User talk:Mors Martell

Editing history

Hello there, you seem to have some familiarity with Wikipedia prior to registering this account. Am I correct in that assessment? If so, would you mind disclosing your prior history on Wikipedia?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I previously edited Wikipedia under my real name. I had some privacy related issues earlier this year, so I retired my account and created a new account named after a fictional character. Because of the nature of my reason for switching accounts, I'd rather not link this account to my earlier one. --Mors Martell (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact the Arbitration Committee

Hi. My colleagues and I require you to explain something, and to protect your privacy we wish for you to do so by private e-mail. Therefore, I ask you to e-mail the committee mailing list (at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) before you make any more edits to the English Wikipedia. We will respond to this e-mail with an explanation of what we require you to explain. Thank you for your assistance, and we look forward to hearing from you when you next sign in. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I confirm, for the community's records, that the Arbitration Committee has been informed what was this editor's previous account, and I also confirm that (as Mors has already asserted in the thread above) this is a legitimate clean-start account. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 10:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mors, you have not yet responded to my request that you make a single, inconspicuous edit from your old account. If you do not confirm your ownership of that previous account, the Arbitration Committee will be compelled to block this account. Please respond to my message when you are next online. Thank you, AGK [•] 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not noticing your email sooner. I'm afraid what you're requesting is not possible. When I closed my former account I scrambled the password; I was intending to invoke the right to vanish, but decided against it because I was not certain I would never wish to edit again under a new account. Can my identity be confirmed any other way?

I don't understand the need for this request, as my understanding is that the committee was already aware of my former identity, as per your comment directly above. Is this connected to the accusation here that my former identity was a banned editor? If that is the reason for your request, please run a checkuser, as it should be able to confirm that I am who I told you I am. --Mors Martell (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad luck about scrambling the password so there is no possibiity of unequivocally identifying the former account. I'm sure everyone here is aware that checkuser is not magic, and it cannot always provide precise yes/no results, particularly with old accounts. However, there is an easy way to resolve the situation: If Arbcom decides the Mors Martell account is not a problem, all that is required is for Mors Martell to avoid the area of WP:ARBR&I, and to avoid the user who expressed a concern about the account. It is hard to see how an editor with clean hands would find a restriction like that unreasonable under the circumstances (or is there a reason this account must interact with the topic and/or the user?). Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful suggestion. It's now clear I have become far too involved in R&I related matters for my own good, so I do intend to avoid them from this point onward. --Mors Martell (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits concerning me

