. Here's my question though. If this is supposedly about trying to root out socks of ItsLassieTime, why aren't all the diffs being compared to that editor or proven socks? A lot of it is just examples of uncivil or POSSIBLE questionable behavior. And, there are five editors being brought in on this, not three, and everyone is being compared to each other. Really, is there a point to this? There is an SPI in progress, yet Montanabw has not publicly contributed one thing to it. Can anyone point to anything on this page that's actually leading to some kind of valid investigation? I know from the Duck Box that Montanabw suspects I'm a suspected sock of RationalObserver, who is currently blocked. Fine. Just like I told the blocking Admin (via email), I'd be fine with anyone doing an SPI and IP comparison. And, all of us have already been cleared of being associated with SeeSpotRun. So, nothing on this page is going anywhere. It's grasping at straws. Wet, soggy straws at that.Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on User SheriWysong: Really? You need to be aware that you aren't coming into this with clean hands yourself, you are clearly accumulating diffs on me. And by they way, how DID you know about the SeeSpot Run SPI anyway? And how do you "know" you are a suspected sock of RO with no SPI filed? And you "told the blocking Admin" about "doing an SPI and IP comparison" when and where? RO edited logged out and geolocated to Las VegasCalifornia; you twice edited logged out and geolocated to twothree different places Las Vegas and two in Utah; well within the range of dynamic IPs of ISPs in the American west (as I discover by what Google ads pop up when I'm in a coffee shop- ). And how DO you know they compare IPs if you haven't been accused of socking in the past and you are a "new" user like you have sometimes claimed? Nice try, but I think, Wysong, that you just outed yourself as a user with a previous undisclosed account! Montanabw(talk) 00:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I think I was just "outed" Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a sockpuppet of Rationalobserver or ItsLassieTime? @Dennis Brown:: Wysong above pretty much demonstrates why I'm making the list. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete As a violation of this policy: wp:outing Please do not delete this page. It is evidence of ongoing harrasment. The editor provided the same and more evidence at the ANI. As I have stated here two or three times, this page is a bunch of random diffs not leading to any kind of real investigation. Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must REALLY have had fun when I was there, 'cause I sure don't remember it. But no matter. Just like the page under discussion, your little investigation came up with no real evidence of sock puppetry. I ask again, If this is supposedly about trying to root out socks of ItsLassieTime, why aren't all the diffs being compared to that editor or proven socks? I see one diff that compares something I said to something one of ItsLassietime socks said, and one comparing my "editing style" with that of SeeSpotRun (an accused sock), who has already been shown to not be affiliated with the other three subjects of this page (me, RationalObserver, and The Graceful Slick). The rest of the stuff on me is just random crap, or lamely trying to connect me with RationalObserver. Lynn Wysong (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dispute resolution evidence or filing drafts are best compiled on wiki user subpages, since all of the related diffs are on wiki. This complies totally with wiki policy and there is no reason for editors to be forced to compile such drafts off-wiki. This is a user subpage, not in plain site and not titled with an editor's name. There is no problem here. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no polemic but a collaborative collection of diffs, stress on collaborative, and no polemic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm of the opinion that if Montana is going to frequently mention RO being sock she really needs to start proving it, generally I'm admittedly of the opinion that anybody can do whatever they want in their user space. I personally wouldn't go about finding diffs and making a page of them but I do think it is her choice not the community's. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She has been trying to prove that RO is a sock for MONTHS now, its getting disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think honestly think she particularly cares where RO lives!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true, Blofeld; I could not care less who either of them are or where they live; I only think we are dealing with two blocked/banned users who are sockpuppeting and wreaking a lot of havoc on wikipedia in various articles. And I strongly suspect they are the same user. Montanabw(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you have no evidence and are pushing towards something that isn't there. I point to this SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheriWysong that was declined, just how far do you plan to go with this before you realize that there is no connection? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is covered here: "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research" Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be very clear, Wysong. I could not care less who you are. I only care if you are someone who has been previously blocked or banned now editing under a "sleeper" account, and I believee you are. You clearly are not a new user, you told me, in fact, that you were a "very experienced" user. So all I really care about is which sockpuppet you are. Montanabw(talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion does not belong here. Please just find the diff where I supposedly said I was a "'very experienced' user" and post it at the SPI page. Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi, I do not know why my name is involved in this. If it is for any wrongdoing, I am completely unaware of it. I am not associated, nor have I ever been, involved in any issues of this nature, and I respectfully ask to not be involved in this one. ( TheGracefulSlick talk) April 11, 2015 14:33
I think you are a sock of ItsLassieTime, based on your musical interests and uploading of a copyrighted image of a blues singer from one of his albums, claiming it was your own private collection of photos. Also, you are claiming to be a teenager, just like one of the ILT socks did. But I also have not filed anything on you, as so far you aren't making other people's lives miserable as far as I know. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the Duck Box is going to get pretty big, with all the teenagers with an interest in music added to it. That's going to take a lot of bandwidth. Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this is his only reasoning as to why I am involved in this. I guess I should start liking Justin Bieber or something to avoid scrutiny. TheGracefulSlick talk)
