Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

Resolved

 – issue is now moot, as other editors have endorsed the RFC. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What's up with DC insisting on retaining a two year old "endorsement" on an RFC, when that endorsement was posted by the since effectively-banned user Merridew. I don't see how a banned user's comments from 2 years ago have anything to do with a current RFC. But I might just be dense. I've asked DC to come here and explain this oddity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And DC is also edit-warring to keep Merridew's comment in there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The validity of the certification is certainly open to question. I suggest we leave it in place, with a note indicating its status is under review and that it should be considered suspended until the question is resolved. Manning (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As explained in the RFC/U itself, I reopened the request following a WP:AN discussion about a similar situation. The original RFC/U was delisted because User:Ash claimed to have left WIkipedia. It was never closed, simply dormant. I would have preferred to simply relist it, but given the amount of time that has passed and the new user name, I felt that this was the best way forward. I was asked by an admin to include the certifications from the previous RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I did ask him to include it because it seemed odd that it was just a link to an old RFC. I also noted that I thought something was fishy and violated process that one of the certifiers being unavailable to confirm if they thought it should be re-opened because they were banned. I don't see why if there is a problem with this user's behavior warranting an RFC, DC cannot produce a second, active, unbanned user to certify with him. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the reception I have received so far, I would not ask anyone to add their name to the RFC/U (in fact, I would discourage it unless they wish to be similarly maligned). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very moot now that others have come forward and signed on, so all my concerns as to process and validity are satisfied. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• No opinion on much else in this thread, but since repeating something that's untrue often enough leads to people assuming it's true, a point of order: Merridew isn't banned, effectively or sotherwise. There's one restriction on his editing that he evidently is unwilling to agree to, but if he agreed to it, he could start editing tomorrow without breaking any rules. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies. He is in a situation such that he cannot confirm if he thinks the RFC should be re-opened, nor can he engaged in collaborative dispute resolution with the subject of the RFC, no? MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's correct; like I said, my only interest is trying to shut down the "banned" meme. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• He's been blocked here since June, he's globally "locked", he's been charged with sockpuppetry, and his most recent edits were rev-del'd. That's "effectively banned", in my book. However, the thing that irked me a bit was DC's attempt to hide the point that Merridew has nothing to do with the current RFC. Assuming DC doesn't edit-war against the admin Manning's posting in that RFC, that should keep things clear to anyone looking at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I originally had a link to the certification section of the earlier RFC/U. I was asked to cut-and-paste the old certifications in the newer version. Merridew has nothing to do with reopening the RFC/U, but they did certify it originally. In what possible way am I attempting to hide anything? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I made the point that he's not a valid user anymore, and you deleted it and tried to bury it on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• But he is a valid user; he's not community banned or anything like that, as Floquenbeam rightly points out. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page." Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indef'd users don't get to edit. I didn't edit anyone else's comment. As noted below, others have rendered the Merridew issue moot. So you're going to delete it now, right? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Two current users, in addition to DC, have now certified the RFC so the Merridew issue is now moot.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

What Will said. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...just because an editor is banned doesn't mean everything they did is wrong or wiped away (Can't remember what guideline says that, but there is one that says that) Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Once an editor is banned, any and all edits he makes after that are subject to removal, and edits made prior to banning are subject to scrutiny, depending on what the ban was about (copyright violations, for example). Merridew is not "banned", but he's not allowed to edit either - nor is it appropriate for his words to be proxied. However, Merridew's comments are now struck from the RFC, so dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Page deletion

I had just commented at this RfC/U – I think I was about the 30th person to have done so – to find that it has just been deleted. Isn't that a bit irregular? --JN466 07:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As I discussed on the talk page previously, no one added evidence that Ash and Fae are the same person. I indicated I would delete it if no evidence was provided in a timely manner. I was told to ask the ArbCom, which I did. In their responses they also did not provide any indication that the two users are the same person. Since the entire RFC/U was predicated on them being the same person, it was an invalid RFC/U. Editors are welcome to start an RFC/U on Fae alone, and they can also request an admin recall. However no one should allege that Ash and Fae are the same person without providing proper proof.   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. I urge all users to avoid dealing with the ArbCom if they can. They can't be relied on to give honest answers to simple questions.   Will Beback  talk  08:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this deletion was a gross misuse of the admin bit, and should be considered grounds for at least temporary desysoping. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Will, suggestion. Undel the page yourself. I don't think the community might see this positively. A timely undeletion would save us this discussion thread. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 08:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • John Vandenberg already did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Improperly certified RFC/Us are routinely deleted. Based on the best available evidence, and numerous requests for more evidence, I understood that the RFC/U was improperly formed and certified. A number of exchanges with the ArbCom led me to believe that there was no identified connection between Ash and Fae. I gave plenty of warning that I'd delete it if no evidence of the connection was added. Only after the ArbCom discussions, and after I'd deleted it, did user: John Vandenberg decide to give his still incomplete input. I sincerely apologize for relying on the ArbCom to give useful information and I promise never to do so again.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is Wikipedia policies (RFC/U and cleanstart) aren't coherent, so (as usual) discussion and consensus are necessary to resolve the situation. While I disagree with the deletion, I don't doubt WB's good faith; calls for desysoping are over the top. Likewise I'd encourage editors to be nice to ArbCom -- it's a crappy job but someone has to do it. Nobody Ent 11:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The deletion was done in quite bad faith, as Will was threatening deletion using by his personal criteria regarding Fae's identity rather than any question of the certification. A desysop is certainly on the table, but perhaps it might be best to deescalate all-around and just let the RfC mosey along. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped to avoid having to do it on-wiki for various reasons, but I have made a connection between the two accounts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Connecting User:Ash to User:Fae by popular request. I have attempted to find a balance between limiting the amount of personal information disclosed and making a connection that reasonable people could agree was conclusive. Given that the connection between the two accounts was fairly well-known when I re-opened the RFC/U, I had hoped that an ArbCom member would appear to make a suitably vague statement that would put questions about identity to rest. If any admin genuinely had concerns that the two accounts were not connected, I would like to think that the RFC/U would have been deleted immediately instead of allowing it to remain until an arbitrary deadline had expired. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that, which should have been part of the RFC/U from the beginning. We can't just make allegations of serious wrongdoing without providing proof or relying on unverifiable claims like "common knowledge". I'm not sure I understand your reluctance to post evidence of something that you were comfortable asserting. However now that this is cleared up you can continue resolving the dispute over sourcing BLPs.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion of this page as both being well within community norms and WB having stated several times he was going to do it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While I don't approve of the deletion, I can say, thank goodness it's gone, now it has, let us now look forward not back. Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

Block request

Can someone please block User:Russavia for their insulting personal attacks here? I can bear being accused of being a homophobe (in fact I was expecting it), but actually being called a homophobe is too much. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the accusation of being a homophobe, only that your actions may be intepreted as such. That isn't an attack on you. Furthermore, it is not best form to ask for your opponent to be blocked when you are currently in a dispute against them. —Dark 06:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My only "dispute" with Russavia is that they continue to make flagrant personal attacks. They are not simply saying that my actions could be interpreted as homophobia, they are saying (as in the edit summary for that diff) that it is homophobia. What do you think they mean by "calling a spade a spade"? Can someone please block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments and edit-summary refer to the behaviour, not to the person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Would WP:WQA not be the better place for this? Either way, you really shouldn't be asking for a block - ask for help/assistance to solve the problem instead. GiantSnowman 12:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a user who just called another user a homophobe, using an edit summary of "this is why what you are doing is homophobic". If you can't see that that is seriously running afoul of WP:NPA, then you have no business commenting in AN/I discussions, honestly. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, suggesting WQA would surely show that I do feel it was inappropriate? Especially as I have been accused of something similar myself (which I ignored, rather than bring it to ANI). GiantSnowman 14:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DC should be very careful of invoking a WP:BOOMERANG effect here given that, according to Russavia, DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion. If that's the case, and I have no reason to doubt Russavia, it's a vile act of harassment from DC. I have no idea why this individual has not previously been banned. He certainly isn't contributing anything of value to the project and he needs to be held accountable for the way that he uses off-wiki forums to attack other editors. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge, and something we don't accept just because someone claims it. Any off-wiki harassment claims need to be backed up with evidence. Otherwise, those claims are sanctionable themselves. -- Atama頭 00:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I'm going to quote what you just said, to give you a chance to look over what Russavia said and consider whether you were paraphrasing accurately or (inadvertently) introducing brand new allegations of your own: "DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion". Here's a diff of Russavia's statement. Bear in mind that Russavia claims to have a webcitation archive of the Wikipedia Review discussion in question. Perhaps you would like to consult that as well. Perhaps you would like to strike your inflammatory comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you link to the wrong comments? I presume [1] or [2] is what Prioryman is referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, I'm referring to this statement by Russavia:

Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Wikipedia activities is absolute and clear BS. (Whilst the posts in question by DC on WR have conveniently been deleted, this does not mean that a webcitation copy wasn't conversely conveniently made before these posts were deleted by WR, so if DC is going to deny ever having done this, they might want to think very carefully before responding to this). [3]

I've asked Russavia for more details and I hope he will provide me (in confidence, since it's not fit for posting here) the webcitation link verifying his statement. If it's not the case then obviously I'll apologise to DC, but if it is true then it needs to be dealt with - and really the only remedy here would be for DC to be banned, as such conduct would be completely unacceptable. The fact that DC has a history of harassing other editors off-wiki makes me inclined to believe Russavia. As for the harassment campaign being conducted against Fae, you only have to look at the top of Fae's user page. It's worth pointing out that DC started the thread on WR that has led to the harassment campaign, so he is not only deeply involved in this unsavoury business, he is its instigator. That in itself is worth considering, quite apart from the outing claims. Prioryman (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has done a fine job of perpetuating the narrative that I am "harassing" editors, which he does here by claiming it as "fact" that I have "a history" of this (and making me not only a participant but the "instigator" of off-wiki "harassment"). They closely mirror the comments made by Fæ himself in response to his failed request for admin rights on Commons. If this were to be the case, it is surprising that Fæ has not, as I have repeatedly asked, filed any kind of dispute resolution in order that the matter may be addressed. Prioryman has a vested interest in having me sidelined in some way, because I expressed similar concerns regarding their previous account, which is under numerous ArbCom sanctions that do not seem to have been transferred to their current account. I have expressed concern about violations of those sanctions to ArbCom but have failed to get any satisfactory response so far. I await their apology, but request that they strike their comments while they await the archive that they have not yet consulted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(posted from my talk page) Hi Prioryman, I think it only needs to be asked of DC, the simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer; "Did you or did you not post information, including Fae's home address and phone number to WR, the posting of which then lead to further harrassment of Fae". Let me remind you all, DC has already admitted they did so, and wanted me to post off-WMF links to said information. They were told by another editor that this would be inappropriate, and I agree. But please, ask DC whether they did indeed post such information to WR.

Note to DC -- you may claim that you are not a homophobe, and frankly, it is irrelevant if you are. You have clearly participated on WR in discussions on Fae which are often homophobic in nature, and in the above instance referenced above you clearly gave ammunition for some unknown participant/reader of that WR to engage in harassment on Fae. If you are not a homophobe, fine, but your willingness to associate with people who clearly are, and who are engaging in harassment, and your eagerness to divulge information on the harassee so that they can be further harassed (not 20-25 minutes after saying onwiki to the harassee that you are sorry they are being harassed), surely brings into doubt whether you are such inclined, or whether you are simply sympathetic to their cause. Either way, your conduct offwiki in contributing to harassment of Fae is crystal clear, and makes you as culpable as a person who does it onwiki. And for this you need to be held accountable. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

At least you are now open to the possibility that I might not be a homophobe, only someone who associates with homophobes - things are improving. Except that I don't think that contributors to Wikipedia Review are at all motivated by homophobia, despite the occasional insensitive comment. If Wikipedia Review were as you describe it, I would not be a participant there. I doubt that the current Wikipedia admins who contribute there appreciate being tarred with that brush either. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you stated above that Russavia was going to provide "the webcitation link verifying his statement" and "If it's not the case then obviously I'll apologise to DC". I assume that you have seen the archive of the WR discussion by now. Then you know that your statements were false. You said "DC was responsible for posting another editor's home address and phone number to an off-wiki forum in the middle of a deeply homophobic discussion". As you have seen, the "deeply homophobic discussion" is quite simply a fantasy. It does not exist even in Russavia's statement and you have created it here to perpetuate the "homophobia" defence of Fæ. Worse, you have deliberately conflated it with a number of unrelated things -- "banned user", campaign to get WMUK's charity status revoked, "blackmail threat" -- which are unrelated to me or my actions in an effort to have me banned. This is transparently self-serving to anyone who knows the full story of your history and our interactions, but you can fool some of the people some of the time. The only true part of your statement is that I posted publicly available WHOIS information without redacting the address and phone number that it contained. I should not have done that. That was an oversight on my part and I fully agreed with the redaction made by a WR mod. That WR thread was moved at my request to a non-public forum not to hide my actions, but for reasons related to Fæ's privacy. I would like you to strike your inflammatory statements now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal

The facts, as far as I've been able to establish them, are as follows. Given the privacy issues I've avoided posting a few key links in the section below, but I do have them.

A banned user has been mounting a campaign on Wikipedia Review to get Wikimedia UK's charitable status revoked. In conjunction with that campaign, certain WR users have been focusing on WMUK's officers, including Fæ, who is a Director of WMUK. Delicious Carbuncle has been systematically using WR to harass Fæ, starting no fewer than six threads about him since November 2011. This kind of thing is typical for DC, who has targeted other editors in a similar fashion on other occasions. I have previously presented evidence to Arbcom about his activities (which is presumably why he is trying to dredge up off-topic issues to distract attention - another standard DC tactic).

