Tamzin blocks Volunteer Marek

[iii]

Tamzin (T-C-L) blocked sometime board contributor Volunteer Marek (T-C-L) from the article Aaron Maté (T-H-L), one or those far-left journalists who has been sometimes acting the shill for Putin in the last few years, for violation of a discretionary sanction of 1RR/24 hours that Tamzin had earlier imposed. Volunteer Marek was reverting on that article with a cadence of a bit more than 24 hours. Tamzin maintained that this was "gaming" the system and, as you might expect, this caused a bit of anger. You know the drill, "If you wanted it to be 1RR/24 hours and a bit, you should have made that the rule instead." After a bit of back-and-forth, Tamzin then decided to slap Volunteer Marek with a sitewide block for a week for personal attacks. This strikes me a bit like a lèse-majesté type block, but what do I know?

I expect this will be fertile fields for dramah for the foreseeable future.

[Jim]

This strikes me a bit like a lèse-majesté type block

Yep. That's exactly how it appears.
(respect mah authoritah...)

I will be relatively patient and give you an hour to reverse your egregious block. Then its a case before ARBCOM for general conduct unbecoming. Blocking an editor on a flimsy rationale, then forcibly muzzling them when they vociferously object to your flimsy rationale is outside what is expected of an Admin's behaviour. Your job is to de-escalate, not throw gas on the fire. If any other admin wishes to unblock Marek in the meantime, I may be persuaded no further action is necessary, I may not. This is not the first sub-par decision you have made as an admin. I am not inclined to see any more of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
(link...)

I expect this will be fertile fields for dramah for the foreseeable future.

[Disgruntled haddock]

Even Tamzin agrees that the optics are bad here. This is not doing Tamzin any favors—will be hard to escape the "activist admin" label now.

[Arishok]

The original p-block is probably justifiable as “within admin discretion” on edit-warring grounds. The second sitewide block is terrible; admins are not entitled to block users further simply for arguing that a block is bad, which is clearly (no matter how Tamzin protests to the contrary) exactly what has happened here.

Also, when another admin expresses doubts about the propriety of one's block, and a different user has threatened an Arbcom case, and one has even agreed that one's own block could be viewed as dubious, the only sensible move is to unblock at once.

On the other hand, doubling down would escalate things and be entertaining for us WPO denizens, so it's a close call.

EDIT: Tamzin has opened up a self-review on AN, admitting a screw-up, yet still not unblocking for some reason. The same "technically I didn't violate INVOLVED" line that TNT attempted can be seen; I would advise Tamzin not to repeat that line anywhere where an Arbcom member might see it, or a similar ending may result.

[iii]

Tamzin is a great administrator and we are all humans, mistakes happen (link)

This attempt at damage control by GizzyCatBella (T-C-L) is a bit rich under the circumstances. Consider the undiscussed corollary:

Volunteer Marek is a great editor and we are all humans, mistakes happen.

Difference is Tamzin gets to continue fucking about on the website while (checks notes) Volunteer Marek is forbidden from posting on the entire site including his user talkpage.

This is all such a throwback! Remember when admins would block their enemies with impunity and then there would be much carrying on about what should be done. I am still hoping we get a wheel war out of this.

[Arishok]

The odd thing about this "I shouldn't have been the one to do it, but technically I didn't violated INVOLVED" type of claim, first seen in TNT's case and now here, is that INVOLVED is not a policy that is written in terms of bright lines. Rather, it says:

Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

If an admin is willing to admit "I shouldn't have been the one to do it", said admin has almost certainly already crossed that intentionally-fuzzy line.

EDIT: OID has made good on their threat and filed an Arbcase.

[iii]

Volunteer Marek is forbidden from posting on the entire site including his user talkpage.

Things are moving fast! Talkpage access restored! Justice is served!

You see, it was only revoked to make it seem less like a punitive block since the attacks were on the usertalk and thus it would have been obviously just sour grapes if the site of the crime was still accessible for more crimes.

Delicious.

Oh, and joy of joys, we're off to arbcom!

[Jim]

The same "technically I didn't violate INVOLVED" line that TNT attempted can be seen; I would advise Tamzin not to repeat that line anywhere where an Arbcom member might see it, or a similar ending may result.