Oh, Man, Justin Beiber is just the bees knees! Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone who wants my additional evidence to date (beyond what's actually in the duck box), here it is: [2]. Obviously it is incomplete; I was working on it in the page at issue here. Please note that this was initiated by Rationalobserver, who emailed Hell in a Bucket. notification. Interesting: Why did RO complain she was outed when it is Wysong who complained about being outed here, using "I". I think this is pretty compelling evidence that these two are the same user. Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you might want to trot over to SPI and provide them all your awesome evidence. I just turned myself in. Hopefully a checkuser will be done soon, and this nonsense will be put behind us. Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The key word here is timely. If this collection isn't used to file a report at ANI or SPI after two or three weeks, it should be then deleted. The policy is quite clear on this...you can't keep a collection like this indefinitely until you feel the time is right. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DHeyward/My Fan Club as a case where a similar page (which had much less information than yours) was deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, if you look at the Duck box, it is not an "enemies list." It takes more than 2-3 weeks to bust a sockpuppet. Sometimes you have to go back years. I have been through this rodeo before: here. ItsLassieTime was busted in 2009 (in part because one of her socks, Buttermilk1950, went after me), then she showed up again in 2010, 2011 and 2012. These above-named users here have not been verified as ILT socks based on investigations to date, which is why I am accumulating a pile of diffs, the behavioral evidence has to be VERY strong to get a SPI going these days, and while it is clear that both Wysong and RO are not new users, who they are is not clear. However, their style and pattern of editing, and penchant for attacking other users who disagree with them is remarkably similar (in my opinion, at least) and the circumstantial evidence linking them is interesting. I did not initiate this AfD, and Dennis only did because, apparently, someone else asked him to do so. Montanabw(talk) 22:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, where exactly do you get the figure "two or three weeks"? Or even two or three weeks from now? Could you please show the written Wikipedia policy on that? Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, WP:POLEMIC. Specifically, the policy states Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed. I thought it was generous to say two or three weeks was a time period that would be "imminent". This list definitely can't be maintained, on-wiki, for months or years. Liz Read! Talk! 15:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, it doesn't say "two or three weeks". No specific time frames are given in the source you quote, so your opinions are simply your opinions/preferences on that. The page, slowly added to, has existed for less than two months, and has been added to regularly. Investigations, especially concerning a prior user who has been very difficult, sometimes take time. There is no sign Mont intended this page to sit around idle for a long period; she added to it regularly right up until it was nominated. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My issue, this article may be evidence gathering, but the "evidence", especially pertaining to me, is not actual evidence. Me being a teenager who likes old music should not make me associated, which is why others should agree at least I should be removed from the list. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Keep - circumstantial evidence is absolutely evidence that can be used in the context of an SPI, especially in deciding if there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the conduct of checkuser analysis. I'm not big on the whole nothing to hide/nothing to fear doctrine but there is a pattern of disruption and while it might not be nice to be linked to it, the answer is to prove your innocence and feel vindicated, not to have the investigation nixed and thereafter be the subject of ongoing suspicion. That said, the best place for all of this is probably SPI itself where it can be assessed the then archived. That way it is part of the enduring record of the case in question and you can refer back to it later if more evidence presents itself, even if this phase gets closed without action. Personally, if I were the subject I would prefer it in this format which could be deleted in a few months if it amounts to nothing. SPI investigation records are deleted far less often. St★lwart111 07:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Montanabw states above that TheGracefulSlick "is not making other people's lives miserable as far as I know". In my *keep comment above (diff:[3] the user who has interacted with me on musical articles in a menacing way is TheGracefulSlick. Some of their refusal to cooperate and edit correctly is located in my archived user talk pages; others occurred on other's user talk pages. I do not have the emotional energy to gather diffs beyond that, but I am encouraged that there might be an end to this behaviour at some point. I did not name the user in my earlier comment, since I did not believe they were aware of this conversation. However, I shall now add to my comment above that this is the editor I am referring to. They still refuse to work on issues with the musician and songs articles they are creating and remove issue tags instead. Fylbecatulous talk 13:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC Evidence gathering is one thing but there is such a thing as innocence until proven guilty. You want to gather evidence? Then do it off Wikipedia, this isn't a place to post lists behind editor's backs who have no chance to defend themselves, its common sense. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we also add this one? User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox, another list of possible socks that goes back to 2013 and was edited this year to mention Anthonyhcole. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POLEMIC "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Keep this list offline - it is unnecessarily dispruptive on-wiki. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Disregard Fylbecatulous's comment as it has painfully outdated info. The issues he/she had is from at least two months ago, in which time I have apologized, and greatly improved on my interaction with users and editing. I am a solitary user, not by choice, but when I do work with users, it is a positive experience. I mainly work with Ghmyrtle, some examples of our cooperation stem from the Dorothy Moskowitz and The White Ship (song) articles. Did we have disagreements, of course, but in the end we worked it out as a team to better the articles, so to say those statements Fylbecatulous makes still relate to me, is pure fantasy. Now let us get back to the real issue of this duckbox please. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Delete. Personally I've had no problematic exchanges with TheGracefulSlick - we've disagreed on occasion, but without any acrimony, and I've no reason to think that TGS is anyone other than who they claim on their page to be - that is, a new and enthusiastic (and apparently youngish) editor who wishes to improve articles to a good standard but makes occasional mistakes, like any newbie, both in content and in behaviour. If Montanabw wants a proper investigation, they should propose that one be launched, rather than making allegations on a page like the one discussed here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It's worth noting that googling the real name set out on TGS's user page will lead to a social media profile of a real person who - surprise, surprise - seems to match exactly the age and interests of TGS. The principle of WP:AGF, so far as I know, applies to hidden pages like this one as much as to any other pages. Montanabw owes TheGracefulSlick an apology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennis and others above, but also because this type of page is just plain mean-spirited. There is a subset of editors who are the self-appointed Wikipedia police, and who assume hilt until an editor can prove themselves innocent (see the related ANI). Want to gather evidence for your private investigations? Commit it to a Word document. --Drmargi (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - with the caveat that Montanabw needs to use this information in some kind of formal complaint 'very, very soon or she will be in violation of "use in a timely manner". If, for instance, this page was to be kept and then brought to MFD again in a week, I'd most probably be voting to delete it. I would suggest that if Montanabw is not prepared to file something very soon, she move the data off-Wiki, where she can hold on to it until she's ready to use it. BMK (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK, "The first "evidence" that was put in the Duck Box about the The Graceful Slick was February 23, almost seven weeks ago" or 2.5 months, it is already very past the point of "a timely manner". