User:Chzz/drafting

=Location TBA =

Seeking a review of the "admonishment" of (Pesky) re. ANI arch (BD)

Summary
Badger Drink's 'complaint' to AN/I contained a number of grossly misleading statements (at best), or outright lies (at worst). Pesky did not start the original AN/I thread about BD "because he had opposed a friend of hers" at RfA, but because he had a history of being uncivil in both edits and edit summaries since 2008. Despite BD implying that Pesky was told to drop the matter at AN/I, the hard fact is that she was told that this kind of matter belonged at RfC/U, so it was transferred there because that is what Pesky was told to do. BD did not tell Pesky, in any terms at all, certain or otherwise, to stay away from his talk page. He left the "remove sanctimonious needling" edit summary in response to Worm That Turned's message left on his talk page. The only messages which had been left by Pesky were obligatory notifications (which could hardly be called "sanctimonious needling") and which he had left on his page for over a week. The fact that the out of date notifications, on which he had already acted, were removed as being in the same section at the same time, was coincidental. The wording of BD's complaint could not have been better designed to con the gullible and those who couldn't be bothered to find out the true history.

Therefore his complaint was almost entirely without merit, and it's clear from his last truly offensive edit summary that he was opting for a "death by cop" scenario" with this as a quite deliberate parting shot to cast the blame onto someone else.

There's a saying: "The trouble with the obvious is that it can make you overlook the evidence." The "obvious" in this instance being BD's mendacious statements, and the "evidence" being a thorough analysis of the true background. The reason that there is a need for evidence is quite simply that judgment should never be passed on a blind acceptance of the prosecution's opening speech, or on opinions passed by a few vocal others who have based those opinions on the same blind acceptance, and have clearly not done (nor had time to do) any analysis of the background, whilst ignoring the input of those who knew more and had done their best to present the evidence.

Under these circumstances, the admonishment of Pesky was wholly unjustified and should be retracted. Several people have tried to bring this to the closing admin's attention but have received only WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response.

WGfinley portrays himself as an "uninvolved" admin; yet, in point of fact, he involved himself in that thread, saying: ""There are some valid points about Pesky's behavior and Pesky needs a dose of WP:STICK here but that didn't merit the response. BD is free to request an unblock and explain and I'm sure Scott will listen to what he has to say. Pesky needs to just drop it and move along, editors on those pages can call attention to or request action about his edit summaries, you don't have to flow his edits doing so. --WGFinley (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC) "

He then closed the thread in line with his own POV, deciding to apply, personally the "dose of WP:STICK" which he had decided, the previous day (before much of the evidence was available as to the background) needed to be applied. This may explain why he doesn't wish to admit to any mistakes.

NEED A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE ISSUE HERE

-only made 4 posts to user talk; 2 were obligatory, one was a reply

- RfC/U was as advised on ANI

POSSIBLY: links to the direct parties, and to main locus of dispute (diffs)

Background
BD has been offensive...

background on BD and prev ANI/warn/blocks here

Initial observence
During the "Request for adminship" of Zhang,

Actions by Pesky
ANI -> RfC/U

Resultant talk-page comments
Pesky made four comments, in total, to BDs talk page;

ANI "" [diff]
Details here re. demands for CU etc

Admonishment of Pesky
Wgfinley

Subsequent hounding of Pesky
AGK

Jehochman

Requirements

 * WG withdraw 'admonishment'


 * What else?

Practicality
Useful submissions by Pesky? c/f BD?

Comments re. Net+ ?

Temp links

 * On 7 November,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABadger_Drink&action=historysubmit&diff=459439494&oldid=456428668 Mandatory notification of AN/I on BD's talk

(7th November)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#User:Badger_Drink.3B_ongoing_incivility_.2F_abuse_issues The original AN/I, closed as no consensus as it was being moved to RfC/U (made clear in Fluffernutter's closing)

"and a "studied pattern" belongs at WP:RFC/U :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC) " - that's where I was TOLD to take it to RfC/U http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger_Drink&diff=next&oldid=459468337  2nd Mandatory notification  about the move to RfC/U http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badger_Drink&diff=prev&oldid=459684767

BD's response to the RfC/U (which is patronising and condescending in anybody's language): "I have many more fascinating activities to pursue than further legitimizing the vapid, frivolous, and/or completely bogus concerns of two-faced individuals who are just upset that I didn't support their pet RfA candidate and are seeking petty retribution."