On 26 December 2011, Fæ put himself forward for admin status on Wikimedia Commons. After Delicious Carbuncle started a WR thread about the RFA, it was heavily disrupted by sockpuppet accounts and users banned from en.wiki.

On 30 December, someone sent Fæ a blackmail threat. He was forced to withdraw his RFA. [Added - there is no evidence that the threat came from DC.]

On the same day at about 19:09, DC posted Fæ's phone number and home address on a new thread on WR at the URL http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35978 . Fæ publicly noted this shortly afterwards. [4] DC's thread was deleted shortly by WR's administrator shortly after DC posted it. At the time of posting, DC was fully aware of the threat against Fæ, as he had posted about it on Commons only 20 minutes previously. [5]

DC is still continuing his campaign with an RFC on en.wiki directed against Fæ, with an accompanying thread on WR to rally the troops. Since DC started his campaign, Fæ's user talk page has seen repeated postings of personal attacks and homophobic slurs directed against him (see log and comment here for an example). This is a direct and predictable result of DC's campaign on WR.

Fæ has never published his home phone number or address in any context to do with Wikipedia or WMUK and it is not listed in the public telephone directory. DC has admitted that he obtained it from an online database. However, the information in question is not part of a current publicly accessible record, so he would have needed to use technical means to get around the privacy protection. protected by a privacy redaction, so DC had to obtain it from an historical copy of the record in question.

This is about as serious a breach of privacy as it's possible to get, short of physically stalking an editor. DC knew that Fæ had been threatened. Within minutes of publicly acknowledging that fact he obtained Fæ's private telephone number and home address and posted them to a forum where individuals make a habit of trying to "out" and harass Wikipedians. Given that the campaign against Fæ is being run via WR, there is good reason to believe that Fæ's harasser is a WR reader. The information that DC provided could have enabled the harasser to carry out his blackmail threat.

Posting another Wikipedian's personally identifying information without their permission is a serious breach of privacy at the best of times. When it's combined with the prior knowledge that the Wikipedian in question has been threatened on that same day, it has to be seen as not just reckless but actively malicious. Combine that with the ongoing campaign against Fæ and the word "vindictive" comes to mind.

This conduct is quite simply inexcusable. DC's action amounted to sticking up a sign on WR saying to Fæ's harasser, "here's where he lives, come and get him". Russavia is correct: DC needs to be held accountable for it. In my view, the only remedy that will fit the premeditated, malicious and egregious nature of DC's conduct is an indefinite block or community ban and I thus propose it. Prioryman (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not breaking my Wiki-absence to defend DC, who I think often does foolish and questionable things, in he service of whatever cause he has, but let me give a couple of facts from the Wikipedia Review thread. On WR, DC published an e-mail he'd received from "Ash" in March 2010. That email contained an personal email domain. DC also published the (publicly available) Whois? information for that e-mail domain, in order to show that it belonged to Ashley Van Haeften (who has publicly identified as Fae). Note, I make no comment on whether it was appropriate to publish the information. Unfortunately, the Whois? information not only contained the name, but also the address and phone number of the owner of the domain name. This information was redacted a little over an hour later by a WR mod (note they are not always as irresponsible as people here would wish to believe). Some pathetic "homophobic" remarks followed, made by two unrelated morons, and then a further post by DC stating (2 hours after his original) that he'd asked the mods to delete or hide the whole thread, because (he stated) he realised he should have redacted the information, even although it was in the public domain, and he'd never intended to make AVH a target of real life harassment. Now, let's be clear. I'm not condoning anything here. I'm just not clear what privacy was breached (it WAS all in the public domain, except perhaps for the domain name whiich DC had got from an email Ash had sent him - I've checked the Whois? myself, but I'm not posting any links here), and even what was posted seems to have been negligently done rather than maliciously. Now, has DC been "harassing"? I've not looked at the rest of the evidence here, so I'm not going to comment on that.--Scott Mac 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that DC published a private email on a forum which is notorious for its harassment of WR editors, is grounds enough to question his motives. Did he have permission to post this email? No he didn't. That he then felt that he had to use that email, and information contained in it, to post information to WR, where it is known that Fae has been harassed via, that included a home phone number and home adress, is even more troublesome. Even DC acknowledges that he screwed up. However, this then led to actual harassment on Fae. DC is therefore ultimately responsible, for posting private correspondence without permission, and posting other private information without good reason. He should have foreseen what would have resulted, given that he was aware and acknowledged only 20 minutes previously, that Fae was being harassed, and also being threatened/blackmailed. Whilst he posted information on sites not controlled by WMF, he should have known that on-WMF project harassment was likely to occur, and it did. Therefore, I support an indefinite block or community ban as proposed. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• A disingenuous remark to say the least. DC did NOT publish a private email. He mentioned a domain name that was in the email. He then published the publicly available info contained in the WHOIS database for that domain. Fae/Ash has frequently complained of harassment yet has never provided proof of those episodes. Likewise, as Russavia mentioned above, Fae withdrew his RFA as a result of a "blackmail threat", though no proof of that threat was ever given. Coincidentally his withdrawal came at a time when what started out as a WP:SNOW in his favour turned into a snow in favour of rejection. On another point, it would perhaps be in DC's favour if the webcitation link was published here so all and sundry can see how "deeply homophobic" that thread was. Oh, I almost forgot. During Fae's abortive RFA Russavia appeared to be a vociferous flag bearer on Fae's behalf. It's not surprising that he's doing the same now, and using, well let's just say hyperbolic means to do so. -27.100.16.185 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hello unknown editor. Of course, I place more credence in comments that come from actual logged-in editors, just to be sure you're not a banned miscreant. But I will comment on the comment that I was a flag bearer for Fae at his RfA on Commons. If one checks the RfA itself, I actually opposed Fae's RfA. I informed Fae why I opposed, and it had nothing to do with WR muckraking of issues. On a side note, his RfA on Commons was one of the most disgusting displays I have seen. Additionally, in my capacity as an admin on Commons, I also undid an indefinite block on an editor, by shortening it to two weeks for what I deemed to be harassment of Fae. I have stated numerous times that I will not stand for editorial harassment, and my actions relating to Fae on Commons have been driven by other's harassment, yet I have managed to stay neutral over the entire period. Even now, I am neutral, I have nothing against Delicious Carbuncle, but their harassment of Fae makes it impossible to simply stand by and ignore. DC's starting this RfA, came exactly after this on Commons, and after I posted this recommendation to the Community. DC has ignored the entire lot. He is using any WMF project he can to engage in harassment, and has no problem in cross-wikiiing this behaviour. It is impossible to separate his harassment of Fae on Commons from his harassment of Fae on enwp, because he has himself ignored "leaving things in Vegas" and is intent on causing as much disruption and grief for Fae as possible. And he is stooping to some pretty low tactics to ensure he is successful. We need to have ZERO tolerance for harassment, and this is why I am "supporting" Fae in this instance. Nothing more, nothing less. Have a nice day. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Appalling, appalling, appalling. I also Support the community ban proposal for blackmail, breach of confidence, and incitement to real-life harassment. Wikipolitics aside, willfully and directly endangering somebody's personal security is inexcusable. Shrigley (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• But, wikipolitics aside, there's no evidence of any of that. Sure, there was a posting of private communicator in a public (off-wiki) place - that behaviour may be sanctionable, and perhaps there's been what some may view as harassment. However, there's no evidence (or even credible allegation) of blackmail or incitement to real-life harassment. Had there been, it would be a police matter. Probably best to check he facts before making what may well be slanderous allegations about another person. Again, I'm not defending what has been done here but, really, lets not make stuff up.--Scott Mac 02:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think you might be mixing things up a bit. The threat, as I understand it, was not against Fæ himself but against Fæ's partner; along the lines of "if you persist with this RFA I'll contact your partner and do such-and-such". In order to make good on the threat, the harasser would have needed to know Fæ's home address. That's what makes this incident so serious; DC, fully knowing that Fæ had been threatened, posted the very information the harasser needed to carry out his threat. DC did not make the threat, but through his actions he facilitated the person who did. It is hard to believe he was completely unaware of the potential consequences of posting the contact information of someone whom he knew had been threatened by a third party. Prioryman (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not mixing anything up. Off Wiki, DC publicly posted information that Fae/Ash had sent privately to him. At the point of posting, he failed to redact information that contained an address (but THAT information that WAS publicly available). He asked for the information to be removed within a couple of hours, but he ought to have taken far more care, given the claim that Fae was subject to off-wiki threats. Now, whether that's sanction-able or not needs discussion - I express no opinion. But, there's seems to be an attempt (without any evidence) to suggest DC has been complicit in blackmail, real life threats, and off-wiki harassment. Now, if there is actually evidence of any of that, I suggest someone contacts law enforcement - and, if there's not, then discuss what's actually here.--Scott Mac 03:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone's suggesting that DC has been complicit in blackmail. But he certainly has, through his actions, provided potential assistance to someone making real-life threats. He is also directly responsible for creating an environment in which Fæ has been subjected to weeks of homophobic harassment, through continual agitation on WR. Are you familiar with the practice of chumming - throwing blood and meat into the water to attract sharks? That's how DC uses WR - he chums it to stir up the users against a Wikipedian whom he dislikes. He's doing it now to Fæ and he's done it before to others. I note that the threads that he has started against Fæ are filled with homophobic comments from others, and I also note that he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to rein in their excesses. Prioryman (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• If I'm getting lost, it is because the charges keep changing here. I'm not sure how one is supposed to "rein in the excesses" of immature posters in a form. I suppose by asking for the thread to be killed or hidden? But he did just that. If there's a serious pattern of him having doing this, then that might need looked at. Has there been an RFC on this? That would be the starting point. That someone's actions might potentially allow a someone to do something is true of many things, but without intention all you have there is aggravated carelessness. Anyways, there needs to be a proper investigation and a right of reply, not an ANI lynch mob.--Scott Mac 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have no problem supporting a community ban against DC. Editors like this are detrimental to the project and are easily replaced. Rklawton (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is 90% bullshit plus 10% a sort-of-true hook to hang the bullshit on. The hysterical hyperbole, not to mention the slander and outright attacks - not backed by ANYTHING - would normally earn some people, like Prioryman and Shrigley (more for his insults at the RfC/U), a well deserved indef ban themselves. Prioryman's (who's here basically because he has an axe to grind) statement is textbook sleazy innuendo unsupported by any evidence (though I guess he claims that "he has it").VolunteerMarek 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and Prioryman, since " [Added - there is no evidence that the threat came from DC.]" why don't you do the right thing and then strike the whole damn sentence rather than leaving it there to create this "guilt by association". Seriously, this is some low tactics.VolunteerMarek 03:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What's untrue? Did Fæ receive a threat? He says he did [6]. Did DC post Fæ's home address and phone number to WR? Nobody is disputing this and it was documented at the time [7]. Did DC know that Fæ was being harassed at the time? He acknowledged it on Commons shortly before posting Fæ's personal information [8]. Has DC been the author of multiple WR threads about Fæ over the last two months? Yes he has (I'm purposefully not linking them). Has that attention resulted in Fæ being harassed on Wikipedia with repeated homophobic attacks? Yes it has. The facts are clear and damning. Prioryman (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, since you admit yourself that there is no evidence linking DC to the threat, then remove your fucking slander. The fact that DC and Fae have/had disagreements is not news, nor is it irrelevant to the bullshit you're insinuating.