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree if the list was basically static, but becaise she's been adding to it consistently, I think a little more leeway is needed in the interpretation of what "a timely manner" means. (That's why a specific time period is not specified, because each instance should be evaluated on its particular merits, not in a "one size fits all" manner.) I would still urge Montanabw to use the data very, very soon. BMK (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Timely manner" refers to a time period adjacent to a case or cases when information may be needed, and does not refer to a specified time. This is an ongoing concern so I see no need to remove this page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • You say that until I bet someone makes a sock page with your name on it behind your back, editors that are on this list have no way of knowing that they are being targeted for investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for Littleolive oil, but if someone wants to put my name on a page where they're trying to prove I'm a sockpuppet, they're welcome to, since I don't sock, and therefore cannot be hurt by it. Please note that what Montanabw is doing is not an "investigation" per se, it's the gathering of possible evidence for a possible investigation, and she is under no obligation to inform the subject about it. (In fact, unless something has changed recently, I don't believe the filer of an actual SPI is obligated to inform the presumed sock, since it is sometimes best not to let the sock and the puppetmaster know what's going on.) In any case, I believe that the subject of Montanabw's supposed evidence (I say "supposed" because I haven't evaluated it) already knows of the existence of the page, and, indeed, registered a !vote here, so I can't see what significance your comment has. BMK (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It screams of WP:ASPERSIONS, "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." By putting editors on a list they are already accused. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"With evidence", that's what Montanabw is gathering - it doesn't come from Santa Claus in a gift-wrapped package, you know, you have to go out and get it. BMK (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happens when the person is wrong with the evidence they gather, does it amount to WP:HARASSMENT? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. It amounts to evidence that was found to be incorrect. The evidence is not posted publicly until the filing. If it doesn't hold water, it is dropped. There'no harassment involved at all. Softlavender (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in a perfect world, but here on Wikipedia the evidence is used in discussions to get the editor to admit to socking BEFORE an SPI is even filed. Rumors swirl around about said editors being possible socks that results in the topic being brought up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Compilations of evidence are not public until filed. (2) Problem editors abusing alternate accounts do not admit to doing so, even if confronted. That's why the elaborate and carefully controlled and very technical sophisticated process of SPI exists. (3) SPI requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before an SPI clerk will even approve the use of CheckUser, and this evidence must be carefully compiled (on non-public user subpages) before filing. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, user-pages were very much in the public view. As for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that is true but evidence gathered on user-pages is shared among users which causes a bad editing environment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, this is a user subpage, not linked anywhere on her user or talk pages. The only way to have found it would be to go into Mont's edit history, scrolled to the very bottom, clicked on "Subpages", and rummaged through all 50 of her user subpages. Or to have been scrutinizing every one of her dozens of daily edits and happen to notice a random edit to that page and investigated the page. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that there is such a thing as guilty by the public, because these user-pages are public editors can and do look at other editors differently. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, this is a user subpage, not linked anywhere on her user or talk pages. The only way to have found it would be to go into Mont's edit history, scrolled to the very bottom, clicked on "Subpages", and rummaged through all 50 of her user subpages. Or to have been scrutinizing every one of her dozens of daily edits and happen to notice a random edit to that page and investigated the page. Softlavender (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or by googling it [4] which is very much in the public view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only way to find it prior to two days ago was what I said. The only reason it is now viewable publicly is because someone brought it to MfD, so it is posted there (here). And the only way they could have found it to bring to MfD was to go into Mont's edit history, scrolled to the very bottom, clicked on "Subpages", and rummaged through all 50 of her user subpages. Or to have been scrutinizing every one of her dozens of daily edits and happen to notice a random edit to that page and investigated the page. Softlavender (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about that, but what about my concern regarding sharing of information by editors? Sometimes the content may be hidden but it makes the editor involved suspicious when the same editor accuses them again and again for being a sock. It doesn't take much effort to find user sub-pages that connect the dots once you feel you are being harassed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you are talking about. What is under discussion in this MfD is a completely non-public and heretofore unknown user subpage used to compile evidence. I've said this over and over and over and over. Any other dreamed-up scenarios have nothing whatsoever to do with this. And this is not the place to discuss them. This entire MfD has long been growing ridiculously long and way way way off-topic. Softlavender (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is under discussion is the issues regarding this duck list, I asked about editors sharing with other editors the information on the list rather than having it be just one editor's investigation? The information isn't unknowns and is accessed by other editors through links or by talk. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making a category error. Wikipedia is not the Anglo-Saxon legal system or any other kind of legal system, it's a project on a private website to build an encyclopedia. If there are editors who are disrupting that goal, then they should be dealt with. They have no particular legal rights here, because this is a private website where the WP:Terms of use and all en:Wikipedia policies are the controlling factors. If the policies, as interpreted by the community, say that Montanbw can do what she's doing, then she can do what she's doing, and argumemts which call on external factors are irrelevant. Neither you nor I have any "right" to edit here, we participate at the pleasure of the WMF and the en.Wiki community, not because of natural law, the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. BMK (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't about any legal system, this is about doing the right thing. If you have the evidence then accuse the editor as being a sock, if you don't then well im sorry but everyone here doesn't need to be constantly reminded that these editors could be socks every time they step out of line. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment was very much about a legal system. You didn't use the words, but the legal rights of the accused is what you wewre talking about, and what I'm telling you is that an "accused" editor here has no rights to be tols they're under suspicion, except where en.Wiki policy says that they must be informed. That's not the case here, so your comment isn't appropriate.
    As for socking, it's one of the factors which is most harmful to this site, and needs to be dealt with in a much more rigorous and serious manner than it currently is -- which is another topic altogether.
