Bernice McCullers

Block

Alright, I have thought a lot about this block since placing it, and I would like to clarify a few things. I am aware that you have already admitted that the Johnny Smith 1776 account was operated by someone whom you know and canvassed to a discussion. I am also aware that you have stated that you were unfamiliar with Wikipedia's sock puppetry policies at the time. Based on these circumstances, I would be willing to unblock you if you agree to a few conditions.

As you know now, convincing someone else to create a Wikipedia account and support your side in a discussion looks a lot like sock puppetry and is often treated like sock puppetry. It's a serious breach of community trust because it makes it look like there's more support for one side in a discussion than there actually is (anyone can recruit an arbitrary number of people and make it look like there is a lot of support for one side). In order to be unblocked, you should agree not to operate multiple accounts or recruit friends in such an illegitimate manner. As a means to this end, you should also agree to leave the Johnny Smith 1776 (talk · contribs) account blocked even if you are unblocked. If the person who operated this account wishes to return to active editing, they must provide us with a clear plan for how they wish to contribute independently of how you are contributing.

Secondly, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and to accomplish that, we try to adopt a collegial tone while contributing to discussions. I realize that it can be frustrating to see an article that you worked on get nominated for deletion, but it's important to make arguments about the content, not the contributors. It's difficult to work together when editors make comments directed at the other editor, instead of the article. The goal is consensus, not winning votes. I have reviewed your evidence with respect to Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert, and I did some looking around myself. Unfortunately, it's unconvincing to me. Indeed, there are some volunteers who spend a good deal of time contributing to various areas of Wikipedia, so it's likely that two editors who are active at WP:AFD might frequently appear in the same discussion, and if they have similar views toward deletion, they might find that they agree often. Note that there are cases in which the two disagree: for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald J. Trump Signature Collection and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live! Hotel and Casino Philadelphia. In order to be unblocked, it's my view that you should agree to withdraw your accusations of sock puppetry against these two and refrain from making them again. This is so that the discussion can continue on more collegial terms.

Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering your decision. I very much appreciate your clarification, which helps me better understand both the basis for your original decision and how the process for deletion of articles works generally.

For what it’s worth, I really did try to focus my comments on the content of the article. If you review them, you will see those part of my comments are relatively extensive and I believe well-reasoned. After Rusf10 referred to me as a SPA and implied I had a conflict of interest, I took that personally (a mistake on my part) and felt that if he was going to shift from the debate over the content of the article to focus on the contributor, then I should do so as well to keep it as a level playing field. I now understand that I should have just let it go.

I would like to remain unblocked and I agree to the conditions you set forth above – I will not operate multiple accounts and I will not recruit friends in an illegitimate manner. I do not operate the Johnny Smith account, and cannot speak for that person, but I will not seek to have it unblocked. I will also withdraw my claims of sockpuppetry against Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert and will refrain from making them again.

Thank you again for reconsidering your decision. Sincerely, Bernice McCullers talk 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

 Unblocked. Based on your agreement to (1) refrain from operating multiple accounts and recruiting friends in an illegitimate manner and (2) indefinitely withdraw your sockpuppetry allegations against Rusf10 and John Pack Lambert, I no longer believe this block is necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and accordingly, I have lifted the block. Please be aware that if you violate these unblock conditions, e.g. if you continue to present sockpuppetry allegations without additional compelling evidence, you may be blocked again.

I have collapsed parts of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. Appel because I really don't think they had direct relevance to the deletion discussion – I strongly suggest that you do not continue the threads that I have closed.

Welcome back. I hope you take this opportunity to contribute constructively to Wikipedia – see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia for various ways you can help out, and Wikipedia:Teahouse is always open as a friendly space where new editors can ask questions if they are confused about Wikipedia. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back

I hope that this SPI and the block / unblock have been an object lesson in how Wikipedia works and that you can continue to work on a broad range of articles to benefit the encyclopedia. Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page if I can help. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)