And just to point out a specific point where you're lying your ass off and hoping nobody bothers to check you ask a question: Has that attention resulted in Fæ being harassed on Wikipedia with repeated homophobic attacks? and then you answer it yourself "Yes it has" - and then you link to ... Fae's userpage as if that proved anything. You have not shown a shred of evidence that whatever harassment Fae may have been subject to had ANYTHING to do with DC. I'm sure some idiots below will get snookered in by this low tactic. But it is still a low tactic.VolunteerMarek 04:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Firstly, no non-public information was posted. Secondly, Prioryman is not the best person to propose something like this, as his own clean start was beset by much the same problems as Fæ's, and DC asked arbcom some searching questions about it last July. I believe arbcom would acknowledge that neither clean start was handled brilliantly – neither by the editors concerned nor the committee itself – and that these kinds of "clean starts", initiated when an editor has disappeared (or while he is in the process of disappearing!) under a cloud, should not become a model to follow for Wikipedia. --JN466 03:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Are you saying it is acceptable to post personal information on an editor, solely because the information is available from an obscure WHOIS query? I would like to note that the query was only made possible due to an email, which has the presumption of confidentiality. —Dark 04:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just to clarify this point, the information that DC posted is not available just by searching for Fæ's name or accounts. It could only be obtained by using the contents of a private email to identify an obscure domain name and using that to obtain past records of the registry concerned. It should be noted that the registry's current records do not publicise Fæ's contact details. DC deliberately circumvented the registry's privacy protections to get that information. Prioryman (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. You can find the same information in one minute right now just by Googling Fæ's name, which he has disclosed as a director of Wikimedia UK. And the registry's current records still show all the personal details. Now I would not need to have said that if you had not made this false assertion. How about you delete yours and mine along with it? --JN466 04:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • And when you google the name (somebody's real name, not a username), you get slander, character assassination, and sexual images as top results, from WR and associates' sites (such as Kohs's column). Really disgusting how a website which supposedly champions BLP so readily ruins the lives and reputations of living people. Shrigley (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. Every person who uses WP and WR to carry out harassment should be banned, bar none. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• So the facts appear to be that DC used information from an email - personal correspondence not publicly available - to find information on a domain owned by Fae - publicly available but not publicly linked to Fae - and then published both the link between Fae and that previously-non-linked site and the personally-identifying contents of that link (not limited to his name, which was somewhat known, but including his home address and phone number) on a site where he knew Fae was being victimised. If this was absent-minded negligence, I find it no less dangerous than if it was active malice - in either case, DC's behavior is a threat to other editors, either because he lacks a safe level of discretion or because he intends harm. Given that, I would support a community ban of Delicious Carbuncle until such time as his judgment does not pose a threat to the safety of other editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - All the evidence we need for "Fae == Ash" is found here and here. Exposing a fraudulent "clean start" should be rewarded with a barnstar, not a block. Tarc (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Tarc, this has nothing to do with who Fæ is. It's about DC's actions in posting Fæ's private contact information as admirably summarised by Fluffernutter above. Please address your comments to that issue. Prioryman (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I will address whatever I see fit, and you can keep your comments to yourself. You don't like DC,so you and your buddies drum up some half-truths and innuendo to remove an perceived wiki-opponent form the playing field. That's what's going on here, its what goes on here day in and day out, only the name change. Tarc (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The e-mail proved that the two users were the same, which is exactly what Fæ refused to acknowledge, against Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics: "But if the old account came to community attention, or the topic is the subject of edit-wars and contentious editing, and especially if your old account was involved or your new account will be, then it may be seen as evading scrutiny not to disclose the old account." If Fæ had conceded right away that he had been editing as Ash previously, this thing would long since have been water under the bridge. --JN466 04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Tarc et al, this has NOTHING to do with removing any sort of "opponent", it has to do with DC posting private correspondence and private information obtained by way of that correspondence on a non-wiki site for purposes which are actually irrelevant, but the posting of which led to on-wiki harassment of Fae. DC's actions in relation on enwp are indicative of the bad attitude that DC (and others amongst you) have in relation to thinking that harassment of editors on wiki is OK. The community is here to tell you, that it is NOT ok to harass editors. This request will, hopefully, demonstrate the consequences of this. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • As with "the truth is the best defense when charged with libel" so is "you can't out someone who does not hide his personal information". There is no harassment; Fae/Ash has been a bad and disruptive presence in this project, and it is not disruptive to point that out. As noted above, all you're doing is ganging up to try to get rid of someone you don't like, and throwing around allegations of homophobia to make it all sound scarier than it actually is. You don't get to play the victim card when you actually aren't a victim of much of anything, end of story. Tarc (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • For the record, I'm completely uninvolved with any issues concerning Fae's editing, either here or on Commons. This isn't about trying to "get rid" of DC, it's about accountability for his gross misconduct. If anything, what you've said makes things even worse for DC; so according to you he put Fæ's physical safety at risk to advance an obscure "inside the beltway" bit of wikipolitics. That's a catastrophically warped judgement on DC's part. We don't need someone with that level of recklessness involved with the project. Prioryman (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with fluffernutter's assessment of this issue - the publishing of personal information is unacceptable whether it was malicious or not. However, given the conduct of DC with regards to Fae, both here, on Commons and offwiki, the allegations of harrassment may not be far off the mark. DC, at the time of his WR post, seems aware that Fae has been threatened, yet decided to post the WHOIS information anyway which poses a potential safety risk. Therefore I must support a community ban on DC. At the very least, I believe DC must cease interactions with Fae. —Dark 04:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Um, what? WHOIS information is public.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that the information in this case was not public and could only be accessed from a cached WHOIS query, as the live entry was redacted. But public or not, it's never acceptable to post someone's personal information without their consent and especially not when you know full well that they're being threatened. That's the central issue here. Prioryman (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Your understanding is wrong. The live entry was only redacted after DC's post. --JN466 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• In any case, I do not believe Fae meant for the information to be made public on a forum such as WR, especially not in light of the threats made against him. DC showed an inexcusable lapse of judgement in posting the information, and seems to be too personally invested in issues concerning Fae. I do question his motive; he clearly did not act with any good intent when posting the info to WR. —Dark 11:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or block. The "outing" information was simply volunteered by the "outed" person on the WMF sites on numerous occasions. This retaliatory proposal coming from another editor whose ArbCom-cloaked "clear start" turned out rather unclean is just the icing on the cake. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• That is incorrect - Fae has never published his home address or telephone number in conjunction with the WMF sites. Prioryman (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification request: Scott Mac says "DC also published the (publicly available) Whois? information for that e-mail domain, in order to show that it belonged to Ashley Van Haeften." In what context was it necessary to show that the domain belonged to AVH? Was it meant to somehow prove the genuineness of the email?

JN466 says "the registry's current records still show all the personal details." I just did a Whois search and the personal details are hidden by the customer number of a Contact Privacy Inc. client. This is the first time I've looked up Whois info. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong. Are you sure phone and address details for that domain name are public? Ah. Prioryman's just explained DC would have searched a cache. That's not public.

Prioryman, the phone and address details are presently hidden when I look up Whois for Fae's domain. Were they hidden when DC posted them at WR? Or did the hiding of the details occur after DC's posting to WR?

I'm still waiting for a clarification of DC's pretext for posting the Whois details at WR. (I understand the phone and address details were an oversight, but why was it necessary to prove the domain belonged to Fae? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Updated 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this situation until well after it had happened - I've not had any involvement in issues regarding Fae - but my understanding is that they were hidden at the time, but were available via an old cached copy of the registration record. Prioryman (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've received an email asserting the phone number and address weren't hidden from Whois inquirers at the time DC posted the Whois details on WR.

I'm still waiting for a clarification of DC's rationale for posting the Whois data. Was it necessary to prove Ash = Ashley/Fae? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be unarguable that it is never appropriate to post another individual's personal information without permission, especially if it puts them at risk, whatever the rationale or "justification". It seems to me that DC was trying to gather as many lines of evidence as possible but lacked the judgement or common sense to see (or was just indifferent about) the inappropriateness of posting personal information, which he had reason to know would put his target in danger, would be a violation of privacy, and would be strictly prohibited by Wikipedia's harassment policy. Prioryman (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I read about this, the less concerned I am about DC's behaviour. He seems to have been trying to establish the connection between Ash and Fae, due to worries about a dirty clean start. This does, indeed, seem to be a dirty clean start and needs to be addressed by the community. DC shouldn't have copied the whole Whois report to WR as evidence but, apparently, at the time, the Whois data was open. Be more careful in future, DC.

• Oppose. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ambivalent

• DC is only responsible for their own actions. If people are harassing Fae that is a matter for the law enforcement of his domicile.
• It's always been my understanding Wikipedia dispute resolution/sanctions are limited in scope to on Wikipedia behavior. Am I mistaken?
• Revealing phone number/address was an asshole move. But given the information Fae has made available it shouldn't be difficult to find.
• Per Whois#Criticism, those of us who a.) register our domains in our own names, and b.) respond to Wikipedia emails really should anticipate their information getting out. Nobody Ent 13:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sanctions are applicable to off-wiki behaviour in the specific case of privacy violations and harassment. From WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." Editors have been blocked before for doing what DC has done, and in less extreme circumstances. As for phone number/address, as explained above Fae's Whois details are hidden behind a Contact Privacy Inc. entry; DC had to circumvent this to get the information. But saying in effect "it's easy to do" is not an excuse. It would be easy for me to pick up my steak knife and stab someone in the street, but nobody would say that I should escape the consequences merely because it was easy to do. Prioryman (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Your analogy is absurd, please stick to the realm of believable if you're going to continue this crusade, will you? As for Fae, perhaps he should have had a gander at WP:How to not get outed on Wikipedia. What this always comes around to, again, is Fae did not adhere to either the spirit or the letter of WP:CLEANSTART, and IMO picking at the strings that held his facade together is not really actionable. If there are people making threats or whatnot against Fae because his publicly and easily findable identity was discussed off-wiki, then that should be dealt with. But I do not believe that DC was one of those. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only for the reason that draconian solutions do not work, but also because "deleting" an editor does not put the inconvenient facts which have come out regarding a possible weird misuse of "clean start" back into any bottle at all. And this particular action seems quite as egregious as the original "offense" indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (Note: I am not an admin) in concurrence with nearly every other statement made in opposition. This seems to be devolving more towards "Fae is genderqueer, therefore any opposition to him or his actions is homophobic" (I've seen no evidence of it regarding the user being discussed) some poorly-thought out actions by DC (the public-domain Whois? lookup) used as a platform to stand a tower of BS on. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• What an astonishing conversation. For clarity. User:Ash, at a time when he was under scrutiny for his editing practices, starts claiming real life harassment and threats to his "family" as a consequence of his sexuality and involvement with wikipedia. He abandons the account for his "security." He immediately returns with a new account, and soon discloses his name, an odd decision for someone who felt they were under threat (that is, he formally and publicly attached his name to his editing here after he first complained he was at some kind of risk). His choice to publicly disclose his name has nothing to do with DC (or anyone else). That decision has made a variety of information about where he lives and so on publicly available to anyone who cares to look online. Following these disclosures and the resurrection of concerns about his editing here he, again, claims real life "threats." As in the first instance, there is no evidence for this (and the choice to make his full name unambiguously known was a strange one for someone actually afraid of some sort of retaliation). There is now a drumbeat to ban his chief scrutineer for... making his identity known and perhaps the disclosure of his address (which is, as i said, available to any competent internet user)? Just... fascinating.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not acquainted with either of the parties involved and have no particular axe to grind in this, but it doesn't seem particularly odd to me. Somebody can be motivated by the desire to protect themselves, and simultaneously by the desire to interact openly with others. Reconciling those priorities is tricky and the balance can shift from day to day. The fact that somebody has two conflicting priorities complicates things, but it's hardly unusual or dishonest. Or as Whitman put it: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes." --GenericBob (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Fluffernutter couldn't have said it better. Support community ban, even just posting the WHOIS details is in egregious violation of WP:OUTING. ~Crazytales (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest support About time we did away with these enemies of the wiki. This man is absolutely against everything we stand for. 31.52.2.164 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• strong meh. On one hand it's sort of a "get the messenger" attitude for something done off-wiki, and on the other hand, the community had it's chance to decline the whole Fae RfA thing knowing full well there were some questions in regards to previous ... ummm ... items. The whole thing sort of smacks of hunting for ghosts in the closet to me, and looking for someone to hang a "guilty" sign on. — Ched :  ?  16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The first "on one hand" doesn't stand up, I'm afraid, since it's long-standing policy that off-wiki privacy violations are sanctionable; per WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment, "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." Whatever Fae is claimed to have done, that's pure wikipolitics - it has no effect on anything outside Wikipedia and negligible effect within. On the other hand, DC exposed Fae to real-world physical threats by posting his personal information. He has no business whatsoever being "the messenger" for the personal information of an individual who he knew was being subjected to real-world harassment. That's not about wikipolitics - it's common decency and common sense not to engage in that sort of conduct. Wikipedia's harassment policy is explicit about this issue. There is no dispute about what DC did or what the policy says. Prioryman (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I support the proposal to ban, I'd prefer an RfC to that question. Perhaps straight to ArbCom is even better. I wish to also ask who controlled dispatching the bot to canvass a rather large contingent of editors who did not know they would be drawn as a party to an outing at least one wishes he had not been requested to see. I came in to the RfC with serious reservations at the overt outing that was in progress. I'm rather sick of such glaring affronts that challenge unambiguously clear policy for sport while fracturing the community for allowing it to proceed as consensus. Is it possible that we could reach a consensus that outing is not a problem. Of course not, so discussion is rather moot. My76Strat (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Scott, Marek and Tarc. I'm not saying that DC's behavior was appropriate or not sanctionable (no opinion on that matter as for now), but I solidly reject the notion that an indef community ban or block is warranted. Swarm ^X 18:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll concede that point Swarm. A ban would be over the top and I'll clarify that my larger frustration is that a block wasn't already in place. I could accept an indef block providing a strong acknowledgement and renunciation was requisite to an unblock. Recently I have seen our policy flouted as if impotent. Even currently. My76Strat (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal: I think indef might be too much. If someone was to make a counter-proposal that was a matter of weeks or months, I'd support that Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the RfC and at the WR threads and at DC's conduct at and around both, it rapidly becomes clear that what is going on is nothing more than a campaign of harassment against Fae, dressed up as a reheated dispute about sourcing that has been dead for almost two years. Posting another editor's personal information, and repeatedly attempting to subject them to ridicule (or joining in with others ridiculing him)—regardless of motive (on which I will not speculate)—is not conduct that is conducive to building and maintaining an encyclopaedia. Until DC starts showing an interest in this encyclopaedia and drops this unhealthy obsession with one of its editors, I wholeheartedly endorse a block or community ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • Fae's position as the trustee and director of a charity mean that he is a person with a public role and is subject to scrutiny in relation to conduct linked to that role.
  • Given this charity promotes Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, then his conduct on WP and Commons is part of what can be appropriately scrutinised.
  • WR is one of the natural places for that scrutiny to take place.
  • Fae's avoidance of the RFC/U on the Ash account via the not very clean start less than a year before he took up his role with WMUK falls within the scope of appropriate public scrutiny.
  • His refusal to admit that he is Ash sabotaged attempts at appropriate scrutiny.
  • DC only posted the evidence on WR that Fae is Ash because of that sabotage of the public scrutiny.
  • Appropriate public scrutiny off-Wikipedia is not appropriate evidence for a claim of harassment in relation to Wikipedia.
  • The degree of support for various statements critical of Fae in the CFC/U shows that there is prima facie evidence for consensus that Fae's actions on Wikipedia need scrutiny.
  • Given the consensus for scrutiny of Fae's history, then a claim that the creation of the RFC/U constitutes on-Wikipedia harassment is not substantiated.