    You say "If you have the evidence then accuse the editor as being a sock," but evidence isn't a static thing, it doesn't exist all at one moment, it can accumulate over time, which is why we have the "timely manner" clause. With socks, especially, the evidence often shows up by way of patterns of behavior, which can be difficult to see at one moment, but much more obvious over the course of time. If you'veever had occasion to track down a sock, you'd know this for a fact. There's rarely an "Aha!" moment, there are suspicions, which become stronger and then gradually start to take a more coherent shape, and all of this can take time, which is what the rules allow Montanabw to have -- not all the time in the world, but enough time to gather together what she needs and use it. BMK (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BMK the efforts are thanks here on Wikipedia but at some point there has to be a cutoff. I agree with Miniapolis below the effect of all of this has a chilling effect on the editors. Who wants to edit where so many people suspect their fellow editors of such and such? I have no problem here if someone wants to gather evidence offline. What I should have been saying is that these user sock pages do more harm than good here on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it is detrimental to other users. My working has been hindered as a result of this discussion. Although I believe this needed to be done, the time could have went to something more useful.TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Comment I am glad some users have not lost their common sense, believing this needs to be deleted. I would also urge that the info be used soon, in the day or two even, although I do not know what kind of case could be brought about, especially on me. If the main argument is music interests and age, I think the discussion would be quite laughable. I just thought that this sock hunting is not bringing up anything relevant. Montanabw is a very capable editor, and it is a shame that this had to be brought about. I feel I can continue editing however, which was my main concern, as it appeared Montanabw was tracking me for some time. These users have reassurred me that if there is a case she wants to fantasize, I have trustable users to come to my aid, if need be. TheGracefulSlick (User talk:TheGracefulSlick)
  • Keep Users are permitted to create purposeful evidence pages to substantiate claims to be put forward in legitimate forums. WP:POLEMIC is meant to prevent such pages that serve no purpose other than to attack someone, and as such, the caveat exists that evidence pages are not allowed to just sit around and serve no purpose. If created, they have to actually be used. However this page is not that old and it's not stagnant so there's absolutely no legitimate reason to prohibit an established editor in good standing from having something in their userspace that is ultimately allowed. Swarm we ♥ our hive 22:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating points two and three of WP:POLEMIC. Although Montanabw's intentions are good, there is no current evidence that ILT (or their stable of socks) is back and such a page—with its vague accusations—has a chilling effect on the rest of us. Miniapolis 23:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we need more transparency not less. It's laudable that Montana is willing to do this and take the heat. It's sad that "the community" would rather support a person who to date has created over 108 confirmed accounts and perhaps hundreds of articles that need to be scrubbed. Instead of discussing the merits or demerits, it would be nice if we could all work together, cull through the accounts and get a long term abuse page written. If we had that, then it wouldn't be on a single person to do something like this. Victoria (tk) 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are suggesting that anyone who votes delete here is in support of ILT? Even though you have provided zero evidence that they are back, and about 2 SPI cases have gone by involving RO that both turned out negative? Sock puppetry is a problem I think we all can understand that but unless some hard evidence is provided then it is all hysteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if AI sounded harsh here but it really sounds like the way you are wording it that you blame the community on Wikipedia for supporting sock puppets. If so, that isn't fair to a-lot of editors here who do get the sock accounts banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I note that some of those that said "keep" have had an extended relation with Montanabw, so they are more likely to defend her. Just saying. Perhaps we can get other users who do not know her as well, if at all. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
If you mean uninvolved editors then yes, I have seen them comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it seems when an editor who has no relation to Montanabw expresses their opinion, it is to delete the page. That is why I think we need more users to weigh in who do not have had little past relations with her, to keep it as unbiased as possible because some of the users clearly side with her based on partnerships or things along that line. I just find it worrisome that I was being checked on for weeks on end without being aware of it, and somehow people are siding with her, even with the little "evidence" she has gathered. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Um, exactly where do you get clairvoyance which allows you tell who has a past relationship with Montanabw and who is "uninvolved". Would you care to post a scorecard so we can all share in your knowledge? BMK (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this page is going to be used as part of an SPI or something similar, it should be kept; Montana says she's going to use it for something, so I'd say keep for now. OTOH, if it's still sitting here after several weeks and hasn't been used for anything, it should be deleted. That said, after compiling my own evidence page I don't agree with Montana's conclusions, and I've convinced at least Vanjagenije that Rationalobserver and SheriWysong are unrelated, so the SPI on those two has been closed and I doubt pursuing further charges against them will be successful. (Can't say I'm all that involved with Montana, FWIW.) ekips39 (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page obviously violates POLEMIC and the only question is whether it will be used in a timely way. The page has only been sporadically edited since its creation about six weeks ago, which suggests to me that time is not of the essence in collecting or using the diffs. Better to delete this now and for Montanabw to keep the info off-wiki so that she can continue to collect diffs at her leisure. Ca2james (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Update: I would be equally happy with Move to LTA per Laser brain per those arguments below. There aren't the same kinds of time constraints at LTA. Ca2james (talk)[reply]
  • Keep. I said I'd take a closer look at this situation over a month ago and have done nothing. I'm pleased to see someone is looking, and to see this page. A number of concerned editors whose life here is being made very difficult by one pain in the ass are informally, and in an uncoordinated way, investigating.
It is time for a concise and comprehensive case to be made. But where? This is what (and just about the only kind of thing) RfC/U was good for but RfC/U has been banned. A user subpage would be as good a place as any now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ca2James obviously had enough thought to look into that crucial point. As for me, I am through with this blatant breaking of rules that some users will let slide. I see I am still a part of the list, but with the "evidence" on me, I know my stay here is secured. Hopefully some good comes out of this, and the rules are taken more into account next time. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Are you a sock of Rational Observer? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the problem I thought might occur. Users looking into more than there getting. So my answer is no, I'm afraid your efforts will need to go into something more constructive as I do not know who that user is. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Thanks for clearing that up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT/SUGGESTION: One of the Five Pillars of WP is Civilty and the Golden Rule of that Pillar is Assume Good Faith ... if we have come to a place in history where it is O.K. for an editor to be publicly "listed" as a suspected wrongdoer -- but not officially charged via due process -- then I think one of our Pillars is in danger of crumbling to the ground.