Yeah, I found it astonishing that nothing seemed to have been learnt from that.

The "I do what I want" approach didn't go so well there, so I'm intrigued why it might be seen as worth another try?

[ArmasRebane]

No way they accept the arb case, but Tamzin has been on a pretty impressive tear with making poor choices that are going to start piling up eventually.

It is funny that there is a low-effort "maybe Only in death does duty end is an SPA shilling for VM" comment from GizzyCatBella, but of course the person that made that accusation... is a random IPV6 anonymous post with no other contribution history. The "obviously not new, hiding their account" posts are okay when they're from someone they like.

The same "technically I didn't violate INVOLVED" line that TNT attempted can be seen; I would advise Tamzin not to repeat that line anywhere where an Arbcom member might see it, or a similar ending may result.

Yeah, I found it astonishing that nothing seemed to have been learnt from that.

The "I do what I want" approach didn't go so well there, so I'm intrigued why it might be seen as worth another try?

I think they did learn something from that, because they wouldn't have tried to end-run the threatened ArbCom filing with an AN report of their own if they hadn't had just seen TNT's swan-dive over the edge. But you're right, they're more focused on venues than some introspection there on language.

[Arishok]

If the sitewide block is self-reverted I think the Arbs will rapidly decline; if another admin has to be the one to lift it I think there's a chance the Arbcase goes forward.

Note that Tamzin has already restored TPA.

[Jim]

Oh, and joy of joys, we're off to arbcom!

From which we get this little gem:

@Only in death: No, I'd really like a yes/no answer to that. Are you 31.118.18.187? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That comment could, and probably deserves to, go wrong in several ways...

[Alex Shih]

Oh, and joy of joys, we're off to arbcom!

From which we get this little gem:

@Only in death: No, I'd really like a yes/no answer to that. Are you 31.118.18.187? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That comment could, and probably deserves to, go wrong in several ways...

If arbcom and wmf office takes outing as serious as they made it sound to be, this kind of moronic comment should require immediate action (Baseless accusation of socking/logged out editing while trying to connect IP address to long established account). You don’t even do this explicitly to socking IPs at SPI pages

[Anroth]

Oh, and joy of joys, we're off to arbcom!

From which we get this little gem:

@Only in death: No, I'd really like a yes/no answer to that. Are you 31.118.18.187? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 13:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

That comment could, and probably deserves to, go wrong in several ways...

What a T-mobile/EE assigned random IP? Which under the UK system will be re-assigned once the phone drops off/on the network even on a contract phone? Yes thats totally OID.

I wonder what block was used on that....

[Arishok]

Barkeep had chastised Tamzin for the IP remark; Tamzin responded by doubling down.

Every edit Tamzin makes now that isn’t reversing the sitewide block increases the odds of an accepted Arbcase. The AN thread is unanimous so far (including three admins) that the sitewide block was bad; any admin could comfortably reverse it now citing clear consensus.

At this point it would also be sound judgment to reverse the page block as well as a de-escalatory measure, as two of the three aforementioned admins suggested.

[MrErnie]

Marek was doing the typical Marek thing on the Mate talk page. I like VM, but given the unfair nature of how DS are typically applied, I have a hard time feeling too much sympathy. The AmPol Clown Car just got an opponent topic banned by jamming in nonsense rapid fire and reporting him when he naturally reverted it. There isn't an army of pearl clutchers to go to bat for all of us, so I think Marek will be fine.

[Jim]

Barkeep had chastised Tamzin for the IP remark; Tamzin responded by doubling down.

Again, I'm astonished that nothing seems to have been learned from how this approach just went down...

It's almost like they want it to go the same way...

[Anroth]

Marek was doing the typical Marek thing on the Mate talk page. I like VM, but given the unfair nature of how DS are typically applied, I have a hard time feeling too much sympathy. The AmPol Clown Car just got an opponent topic banned by jamming in nonsense rapid fire and reporting him when he naturally reverted it. There isn't an army of pearl clutchers to go to bat for all of us, so I think Marek will be fine.

Yeah the problem is really that had Tamzin taken 5 minutes to look at the dispute and said "stop fucking around guys I know what you are doing" it probably would have settled down (it was already doing so). Instead it was blocks away. Its just another of those things that show they really shouldnt have advanced tools.