And, BTW, I originally did not support Bali Ultimate and DC's actions against the Fae ID. This can be see in my first post on Bali's talk page regarding Fae and my subsequent participation in the AN/I thread where the two accounts were linked where I was non-committal. My subsequent belief that Fae is not an appropriate person to remain a trustee director of WMUK or to be an admin on any Wikimedia project is because of a combination of the public scrutiny on WR and my own investigation of his actions including both his contributions to WP and what I regard as misleading evidence that Fae gave to a Joint Committee of the UK parliament when representing WMUK.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter, you and others who defend DC's actions are trying to justify them on the basis of pure wikipolitics. Let's be absolutely clear about this. Posting a person's name, home address and phone number without consent is not acceptable under any circumstances. It is especially not acceptable if the person in question is facing real-world threats, which DC knew full well. Seriously, it's bordering on depravity to argue that petty politics on Wikipedia justifies putting someone at risk of real-world physical harassment and harm. That flies in the face of common decency and it is strictly prohibited by our existing policy on harassment. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, can you please cut the rampant hypocrisy here (you and others who defend DC's actions are trying to justify them on the basis of pure wikipolitics) - your whole proposal here and your and some of the others' conduct in this whole thread is a textbook example of abusing "wikipolitics" to achieve an outcome - to get someone you have an axe to grind/grudge against indef banned - which simply cannot be justified on legitimate grounds. You've been wikilawyering aspects of this across multiple pages, making innuendoes and insinuations which don't add up to crap.VolunteerMarek 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Peter, that comment is misguided. The "scrutiny" on WR is nothing but harassment, and isn't even dressed up as legitimate. It sickens me that people who claim to care about writing an encyclopaedia would bully and ridicule a man who has done nothing to them, and seemingly for nothing more than sadistic entertainment. As to your claim that WR is the appropriate place for any sort of scrutiny, how exactly is a website populated largely by users who have been banned as a result of their conduct an appropriate place to scrutinise the website from which those users have been banned? Finally, and most importantly, what Fae does when he is not editing Wikipedia (including volunteer work for a charity, even a Wikipedia-related one) is none of Wikipedia's business. Your opinions on his suitability to be a charity trustee re not appropriate in this forum, and should be raised with Fae, the WMUK board, or the Charity Commission. Now, if you want to hold an RfC based on Fae's recent actions on Wikipedia, please do, and know that I will do everything I can to facilitate constructive discussion in such a forum, but leave his non-Wikipedia (hat includes sister projects and chapter work) actions out of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So, if you believe, that it is illegitimate to cite Fae's off-Wikipedia Wikipedia-related behaviour but have, in this same sub-topic, cited DC's off-WikipediaWikipedia-related behaviour. How many angels are on that pinhead?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As to your claim that WR is the appropriate place for any sort of scrutiny, how exactly is a website populated largely by users who have been banned as a result of their conduct an appropriate place to scrutinise the website from which those users have been banned? - cut it out, that's just false. It's populated by all sort of people, from current admins, to ArbCom members to past and present WMF representatives. The only difference is that there you can speak without having to worry about everysingle of your words being scrutinized by bad faithed insano-s and professional battleground warriors, like Prioryman, looking for an excuse to get your ass banned. Well, actually that doesn't appear to be true either.VolunteerMarek 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ban Prioryman, Russavia, and Shrigley for false accusations of homophobia and harrassment. Their claims of "harrassment" are insults to all editors who have been truly harrassed. During the Cirt RfC, Jayen466 had to endure similar accusations, and Prioryman, unfortunately, was also involved in that situation. Editors here need to understand that these kind of tactics are wrong, unnacceptable, and they should be held accountable for trying to use them to win a debate. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been a long standing principle underlying WP:NPA that any accusations of racism, homophobia and similar odious aspects (and they are very odious - which is exactly why they need to be taken very seriously) HAVE TO be backed up by serious evidence and diffs or else the person making them gets blocked. Back in the day when Sandstein was active on WP:AE this implicit policy actually brought some sanity to the proceedings. Anyone making bullshit accusations of that nature found themselves promptly sanctioned. Same rule should be followed here, especially since the personal attacks around this topic have been so obnoxiously egregious.VolunteerMarek 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to ban me, please start a discussion, and I suggest a community ban discussion. Please note that I am familiar with the harassment that editors on WR have engaged in; being on Commons I was witness to the disgusting display at Fae's RfA there, and used my discretion as an admin to block one editor who I deemed to have been harassing Fae. As to evidence, I will not be supplying this to the peanut gallery, for reasons of privacy, respect, and policy (both here and on Commons. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Looks like there's a strong consensus to block...someone. The only question is, who? More seriously, if WR wants to promote scrutiny and accountability, fine, but those things should apply to WR itself. 169.231.52.186 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support – This sort of harassment is something, I hope, that Wikipedia will not tolerate. I've seen absolutely nothing above which justifies what was done, and the precedent in policy for this community ban is clear. It doesn't matter that Fæ chose at one point to allow his registrar to publish the address and telephone number it required of him to register a domain (it especially doesn't matter since you have to buy a proxy service in order to avoid doing so). Fæ did not choose to publish that address and telephone number on Wikipedia or on Wikipedia Review. For someone else to do so is inexcusable especially considering Fæ's stated he's been subject to off-line harassment. That doesn't automatically make Delicious Carbuncle an accomplice of that harassment, but it makes his judgment excrable. Please note that I take no notice here of accusations regarding his motivation or regarding Fæ's (failed) attempt at a clean start; they are wholly irrelevant. — madman 02:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Please describe how you feel that your Bot was misused to inadvertently increase visibility of this contravening debacle and will you implement any changes to afford that future notifications by your Bot imply you have done a cursory review to ensure no misappropriation? My76Strat (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I would not say my bot was misused. I saw a routine request for message delivery at Wikipedia:Bot requests#A bot notification request, checked the referenced talk page (your "cursory review" exactly) at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ#Of note, it appeared that consensus had been reached, and I executed the request in a semi-automated fashion. This sort of message delivery is done all the time, though typically it's done using AWB; I took it as an opportunity to test a new framework I was writing. I will say that I meant for the configuration to use my account and not my bot account, but as the edits were flagged neither as bot edits nor minor edits, it did not seem like a big deal after the fact. And I was not aware of this AN/I thread if it existed at the time, nor was I aware of this incident (I haven't reviewed the RfC, but it doesn't seem relevant, regarding BLPs and improper citing, if I remember correctly). I hope that answers your questions. — madman 04:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes it does, and thank you very much for appending your thoughtful reply. Best regards - My76Strat (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Some 19 people have thus far endorsed the view that the RFC that DC started is part of a scheme of harassment (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Russavia) -- only 1 person has endorsed the view of DC at the RFC. That is saying something, and this needs to be taken into account. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Madmen, My76Strat please note that over 35 people have so far endorsed the view that Ash quit under a cloud during (rather than, as he claimed "after") an RfC that was in progress, that at the time there were serious allegations regarding BLP sourcing issues (and BLP is something that Wikipedia takes very seriously - at least I hope so) in regard to his edits, and that if Ash and Fae are the same person then it was a big mistake on the part of the ArbCom to let him stand for RfA, and finally, that had he been straight up about his past, his RfA wouldn't have passed. This is the gist of DC's complaint and it seems that the vast majority at the RfC sees merit in it and supports it. And if it has merit it simply cannot be dismissed as "harassment", which here is being incorrectly used as "somebody I don't like pointed out that someone I like acted badly and broke the rules! How dare they!?!".VolunteerMarek 07:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As I stated, that is wholly irrelevant in my opinion. Re-read my statement to see why. — madman 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Fluffernutter. Absolutely nothing justifies posting an editor's home phone and address publicly. This is absolutely beyond the pale. T. Canens (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So what happened to "blocks are not punitive"? DC admitted above (at 15:04, 29 January 2012) that posting the entire WHOIS record was a judgment error on his behalf, even in the presumably legitimate context of trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the link between two Wikipedia accounts who engaged in similarly disputed behavior. Furthermore, DC's error was quickly rectified. Is there a reason to believe he would repeat that kind of action? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • We have never had a rule that says bans are not punitive. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Bear in mind this isn't just an isolated incident; it's part of an ongoing and sustained campaign of harassment, that is itself part of a repeated and lengthy pattern of harassment of multiple editors. There's no reason to believe that he will desist from this behaviour, as it seems to be at the centre of what he does on/with Wikipedia. Banning DC is necessary for the protection of other editors, and it will send a signal that people who engage in such behaviour can't expect to remain members of this community. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle proposal two

It seems like there's not a consensus for the indeff block, though there is consensus that DC has engaged in wrong-doing. Therefore, I'll counterpropose a one-month block and an interaction ban with Fae and other related editors Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Question: You are proposing a one-month block for Prioryman, right? I would support that, because to try to divert attention from the Fae RfC by using an ad hominem attack against DC is beneath contempt and should not be tolerated. Remember, the same thing was attempted against Jayen466 during the Cirt RfC. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• As you know perfectly well, I'm not involved in any capacity in the RfC. Jayen466 participated in one of DC's campaigns of harassment and it's regrettable that the Arbcom didn't deal with DC at the time; I felt then that unless he was reined in he would continue and escalate, as has in fact happened. The problem is that DC is a serial harasser; he mounts lengthy campaigns against other editors, rabble-rousing on WR for months on end. This privacy violation is just the latest of a series of problems with this editor. His main contribution to Wikipedia is a steady stream of poison and bile against other editors, turning people against each other and wearing down his targets. For him, everything is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. We do not need someone like this in the community, which is why I proposed a ban. A one month block is nothing more than a wrist-slap for an egregious and wilful privacy violation from an individual who has a history of destructive and reckless behaviour. Wikipedia's harassment policy is explicit that violations of this sort will be dealt with "particularly severely" (WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment). If this is not dealt with permanently there'll be more AN/I threads in six months or a year's time about yet another victim of his campaigns. Prioryman (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)I'm focusing on DC at the moment...but since Prioryman can't get along with DC, he should be included with "other related editors" and interaction-banned with DC. And Prioryman, the reason I suggested a one-month block is that there doesn't seem to be consensus for something stronger Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have any dealings with DC. However, he has involved himself unilaterally in my affairs on a number of occasions, so I would welcome an interaction ban with him, as I certainly don't have any wish to have him anywhere near me. I appreciate where you're coming from - my concern is that a weak sanction would be little more use than no sanction at all. It would have to be far longer than a mere four weeks to have any significant effect. A year, perhaps. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman, do you know what a logical fallacy is? Also, have you ever attempted to use the "clean start" process yourself? Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support one month block for Prioryman. The personal attacks and battleground behavior alone justify it, if not more. I do think that an interaction ban between Fae and DC is within the realm of "reasonable" so if someone proposes that separately I might support (I would actually like to hear from Fae himself on such a proposal).VolunteerMarek 02:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statements and suppression of evidence

• 27.100.16.185 (talk · contribs), in rebuttal of Prioryman's statement above, earlier posted (and edit warred over):

• • Total rubbish. All the information is available without any nefarious access to caches etc. Simple google ... and the first entry on the first page is ... All done without knowing the domain name in advance, or using any information that isn't public and well-known. -27.100.16.185 (talk) 11:50 am, Today (UTC−5)

As the search term that was in the first (...) wasn't terribly obvious, I can understand redacting the information. However, to characterize the edit as vandalism or harassment is disingenuous at best. Totally removing evidence relative to the discussion of a possible ban of an editor, and not being precisely honest about the content of the redaction, is irresponsible. It also turns the discussion into a kangaroo court yet another WIki-22: if an editor states DC didn't reveal information that wasn't readily available, the statement is dismissed as not verifiable; if an editor demonstrates that it is readily available, it's revdel'd and the editor is blocked. Nobody Ent 19:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Community proposal 3

As someone who has seen good work from DC and Fae in the past, this seems like a ridiculous circus. I did some reading on the back history last night, and it is clear that this conflict has gone on for a very long time, and while it came out of two editors both trying to to the right thing, rapidly became one seeking sanctions against the other, and the resulting arguments being interpreted as personal attacks on both sides, and so on and so forht in the usual pattern. Therefore I propose:

Delicious Carbuncle and Fae indefinitely prohibited from interacting.

I feel this would be a considerable benefit to the project. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC).
17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2012) - second call

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee.

The Audit Subcommittee ("AUSC") was established by the Arbitration Committee to investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia, and to provide better monitoring and oversight of the CheckUser and Oversight positions, and use of the applicable tools.

Matters brought before the subcommittee may be time-sensitive and subcommittee members should be prepared and available to discuss cases promptly so they may be resolved in a timely manner. Sitting subcommittee members are expected to actively participate in AUSC proceedings and may be replaced should they become inactive. All subcommittee members are subject to the relevant local and global policies and guidelines concerning CheckUser and Oversight.