It seems to me that TheGracefulSlick has clearly expressed her concerns about this so called duck page (why is it called that?) haunting her for an indefinite amount of time, a-la the Sword of Damocles. TGS either is or she is not a sockpuppet and frankly I don't really care. If she is a sockpuppet then do an SPI and ban her and good riddance. If she is not a sockpuppet then a potentially good editor is being harassed, bitten, and at risk of walking away. And that I do care about!
I am sick of seeing new and potentially good editors chased away from WP. Editor retention is at an all-time-low and THAT is more dangerous than all the sock puppets in all the aggregated history of WP combined. To reference the great T.S. Eliot the Shadow Falls on WP and we are at risk of becoming a "cactus land" as we seem to have no shortage of editors willing to destroy content and users. It would be a shame if a lack of contributors who are willing to BUILD the encyclopedia caused Wikipedia to "end with a whimper", making us all into [Hollow Men].
My suggestion is (in the event that the duck page is kept after this discussion) that TGS be extremely BOLD and file an SPI on herself using the duck page (at minimum) as evidence. As far as I know, there is no rule against filing an SPI on yourself as long as you are meticulous about following procedure. I think she should try and make as hard a case against herself as possible and then let the evidence prove the truth of any sock-puppetry "not yet" accusations. Despite comments to the contrary editors at WP are presumed innocent until proven guilty, unless we are willing to abandon WP:AGF completely.
In her SPI request, she should also request that if the outcome of the SPI clears her name then User:Montanabw should be "topic-banned" on listing, discussing, or changing her edits as there is obviously animosity between them ... with an official reminder to ALL editors who have commented on this matter about harassment and beating a dead horse to prevent any continuation of this matter once it has been decided.
In short, let the official WP policies and due process procedures resolve this matter NOW rather than later, and let the decision have some TEETH so that the administration of justice at WP can be honestly said to be both FAIR and FINAL. Then let us all get back to work BUILDING an encyclopedia. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, TheGracefulSlick can confirm whether or not they are female, if they wish - but their user page suggests they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IP, nothing was public about this duck page until it got nominated for deletion a day and a half ago. No one was or is being haunted, harassed, bitten, or chased away. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quietly keeping a Duck Box is one thing, if it's actually done in a manner that could lead to an investigation. But, if it's just a bunch of random diffs and links being used to justify (in the editor's mind) behavior like this, it is definitely leading to editors being "haunted, harassed, bitten, or chased away." Lynn Wysong (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not what is under discussion. What is under discussion is the specific non-public page of diffs, a page which no one knew existed until a day and a half ago, when someone snooped it out and brought it to MfD. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe you didn't know it existed, anyway.Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to file a case against myself, sorry to say. The point is this duck page will not be used against me, probably no one, and if it is the accusations will be so laughable, that a case would drop dead as soon as it began. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Comment So let's see. We've had four SPIs. They have come to the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence that;

Basically, there is nothing in the Duck Box that does not constitute beating a dead horse Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im waiting for the sock case that tries to link Jimbo to RationalObserver. The fact that she had to put up with back to back SPI's despite there being no evidence really says a-lot - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the shotgun approach. "Let's just keeping throwing out accusations until something sticks." Mob behavior at its finest.Lynn Wysong (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per a comment above: I have indeed had my name on lists in sand boxes. I know just how it feels. In my mind I'd sooner have that information on WIKI where I know it is being complied than off wiki and hidden. Does Montana have a right to compile this evidence? I think so. Whether that is the best way to proceed is not my business. I do have a WP relationship with Montana as I do with many other editors. That fact does not make it hard for me to see this in an unbiased way and as a matter of fact since I have engaged both Montana and Sheri Wysong I do have view that may be clearer than the view of someone who is coming to this issue now.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
My question to you would be how would you feel if it wasn't Montana's list but someone else's and the information on the hidden list was being shared with other editors? Any wrong move you make or disagreement you have winds up making you suspected of being a sock. The result, is that you are looked at upon suspicion without knowing what you did wrong. Oh and they don't stop even after you are cleared in an SPI for socking. Referring to RO her name is Still on this duck list even after she was cleared in two separate SPI cases for socking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be four SPIs in which RationalObserver has been cleared. The last one by default. If SeeSpotRun was a sock of ItsLassieTime, and a CU check showed that SeeSpotRun had no sleeper accounts, that means that I (SheriWysong), RationalObserver, and TheGracefulSlick AREN'T socks of ItsLassieTime. Pretty cut and dried. Lynn Wysong (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I've been on such lists. They can't be hidden and public at the same time. If they are on WP they are public and that's where I like them to be where I know what's going on. I've worked with Sheri and Montana; I stand by my cmts and my concerns. If Montana is prepping a case of some kind she has a right to use a sandbox. And again, i don't care myself one way or the other.. Whether Montana decides to remove the sandbox or not is not my business. Editors, like Montana has, act based on their experience. My opinion, once the WP guide has been established, is not pertinent.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The list wasn't public and it wasn't shared with other editors (unless via email or telegraphy). You can confirm that with "what links here". There's no harm in being suspected of anything: you either or innocent or you are not. If you are innocent, who cares? If you are not, you need to be brought to the proper venue, with compiled evidence. Softlavender (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The experience does not really stand for much in this case. Whether Montana is trying to relive some past glory of catching a sock that we have zero verification (in the diffs) of existing or whatever, this page has zero purpose. This info needs to be used very, otherwise, it must be thrown out. And with the dismal amount of "evidence" gathered, no investigation will possibly be initiated. This is my last comment regarding the issue as the article in question was made in sheer foolishness. Any more discussion can be made on my talk page. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Important update: User:SeeSpot Run has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpullet of ItsLassieTime. See [5] and [6]. I had this user in the duck box, though, interestingly, they never posted here. 'Nuff said. Montanabw(talk) 16:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so in proving you were right about one of the four people you were "investigating", you proved that you were wrong about the other three of us. Also, is a "sock pullet" a duck or a chicken? Lynn Wysong (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. And I note that the admin stated "in a case of this kind there are very good reasons for not informing the sockpuppeteer." Softlavender (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said I would stay out of this but User:Montanabw's statement about the caught sock puppet is irrelevant, unless she brings evidence stating her duckbox actually contributed to the investigation. Just because she coincidently had a suspected sock puppet on her duckbox, does not mean it actually would have ever aided in any investigation. Again, I see this as a random hunt for puppets to obtain past glory when she should be using her, may I say it, amazing skills on articles. TheGracefulSlick (talk)