[Arishok]

Tamzin has lifted the sitewide block, but indicated on VM's talkpage that she doesn't intend to modify the page block.

That will probably be enough for the Arbs to decline, though given that Tamzin has thusfar failed to admit an INVOLVED violation on the sitewide block I could see the Arbs declining with a warning or admonishment motion tacked on.

[Anroth]

What a T-mobile/EE assigned random IP? Which under the UK system will be re-assigned once the phone drops off/on the network even on a contract phone? Yes thats totally OID.

I wonder what block was used on that....

Ah sensibly Reaper blocked it with the 48 hours block. Shame, would have been le chef's kiss if Tamzin had blocked that with a range block. Still, the fact they asked the question indicates a number of gaps of knowledge and/or deliberate trolling attempts.

1. They know its a stupid question but are asking it to provoke a direct, angry, response. OID is smarter than you Tamzin. (bad faith)
2. They know its a stupid question but are just flailing around trying to deflect. (bad faith)
3. They dont know its a stupid question, to be fair, how IP addresses are assigned and in practical use by UK Telco's is not common knowledge, but someone who knows why they only block IP's for short periods should probably know that. (good faith but incompetent)
4. Actually they dont have any real understanding of IP's at all. Given their replies to Barkeep its entirely possible they dont understand outing, linking IP's with users, when/how you should investigate such if you have a suspicion about a registered editor. (good faith but incompetent)
5. They have a real and genuine concern they are the same people and want it investigated. (idiot)

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Purely coincidentally, I was actually eating popcorn when I saw this

[Bezdomni]

OID is smarter than you Tamzin. (bad faith)

Reading Tamzin's talk page, we can see that OID is also a bully, can't we "Anroth"?

[Anroth]

OID is smarter than you Tamzin. (bad faith)

Reading Tamzin's talk page, we can see that OID is also a bully, can't we "Anroth"?

I wouldnt know what you are talking about.



Tamzin is a bully who uses their tools to enforce their will. Unfortunately as everyone knows, bullies only really respond to greater threats. The bullshit parents tell children aside....

Feel free to disagree if you think ARBCOM involvement was not what prompted Tamzin to change their ways though.

[redbaron]

OID should request a rename to Only in Dramah.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Tamzin appears to be getting away with the "I didn't do anything wrong, but I apologize that you felt I did" apology, one of the lowest in the apology tier list.

It's too bad, I was curious to see if, after a weak apology failed, Tamzin would resort to the somewhat rarer "The ban was made by one of the less diplomatic stock Commedia dell'Wiki characters that make up one of the multiple personalities in my self-diagnosed disassociative identity disorder and to criticize me is ableist" ploy.

[Jim]

OID should request a rename to Only in Dramah.

That's so edgy. I bet you had nicknames for your teachers too...

[Jim]

Tamzin appears to be getting away with the "I didn't do anything wrong, but I apologize that you felt I did" apology, one of the lowest in the apology tier list.

So far, yes. But there are positive aspects. They have got a big scare here and might feel a tad less invulnerable moving forwards...

[Jim]

It's too bad, I was curious to see if, after a weak apology failed, Tamzin would resort to the somewhat rarer "The ban was made by one of the less diplomatic stock Commedia dell'Wiki characters that make up one of the multiple personalities in my self-diagnosed disassociative identity disorder and to criticize me is ableist" ploy.

There's always tomorrow...

[Arishok]

OID's frank admission that they believed the case request would be declined when they filed it appears to have torpedoed any chance of acceptance or even a warning motion.

That said, I do think all this means that should a similar incident occur in the future, an Arb filing would be taken much more seriously. I also don't think this incident is truly over until Marek has either commented or decided to refrain from commenting on the subsequent developments.

[redbaron]

OID should request a rename to Only in Dramah.

That's so edgy. I bet you had nicknames for your teachers too...

No, I was too much of a goody-two-shoes back then.

I mean, I agree that Tamzin's actions were inadequate and need further review. But I have yet to see a comment by OID at a noticeboard that does not serve to further inflame whatever issue is being discussed.