If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the appointments page for further information. The application period is scheduled to close 31 January 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xeno^talk 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. - - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable edit

Resolved

 – Blocked by Salvio (with my support) pending a redaction/apology. If redaction/apology is given, then he may present his grievance against the other editor, and the admin body will review it fairly and impartially. Manning (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen (talk · contribs) recently made this post, which I've said on his talk page is unacceptable. As I've said there, I would have blocked him for that already, but I'm not sure I can be totally objective here. Lecen replied at my talk page here. I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done here, but I can see that something needs doing. There is some background to this, but that edit by Lecen really crossed so many lines I don't know where to start. The following edit also needs reviewing. I'll put a link from Lecen's talk page to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I have the chance to explain myself or decisions will be made without bothering to learn what were my reasons? --Lecen (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Unless your explanation also contains an apology, I don't think it'll make much difference... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm being judged and condemned without hearing, you may call in the firing squad. --Lecen (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It might help your case if you would post a diff as to where someone actually threatened to snuff you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason you're notified about this discussion is to give you a "hearing". Instead of asking what you can do and complaining about a result that has not yet been reached, why don't you "explain"? Salvio is just giving you fair warning that on the face of it your comments look awful and trying to prevent you from digging yourself deeper into a hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

He said it wouldn't make much difference, so what could I do? Let's begin, then. Give me 15 minutes, please. I need to write it down. --Lecen (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Might I add that the following statement opens up an even bigger can of worms: "Even less when I know that a highly respected FA writer is thinking on opening a RfC about her" ([9]). Since when did FA writers become part of plots to block users due to differing opinions? Whatever happened to WP:AGF?

Either I'm being paranoic or there is something going on here bigger (and much uglier) than it seems at face value. I hope Lecen can explain. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he said to give him 15 minutes to find that diff, and now it's been more like 20. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You guys need to show a little respect here and allow the man the time he needs to prepare his statement. Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

10-4 on the little respect. We're showing as little respect as possible. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

horrifying statements & his failure immediately to apologize at ANI merit at least a one-day block (and perhaps the usual indefinite block that can be removed by contrition and a pledge to avoid sexist insults, etc.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What explanation is imaginable? That nearly all-powerful demons threatened to sacrifice an innocent child or aliens threatened to vaporize the earth unless Lecen violated NPA with sexist insults? Save such explanations for freshmen philosophy!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

People you need to stop posting here. He is busy writing his own eulogy. --Dianna (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Now there's some little respect. Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Need"? Let him write it on his talk page. WP doesn't tolerate sexist insults.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the comments presented in the diffs here. Where do you see evidence of sexism?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The sexism can be seen in a subtle manner. For instance:

• Case 1: "I wonder if she has a family, boyfriend, or even a dog." ([10]). So, women need boyfriends to keep them sane?
• Case 2: "We should buy her a puppy nonetheless" (same diff as above). Women need puppies to keep them busy?
• Case 3: "Nevermind. It would be a bad idea. She would end up eating the poor puppy in a fit of rage" ([11]). A terrible case of female hysteria?

Of course, assuming good faith, he probably did not mean to be sexist. However, that his statements can be seen as sexist (which, I believe to have demonstrated that they can be seen as such), is another matter. Note that I am not accusing Lecen of sexism, but I do see a reason as to why Kiefer.Wolfowitz finds his statements sexist. Considering Lecen is already blocked, unless this will somehow "accumulate" to his block, this explanation is pointless. In any case, I was writing this prior to him getting blocked, and I do believe it is important to at least be aware that, given the accusation of sexism, there do exist reasons to believe Lecen made sexist comments regarding Sandy.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Case 1: No. If Sandy were a man, just substitute girlfriend, and it's the same. Case 2. Same as Case 1. You're adding your own gloss. Case 3. It's bad enough people believe hysteria is sexist, but at least there's an argument for that position, but you want to read sexism into "fit of rage"? Now, Lecen may be sexist (I haven't a clue whether he is), but there's no evidence of it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Sandy was a man, then my argument makes no sense. The key assumption for my argument is that Sandy is a woman. I italicize "argument" because I am using it in a logical sense, not as in me actually trying to argue with you. You can be certain that I analyzed the matter prior to posting it, and I also exchanged "female" to "male" (which made me doubt as to whether posting the material would be relevant). What I realized was that Lecen knows that Sandy is a female (or at least he thinks that), and then assuming he is trying to be aggressive (which goes against WP:AGF, which is why I am not making a formal accusation; better evidence is obviously required), the outcome is that the statements are in fact sexist. On the other hand, if he was trying to be aggressive towards a man, he probably would not be making mention to "puppies". Alas, this matter is really beyond the purpose of this ANI (which is already resolved). Nonetheless, I would love to discuss this on our personal talk space (I enjoy logic). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

My comments

I have no direct contact with SandyGeorgia, this must be made clear right at the start. Although I have successfully nominated several articles leading them to raised to FA standard, I was not involved in the ongoing FAC crisis.I din't take part in the discussion on the FAC talk page, nor did I took part of the discussion here, between SandyGeorgia and Wehwalt. To be frank, I simply don't care about it. For some reason which I'm not entirely aware of, SandyGeorgia has been nurturing a sheer hatred toward me for at least a month.

How do I know that? There was a discussion a few weeks ago right here, at the Administrators' noticeboard, where an editor complained about ed17, an administrator who closed a move request. I was indirectly involved because I voted on that move request. However, even though she didn't take part neither on the move request, nor had ever shown any kind of interest on the subject being discussed, for some reason she appeared out of nowhere and called for my block and threatened me by saying that she would open a RfC about me. See here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Premature RM closure of John VI of Portugal

These were her words:

• "Why is it that admins hestitate to ... well .. do what admins are supposed to do? And why is it that Alarbus, who has all the hallmarks of being a returning editor and who shares a position with Lecen and Ed on the FA director issue (and a review of their editing histories and talk pages shows that Alarbus came to support Lecen over the "Wehwalt for FA director" issue-- a phrase first seen from Alarbus on the Lecen issue are now editing on the same side of a conflict? As Lecen has already shown, there is an abundance of articles that refer to John by his name in English, this is the en Wiki, and we have naming conventions here. That there are slightly more sources that refer to his Portuguese name than the translation to English is irrelevant to the issue: there is an abundance of sources that support his English name and that translation, so it should be used on en Wiki. WP:SOVEREIGN says "Monarch's first name should be the most common form used in current English works of general reference ... " English! Feel free to point out what I'm missing. And by the way, besides the curious nexus of the apparently returning editor Alarbus suddenly supporting Lecen's content positions after they came together on the FA issue, there has been a long history of canvassing on this suite of articles, so again, why the heck aren't admins looking at the things they're supposed to be looking at: disruptive behaviors, returning editors with a possible agenda, possible meatpuppetry-- is it rocket science or did we not have an arb finding a few years ago about coordinated editing? Why must we have an RFC when we have policies and conventions? Why are admins unable to sort this here and be done with it? SandyGeorgia"

And also:

• "More background: before I knew him at FAC, I had edited with Lecen at Hugo Chavez. While we share views on what has gone wrong in that article to make it POV (the who, how and why it came to ignore reliable sources to become a pro-Chavez hagiography), Lecen was so argumentative and disruptive on the talk page that he effectively shot any effort to NPOV the article in the foot, using the talk page for long anti-Chavez rants, leading me to recuse on his FACs, where he then went on to alienate reviewers and delegates alike with the same intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style,[94] leading him to sour grapes at FAC, leading to Alarbus's post about the Wehwalt for FA director campaign. Lecen is very difficult to edit with, which is why he's having a hard time getting FACs reviewed-- he argues with everyone about everything. So give the poor fellow who came here with a legitimate issue a chance; solve the problem. SandyGeorgia"

I repeat: she didn't take part on the discussion and I was not the reason of the opened thread. In fact, there weren't a single moment where she and I had exchanged any kind of conversation. She appeared out of nowhere and asked for my block. Read the text and you'll see that she claimed I'm disruptive and no one wants to review my FACs. In fact, according to her, I have an "intransigent, IDHT, argumentative and confrontational style". Keep this in mind.

Time passed, and she and I had not a single moment where we bumped into each other. Accoding to her, no one can tolerate me. Then, why was I interviewed on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-16/Featured content a little more than ten days ago? Because of this interview, Maryana from the WMF came talk to me, and gave her support. See here. Out of nowhere, SandyGeorgia appeared, and complained to her about her remarks and again started accusing me. See here and here. Notice how rude, aggressive and ironic SandyGeorgia was to someone whom she never met and because of something that had absolutely nothing to with her. Again, and to someone who didn't know me, SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere to defame me.

I repeat again: I was not discussing with SandyGeorgia in any place, I was not arguing with her, nor anything similar. In fact, I believe the last time I talked to her was a few months ago on her own talk page, where I gave her my support for something she had passed through. However, we aren't done yet. I'm right now taking part on another move request, where I complained about the other side. Why did I made complaints? Well, because they were using sock puppets, canvassing and erasing comments[12][13]. One of these editors made a threat on my talk page and I asked him to stop bothering me. He was quite angry and went to complain about me on Wikiquette. Because I was complained about his side use of sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. What did happen? SandyGeorgia appeared out of nowhere. She ws not taking part on the discussion, nor has even demonstrated any interest on the subject being discussed. What did she do? She defamed me and threatened to open a RfC about me.[14]

As you can see, it has been months that I don't talk to her and for some reason which I'm not aware, she keeps harassing me, defaming me for people who don't know her and who don't me. What about my comments? Well, I made a joke. It's quite obviously I wasn't serious. Or do anyone belives that she would be capable of flying to Brazil to kill me? Does she now my adress? Has anyone here seen Brazil? It's the size of USA. I was clearly joking and it's quite obvious I don't believe she would be capable of eating a puppy. I made a joke to a friend so that I wouldn't waiste my time arguing directly to her. As all of you can see, I wasn't talking to her (the last time occurred months ago) and she was not involved in any of the discussions I was taking part of. She is clearly wikihounding me, harassing me and defaming me. Others would have lost their temper a long time ago, but I chose to make a joke. --Lecen (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Lecen,

That is an unacceptable cop out. You didn't apologize for stating that she needed to get a boyfriend or a dog or engage in the real world. Just hit the road.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Humor depends on a shared context between the teller and audience; user talk pages are open to the entire community. Your personal attacks and speculation about her were not appropriate. I'd suggest you remove them immediately, apologize, and never do it again. Nobody Ent 00:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So, there is nothing wrong with whas she did and has been doing? --Lecen (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Out of curiosity, where did I made sexist remarks? --Lecen (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting one-sided account, Lecen. But I'm stil curious: where did I, in the words of Bugs, threaten to "snuff you" or anything close? Since I most certainly have lived in Argentina, worked in Brasil and throughout Latin America, and frequently travel there, your post is most disturbing. Did you miss that the crux of the matter is that you suggested that I might kill you???

Some of Lecen's other recent activity (in fact, it was the WP:WQA where I'm a watcher that alerted me to the requested move, which is on a topic involving two countries I've lived and worked in) include:

1. Here, Lecen tells another editor to "learn his place" (while flauting his FAs), and
2. Here, he encourages BATTLEGROUND for a young editor who had just made his peace with another editor.
3. The post to Maryana was about her claims of bad faith as they relate to groups of other editors-- something that WMF employees shouldn't be doing.
4. FAC had quite a time with Lecen (see this sample), so these latest behaviors are not entirely surprising.

I don't see a retraction or an apology, or even an acknowledgement of the gravity of his statements, and don't know why this is still going on, but I do know that we can count on Diannaa to defend Lecen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain why, since we haven't talked for months, you've ben appearing out of nowhere to defame to people who don't know me? And if Diannaa can't be here, neither can Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who is your friend. This "learn your place" comment was made to the person I mentioned early, whose side was using sock puppets, canvassing and message erasing. --Lecen (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

He is? Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I admire SandyGeorgia's contributions on WP, and I address her with the respect due her for those contributions. I suggest you do the same.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, I have carefully read your explanation, but I don't think it's good enough. Nothing in what you've described warrants those attacks. You don't have to apologise, forced apologies are meaningless, but I strongly suggest you redact those posts. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio. We are discussing Lecen's conduct. Even assuming he was provoked, the comments are unjustified. So, Lecen needs to understand that and take remedial action. As a separate matter, if he has a complaint against Sandy, let him bring it. But first he needs to correct his own behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen - There may well be a deeper issue concerning Sandy Georgia that merits investigation. However Wikipedia does not recognise the "she hit me first" argument. Even assuming that you had been outrageously provoked, your response is still not acceptable. You have clearly been here long enough to know the correct procedures for complaining about another editor's conduct. So in summary, this current issue only concerns the statements you made about Sandy Georgia. Even if every allegation you make about her conduct were true, this still does not justify your statements. Hence you have no option but to retract them, and apologise for any offence caused. Once that is done, then if you wish to open an incident with us about the conduct of Sandy Georgia, I assure you it will be examined fairly. Manning (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to apologize, and even erase my comments, if SandyGeorgia also apologizes to me for having openly defamed me to people who don't know me and if she promises to stop wikihounding and harrassing me. As you saw, I don't even talk to her, I don't even contribute on the same articles as she. All I ask is to her to stop defaming, wikihounding, and harassing me. That's fair. --Lecen (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not fair. I've just blocked you for a week for displaying a battleground mentality. As usual, review is welcome and fellow admins may tweak the block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen - I have been trying to ensure your fair treatment. This case is about YOUR conduct, which the admins have concluded is unacceptable. Your response above is basically just a reworked attempt of the "she hit me first" argument, which I have already said doesn't work here. Also using the language "defamed" is specifically identified in our NLT as a bad practice. While I am probably a bit softer than Salvio, I must support the block decision. Please indicate a willingness to redact your original statement, indicate to us that you understand that YOUR conduct is unacceptable, and then we shall move on. And I repeat, once that is done the issue with Sandy Georgia will be examined fairly and impartially. Manning (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of me here five days ago, or here three days ago, or here two days ago ... shall I continue? "Defaming" you sounds somewhat Wikilawyerish, especially when coming from someone who says he's a lawyer. Wikihounding and harassing? Lecen, I lived in those countries. I watchlist WP:WQA. Expecting an apology from me for editing the 'pedia when you suggested I might kill you, when you know from our editing together on Hugo Chavez that I do know my way around South America? (I started this post before seeing that Lecen was blocked, so will go ahead and post it, FWIW, but done.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything sexist in assuming SandyGeorgia is a female editor? If this is well known forgive that I am out of the loop, but my take on the username is a reference to Georgia and its often sand laden countryside. My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sandy is a gender-ambiguous name.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lecen appears to be accepting his block. I've advised him that if he abides by our request for redaction and apologizes for his conduct, then we will listen to his allegations about Sandy Georgia, and review the matter fairly and impartially. Conversely, if no redaction is forthcoming, then I am neither inclined to lift the block or hear his grievance. Until then, the matter should be considered as closed. Manning (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what Manning has said elsewhere that the matter should be dropped for now, but I would like to comment on a side issue: I noticed the WMF staffer making the comments mentioned above, and I found them to be highly inappropriate. I was watchching their talk following an exchange at User talk:Beetstra#Update: new user warning test results available where I made two comments to strongly disagree with a line being pushed by two WMF staffers. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, my reading was that the staffer was just expressing sympathy with Lecen over the socking isssue they expressed, which certainly is bad-faith editing. I didn't read it as the staffer expressing an opinion on the merits or claiming to have investigated the issue. Nor did they appear to be aware of Lecen's history on-project, they were just trying to be nice. Franamax (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Reads like Lecen is getting wronged

It's not like I haven't had my ground-scraping nuts referred to by Sandy or Moni. (Or had an incredible set (even just in number) set of conspiracies alleged against me (I am in the employ of WMF, Wehwalt, Alarbus, Croaton HighSchool, and the USEP). Sometimes her rants don't even make sense (like I spoke out against USEP issues and it was her little clique that messed up the Barking Fish thing, not me.) Or the girls haven't giggled about how the Wiki nerds don't get laid. In any case, it is so lame to be trying to find out who was wrong (or more wrong) and then run to mommy with complaints. And the all holy "diffs".

