Cirt

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:52 am

BURob13, why are you allowing Cirt (T-C-L), who is now editing as Sagecandor (T-C-L), violate his sanctions? Is it because he's obviously a liberal, which is your house point of view?

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:55 am

tarantino wrote:BURob13, why are you allowing Cirt (T-C-L), who is now editing as Sagecandor (T-C-L), violate his sanctions? Is it because he's obviously a liberal, which is your house point of view?

I've never heard of Cirt and don't recall seriously interacting with Sagecandor, though I think I've seen them around. I just checked, and there have been zero emails about this issue to arbcom-l while I've been on the Committee. There's a pending SPI, but that was just filed today. The correct answer is the simplest: I'm not all-knowing.

Sashi: Having an alternate account that you do not use on enwiki is fine. It's not a sock if it was created for use on another project and doesn't edit enwiki. You don't need to note anything on enwiki, since it's not editing there.

As for any checks on your account, feel free to send me an email. I'm not going to say that publicly myself, but you can repeat it publicly if you care to. That's up to you, I suppose.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:18 pm

Wait, you have stated you have reviewed all the arbcom cases and yet you never heard of Cirt? It's also misleading that you you aren't all knowing when you act like a know-it-all!

BURob13 · Unread post by **BURob13** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:59 pm

Kumioko wrote:Wait, you have stated you have reviewed all the arbcom cases and yet you never heard of Cirt? It's also misleading that you you aren't all knowing when you act like a know-it-all!

Again, I have to correct your incorrect statements. I have never said that. I've read several relevant old ArbCom cases, but there are hundreds. Of course I haven't read them all.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:25 pm

BURob13 wrote:
Kumioko wrote:Wait, you have stated you have reviewed all the arbcom cases and yet you never heard of Cirt? It's also misleading that you you aren't all knowing when you act like a know-it-all!
Again, I have to correct your incorrect statements. I have never said that. I've read several relevant old ArbCom cases, but there are hundreds. Of course I haven't read them all.

There's no need to be condescending, I'm paraphrasing what you yourself said during your RFA and Arbcom run when people questioned you about only editing for a short amount of time when you ran. You stated something to the effect of, you spent time before you created an account reading all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and that you read the Arbcom cases when you decided to run for that.

I'm at work at the moment and don't really have time to dig for links but I'll see if I can find those later and add them unless someone beats me to it. Basically what I am saying I guess is that it appears to me that you are merely telling people what they want to hear so you can pass and now when being directly questioned about it, another story is being told.

Lankai · Unread post by **Lankai** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:03 pm

Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:17 pm

Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133

That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:45 pm

Bbb23 seems to be trying to stop the inevitable G5 flood. When it suits them right.

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:47 pm

I wonder if the "offsite attack site" he's referring to is Wikipediocracy (and our own related discussions on other threads about Sagecandor)?

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:51 pm

They blocked the alleged sock, but not the Cirt account.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:52 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!

I don't follow. There seems to be no doubt that Sagecandor is Cirt. He should have been blocked ages ago. This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation. I fail to understand why the Cirt account was not blocked.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:17 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!
I don't follow. There seems to be no doubt that Sagecandor is Cirt. He should have been blocked ages ago. This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation. I fail to understand why the Cirt account was not blocked.

None of us doubt the connection between Cirt and Sagecandor. What I think is harder to associate is that IP that they are sating is a "sock".

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 5:26 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!

I don't think the CU tool had anything to do with it. The behavioral evidence was compelling, and the email to Bbb23 seemingly did not deny the allegation. What does "unsubstantiated high output and active editor" mean? Or is the unsubstantiated referring to the reasons for the block? Again, read the SPI report - the evidence is compelling and, to be honest, quite obvious.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:05 pm

Kumioko wrote:What I think is harder to associate is that IP that they are sating is a "sock".

Presumably, this IP has been used by Cirt and/or Sagecandor. That can be established beyond dispute by CU. I haven't checked its edits; maybe some can be assigned to Cirt with considerable confidence. However, the IP has not been blocked.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:35 pm

MrErnie wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!
I don't think the CU tool had anything to do with it. The behavioral evidence was compelling, and the email to Bbb23 seemingly did not deny the allegation. What does "unsubstantiated high output and active editor" mean? Or is the unsubstantiated referring to the reasons for the block? Again, read the SPI report - the evidence is compelling and, to be honest, quite obvious.