Hello. Your account was created fairly recently. Apart from edits to video games, most of your edits have involved artbitration committee proceedings, which is unusual for a WP:CLEANSTART. You have had no interactions at all with me, nor have you had any reason to mention my username. However, over the last month or so you have made a number of postings which have developed into unprompted personal attacks on me. Many of those edits have militated for an arbcom case concerning me.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Although this might be a complete coincidence, a similar editing history was shared by the account Zeromus1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), who was blocked as a sockpuppet of a site-banned user. Like Zeromus1, you have conferred on-wiki with a community banned user, editing through a now blocked open proxy: 218.108.168.166 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). Could you please be more circumspect in how you edit and could you please stop making unprompted gratuitous personal attacks on me? That kind of editing falls completely outside what is acceptable on wikipedia, particularly if, as you claim, you are an established user coming back under a clean-start. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any personal attacks. I quoted part of your finding of fact in a recent arbitration case, which read "Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponents" before it was amended. It is never a personal attack to quote an arbitration ruling. More generally, the circumstances which led to my switching accounts have given me reason to care that arbitration functions as well as possible, particularly where privacy matters are concerned. The committee considered opening a case about you last month, but delegated the task to this year's committee. If this year's committee performs their duty, it will open a case about you when one is requested by ErrantX (or someone else), so I will encourage them to open it just as I would for any other editor in the same situation. --Mors Martell (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have mistated the finding of fact, since it was amended almost immediately and you would have seen that, if, as you claim, you only consulted it recently. [10] Repeating the unamended finding is therefore a personal attack. Please stop this now. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But please don't have discussions about other editors with obvious socks of banned users known to be on a harassment campaign, because that means aiding their harassment. I am going to remove that thread from User talk:ErrantX. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please self revert. You've removed not only the IP's comments, but mine as well, which there is no reason to do. Moreover, you were an involved party in the most recent arbitration request; an action like this should be undertaken only by an uninvolved admin. --Mors Martell (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have only ever been active in this domain as an uninvolved administrator, and now that that abortive Arbcom request is over, I will continue to act as such. You have re-instated the edits of a banned user, in direct contravention of explicit Arbcom decisions (see WP:ARBR&I#Case amendments). Please self-revert now, or you will be blocked. If you wish to keep your own comments in place, I can't prevent you from doing that; it's just that they won't look very meaningful without the intervening sock posts. For the future, my other warning also stands: don't even start having these kinds of discussions with obvious socks, then this problem will not arise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, you are as has been mentioned - very involved in regards to taking admin actions in relation to User:Mathsci - You are involved here imo - and are involved in any admin action relating at all to User:Mathsci, why not ask at ANI for action and back off with your threats to block - Youreallycan 09:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your gesture of trying to raise this issue at AE, I suggest that in the future similar complaints should be made in the proper channels. You've received the same instructions from other editors, but I would prefer this as well. --Mors Martell (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @811 · 18:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mors Martell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please understand that I have basically no interest in participating in the project anymore. When my first account was linked to my real life identity, I considered abandoning Wikipedia for good, and when my second account was blocked as an illegitimate clean-start account I intended the same. I hoped the matter could have rested there and ended in January, but in the past few days I've become aware that this isn't possible, and that I've recently been incorporated into a complex argument against the Wikipediocracy forum. I object to becoming a Wikipediocracy poster child after five months of inactivity, and I object to my account being tagged by a non-admin a month after I was blocked. This situation has led to the name of my original account being leaked. My original account name was my real name, and I abandoned it due to real-life harassment issues, which have again become a concern because of this situation. Abandoning Wikipedia can no longer be an adequate solution, because experience shows I will continue to be discussed here regardless of whether or not I'm active. I also have no way to object while my account is blocked, as any IP address I use to post anonymously is immediately reverted and blocked for block evasion. If requesting an unblock is not the proper course of action in this situation, I would like some guidance on what the proper way is to handle it. Mors Martell (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An ArbCom block can only by lifted by ArbCom decision. You have only two options; accept the situation and forgo the possibility of editing, or follow the instructions in the block notification box above.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I sent an email a few hours ago to the arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org address given by SilkTork, but I suspect they did not receive it. When I've contacted this address in the past, I received an arbcom-l-bounces message telling me my message was being held for moderator approval. But when I emailed the list today, I did not receive the bounce message. Is there a way to verify that they received my message, and what should my recourse be if it failed to go through? --Mors Martell (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The email has arrived, and I have just acknowledged it. We will give you a reply as soon as possible. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Account question

Would you be willing to send me an e-mail identifying the account you say you used before this one? You would have to enable e-mail on your account.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not comfortable with that at this time. My identity already has been spread far more than it should have been. --Mors Martell (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm still not comfortable revealing my identity in public or private, I'll provide a few more details as it relates to the case request that's currently before the committee, and I regard this as an important case.

Kinetsubuffalo was outed to demonstrate that this long-standing Wikipedia editor is a klansman and likely paedophile. Someone dangerous to children has no business participating in Wikipedia, and the arbitrators could have prevented his being outed by dealing with him before now. Likewise, the people who considered outing me would have done it to debunk the efforts by Mathsci to convince others that I'm a specific banned user against whom he evidently has a grudge. The arbitrators could have averted the risk of my being outed by not allowing Mathsci's speculation about my identity to continue for as long as it did. I told them on the mailing list that they must learn to be more proactive, and I'll say the same thing here.

I hope the committee will accept a case about Kinetsubuffalo, as well the planned request Cla68 mentioned here, so they can rethink their approach as it applies to both Kinetsubuffalo and myself. I agree wholeheartedly with Casliber's comment on the current request. As for me, SilkTork has removed the sock tag from my user page, but I am still concerned Mathsci might continue this speculation in other venues. --Mors Martell (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]