Sandy who loves to defend Mallman or Ceoil has taken to using the run to ANI like it was going out of style. I don't think the problem is all the thugs. I think the problem is Sandy. There is just a huge clique going back years here. And Sandy is basically not a fair individual.

I don't think Lecen should apologize (it was not that harsh). Basic point of it was that Sandy is very focused and drives these clique battles on the site (and has done so for years, we have all seen it). The whole idea that Lecen should have to crawl and then prepare some counter charges is just Wiki lawyers stuff. You all should adjuticate on what you see instead of expecting people to spend time on these legalistic defenses and then assuming if they don't, that they must be in the wrong. Or...that they are just not playing the Wiki drama game the way you expect.

Oh...and just on a note of "justice". Even IF LECEN IS WRONG, his apology is irrelevant. If Sandy was wrong too...then she was wrong too at that time. That's just trying to use some lever to drive behavior...to threaten not to look at both sides unless he says he was sorry first.

Lecen: do what you think is right. If you think you were wrong, apologize. If not, don't. In any case, don't decide off of "if I don't apologize, the moderators won't look at both sides of the flame war."

TCO (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

TCO - I understand your argument. However the complaint against Lecen was raised first, and ignoring all other factors, Lecen was in the wrong and needs to redact. The reason I am being so rigid on this point is twofold. (1) If it were acceptable to demand resolution of a separate issue before accepting our judgment on the first issue, then everybody would do this and we would be enmeshed in permanent chaos. (2) By resolving this first issue we can look at the second issue cleanly. If during a second investigation anyone attempts to raise this first issue, we can dismiss it on the grounds it has already been dealt with (and probably admonish the responsible party for doing so). I hope that makes sense. Manning (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn.That is actually a fucking excellent argument. Where did you come from?Never seen you, man! Yeah, disaggregation totally makes sense (and we like...uh...totally never do it). Still don't think his remark was that rough, but it was definitely directed at the person. Give him the night to think it over. And some cardio (lifting weights angry gets you hurt, cardio is the way to go when angry.)TCO (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Lecen was wronged, Carcharoth could have blocked immediately. That would have avoided this venue, with the free shovels and chants of "dig dig dig". There is no provision here that you can dramatically escalate a dispute, then claim that all issues must be treated at once with prizes for all. We don't work that way, editors are expected to present their problems calmly and rationally. I'm pretty sure SG has flown to fewer than 10 countries to kill WP editors, but if you notice a contrary trend, please do report it here. Franamax (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but often when new issues are raised, they're addressed. While a block might be appropriate for Lecen, SandyGeorgia's behaviour probably needs a check as well. I'd suggest Lecen use the block time to put together any other evidence they might have with a more coherent timeline. Though honestly, I can't count the times I've heard established editors try and excuse another editor's behaviour because they were "provoked". It is pretty much the go to defense for certain groups of editors on certain topics. Perhaps that only works if you have a large enough group of friends.--Crossmr (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The excuse "They hit me first" is not valid in a playground, in a court of law, or on Wikipedia. I'm sure someone has written an essay on this point somewhere. Manning (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was an excuse in this case or that Lecen shouldn't be blocked because of it. I pointed out though, that it is frequently used by some people as an excuse on wikipedia and I've often seen it used successfully. I hope in the future the people who are here hanging Lecen out to dry will remember that. And for the record, he hit me first, or was about to hit me, is valid in a court of law. This is not the case here, and while Lecen may have been dealt with, there may be a larger issue here that needs addressed in the form of SandyGeorgia.--Crossmr (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I realsise my name is mud[15] here, but to give context, TCO is a just a gear-head who thinks he's a lot more clever than he actually is, and his excitable bursts do not impresse thoes that bother to listen. Carchold is an oppurtunist with an axe to grind against Sandy, for whatever long forgotten reason. Both are gaming, and thinking in a longer view; x 10000. Fact of the matter is Lecen is an extreamly difficult person, hes unwilling to accept help or advice, and is prob (Personal attack removed). The obvious under a cloud Allarbus, TCO and Ch sees this, and are using an exception to beat a political horse. For shame; if ye guys really gave a fuck ye'd be helping him and guiding h as to how to interact, rather than making capital. Ive seen this before with Ottova, and it makes me want to vomit. A talented writer who only needs guidance and hes tossed about and used up in gaming and in-fighting. Jesus christ. Shame. Ceoil (talk) 12:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil, I think you could have made your point adequately without insulting everyone on the autistic spectrum, which had to be redacted by someone else here. A reference to someone else's mental health is way out of line. Surely you can comment on the substance without your perception of the mental framework of another editor, and without disparaging several tens of million people.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you misunderstand me completly, to the extent that I can even be bothered to explain why. If you are so egar look past my point and to rush towards an o poor me on an others behalf, I dont even know what to say to you. Except this; you are the one exploiting here, and you know it. My position is to help, yours is towards capital. Ceoil (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I misunderstand this as well. That is an appalling thing to say about your fellow editors, especially by a editor already blocked for incivility. However, it is for us to take insults; failure to do so is disruptive and of course, the terrible incivility is excusable if you know the whole history. Not.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's behavior and actions should not go unnoticed. She needs to be held accountable. Lecen is not wrong in the way he feels. People need to read his post and links. I've looked at the whole situation and it's clear that Sandy is watching his edits. She's not just showing up out the blue. She has him on her watchlist and appears to be stalking him. I'm not sure why, but it's obvious she has it in for Lecen. She's harassing him from what I can tell. And she hasn't exactly been civil either in regards to Lecen. I do not believe he owes her an apology. Sandy owes him one. Sandy also needs to remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Her actions and behavior are unacceptable. Completely wrong and so unacceptable. I should also note that Sandy's commments in this thread about User:Diannaa (an admin) was done in very poor taste. Caden ^cool 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not had time to follow up on all this, but certainly Lecen should retract, since SG claims to be offended (and others on her behalf). To retract something said in jest (as he claims, and as seems self evident from the whole tone of the paragraph) is not onerous request. I recently said a user had accused me of risking "destruction of most of the known universe" - this was obviously hyperbole, but if that people were offended on that user's behalf, and took it seriously, I would bow to their lack of perception and retract the claim explicitly. Having dealt with that (or not) the substantive matters should be looked into. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

I just wish that Lecen would stop calling some editors xenophobic. Though, it's only his opinon. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on South Vietnam and North Vietnam

Could someone take a look at the recent edit warring on articles North Vietnam and South Vietnam? This involves IPs 24.52.193.213 and 24.52.193.213, and myself. My talk page has been caught up in this dispute, as you can see here. Perhaps these pages can be semi-protected or protected until this issue dies down. Kauffner (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking now: why do you mean that North VIetnam was "client state" while South VIetnam was not? I don't really understand what you mean. 188.113.91.110 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This also involves user Mr.A as well. I ask if Wikipedia can please fully protect the 2 articles permanently, as there has been content issues for a few years already, so that way both new and more older editors, both registered & non-registered users cannot change the articles, which is the scenario here which involved non-registered users and logged-in ones. Thank you for your concern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.193.213 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is administrative action required here, or can this thread be closed?--Mollskman (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh.. rather a mess up... NV has been protected and the "Client state" comment removed subsequently (with an amusing "WP:wrong version") SV is not protected and the edit warring has continued so that "Client state" is in there. To be even handed either someone should remove the client state from SV and someone else should protect it, or Molksman should be reverted, (preferably by self reverted) and SV should be protected. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

Vote scam

Resolved

 – I gotta love these boomerangs. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Votes and comments are repeatedly deleted with no concrete reason by User:Eraserhead1, to frame towards his favourable result, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). [16] The same thing happened with Talk:China too. [17] He is now requesting for semi-protection to seal his fraud. [18] [19] 61.18.170.113 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The amount of sockpuppetry and pure disruption from single purpose accounts and IP addresses in Hong Kong has risen to the level that Eraserhead1 needed to ask for semi-protection on talk pages. That is extremely serious and I support it. I'm currently compiling a list of IP ranges from problematic ISPs (HK ISPs commonly use rotating address proxies to overcome IPv4 shortages) so that this could at least be geographically confined. This will need further discussion and this isn't the place for it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I couldn't give a damn about the vote. What I do care about is stopping enormous levels of disruption coming from Hong Kong IP's. I suggest we block all Hong Kong IP's from being allowed to edit Talk:China and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).

I also find it very interesting that as soon as one IP address is given a warning the IP editing the page co-incidentally changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you think this is the work of one individual or a group of some sort? Prioryman (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Those two pages have become extremely problematic. Discussion has become incoherent at times, partly because of Eraserhead1's definitely good faith but also somewhat disruptive attempts to clean up the discussions by removing large numbers of comments. There are many other problems with the pages, including what I personally suspect are solicited votes, the fact that a vote was held in the first place (WTF was someone thinking?), some ideologically driven posters still fighting geo-political wars from half a century ago, language difficulties (obviously a lot of people involved for whom English is not their first language) and, from many posters, a general failure to Discuss at all, just lecture. Even that initial post here, containing the expression "to frame towards his favourable result" shows the language problem. If an editor cannot write English well, can they really understand arguments presented by others in English? Yes, (some) Hong Kong posts are a problem, but there's FAR, FAR more. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, the backstory you've missed is that Hong Kong IP editors have been problematic for a while by going on, and on, and on - and there have been very few (if any) other IP editors contributing to the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure that's true. I know you wouldn't be taking the actions you did otherwise. My concern is always for innocent victims in situations like this. It's likely that there will be interested, reasonable AND rational editors from Hong Kong who would want to contribute. But I guess they can if they register, and there did seem to be some irrational aggression against that suggestion from some. It's an area of Wikipedia that's simply not working as it should right now. Despite a lot of words being typed, Discussion isn't occurring. And that "vote" should never have happened. It proved nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has ever been presented to prove any sockpuppetry so as to justify your actions. I don't know your intentions. But you got a strong position, and what you did was effectively gearing towards a result that you favoured. And you keep removing comments left by other IP editors from across at least four ISPs, even if those comments aren't relevant to that section of controversial discussion. This is disruptive. 61.18.170.215 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle's unblock request

User:Mistress Selina Kyle was indefinitely blocked about 5.5 years ago. She is now requesting to be unblocked. (See her talk page.) It's been over 24 hours since her original unblock request, so I figured I would post here in order to get a community consensus. Though I was active in 2006, I wasn't involved in the conflicts that got MSK banned. Personally, I'm inclined to unblock her and move on. Comments? --Fang Aili ^talk 18:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Could she be temporarily unblocked to participate in this discussion?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Mss._Selina_Kyle – What's the community's opinion concerning the performance of Selina's most recent account? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Some uncited additions with a little opinion thrown in - I saw they added an external as a cite but it was a blogger site. Trolling aspects. Youreallycan 20:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the only small concern here might be that Selina's been away for awhile and in the meantime Wikipedia's changed, some for better (blog sites no longer acceptable as RS, perhaps a bit less bullying of the kind that was involved in her original block {guess I was too optimistic [20]) (though IMNSHO mostly for worse). Anyway, it might take her a little bit to get re-acculturated, it's sort of like leaving a country then coming back thirty years (in Wikipedia time) later. Other than that just unblock already.VolunteerMarek 20:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw - I was gonna make you adopting mentor. Youreallycan 20:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, why the hell not.VolunteerMarek 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• - note - Wikipedia:List of banned users#Mistress Selina Kyle - user is currently community banned - Youreallycan 21:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note - that page, unless I'm missing something, has it wrong (who writes that stuff anyway? - looks like a total grudge/pov/grave-dancing magnet. Just list'em, don't comment or editorialize). Selina was unilaterally blocked by a single admin (with a false edit summary smacking of a personal attack). She was then unblocked by another administrator, apparently, as far as I can make out with Jimbo's approval. Then the first administrator re-blocked Selina. Then there was a community discussion which conflated Selina's block with that of another user [21]. At roughly this point it looks like Selina just threw her hands up in the air and gave up on Wikipedia and didn't challenge the block. There's most certainly no consensus in that discussion for retaining the block, much less for it to be described as "community ban". I don't know, this is from the old days where things were done differently but from the perspective of today's standards the whole thing looks sketchy as hell.