Oh sorry I wasn't clear. Yeah I think it was largely unsubstantiated. I mean, it's compelling as you say, but I don't think it's conclusive. Of course Bbb23 would block his own mother so it's not surprising he found some similarity there to use to justify the indef. But with the discussion on Sagecandors talk page, it seems like they are more or less admitting to using that IP so it looks like their own integrity might be the thing that hurts them the most here.

To me at least it also seems rather odd that person was able to describe in such detail the very particular things they are pointing out. Some of those things are not easy to identify.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:42 pm

Cirt in his reply did not deny the allegation. Wouldn't he have done so if it weren't true?

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:46 pm

The Garbage Scow wrote:I wonder if the "offsite attack site" he's referring to is Wikipediocracy (and our own related discussions on other threads about Sagecandor)?

Ya think?!?

RfB

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:48 pm

Poetlister wrote:Cirt in his reply did not deny the allegation. Wouldn't he have done so if it weren't true?

Yeah I admit that the talk page discussion doesn't help his case.

Speaking as someone who believes in the goal of Wikipedia, he is a pretty good editor and does a lot of useful editing so losing him is going to hurt Wikipedia. With that said, the critic in me says good! Wikipedia doesn't deserve him and neither does the community. If he is reading this, I hope to see him editing over at Wikia military. Plenty of political articles over there he is welcome to come and edit.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:48 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!
I don't follow. There seems to be no doubt that Sagecandor is Cirt. He should have been blocked ages ago. This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation. I fail to understand why the Cirt account was not blocked.

Because, for all his political trollery and gameplaying, Cirt is a pretty good content person. Same reason Eric never had his head lopped off...

Plain and simple...

"Ignore All Rules When They Impede Improvement of the Encyclopedia."

RfB

Dysklyver · Unread post by **Dysklyver** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:16 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!
I don't follow. There seems to be no doubt that Sagecandor is Cirt. He should have been blocked ages ago. This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation. I fail to understand why the Cirt account was not blocked.
Because, for all his political trollery and gameplaying, Cirt is a pretty good content person. Same reason Eric never had his head lopped off...

Plain and simple...

"Ignore All Rules When They Impede Improvement of the Encyclopedia."

RfB

Amen.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:17 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!
I don't follow. There seems to be no doubt that Sagecandor is Cirt. He should have been blocked ages ago. This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation. I fail to understand why the Cirt account was not blocked.
Because, for all his political trollery and gameplaying, Cirt is a pretty good content person. Same reason Eric never had his head lopped off...

Plain and simple...

"Ignore All Rules When They Impede Improvement of the Encyclopedia."

RfB

This is what I don't understand. Why didn't Cirt just appeal his sanction? It had been like 5 years, and he was routinely creating large amounts of high quality content in the meantime. I don't know why he thought the better idea was to start a new account and undermine the sanction. There are certainly enough editors who support his political POV to weigh in for a successful appeal.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:24 pm

MrErnie wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
Kumioko wrote:
Lankai wrote:Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... tions/Cirt

Or:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =862001133
That's awesome. Another unsubstantiated high output and active editor blocked by Bbb23 and his overzealous use of the CU tool. Hasten the day!
I don't follow. There seems to be no doubt that Sagecandor is Cirt. He should have been blocked ages ago. This is no reckless act of Bbb23 but the result of a proper investigation. I fail to understand why the Cirt account was not blocked.
Because, for all his political trollery and gameplaying, Cirt is a pretty good content person. Same reason Eric never had his head lopped off...

Plain and simple...

"Ignore All Rules When They Impede Improvement of the Encyclopedia."

RfB
This is what I don't understand. Why didn't Cirt just appeal his sanction? It had been like 5 years, and he was routinely creating large amounts of high quality content in the meantime. I don't know why he thought the better idea was to start a new account and undermine the sanction. There are certainly enough editors who support his political POV to weigh in for a successful appeal.

You make an excellent point. I guess he's the only one that can answer that... Go ahead, Cirt... We all know you're lurking; sign in and let us know.

RfB

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:25 pm

MrErnie wrote: Why didn't Cirt just appeal his sanction?