[Jim]

I mean, I agree that Tamzin's actions were inadequate and need further review. But I have yet to see a comment by OID at a noticeboard that does not serve to further inflame whatever issue is being discussed.

Oh, ok.

I've seen lots that don't do that, but maybe I was just paying more (or less) attention.

[Hemiauchenia]

El C states that they regret advocating VM's EE ban be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1120567192

Ah, the perils of p-blocking, I could sing tales of dread and wonder on these. Look, Tamzin, like I said to you last time when you acted too authoritatively by way an intentionally-cryptic public warning — you are moving too fast and loose. It's one thing to study experienced admins, it's another to actually be and act as one. You are still very new. You're did half things right and half wrong here. Credibly, what you did right, the p-block, etc., was done exceptionally well. But after that, it's all down hill.

When you venture into the GS/ACDS topic realm, you're going to run into users that perfected walking the line like a tight rope without ever crossing it in a major way. VM is an exceptionally challenging editor to deal with in that regard. I try not to repeat this too often, because what came to past came to past, but to my ever-lasting regret, I was instrumental in arguing before ArbCom for his EE topic ban to be lifted, which came to past.

Yet, here he became the victim. VM will usually respond uncivilly and unkindly even to warnings (not to mention sanctions), no matter what. That's something you ought to expect, and not just from him; there's no shortage of users who act that way. But keeping your finger off the trigger when it gets heated, when you ''feel'' that heat, that, as alluded to, is the other half where you faltered. So, you really do need to start taking it slower. Temper non-emergency actions against users whom you've sanctioned. As I know you know, it is standard practice to give sanctioned users extra-leeway. The challenge as an admin is to live up to that maxim. Because the fallout when you fail to do that, is this easily-avoidable time sink.

[Sophie]

Any clanking or clattering noise heard is the sound of the ArbCom members closing ranks to protect Tamzin.

The reading comprehension skills of so many, particularly Arbitrators, are so bad it's as well most don't do much in the way of content work. Their understanding of UK IPs also leaves a lot to be desired.....

[Arishok]

El C states that they regret advocating VM's EE ban be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1120567192

That's not a new stance for El_C, who expressed it 10+ months ago in relation to the Warsaw Concentration Camp RfAR:

I'd like to also state for the record that I was fairly instrumental in seeing Volunteer Marek and GizzyCatBella TBANs lifted (with the unrelenting harassment they were both subjected to being the mitigating factor), and I also treated Piotrus with an especial leniency for violating CANVASS, with a sanction that was basically symbolic. The greatest blunder of my Wikipedia career bar none. El_C 11:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

OID is smarter than you Tamzin. (bad faith)

Reading Tamzin's talk page, we can see that OID is also a bully, can't we "Anroth"?

I wouldnt know what you are talking about.



Tamzin is a bully who uses their tools to enforce their will. Unfortunately as everyone knows, bullies only really respond to greater threats. The bullshit parents tell children aside....

Feel free to disagree if you think ARBCOM involvement was not what prompted Tamzin to change their ways though.

Precisely.

[Vigilant]

Who knew giving seriously mentally ill people authority over others on a collaborative project would end poorly?

:shocked pikachu face:

[Vigilant]

Statement by Only in death

Tamzin has made a number of very poor decisions recently, for a relatively new admin particularly we expect mistakes, what we do not expect is doubling-down and getting worse. As I think they rise to the level of requiring the removal of their advanced tools there is no prior dispute resolution here. Its an escalation of behaviour which is sub-par for any admin and very clearly demonstrates why they were lucky to pass RFA in the first place given the many opposes based on their judgement and convictions.

That's basically impossible to argue with.

[Vigilant]

@Barkeep, Knowing ARBCOM are not going to accept a case and thinking they should accept a case are two different things.

Do I genuinely feel Tamzin's judgement is so bad that it merits their tools removed? Of course.

Arbcom is the only venue for this and has made it perfectly clear only Arbcom will deal with that.

Do I genuinely feel Arbcom are going to accept this request? Of course not, it was doomed from the start.

Just because I know something is unlikely to happen doesnt mean I shouldnt take action regardless.