Anyway, I've seen people who've done much much much worse, get unblocked after much much much shorter period of time. There's also WP:STANDARDOFFER which is applicable.VolunteerMarek 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I just received an email through Wikipedia's email system where Mistress Selina Kyle asked me to ask an admin to look at this discussion. I'm sure plenty of admins have already looked at it. Since Mistress Selina Kyle is the creator of a Web site that attacks other admins and editors, including myself and several contributors that I've worked with, I have to say hell no, to be blunt about it. MSK screwed up in the past, so why should she be let off the hook now? I screwed up in the past as well, and Wikipedia Review raked me over the coals for it, as evidenced by the fact that I lost adminship a few years ago. Blatant policy violations, blatant breaches of privacy, and other disruptive activity related to Wikipedia should not be forgiven -- not now, not ever. As they say in criminal justice circles, "Once a criminal, always a criminal." --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think she sent the email (I got one too - AFTER I had already posted here) simply because she has no other way of bringing admin's attention to this matter. The fact that she sent it to people like you very clearly shows this wasn't canvassing. As to WR, you're just making shit up. Oh yeah and your comment that in "criminal justice circles" (whatever these are) they actually say """Once a criminal, always a criminal."" (seriously?) is a pretty good indication of why you're not an admin anymore.VolunteerMarek 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the unintentional irony in putting "I screwed up in the past" with "Once a criminal, always a criminal." and "MSK screwed up in the past, so why should she be let off the hook now?" in the same damn post. Forgiveness for me but not for thee? Quintessence of AN/I it would seem.VolunteerMarek 23:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Logic doesn't appear to be a subject in which Elkman has much background. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I know damn fucking well I'll never be forgiven for any of my Wikipedia screwups -- or any of my off-Wikipedia screwups. There's no logic error in what I posted. To me, a mistake is the same thing as a screwup, and a screwup is the same thing as a crime. If I'm unforgivable, then MSK is unforgivable. And she should have kept her opinions to herself. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So because you feel you've been hard done by, you want to see others suffer as well. Rightyo. I'm sure the closing admin will give your opinions exactly the weight they deserve. Reyk _YO! 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't "hard done by". I screwed up and I deserved what I got out of that whole mess. But since MSK is asking for an unblock, and since she runs a site that brings my screwups to light, celebrates my screwups, and revels in my screwups, then I have to strongly object to her unblocking. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I likewise received an email notification regarding this. My personal opinions of Wikipedia Review are just that, personal opinions. Canvassing is obviously a bad thing, so that does need to be taken into account. In general, a sign of maturity is taking responsibility for ones own actions, even if one was not completely at fault. Mistress Selina Kyle's shifting of blame to others does not indicate they have matured, nor that they understand their actions were wrong on any level. If I was an administrator, I'd be minded to decline the unblock request at this point in time (see comments below). Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing may or may not be a bad thing but the fact that she sent it to people like Elkman above is pretty much prima facie evidence that the notification was sent to neutral (and even vehemently bitterly opposed) parties. So no, it's not canvassing.VolunteerMarek 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was a neutrally worded email I would somewhat agree. As you can appreciate, I can't say what the email said exactly, but to provide the gist, the email detailed a request to examine their talk page and see links which detail why they felt their ban was unfair, and provided a link to this thread to comment on "if I support" (the unban). To me, this doesn't seem to be a neutrally worded request at all. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it must've been a different email than the one I got since mine just more or less said "can you please look at this thread" and that's it. But even what you describe does not sound all that bad - just a typical case of a user who is currently blocked trying to bring attention to their unblock request.VolunteerMarek 23:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not overly bothered either way. Blocks are cheap, and it has been over five years. Though I have concerns about maturity, I also note that if unblocked, they would likely be under the microscope for some time. I wouldn't object to an unblock, after all if they cause issues again they would likely be re-blocked. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Of relevance: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mistress Selina Kyle. I have to agree with Steven's comments above. Prioryman (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, that is of relevance. She was more transparent about her previous accounts than some administrators are. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• I saw this, and decided to see into the contribs, but when I got an email, then I am Strongly opposing this. It's a violation of WP:CANVASS of what the user said (Not going to state the text of the email) The SPI is stronginging my oppose. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 23:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Again you seem to have no idea or comprehension of what is and what is not canvassing. If you got the same email as I did then it was very much within the parameters of what is considered acceptable. It was neutrally worded and sent to all sorts of folks. The only problem that I'm seeing with it now is that she sent it to too many people (per "mass notification" part). But again, this is just probably due to loss of cultural perspective after being away from Wikipedia for five years. Nothing serious.VolunteerMarek 23:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

By what contorted logic could a request for participation be sent to too many people? Too few maybe, but too many? How does that work? Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer the rhetorical question: by Wikipedia logic. To answer the deeper question: WP:CANVASS was initially a spin off WP:SPAM which was intended to prohibit solicitation of opinions from people who didn't want to be bothered (spammed) - that's your "too many" right there. Then some schmuck lost some dispute, blamed others, and out of sour grapes split off a portion of WP:SPAM into a "I was rightz but I wuz defeated cuz they cheated" page. Then some other schmuck cleaned up the atrocious grammar and obvious hyperbole as an innocent favor, and that's how it got turned into WP:CANVASS as we know it, which still retains the "don't bother too many people in your notifications" aspect from its original WP:SPAM ancestor. Of course as a result it evolved into this self-contradictory schizophrenic double think newspeak, but that's how Wikipedia works.VolunteerMarek 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the history lesson. I've always found the canvassing policy to be completely absurd, particularly as it's applied to RFAs, which apparently must be run under a veil of secrecy. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• - note - User:Volunteer Marek has after the link been posted here and the unblock only he supported has gone to the list of banned users and twice removed the details of the editing and the name of the sockpuppet from the ban record of User:Mistress Selina Kyle. Youreallycan 23:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note I sure as hell did, since as it as it currently exist that page is essentially an attack page against people who have no means of responding (though I'm sure the vast majority of them deserve it). I also made what I think is a very reasonable proposal on the talk page.VolunteerMarek 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• This just seems to be a grudge match started by those who take exception to the existence of WR. I can assure you that it's no more complimentary about me than it is to any of you broken-hearted administrators, but it's a healthy channel for things that cannot be said here that need to be said nevertheless. Just do the unblock and let's move on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• She wrote me (in neutral language) and asked me to look in here, nothing more.

  I have had no previous contact with her. I have been extremely critical of WR's initial publication of the stolen confidential ArbCom emails, so that her asking me cannot be viewed as canvassing.

  (Further, I disclosed that she had contacted me on her talk page.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  The very first email leaked on WR was a discussion between me and a sitting arbitrator, but I bear no grudges; light needs to be shone in dark places. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I got an email as well, and I'm another editor who has been rather critical of Wikipedia Review. Though I don't know whether she has been emailing admins she thinks are uninvolved or ones like me with a strong dislike of Wikipedia Review. In any event, we need to remember that our policy is that Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption. I've asked a few questions on her talkpage, and I'd suggest that if anyone else has concerns they ask her for assurances. Five and a half years is a very long time, more than long enough for us to give her a second chance. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• She wrote me as well. It was fairly neutral. I am generally opposed to email canvassing (I didn't even know banned / blocked users could use the email feature), so count me as an oppose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Let's get the elephant in the room on the table (excuse the mixed metaphors). I haven't come across MSK before but apparently she is heavily involved in the administration of Wikipedia Review. A lot of people have good reason to dislike WR for the way its members have attacked Wikipedia and Wikipedians. To what extent should this be taken into consideration in deciding this unblock request? Prioryman (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, let's get that elephant going. The answer is not at all. A lot of people have good reason to dislike people like you for the way you attack Wikipedia Review members (who include admins, ArbCom members, WMF employees and prominent media personalities) and Wikipedia Review. The only difference here I can think of is that on Wikipedia Review about 70% of the criticism is pertinent (and Wikipedia's better for it) and 30%'s either bullshit. With you one of these categories is 99.9% (that's me WP:AGFing you right there). This mentality which you somehow came to personalize lately that anyone who dares to say something critical about Wikipedia must be banned, beaten and kicked, is about the worst thing you can do to the Wikipedia itself. Any healthy environment takes criticism in stride. It doesn't try to squash it.VolunteerMarek 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• None at all, unless your intention is to organise Wikipedia along the same lines as the Mafia. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  I would go so far as to say that one could draw an analogy here with the behaviour of WMF staffers such as User:Kaldari; to what extent should we consider their pronouncements to be representative of the WMF's position? Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  This would argue for the salience of my "principle" in the "Civility Enforcement" case, that Wikipedia and its administrator corps cannot tolerate criticism and therefore must remove critics, unfortunately. In the real world, every school board and every city government hearing knows that somebody is going to stand up in the "public comment" section and rip the administration---usually from a combination of personality quirk and public diligence; in the real world, politicians respect that such critics have an important role to play, in keeping public servants honest and responsive.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock. It's been years. We're not talking about giving her adminship or the checkuser tools here, just the ability to edit. If she starts breaking stuff we can always reblock. 28bytes (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  Quite. Doesn't seem too difficult to understand unless you're carrying a massive chip on your shoulder about how unkind WR has been to you. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ok! People. Please listen. When this person left Wikipedia (April/May 2006), the WP:CANVASS policy did not even exist (it was created in October 2006). So if you left Wikipedia in April of 2006, have left it alone until recently and are just coming back in January of 2012 then you are probably not aware of the fact that something like that exist. So you do what people did back in the day, which is email people to get some attention going. Now, please keep in mind that it very much looks like Selina emailed a whole bunch of people more or less at random (or because they were around these parts) - including people which are opposing the request now.

If anything this is (unintentional) evidence for the fact that this user, who was banned in freaking 2006, did NOT sockpuppet or try to circumvent their ban in the meantime, or otherwise they would have been savvy enough to guess that this could backfire. It's like the opposite of how sock puppets get caught - there you people who are way too familiar with Wikipedia's policies and rules. Here's it's the opposite - the unfamiliarity shows that they actually didn't try to game the rules but stuck to their ban. And that's five freakin' years, it was sketchy enough when it happened, it's time for it to be removed. The unfamiliarity can be dealt with mentorship and anyway, it has generally been the case that WP:STANDARDOFFER applies (it has been used by far far far far less deserving accounts).

Now chill and don't be so ban happy.VolunteerMarek 00:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I will disclose that I am a WR member, though not in terribly good standing as I tend to tell them what I think of them along the same lines of how I tell people here. I even had no idea that Selina was the nominal WR head until a few weeks ago during the domain registration/expiration kerfuffle. So we have someone requesting a return from the Wiki/WR's dark days when the latter was viewed as the proverbial "wretched hive of scum and villainy". We've given far more rope to far worse people over the years, so I see little reason to oppose this other than personal enmity, i.e. Elkman above. Selina was last blocked by SlimVirgin, who had a short WR stint herself. Current users include the infamously banned (Thekohser, Peter Damian), the rightfully banned (Mbz1, Joehazelton, Wikipedians in quite good standing (Newyorkbrad, Mike Godwin). It is one big happpy dysfunctional melting pot...kinda like the Wikipedia itself. I think it is time for old grudges to be loosened. Just a bit. Tarc (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I used to be on WR. I left after my well-being was publicly and validly (as in, not idle or minor) threatened there by two people and no one was punished for it. (Disclaimer: I also left there six years ago. So I have no indication if they've changed for the better. I have to assume not, and I have no interest in finding out.) I wanted to believe it was a place where Wikipedia could be criticized, but, at least when I was there, it was merely a forum for the criminally insane and those who defended them because they too were kicked off Wikipedia. A common enemy, as it were. --Golbez (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I lol'ed at the juxtaposition of "I think it is time for old grudges to be loosened" and the "rightfully banned" in front of Mbz1. 28bytes (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • 28, the difference is that Selina is making IMO reasonable explanations of why she wishes to return and is not haranguing those who may have imposed blocks 5 years ago. Mbz1 holds up her so-called "voluntary block" like a martyr for a cause, and STILL, to this very minute continues to harass an admin that once blocked her. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I was one of the (many, many) admins who blocked her. Seriously, look at her block log. She's guilty of just abot every misbehavior there is, including using sockpuppets to evade bans. I personally blocked her for vandalism, and again for posting personal information about another user and harassing Netscott. She was a troublemaker of the first order, and contributed almost nothing of value to offset her stupendously bad behavior. Keep her blocked indefinitely. Raul654 (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  And how long ago was that? I think there's a clear honesty in asking to come back as the same account, rather than just setting up a new one, as so many others do. Why penalise that honesty? Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  The problem with block logs, one of them at least, is that people just tend to go by the length and the comments made by the blocking administrators, and there's no link to whatever caused offence to the offended administrator. Are we just expected to take the word of our betters even when they're clearly bearing grudges and see an opportunity to get their own back? Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Attempting to come back from an Community Indef by Socking is not appropriate. I'll me more open to considering once a WP:STANDARDOFFER has been executed and they come back on the master account or register with ArbCom with an alternate name. Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake. She didn't sock. Her old account was "Miss Selina Kyle", back in 2006. When she decided to come back 5 years later she made an account called "Mss. Selina Kyle". Some genius figured out that "Miss Selina Kyle" had a very similar name to "Mss. Selina Kyle" and made a SPI report and acted as if they discovered Diamonds In Sri Lanka. As soon as it was brought up she said "yes of course it's the same person". That's not socking that's a user forgetting what their account name was five freaking years ago. It is simply amazing how little common sense is being displayed in this discussion.VolunteerMarek 01:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Want to drop the asumption of bad faith and casual swearing? They were kicked out a while back. They socked and were found out. It lists in the master's log the sorted story. Based on this being the 2nd SOCK she was caught using I have low good faith on her behalf. It's called a community discussion for a reason Marek. Please ceace badgering every single "negative".Hasteur (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Want to stop playing the passive-aggressive card? I am honestly at a loss as how to explain this in simpler terms: she had an account called "Miss Selina Kyle". When she decided to return five years later she made an account called "Mss. Selina Kyle" and explicitly stated it was the same person. And then she was... "found out". Geeeeeee, who was the brilliant mind who put 2 and 2 together? That's just not socking unless you're one of those people who are incapable of comprehending that taking things TOO LITERALLY does not make you right, but rather simply foolish. It's a little like arguing that since, strictly speaking, the people who say that the earth is round are [22] wrong, then it must be flat! Either that or it was a bad-faithed SPI from the get go. Either way, not very good.