  • Keep but recommend moving out of userspace to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. This doesn't meet the criterion being cited for WP:POLEMIC because it is being kept for a "very good reason", which is that this person has been causing problems for years and their behavior needs to be tracked and documented. It would be better kept in project space for visibility and more association with the problem/less association with the people tracking the problem. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to LTA per Laser brain. I had the same idea. If the idea is to have a record of evidence for a long-term problem user that many people can contribute, LTA exists for that purpose. Moving it out of the user space depersonalizes it, and removed the appearance of a personal vendetta. --Jayron32 19:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that idea - but I do support it. Per Laser Brain and Jayron32. (User:Ched not at home. 99.148.145.220 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per Swarm. The user is simply compiling some evidence, something that is allowed, and by doing it in an easy fashion they can refer to it when issues arise or reports are submitted. Also, who cares? It's a small list, tucked away in someones userspace, that very few people will ever come across. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the LTA page. stricken, see below -- 21:27, 15 April ItsLassieTime appears to be/have been someone who genuinely wants to help, and the arguments for keeping her out seem to boil down to "she had problems six years ago and she'll never change so we need to keep her out for ever". I do not see anyone presenting real evidence that she is using multiple accounts now and still writing closely paraphrased articles and being obnoxious -- it's all "this person is ILT so she must be blocked". I don't see why it's more important to create an LTA page than to prove the page is necessary; I believe that blocks should not be punishment for evading a block, because that alone does not damage anything. ekips39 (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ekips39: ILT did a LOT of damage: They found over 100 sock accounts, and a sweep of only 18 of those accounts resulted in over 700 articles that got placed into a Copyright investigation that has yet (four or five years later) to be closed. I personally reviewed a couple dozen or so, and found things like entire articles from elsewhere copied and pasted into Wikipedia and presented as original work (most of those wound up deleted). Other damage was more subtle, inaccurate citation or close paraphrasing that was enough to evade the dup detector; VERY time-consuming to review and fix! Furthermore, ILT had a penchant for viciously attacking anyone and everyone who strongly disagreed with her, which ultimately, was a big part of why this user was blocked. It was a real toxic combination of poor content and bad behavior. Montanabw(talk) 07:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I felt kind of bad for SeeSpotRun. I don't know if he/she was (recently) behaving in a way to warrant investigation, but I have to think that a substantial part of the reason for the SPI was to try to catch others (such as me) in a sweep. So, whereas I'm glad that the CU was done (even though it seemed to have been a fishing expedition) and trying to connect SeeSpotRun (and thereby ItsLassietime; I think the evidence was pretty compelling they were one and the same) with any other current users was unfruitful, I'm not sure that exposing and blocking SeeSpotRun was the wisest course of action. Look at all the angst on this page of people worrying "when and where ILT is going to show up again". Well, if you know where he/she has shown up, and you can keep and eye on him/her, that can resolve a lot of the speculation and maybe the sock hunters can go back to editing rather than divert everyone's energy and attention such as here.
And, speaking of "sock hunters", I have real concerns of an LTA page where you have potentially dozens of people, whipped into mass hysteria, a la The Crucible, trying to prove someone is a sock. I have little doubt that if you compare thousands of diffs between ANY two editors, you arewill find dozens that seem to provide evidence they are socks. And, to top that off, there seems to be an opinion that these investigations should take place without the suspected sock knowing about it. I can see that if all that is going to be done is a quiet CU. Yeah, if there are suspicions, and they can easily be put to rest, just do the CU and move on. But to try to prove a sock on behavioral evidence and not invite them to participate and defend themselves by providing refuting evidence is just plain wrong. Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, here's what I suggest. If a suspected sock is added to an LTA page, one of the rules is that they must be notified immediately, and that, as others add evidence, they can refute it with their own in many cases likely nipping the "investigation" in the bud. And i. If people have to be accountable for their accusations, they might be a little more judicious about them. Because my sad experience and observations is that when particular editors come into conflict with others, they try to resolve that conflict by eliminating their antagonist with sock accusations. That pathological practice should be thoroughly discouraged. Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are at times, and often good reasons to not inform the sock-master. (See: WP:BEANS). The bottom line is this: If an account is editing in proper ways, not disrupting the project, not edit warring over things, not arguing with others not violating WP:RS or copyvio issues etc.; then, it's likely they will never be noticed or recognized as the sock-master who caused the problems to begin with. In other words: Don't . Just IMO. signed: user:Ched (not at home) 99.148.145.220 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably good advice (to not "begin a conflict with another user) for someone who is TRULY a sock. For everyone else though, conflict is a normal part of the process. It usually only turns sour if it's with someone who cries wolf (or sock) at the drop of a hat Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People looking for conflict usually find it. People looking for collaboration are usually more welcomed, and run into fewer problems while editing. But perhaps that is a discussion for a different venue. signed: Ched (not at home) 99.148.145.220 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is entirely inappropriate. Lynn Wysong (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Socks who quietly make high quality edits and act in a collaborative fashion are not going to be hunted down. I'm quite sure I have worked with people who have exercised right to vanish and came back under different user names; that's perfectly understandable. But when some people keep coming back to the same types of articles with multiple undisclosed accounts and the same poor attitude and a penchant for POV-pushing, then that's a problem for everyone. LassieTime socks hit articles on my watchlist with four different accounts, all inserting poor quality material, then tried to drag me to ANI on multiple occasions. It's not the multiple accounts, it's the behavior the comes with them. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montana: Yes, ILT made a big mess (though I hadn't realised quite how bad it was -- copying entire pages? wow), and considering how big it was and how much of what she said was intended to deceive, there's something to be said for denying her a second chance. However, I believe that people can change, even people like ILT, and that we should prove that she hasn't changed and is still making a mess before we label her a long-term abuser who needs dealt with now. I haven't seen that kind of proof. SeeSpot Run was blocked not due to copyright concerns or being a major nuisance, but due to sharing a handful of otherwise innocent traits with ILT -- and that's the only recent ILT sock that's been found and blocked. Sure there are suspicions that other people are also ILT socks, but to create an LTA page while those suspicions haven't been confirmed seems like putting the cart before the horse. Besides, this isn't someone who is a pure nuisance and of no benefit whatsoever, this is someone who has brought several articles to GA status, which means we should be at least a tiny bit more receptive to the idea that she could improve.