Ego, I suspect. No need to grovel when you can sock...

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:28 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
MrErnie wrote: Why didn't Cirt just appeal his sanction?
Ego, I suspect. No need to grovel when you can sock...

Chances of a successful appeal are now near zero for the next couple years at least, so he'll be socking again momentarily...

RfB

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:43 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:
MrErnie wrote: Why didn't Cirt just appeal his sanction?
Ego, I suspect. No need to grovel when you can sock...
Chances of a successful appeal are now near zero for the next couple years at least, so he'll be socking again momentarily...

RfB

I was just about to say that. The Arbcom's fault again IMO. They tend to Sanction people because it's easier than dealing with the actual problems and then they don't have the stomach/guts to unban them.

While we are on the topic BTW, I have long felt that these sanctions should have an expiry. if the editor avoids these areas for a period of time, they should be lifted. Period! It's easy enough to reinstate them again later with one of those broadly construed discretionary decision if needed.

Beeblebrox · Unread post by **Beeblebrox** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:44 pm

He says that the report is "fomented by an offsite attack website" without linking to the site. He says that the IP "information speculation" constitutes WP:OUTING. There is no evidence of OUTING in this report. The IP's edits are described by the filer as background evidence of the connection between it and the two named accounts. In any event, Sagecandor is Confirmed, blocked and tagged. I see no reason to block Cirt unless he resumes editing using that account, in which case I will block him indefinitely if the matter is brought to my attention. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 6:43 am, Today (UTC−8)

Seems pretty clear to me. I think it is normally standard practice to block the puppeteer account, but within the realm of admin discretion to put them on notice that that’s exactly what will happen if they resume editing with it.

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:59 pm

Bbb23, at the SPI page, writes "I see no reason to block Cirt unless he resumes editing using that account, in which case I will block him indefinitely if the matter is brought to my attention." Why wouldn't Cirt be able to resume editing using the Cirt account, as long as they stay away from the topic areas where they are sanctioned? If Bbb23 doesn't want Cirt ever editing under the Cirt account, why not just block it?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:04 pm

MrErnie wrote:Bbb23, at the SPI page, writes "I see no reason to block Cirt unless he resumes editing using that account, in which case I will block him indefinitely if the matter is brought to my attention." Why wouldn't Cirt be able to resume editing using the Cirt account, as long as they stay away from the topic areas where they are sanctioned? If Bbb23 doesn't want Cirt ever editing under the Cirt account, why not just block it?

Because Bbb23 wants him to use it so that he can then block it and say he gave him the chance to "prove himself". Really all he is doing is setting him up because he knows that there is very little chance that he won't use that account to edit at some point.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:51 pm

Interesting to see how many here are willing to defend Cirt. I can only say that my interactions with him have all been unpleasant.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:01 pm

Poetlister wrote:Interesting to see how many here are willing to defend Cirt. I can only say that my interactions with him have all been unpleasant.

Just to be clear, I'm not really defending him and I am totally ok with him being indeffed especially since it costs Wikipedia loads of edits. I just dislike Bbb23's ban first and don't bother to ask questions because my way is the law style and I don't trust him.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:17 pm

Kumioko wrote:
Poetlister wrote:Interesting to see how many here are willing to defend Cirt. I can only say that my interactions with him have all been unpleasant.
Just to be clear, I'm not really defending him and I am totally ok with him being indeffed especially since it costs Wikipedia loads of edits. I just dislike Bbb23's ban first and don't bother to ask questions because my way is the law style and I don't trust him.

That's exactly what did not happen. There was a formal sockpuppet investigation which gave strong evidence of socking. Few people here would have been surprised. Cirt was asked point blank if the charge was true and he did not deny it. What more is needed? Do you want a video of Cirt using both accounts?

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:18 pm

BURob13 wrote:
tarantino wrote:BURob13, why are you allowing Cirt (T-C-L), who is now editing as Sagecandor (T-C-L), violate his sanctions? Is it because he's obviously a liberal, which is your house point of view?
I've never heard of Cirt and don't recall seriously interacting with Sagecandor, though I think I've seen them around. I just checked, and there have been zero emails about this issue to arbcom-l while I've been on the Committee. There's a pending SPI, but that was just filed today. The correct answer is the simplest: I'm not all-knowing.