And really, I should absolutely not have had to raise this request, Tamzin had plenty of time to rethink their behaviour, they had plenty of time to acknowledge they were wrong, until the threat of having the ability to be an admin was taken away, there was no indication they were of a mind to listen to what far more experienced people had already told them.

You seriously think I want to open a request, have my behaviour looked at? The reality of the situation is that anyone who does put a request up, accepted or declined, opens themselves up for significant potential hurt. Look at how quick Tamzin was to accuse me of being an anonymous EE mobile IP address (which 2 minutes checking should have indicated why that was a ridiculous accusation).

Hell you could have always surprised me and said yes. But that would require Arbcom do some checking yourselves into Tamzin's dubious and malleable justifications for their actions. But Arbcom doesnt do that, it waits for the evidence page to fill up.

So no, I dont genuinely think you would have ever accepted this case. I do think Tamzin's behaviour wouldnt change without involvement from an authority that has the backing to genuinely stop and make them think. Regardless of the many outcomes this request fills, I still think you should accept the case.

An admin who has to be strong-armed into reviewing their bad actions is not showing genuine understanding of why they are wrong, and its certainly not an indication they will change in the future. All it really indicates is they will do what they want regardless.

So yes, I knew full well in that response, and even in opening this request in the first place, I would probably gather a fair bit of backlash.

But really, if Arbcom want to chastise me for opening a case request I know isnt going to be accepted, you should be looking at the reasons why it had to be done in the first place. Which in this case is Tamzin's rigid act first, never reconsider later attitude towards their tool use. I would dearly love there to be a credible alternative venue for addressing Admin's use of tools (key word, credible, here) but you get it because you sit in the big chair. Tamzin doesnt understand: dispute resolution, de-escalation, blocking when involved, correct use of the deletion tool, and I would argue from their IP question they dont understand either IP's or our core policy on outing.

That's enough for me to say they shouldnt be an admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(And yes I know opening an Arbcom request is absolutely the very opposite of de-escalation, but since the alternative is Tamzin continuing as an administrator, the risks of no action outweigh the consequences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC))

If we still had the old WR awards, I'd nominate Only in death for the straight shooter of the year award.

[Vigilant]

They should have to give up the tools based on this post alone.

[Vigilant]

It looks like Tamzin's little gang is trying to get at OID.

Heh 30 unsuccessful attempts to log into my account since that last message. Now I wonder who that could be. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

From WP:AN

I do have one question. You say you "miscalculated badly". Can you expand on that? What calculation did you make, and what was its "wrong" result?
And one more: " I can assure everyone it's not a mistake I will make again". What was the mistake, and what will you do next time instead?
I'm not trying to flog the horse, really, but the answers to those questions aren't really clear to me yet, sorry, from your perspective...
I know what I think you did wrong, I'm just not clear on what you think you did... Begoon 14:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon: No, I welcome the questions.

The miscalculation was not realizing that this would come off as retaliatory. As I said in my initial post, in my mind, the removal of the comment was a bright enough line that it differentiated things from if I'd blocked purely over the aspersions. I do genuinely think I would have made the same block if I saw this on some random unblock request without previous involvement. But clearly to anyone else this just looked like me getting my feelings hurt and blocking over it. I should have realized it would look that way.
The mistake is maybe better framed in terms of the lesson learned: If one is having to say (words to the effect of) "I'm not technically INVOLVED", it's probably best to proceed as if one were INVOLVED. (Or more precisely applied to this case, just because no policy outright prohibits an admin from blocking a user who has been criticizing their administrative action, that doesn't mean that it's remotely a good idea.)

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)



Thanks. I think the "optics" were far worse than you seem to understand - in fact I'd much prefer you to be contrite about what you did than how it might look... The fact that your reply above is basically wikilawyering about how you might have conceivably thought it would be ok is quite telling. On the other hand, you did open this section by saying "I fucked up", which is to your credit - I guess I was hoping that meant more that you knew what you did was basically unjustifiable, and an utterly incorrect use of tools, than that you thought it might just be tricky to explain away... Begoon 15:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

What the what what?!?!?!

You are not temperamentally fit for this role. Give up the tools.

[Vigilant]

Everyone should read the discussion on VM's page.

It's long, but it's full to the brim with righteous indignation over this cowpat of a block and escalation.