Ched: That's how it's supposed to work, yes, but all too often I see exchanges that were supposed to be collaborative turn into food fights; who's to blame for that? It's not clear, and the answer you get depends largely on who you ask, I expect. I suspect Lynn is right that sock accusations are sometimes used to silence opponents. I can't say whether anyone is doing that here and I'm quite sure most such people do it unconsciously, but it's impossible to keep people from bending the rules to suit their personal likes and dislikes. It's how we work. I wouldn't be surprised to catch myself doing the same. ekips39 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekips39:I'm all for second, third and maybe even tenth chances. But with 108 socks, I think we've clearly reached a limit. And actually, SeeSpot WAS quite a nuisance on a couple of articles; people don't hit my radar unless they are a nuisance, and most can be educated and become much better editors. But some, and SeeSpot was one, do not listen to anyone, ignore good advice, and the big red flag for me is when I hit a talk page with a helpful comment and either am immediately deleted or attacked, or see that the user already has gobs of warning templates on their page. Bringing an article to GA that contains inaccurate material, improperly cited material, OR, SYNTH, and close paraphrasing that just looks good, well, then there is GAR and so on. But that's a lot of work for the rest of us that takes away from solid content contributions. Montanabw(talk) 07:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SeeSpot still hasn't been firmly concluded to link to ILT though, suspected is not the same as confirmed. I understand why you are determined to get this person with 108 socks but 2+ years is a long time so I still have doubts. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria and Montana, thanks for your comments (even though you removed yours, Victoria, it was still helpful). If SeeSpot Run was continuing the copyright problems and obnoxiousness, this suggests that she hasn't learned a thing in all these years and we do indeed need an LTA page. I don't value editor retention over fixing copyright problems; I just wanted to know that ILT was still causing damage, and you've confirmed that. I'm also surprised that Victoria considers me representative of general opinion, because what I see is that most people here agree with her, and my lack of memory of these events is due to my having only been a serious editor for a few months, so I'm not surprised that I wasn't familiar with all the details.
Knowledgekid87, not only is it currently impossible to link someone to ILT via checkuser, but only Vanjagenije disagreed that Spot was a sock, and after seeing how she wrote I also think she's a sock. ekips39 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A sock of who? Is anyone here a certified expert in what to look for when someone types? I haven't heard of someone's typing abilities being as unique as handwriting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A sock of ItsLassieTime (I thought that was clear from the context, but apparently not). I don't have a degree in writing analysis or anything (and I doubt anyone else here does either), but through observation I've learned a good deal about different styles of typed writing, and one person's set of traits are usually unique to them or at least a good indicator of who they are. Obviously these traits can be intentionally changed, but in most cases they stay the same. ekips39 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no way that a person can have similar typing traits and not be a sock? Im just thinking of how many people edit Wikipedia daily here and it just bothers me a bit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that; I said that one person's traits are usually unique. Someone can have similar traits and not be the same person, but it's rare for two people to share an entire set of traits. However, it is somewhat common to share some traits but not others. ekips39 (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's how the caught the Unabomber in the real world; his brother recognized the writing style. Montanabw(talk) 06:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ILT long-term abuse page, per Laser brain's suggestion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slim Virgin: You mean Keep rather than support surely?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for the LTA page is not the same as support for keeping the "duck box". ekips39 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) PS -- correct ping: SlimVirgin, not Slim Virgin. ekips39 (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I shake my head & wonder: if one is collecting this material, why not keep it on one's own hard drive? (Thanks to the magic of web browsers, one can cut-&-paste URLs to text files located on a locally mounted filesystem.) This is not the first time I've seen a subpage ignite a controversy, & I doubt it will be the last. (And I'm making this suggestion not to make Montanabw the bad guy -- I have no reason to think badly of her. But I bet she'd rather apply the time spent on this debate doing something more productive.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Llywrch, keeping URLs on-wiki is clearly allowed by the guidelines. It avoids the problem of having a file misplaced on the hard drive due to forgetting what I named them or where I put them - or having a file on a different computer - here all subpages are easy to find. But yes, while I'd rather work on content, I also spent hours and hours of my life I will never get back cleaning up the mess ILT made of a couple dozen articles in the areas where I edit; plus dealing with the dramas she caused (her various socks dragged me to ANI at least twice because I called her out on content problems) Montanabw(talk) 06:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that I'm recommending you take it off-wiki, but setting up a wiki on your home computer and putting files on there could make them easier to find. I have one of those and it's moderately useful. ekips39 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Montana, I'm not saying that you're breaking any rule keeping URLs on-wiki. I'm saying one (& I'm intentionally being as general as possible; I'm not singling you out) should not do so, any more than one should not feed the trolls. If you really want to debate a troll, by all means go ahead & do it; just be warned that in the end you'll accomplish very little, if anything, & people might not sympathize with you over wasting so much time. And if you want to save URLs online, there are a lot of websites that provide free web hosting like Blogger or Tumblr, just be sure to use an account name that has nothing to do with Wikipedia to preserve your privacy; & don't be afraid to have fun with it. ("There's this Tumblr feed that is a collection of all of these edits I made to Wikipedia, & so-&-so is behind it to do all sorts of meanl stuff to me" -- "So tell us what led you to look at a website named