Knowledge1253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

• MsMisinformation (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility · Interaction Timeline · SPI Tools

@EvergreenFir: @Meters: Who both jave more experience (unfortunately) with the master than I do.

User MsMisinformation has been acting suspiciously ever since they created their account, with instances of unusual behaviour being about as frequent as their edits, so I will not be copying their whole contribs list here. They are operating on a range (2605:b100:d000::/36) which was used previously by the master to apparently evade a block. They also have a similar habit of forgetting that they are supposed to conceal the fact that they have previously used other accounts, and refers to previously used IPs and accounts in a rather possessive way. (Saying stuff along the lines of "You deleted my edit" immediately after totally switching IP ranges) This leads us to the incident which has, for me, eventually made it clear that MsMisinformation is not as new as their edit history would suggest.

I have three diffs,

First the now blocked master makes an edit: [1]

Second, MsMisinformation corrects a typo [2]

Since this is discouraged on talk pages, I reverted and let them know about the policies around this.

For that, I ended up getting this deposited on talk page [3] where they state emphatically that they were correcting their own typo, virtually admitting to being User:Knowledge1253.

There is other evidence too, which I can pull together if these diffs aren't enough to (at least) run CU.

Checkuser requested to help stop more IP hopping block evasion nonsense, which is evident from looking at Talk:McGarry, Ontario. It may also pay to keep an eye out for possible other socks whilst running CU. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I think it's clear to anyone who's been following the conversation on Talk:McGarry, Ontario that there is very similar activity from separate accounts and also IP addresses happening.

However, what I think is being missed here is that there appears to be a user trying to add good faith edits and missing information. They are not doing it well. But they do appear to have important historical information - I saw their reverted edits, looked into the topic and found good sources, and added it in. Other users have been patient and tried to guide the newer user, but tension has arisen. This chain of events may lead to what seems like an easy decision to block someone. And the rules may justify that. But if admins and involved users could pause to reflect on the bigger picture of building an encyclopaedia and trying to get good information into the McGarry, Ontario article, the most likely outcome here will not serve that. I have tried to make some peace at Talk:McGarry, Ontario and I am willing to put time in to try and help this user. I'm advocating for some kindness to what seems like someone who had great information and not great wikipedia skills and for the greater purpose of building an encyclopedia over transgression of rules. CT55555 (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555: So you are offering to mentor an editor who repeatedly evades blocks, tells anyone who warns them to stay off their talkpage after the first level 1 warning, makes personal attacks and accuses all other editors of being "racists and colonists"? I genuinely admire your courage, I really do. I wish you luck, and the strength to do so if the reviewing admins/checkusers allow it. An outcome could be that the editor is restricted to one account, with all other accounts indefinitely blocked, and probably with a block on the chosen "main" account until they understand what is expected of them. But that's for the admins and CUs to decide. Mako out. 💤 Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that offer. And I think your suggested outcome is a reasonable one. CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555 and Mako001: - Even if this is an editor trying to add missing info, their interactions with other users have been bad faith:

• Stay off my talk page, freak.
• Stay off my talk page, bully, fascist fascists freaks.
• There are more colonists and rascists on wikipedia than there are missing Mexican and Indigenous women and girls.

I think a block is warranted even if this user is not a sock. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot defend these words. They are wrong. I just have a lot of sympathy for someone who is clearly struggling with the platform, taking warnings badly. I think there is space to make peace, and I would be willing to try and help resolve it. The editor is trying to add in important history about marginalised peoples, something Wikipedia and the world needs. So I again advocate for the more difficult and complicated path, offer to help with that, for the greater good. CT55555 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Sock account appears to be refusing mentoring [4] Meters (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, you are correct, that does appear to be the case...so far. I think Wikipedia retirements don't always hold. But if it does, the editor has given up and maybe no further action is needed? Also, you have every right to be upset, angry and a whole lot of other things. You have received abuse in response to your efforts to uphold Wikipedia standards.

Please consider this. The user in question is trying, and mostly failing, to add bona fide information, just without bona fide referencing. Every reverted edit that I've searched about has lead me to under reported history. There is a theme in that history of links to traditional/Indigenous knowledge. Knowledge that wikipedia benefits from, knowledge that is systemically excluded from this project.

You won't often find me advocating like this. I think this is a first. But if you can find it within yourself to forgive and give me the benefit of the doubt to try my best to collaborate with the editor to try and turn this situation around, I would be grateful. Even if you just give this a few days more before pushing for sanctions.

A humble plea. CT55555 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not pushed for sanctions, and I'm not particularly upset. I didn't open this SPI, or even comment in it until it was decided. I'm simply informing the admin that the proposed solution has failed. The offer was an extraordinary accommodation of an abusive, apparently WP:CIR sock, and I think it should be seen as a last chance. I doubt very much that the retirement will stick. Meters (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise the extraordinary nature of this, but remain hopeful that the proposed solution has a chance. I'd bet the same way on retirement, and I see that as an opportunity for a good outcome.

I had understood your comment here to be an implied push for sanctions. My apologies if I misunderstood. CT55555 (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that they have resumed vandalism after claiming to have retired. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 07:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  In progress - -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• MsMisinformation is  Confirmed to Knowledge1253. However, I'm going to gather every bit of AGF I've got laying around and take CT55555 up on their offer to mentor this user on how things work around here. If you can convert them into a productive member of the community, it's a win. If not, then we haven't lost much for trying. Closing with no action taken. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I am on it. CT55555 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]