Edit:
It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that there is no fucking way Tamzin should have ANY advanced permissions.
That page is a perfect teaching syllabus for spotting Out Of Control Admins.

[Vigilant]

Gang members filter into the conversation.

[Vigilant]

From VM's talk page after he told Tamzin to stay away. Twice.

Wow

Okay, I guess I do have one more thing to say: @Newyorkbrad: You've already warned Marek once for personal attacks (something he's been blocked for twice). He still seems to think he is entitled to have me as his captive audience to cast aspersions about. Could you please review whether measures beyond the current p-block are necessary? While I'm uninvolved as a matter of policy, to avoid drama it's probably best I leave the assessment to someone else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

curprev 04:59, 7 November 2022‎ Volunteer Marek talk contribs‎ 60,645 bytes −744‎ feel free to post on NYBrad's talk page. But in the meantime, since you've said "That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin" and since you WEREN'T pinged by anyone, including any reviewing admins, and since this is MY talk page and I don't feel like being threatened by someone who has already made one bad block: please. refrain. from. posting. here. .... ever again (unless pinged by a reviewing admin) undo Tag: Undo
curprev 04:56, 7 November 2022‎ Tamzin talk contribs‎ 61,389 bytes +744‎ Undid revision 1120468383 by Volunteer Marek (talk) this is an inquiry relevant to your ongoing unblock request. if you would like to remove it, you are welcome to remove the full request. you do not get to curate what the reviewing admin sees. undo Tags: Undo Reverted
curprev 04:54, 7 November 2022‎ Volunteer Marek talk contribs‎ 60,645 bytes −744‎ Please refrain from posting here again undo Tags: Undo Reverted
curprev 04:51, 7 November 2022‎ Tamzin talk contribs‎ 61,389 bytes +744‎ →‎November 2022: @NYB undo Tag: Reverted

What a dick.

[Wikiguy.DC]

Who knew giving seriously mentally ill people authority over others on a collaborative project would end poorly?

:shocked pikachu face:

You really have a hard-on for them. I can't remember a user here going after an editor with such vitriol that you've displayed in this thread and others.

Seriously, I'm concerned about your mental health.

[Arishok]

Vig was, IMO, considerably more negative regarding Laura Hale than he is towards Tamzin.

[MrErnie]

Trainsandotherthings has been all over some high profile drama board discussions in their relatively short editing career.

[Disgruntled haddock]

I admire OID's candor and their post certainly got Tamzin going in the right direction (we can ignore the latter's bizarre post-hoc no, I totally didn't act emotionally schtick). But it's also clear that ArbCom was always going to decline this.

One question is whether OID's strategy is fundamentally sound in the long term. At RfA I always felt there was a disincentive to go for adminship too early, because of the possibility that the little "2" in Requests for adminship/Foo 2 would color the average voter's views of the candidate. (They fucked it up the first time so they're a hat-collector, or they have some horrible quality ill befitting mop-holders, etc.)

Is it the same at RFAR? Will ArbCom be more likely to accept a future Tamzin case now that it's on their radar? Or will they be less likely because of the colorable effect of OID's "vexatious" (decide for yourself whether those are scare quotes) filing?

Trainsandotherthings has been all over some high profile drama board discussions in their relatively short editing career.

And not once with a measured take. TAOT seems to have two modes: asleep, and foaming at the mouth.

[Arishok]

I would say 'more' simply because 1. the sitewide block was indeed bad, as the AN thread showed, and 2. it's very rare these days for admin misconduct cases to be filed at all, so "lots of vexatious filings" isn't really something for Arbs to realistically get frustrated by.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Trainsandotherthings has been all over some high profile drama board discussions in their relatively short editing career.

Seems perfectly normal. Joins Wikipedia, immediately starts assessing article importance, which is something new users know about and are interested in. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[ArmasRebane]

Trainsandotherthings has been all over some high profile drama board discussions in their relatively short editing career.

Seems perfectly normal. Joins Wikipedia, immediately starts assessing article importance, which is something new users know about and are interested in. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Obviously a likely returning user, but figuring out who is a skill of sleuthing I certainly don't have.

On the other hand, can't be that many railfans who ran off in a huff, can there be?