10:59 on 16th November (over a week later) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger_Drink&diff=next&oldid=459651822 WTT posts to BD's talk about the RfC/U

THEN (and only then) does BD remove WTT's post as "remove sanctimonious needling"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger_Drink&diff=prev&oldid=460978581, at the same time removing

the mandatory notifications, which he had acted on and which were past their sell-by date

… and if anybody really thinks that any CU's are in order here, it's this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FBadger_Drink&action=historysubmit&diff=463365836&oldid=463338517 :

IP's first edit

(71.220.199.247) so it's someone socking for disruption purposes on 30th November on BD's RfC/U, which is interesting,

bearing in mind that people were suggesting that I was a "sleeper troll account" and calling for a CU on ME at AN/I

28th November, Kudpung on the RfC/U http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FBadger_Drink&action=historysubmit&diff=462832536&oldid=462784242 "A careful watch over his future ES and comments won't do any harm, and if he steps out of line again he shouldn't be surprised if an admin blocks him immediately with the rationale that this RfC and its preceding AN/I have been sufficient warning."

4th December http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABadger_Drink&action=historysubmit&diff=464036232&oldid=464034458 having done as suggested at the RfC/U and checked on BD's recent edit summaries (no, I wasn't watching constantly, just checked 6 days later) Instead of warning and escalation, I did the low-key thing and dropped a note, with the intention of helping him not to drop himself in it, bearing in mind that on the RfC/U the next step people proposed was escalation of sanctions. Note: this is *exactly* the approach recommended by Jehochman on  my talk page, and recommended by WP:CIVIL.

12 hours later BD does this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger_Drink&diff=prev&oldid=464063028 "fuck the hell off, you horrifyingly creepy obsessed individual" And just under an hour and a half later posts his gross misrepresentation of the facts and false accusation at AN/I : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464074516  "Borderline-obsessive hounding; continued baiting" His description of the previous events, leading up to this, is: "When AN/I rightfully told him what to do with his concerns, he filed an RfC - the fact that it quickly attracted a bunch of "support" from a lot of participants in the aforementioned RfA, despite the opening statement being woefully malformed, certainly not reeking of off-wiki canvassing. Evidently unsatisfied with my sole contribution to that particular circus, he has taken up the habit of leaving pesky (or should I say "badgering"?) constant "friendly reminders" on my talk page, despite being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Badger_Drink&diff=460978581&oldid=460928496 told in no uncertain terms that his input was not welcome. "And there was no consensus here for me to receive an "admonishment" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Borderline-obsessive_hounding.3B_continued_baiting_by_User:ThatPeskyCommoner And note that OohBunnies had already said "Another good thing to point out is that this edit, the only one that could be considered evidence of Badger asking Pesky to leave him alone, was in fact 9 days after Pesky left those notifications."And Ironholds had publicly vouched for my identity: "There seem to be questions of socking or multiple account use here.

Just to verify; I've met Pesky, and she's precisely who she said she is. I can verify the real life issues, I can verify her identity, and I can verify that she is one of the most conscientious and well-intentioned people I know, offline or online. If she says that no hounding was intended, you can take her at her word. Ironholds (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)"AFTER which Jehochman called for a CU, and then on Sven's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASven_Manguard&action=historysubmit&diff=464215066&oldid=464199500 says "What evidence do you have that Pesky isn't a sleeper troll account? I have seen what appears to be baiting behavior" And, on Jehochman's page, again after I had been publicly vouched for by Ironholds (admin and currently also a staffer) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJehochman&action=historysubmit&diff=464226416&oldid=464223191   Heh!  Wgfinly, on his talk http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWgfinley&action=historysubmit&diff=464391502&oldid=464390353 says "@Worm If you file an RFC and you choose to "investigate" further instead of listening to what others have to say are you really looking to remediate that user's behavior or are you looking for a public flogging to prove you're right? " Proves beyond a doubt that he hadn't looked at the RfC, where Kudpung had said ""A careful watch over his future ES and comments won't do any harm, and if he steps out of line again he shouldn't be surprised if an admin blocks him immediately with the rationale that this RfC and its preceding AN/I have been sufficient warning," and that was basically what people were saying. So the "instead of listening to what others had to say" is about as obtuse as it gets. timeline

BD background

Pesky background