Sashi: Having an alternate account that you do not use on enwiki is fine. It's not a sock if it was created for use on another project and doesn't edit enwiki. You don't need to note anything on enwiki, since it's not editing there.

As for any checks on your account, feel free to send me an email. I'm not going to say that publicly myself, but you can repeat it publicly if you care to. That's up to you, I suppose.

I've sent you an email, because if what you say is true, it's hilarious that you told me the Arbitration Committee had carefully considered my appeal on the 24th of January. ("Projected timeline for treating my appeal") The mail that I sent you as you can see was dated December 4, 2017, and like the mail to the entire committee which you must have consulted to carefully consider my appeal, included the same proof of who Cirt was as what Bbb23 finally acted on.

So, I'm not sure how you can simultaneously claim to have never heard of Cirt and to have carefully considered my appeal.

I'd be curious how many times my account has been check-usered since I've been blocked, so sure, if you have straightforward access to that info, you can add it to the email. I would actually rather that concerning the original bogus charge of wiki-hounding that you do an en.wp search:

WP:WIKIHOUNDING Cirt. I think you'll see that Cirt likes to falsely accuse people of this, even when they're not socking... (not sure all 211 cases are relevant, but there are more than enough that are...)

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:42 pm

BU Rob23 wrote:I've never heard of Cirt[.]

From my sent mail, May 27, 2018: addressed to BU Rob 23's personal mail and to the committee notice board:

SashiRolls wrote:The longer that you continue with the on-wiki cover up, the worse it makes the ArbCom and Wikipedia look.

The facts I mentioned in June 2017 have never been contested. Sage engaged in astroturfing after the 2016 election. Minassian Media worked for the WMF during the election.

The ID of Sagecandor as Cirt is more recent and was not my initiative. [...]

Is there any more to be said?

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:57 pm

Do you think Bbb has a background in forensic medicine?

Coroner's Report wrote:[...] In any event, Sagecandor is Confirmed, blocked and tagged. ... Bbb23

brrr...

Long Live Cagesander. ^^

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:15 pm

Personal to the mainmast dweller: Subtlety never was your strong suit.

xoxo,

tim

Unread post by **tarantino** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:19 pm

Bezdomni wrote: I've sent you an email, because if what you say is true, it's hilarious that you told me the Arbitration Committee had carefully considered my appeal on the 24th of January. ("Projected timeline for treating my appeal") The mail that I sent you as you can see was dated December 4, 2017, and like the mail to the entire committee which you must have consulted to carefully consider my appeal, included the same proof of who Cirt was as what Bbb23 finally acted on.

So, I'm not sure how you can simultaneously claim to have never heard of Cirt and to have carefully considered my appeal.

The same basic evidence was sent to one of the arbs in July 2017. Newyorkbrad, along with various other admins and fuctionaries have seen the relevant threads here. Yet Cirt was allowed to continue manipulating wikipedia to the detriment of his political foes.

There's also some interesting intersections of interest between Cirt and free speech attorney Marc Randazza, that I don't think I've mentioned here.

Jim · Unread post by **Jim** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:39 am

Dysklyver wrote:Bbb23 seems to be trying to stop the inevitable G5 flood.

G5 says:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block

and 'ban' links to Wikipedia:Banning policy (T-H-L) which says

A ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages.

and includes a section on topic bans.

Bbb23 says:

...Stop tagging articles created by Sagecandor for g5. It's absolutely improper...

Well, the rush by zealots to tag/revert anything done by a sock is certainly very often petty and unseemly, but it seems perfectly in line with the 'policies', where Cirt's edits as Sagecandor violate his topic ban: ("prohibited from editing articles that are substantially biographies of living people if, broadly but reasonably construed, (i) the articles already refer to politics or religion or social controversy; or (ii) his edits introduce to the articles material about politics or religion or social controversy") - so perhaps Bbb23 should aim his indignation in the direction of the 'policies' in those cases?

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:59 am

Yeah they do that a lot to be honest. Sometimes I wonder if I wrote several GA-FA quality articles and they found out it was me if they would delete them?