hillaryclintonbuggersdickcheney.tumblr.com to see if there was anything about you there?") -- llywrch (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's all OK, I realize there is a general discussion about the issue, but I have a number of reasons it is helpful to occasionally keep links on-wiki. If the policy on this changes, then I will change with the policy. This particular drama is linked to a particular user who obviously is not a new user and who obviously has a past or concurrent account and felt it important to stalk my edits and then complain about it. Montanabw(talk) 19:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close? This discussion has been up for almost 2 weeks now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there consensus? to move the relevant contents of the Duck box (with some formatting edits) to a LTA page for ItsLassieTime, along the lines of what Victoriaearle created? I'm willing to begin that process, (and blank the Duck box when it's done) but not if there will be a bunch of opposition. Montanabw(talk) 03:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'd support a close as no consensus on the general "POLEMIC" issue overall. The general concept was raised (by Knowledgekid87) at the Village Pump and went nowhere there, so given that I will be blanking this particular page after the LTA material is fixed up, it seems the way to ratchet down the drama. Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, just put up what Victoriaearle did on the LTA page but that the duck box must be removed within 30 days, whether or not the LTA page is "finished". This shouldn't be an open ended deal. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wysong, please reread WP:AGF. We have to go through a process to create a LTA page and it requires approval by others. I have been very, very patient with you and your behavior here on this page has already included tag-teaming, personal attacks and now giving orders. It's best if you chill out and allow the community to reach consensus. Montanabw(talk) 03:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of WP:AGF, its kind of hard to be chill when someone has you on a suspected sock list don't you think? I feel that you owe each editor who is on this list of yours an apology when they end up being cleared because of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off, **I** have not filed an SPI (yet) on any of these people - others have. (I haven't even weighed in on some of them) And Wysong has also been accumulating diffs on me long before this drama emerged (and she still is). So no, I see no reason to apologize to people whose behavior reminded me of a very damaging sockpuppet account. Wysong has a previous account, it's obvious: she stated, "I am not a new user" and it looks like a "sleeper"-type account- created in 2010 with two edits and then ignored until last fall when she instantly knew how to edit articles. I just took another look at Wikipedia:Clean start. In pertinent part, it reads: "A genuine clean start is not considered improper. However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place...the editor will probably be recognized ... Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny..." So, we have a solution: Create a LTA page on ItsLassieTime so everyone's evidence can be gathered at a central location. I'll blank the Duck Box once I have moved the ILT links in there, just to close this drama, not because I think there was a violation of POLEMIC on my part. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Siigghhh. Somehow, it always ends up with personal attacks and uncivil accusations. I will make a quick defense, then go back to the discussion we're supposed to be having. Here is where I explain my "sleeper" account. I have had no other accounts-the concept of clean start does not apply. Now, as far as the LTA page, I assume it, like all articles, is a work in progress, so I'm having a hard time understanding why it can't be created now, with the start it has. Thirty days is plenty of time to move whatever links that are worth keeping from the duck box to the LTA page, since, in reality, as I have said all along, there's nothing there that hasn't been shown to be baseless. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you come across the Wikipedia adage WP:SOFIXIT? If you want a LTA page for ILT within 30 days, then surely you should be willing to create it yourself? Thanks to the transparent nature of the wiki, you have exactly the same access to all of the information that anyone else here has, so why not go ahead and turn Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime into a blue link. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it, or I should say I don't care if it gets done. I just think that if that is going to be the compromise, there should be some time frame for implementation. Doesn't look to me like it takes any special permission, just 30 seconds of time to copy over what Victoria started. I'm not here to build LTA pages. I just want to be allowed to edit without constant accusations and personal attacks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since it only took an underscore, I went ahead and turned it blue. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't need an underscore: no internal link on Wikipedia needs one. You also need to learn not to refactor other people's comments in a discussion, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I was invited to "turn Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime into a blue link." But you're right, it was not necessary to add the underscore-probably all I had to do was refresh the page. My deepest apologies. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot you titled that heading "Lambchop." Interesting, as User:Lambchop is also a blocked sockpuppet account. Also, ILT had a penchant for user names based on children's television programs of the 50s and 60s, and Lambchop was a children's TV character. I am now thinking of the adage, "when in a hole, best to stop digging." Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lambchop was an actual sock puppet. Just a bit of irony. But, feel free to initiate an SPI, if you think there's more to it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you noticed already, I opened the LTA page, which took far more than 30 seconds to create. Have much more to add from the Duck box, but I want to wait until the LTA is approved before investing more time. Montanabw(talk) 01:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hope it's all you dream of it being. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fought the good fight Lynn, but I think it's time to end the drama and move on. I don't like being accused for little reason, but I guess that is what it has come to. Just do what I did, get back to improving on subjects you enjoy. I trust Montanabw or anyone else will not just blatantly misinterpret anymore info they see, and will start targeting the right users. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Montanabw/Duck_box&oldid=1142593251"