Clearly those articles violate his topic ban, but it's yet to be seen if they will have the stomach to delete a couple hundred articles, including several that are GA or better. I hope they do, it would be a good win for us hasten the day types. See here for the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?li ... tart=&end=

Lankai · Unread post by **Lankai** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:25 am

Kumioko wrote:Yeah they do that a lot to be honest. Sometimes I wonder if I wrote several GA-FA quality articles and they found out it was me if they would delete them?

Clearly those articles violate his topic ban, but it's yet to be seen if they will have the stomach to delete a couple hundred articles, including several that are GA or better. I hope they do, it would be a good win for us hasten the day types. See here for the list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?li ... tart=&end=

No. Unless there were no significant edits (not minor or useless bot or semi-automated edits) by any other editor then yes they can delete the article created by you.

I believe that those articles should be deleted since they were created to evade a topic ban and others should be allowed to restore if they think the contributions still valid. Bbb23 should not interrupt anymore into this matter because others can really handle it better.

Pudeo · Unread post by **Pudeo** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:44 am

I wonder why none of you filed the SPI. Was it just amusing to observe how long the elephant would stay in the room?

Anyway, given how often socks are banned without formal SPIs and how well-known this became, there was probably some hesitance to act on it. Sounds like he's going to continue socking, but it's not going to be easy because not many people write articles about political books.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 1:40 pm

Pudeo wrote:I wonder why none of you filed the SPI. Was it just amusing to observe how long the elephant would stay in the room?

I think that may have been part of it. Not wanting to be seen as advocating for a blocked un-person might have been another.

Jim wrote:
Dysklyver wrote:Bbb23 seems to be trying to stop the inevitable G5 flood.

G5 says:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block

It's fun that there's no G5z rule saying something along the lines of

proposed G5z rule wrote: All users deleted due to actions of banned & blocked users in violation of their ban or block should have their cases reopened, and any libelous claims written into the block record in such cases should be reversed by the Arbitration Committee, and especially in cases where the committee has been grossly negligent, leaving damaging false statements on the web for over 1 year without revision, an official apology is recommended.

Again, just a reminder of just how much Cirt has enjoyed accusing others of Wikihounding over the years. I will be busy in the next weeks, but do assume that the ArbCom is aware that I still have never been given the chance to appeal Cirt's prosecution. I had an email this morning rom BU Rob 23 indicating that he had "carefully reviewed" my appeal without looking at the evidence.

I hope that they will take the time now to look into Black Kite's closing the ANI report someone initiated after Cirt had accused me of being a Russian propaganda agent, the fact that Dennis Brown blocked me with input from Laser Brain & of course from GMG blocked me for "wiki-hounding" because I commented critically but politely on a Request for Comment related to Cirt's spinning on "and you are lynching Negroes". Curiously, GNG at the time went by another name... (it is unsurprising that SC contacted GMG immediately after being blocked to advocate for them / "give them advice"). Finally, it would definitely be worth looking to into the Tryptofish-Cirt association to understand why Tryptofish was so eager and quick to rally in defense of his old wikifriend... cf. 2011 BLP case | defend each other TP banter...

But all of that has nothing to do with me. How the ArbCom wishes to discipline folks like Black Kite, Tryptofish, & GMG is entirely up to them.

Bbb23 wrote:..Stop tagging articles created by Sagecandor for g5. It's absolutely improper...

Oh! Well, never mind then... ^^

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:02 pm

Pudeo wrote:I wonder why none of you filed the SPI. Was it just amusing to observe how long the elephant would stay in the room?

The elephant had already been living in the room, sleeping on the sofa, and eating stuff from the fridge for two years, a few extra days wasn't a matter of life or death... The bottom line is the same either way.

Anyway, given how often socks are banned without formal SPIs and how well-known this became, there was probably some hesitance to act on it.

Correct. As a defender of House POV and a creator of good content, he was clearly being protected and it was going to take a very well presented SPI case and luck, both, for the executioner's axe to be wielded. You did the first (very nicely) and had the second. Would one of us have done as good a job presenting and received as favorable a result as you did, I ask? (Hint: No.)

Sounds like he's going to continue socking, but it's not going to be easy because not many people write articles about political books.

Also true, because he burned his bridges by socking around a formal ban like that and now has painted himself into a corner. When he is caught doing it again his situation will be unrecoverable.

RfB

MrErnie · Unread post by **MrErnie** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:15 pm

Pudeo wrote:I wonder why none of you filed the SPI. Was it just amusing to observe how long the elephant would stay in the room?

Anyway, given how often socks are banned without formal SPIs and how well-known this became, there was probably some hesitance to act on it. Sounds like he's going to continue socking, but it's not going to be easy because not many people write articles about political books.

I don't think a report by a poster of WO would have had success. It would have been too easy to dismiss as "fomented by an offsite attack website," a defense attempted unsuccessfully in this case. I would really like to hear from Dennis Brown or an Arb to get their take.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:17 pm

MrErnie wrote:
Pudeo wrote:I wonder why none of you filed the SPI. Was it just amusing to observe how long the elephant would stay in the room?

Anyway, given how often socks are banned without formal SPIs and how well-known this became, there was probably some hesitance to act on it. Sounds like he's going to continue socking, but it's not going to be easy because not many people write articles about political books.
I don't think a report by a poster of WO would have had success. It would have been too easy to dismiss as "fomented by an offsite attack website," a defense attempted unsuccessfully in this case.

+1

RfB

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 2:40 pm

For the record...

On Wikirev The Devil's Advocate wrote:Credit where credit is due, tarantino on WO was the one who first brought up the possibility of Sagecandor being Cirt. Much of the evidence provided since was compiled by me and Sashi, but neither of us were the ones who first expressed the suspicion. As to Sashi, he had been indeffed in late June, which was several weeks before tarantino mentioned the suspicions he and other members had about the account. Perhaps you are confused as Sashi has had several changes made to his block log. These were to strip him of talk page access, then e-mail, and then an ArbCom action to reinforce the previous blocks, presumably due to his appeal being rejected. His initial indef was for "harassment" because he brought up Sagecandor's extensive editing about books related to Trump. Sagecandor then filed a request for enforcement and Sashi was banned. When the info about Sagecandor being Cirt started coming out he was almost the subject of a boomerang for another enforcement request when he suddenly claimed he was having a health crisis and the matter was aborted. Since we don't know his real identity, there is no way to know if the health crisis was real or manufactured to avoid accountability.

RfB

Alex Shih · Unread post by **Alex Shih** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:56 pm

Didn't really have the chance to follow this in detail, but it really isn't socking, more of topic ban evasion/evading scrutiny? Somehow reminds me a bit of Rlevse, in which I am also sure both are still editing.

Kumioko · Unread post by **Kumioko** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:38 pm

Alex Shih wrote:Didn't really have the chance to follow this in detail, but it really isn't socking, more of topic ban evasion/evading scrutiny? Somehow reminds me a bit of Rlevse, in which I am also sure both are still editing.

I agree Rlevse is still editing, I can tell you what the new account is if you haven't figured that out already. But since I am banned, doing anything I suggest could be considered proxying for a banned editor, so that might make things more interesting.

I do agree that it's topic ban evasion but I disagree that it's not socking for a couple reasons. First, Bbb23 indeffed the account for socking after confirming that on an SPI. Since no one is screaming about that, it must be true right? Secondly, it had a couple accounts/IP's involved, which pretty much is the definition of socking.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:41 pm

Alex Shih wrote:Didn't really have the chance to follow this in detail, but it really isn't socking, more of topic ban evasion/evading scrutiny?

If you're going to use the term "socking" at all, you have to apply it across the board, even to people on your side of the fence - or at least accept that most people will. Personally, I'd say stop using the term altogether. After all, the last thing you want is a lawsuit from the Gold Toe company and other hosiery manufacturers for trademark infringement.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:00 pm

Cirt's blanked his talk pages on meta, commons, and wikinews, which had these responses from him last year:

SageCirt wrote: wikinews might be a break from being WIKIHOUNDED and someone trying to fucking delete all my shit on Wikipedia.

and

I'm a great writer, I can figure out site policy. Lately I'm more frustrated with the culture of those that disregard policy of reliable sources in favor of fringe extremist bullshit.

He also asked for his meta user page be deleted so I archived a copy.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:48 am

Is The Devil's Advocate banned off here?

I'd suggest granting him a pardon if he is.

Mir i druzhba and all that...

RfB