And we are the community, and so we are discussing, no?VolunteerMarek 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Marek, please strike your comments to this entire thread. It has been nothing but a off topic repeating of the same arguments listed repeatedly and badgering-ly to people who oppose the point. 1. She was blocked in the past for various disruption. 2. During that block she socked. 3. At that point she was informed very clearly about what the socking rules were and how to go about regaining privileges. 4. Just before this thread was launched she created yet another account and started editing when she was Indef Banned and by one administrator "community banned". Having now received a personal email from the account in question attempting to encourage me to change my viewpoint on the exact same grounds I'm still disinclined to accept the reasoning. The admission of the account link was disclosed after a SPI was filed. I'd have more good faith if the link was disclosed as the first action of the account or if this request to start editing again had come from the original account, however I am having to judge this appeal somewhat by those advocating for it. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is it "not appropriate"? Would it be better just to do it by setting up a new account? Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

She needs to successfully complete the standard offer. Not wait the 6 months (or more) and then register a similar name and sheepishly acknowledge that it is a new sock. Standard offer does give her the ability to create a entirely new persona and register it with BASC. As above with Marek, seeing the initial account's long block log including a previous socking leaves me with little good faith on her behalf. I am in no way considering activities external to the community. Hasteur (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the "genius" who figured out the pretty much obvious similiarity in the account names after comment on Jimbo's page on something unrelated. At first I didn't really want to say that much on this but I really do think that some people are giving her a hard time, Users like Lir who made about 20 sockpuppets in three years were given unblock's for a little bit but Mistress Selina Kyle herself, who has only sockpuppeted one time since 2006 is still banned today. Yes people make mistakes and we can't deny she did by talking to and associating with Blu Aardvark but that is all in the past and she has redeemed herself over that by banning him on the Wikipedia Review. --Thebirdlover (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah, ok I can understand that - though I still think filing that SPI was a mistake. Not because it was wrong per se, but simply because there's a lot of stupid people on Wikipedia and just the fact that someone has an SPI attached to their name - no matter how "technical" or "pure formality' it was - will enable that stupidity. Just next time, when considering some action, please try to take account of the likely response/feedback loop from the people who are too lazy too click on relevant diffs, nevermind actually bother to think about a situation a little.VolunteerMarek 02:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - 5.5 years is a long time. If the intent is to cause trouble, returning to the same account would seem a poor strategy. The account will be under heavy scrutiny ad if re-offending occurs, the account will be re-indef'd in short order. If the strategy is to get banned again so as to claim some form of "wiki-martyrdom", then um, well, whatever. Manning (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. Sure, why not? It's been over five years. People can change in that time, and unblocked accounts generally come under a lot of scrutiny so there's not a lot of chance of disruption. I am utterly unconvinced by arguments that returning under a virtually identical username is socking and this "once a criminal always a criminal" business is pathetic crap. Reyk _YO! 01:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good grief. 5.5 years blocked, maybe 5 years without "socking", and despite whatever the list says, no actual community ban? I'm unblocking, which seems both the reasonable thing to do as well as a very "safe" thing to do considering the fairly god number of people who will almost certainly be following her contribs. For the record: she did not contact me about this, but I did ask her about it when seeing this topic pop up on my watchlist... frankly I thought it was a joke, but apparently it isn't. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• ...or maybe not, because she's apparently globally locked. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• That was lucky for you. Your edit history of almost nothing since late 2010 and only having used your buttons on two days since late 2010, then you turn up here going to while consensus is being formed in a discussion and when there is looking like no consensus to unblock you attempted to unblock - the next report thread would have been requesting your dysopping. Youreallycan 09:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Has somebody found that "community ban decision" yet? In 2006 it was probably done on a secret list somewhere, but perhaps somebody will find it. ;-) --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think we have to do with several pages worth of block logs until Cabal clerks manage to find the official ban ruling from archives... :) jni (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose searching for it on WR might find the leaked versions, but I'm not really interested enough to sift through the sillies. The point was that there doesn't seem to really be a ban in place, so she probably shouldn't be listed as banned, and this discussion should be reframed as whether to ban, rather than whether to unban. YMMV, of course. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• SB_Johnny is far too busy adding remarks on WR to contribute to WP. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• We all help in our own ways... :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure WR will now review us negatively for failing to produce sufficient paperwork for banning obvious sockpuppeteer/vandal over five years ago. jni (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, some will, others will compare this particular block with other blocks involving people on the other side of the wikipolitical fence, and still others will wonder why the heck she wants to be unbanned.

  The issue for me is that this has become just one more round of people demanding blocks band and checkuser tests as if they're calling for airstrikes or artillery. I suppose it's better than the much-more-commonplace exploding cigars and ricin-tipped umbrellas, but not by much. This cabal vs. cabal stuff isn't what I thought WP was about lo those many years ago when I signed up.

  (And if you're really wondering why I spend very little time here anymore, perhaps I've just provided an indication.)--SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm um, not sure how this happened, but I am apparently not banned after all... i am... trés confused, after all the writing - I think I need a cup of tea and go to bed. Sorry for wasting anyone's time o_o --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, your block log says you're indef'd [23] but your post here is evidence that you aren't. There's a glitch somewhere. Nobody Ent 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some weird glitch, see WP:AN. Sorry, Mistress Selina Kyle, but I have renewed the block pending the outcome of this discussion, because you are still not allowed to edit until the community decides otherwise. No comment on the merits of the unblock request. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WereSpielChequers, Reyk and others. (I also had a mail.) --JN466 03:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• That said, there's only a handful of people I would want 100% permabanned from Wikipedia without any possibility of reform, and Miss Selena Kyle isn't one of them. I have no problem with supporting an unblock. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's easy enough to create a new identity - if an editor wishes to return in apparent sincerity, complete with visible baggage, in full view of everybody after five years, why not let them prove themselves? The standard offer's always an alternative. Acroterion (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. To say no after more than five years is idiotic. First of all what's the risk? If she misbehaves re-block. Secondly, saying no sends the message 'go get a sockpuppet'. --PumknPi (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• 'Comment - Have you people not been reading the threads up above in which it is suggested that I be banned? Have you not heard that Wikipedia Review is where all of the "deeply homophobic discussion" takes place, to quote Prioryman (from whom I await a retraction and an apology)? And yet you want to un-ban Selina? Something isn't adding up here... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. If Selina deliberately causes disruption the block button is real close by. If she steps on a landmine from all the changes since 20-ought-six then she should be warned. I'm a member here and at WR, for the record. →StaniStani  04:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Raul654...no evidence demonstrates this editor has any intention of helping us create a neutral encyclopedia...highly circumspect commentary at Wikiepdia Review indicates nothing but malice for this website and its contributors.--MONGO 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is just childish vindictiveness. Malleus Fatuorum 04:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - and I will note she's sent me the same email, which I'm deleting. I do not appreciate someone I don't know sending me emails demanding I do something, especially if they're asking me to get admins to side with me, given my logs. Note that I've no idea who this person is, and I want no part of the potential politics involved. I'm opposing because I don't know who she is and I don't appreciate unsolicited emails. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Blocks shouldn't be perpetuated where there's the slightest suspicion that there might be vindictive/vengeful/punitive reasons behind them. Writegeist (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock with WP:STANDARDOFFER in mind. 5 years is long enough. Second chance and all of that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 06:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock. While I have mixed feelings about WR, I don't think they are germane to this discussion. I think we should err on the side of gaining a potentially valuable contributor to the project. As was said above, if this person acts up it's pretty easy to re-block them. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, no, no, no, and no. Also, no. I've been here long enough to remember the shitstorm she caused back then, User:Volunteer Marek's attempt at whitewashing notwithstanding, and I can't imagine a single thing she could contribute of value to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose What Calton said. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock, with a caveat I received an email from her regarding this, and I don't recall any connection to her. I'm curious to know just how she decided on who to canvas, given the fact that my username is in the 'Z' category. I didn't mind getting it, though. Aside from that worry, looking at her (sock's) edit history gives me the impression that she's either a sly mastermind, or utterly clueless. It all looks suspicious, but I will go with the latter. 5+ years is a heck of a long time on the internet. My concern is the culture shock; if she is unblocked, the first thing she should be looking at is a fresh newbie welcome message, with the works. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think the potential for culture shock is a reasonable concern, as mentioned above. She would need a mentor or at least someone to bring her up to date. Example: WP:CANVASS didn't even exist when she left Wikipedia.VolunteerMarek 07:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. If I understand correctly, this user is chiefly responsible for Wikipedia Review. That brings with it at least two important issues. First, as the head administrator of that site, she is responsible for its contents. Other editors who participate there can say, "Sure, there's harassment and outings on WR, but they aren't my responsibility". This user cannot say that. She could delete any and all of it and ban the guilty parties. Instead, she maintains that material. Having the ability to fix and failing to do so makes her entirely responsible for the contents of WR. Second, it seems that many of the "support" !votes in this thread have come from people who are active on WR. There are long-standing problems with that site being used for canvassing Wikipedia discussions. A few editors here have been forthcoming in their affiliation with WR, but a number of others are failing to make disclosures. That raises concerns over whether this thread is being skewed by a faction. Wikipedia is a community based on trust and good faith. There's too much about this request which appears to involve bad faith activities to support it. I can't see how unbanning this user would improve Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding assertions that "five years is enough time to be blocked": time has nothing to do with it. Ten years is too short a time to block someone who will hurt the project and ten minutes is too long to block someone who will help it. The six-month "standard offer" is intended as a way for blocked editors to go to sister projects and show they can be productive and follow community norms. It isn't a sabbatical which automatically resets all blocks after the passage of time. If the user is ready to participate in a constructive way in this community project she can show it by her deeds.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well gee Will, as an administrator of this site - does that mean that you are responsible for these terrible things? Just wondering. Wikipedia is a community based on trust and good faith Hello? — Ched :  ?  12:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am one of over 900 adminstrators on Wikipedia and I have no more authority to set the rules than any other of the millions of editors here. It is an entirely different situation at WR. MSK sets the rules and can enforce them without being overruled, so far as I am aware. If I owned the Wikipedia domain name then maybe you'd be partly right.   Will Beback  talk  12:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Trying to understand this. So are you suggesting that what someone does off wikipedia should be considered in their suitability to edit here? — Ched :  ?  12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes. Or, if you need a longer answer: yes, particularly if their actions directly affect or intended to affect Wikipedia. This is not even slightly difficult a concept: is there some obvious aspect which is unclear to you? --Calton | Talk 14:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support very reluctantly. I have very mixed feelings about this. MSK is clearly a leading figure in WR, a website that has a disproportionately destructive effect on Wikipedia ("a wretched hive of scum and villainy" indeed). Will Beback makes some important points above, which I agree with, about MSK's responsibility for maintaining this cesspit. MSK was community banned after receiving numerous blocks for block evasion, trolling, outing other Wikipedians, vandalism, personal attacks, incivility and violating 3RR. That said, the events in question happened many years ago and people do have the potential to change in that span of time. I'm very far from convinced that MSK subscribes to the goals of the project and their leading role in WR is worrying, but I'm aware that MSK will be very closely watched if unblocked. So I'm supporting an unblock on the understanding that MSK will effectively be on probation, with a low threshold for future blocks if they step out of line. Prioryman (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - Time has been served. Wikipedia needs to rid itself of the Guantanamo mentality of indeffing perceived enemies of the state without trial... The Bad Site is required reading, even if it shares many of the exact same deficiencies as the site it criticizes (the cloak of anonymity, lack of free speech, school yard politics, bully behavior, administrative heavy-handedness, intolerance of dissent, etc. etc. etc.) Carrite (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose User is already being argumentative on her talk page. After being told that requesting an immediate second unblock request while an AN/I discussion is ongoing is poor form, the user proceeded to argue that it was within the rules, as opposed to taking the advice - coming back from a community ban demands a certain amount of humility. I also see a lot of finger pointing and a distinct lack of accepting responsibility. I'm also admittedly suspicious of this user's motives due to their role at WR, which, while not explicitly anti-WP, is inhabited by users with such a sentiment. N^oformation ^Talk 09:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We simply don't need more troublesome editors to babysit who have never contributed anything at all towards building an encyclopedia (either here or in the Bad Site). jni (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support an unblock: she was blocked close to six years ago...long before I was even an editor here: because of that incredibly long amount of time since the block, I see no harm in giving Mistress Selina Kyle a second chance. If she is disruptive (which I doubt considering the time passed), she will get reblocked; it she edits productively, we will benefit from her work. Acalamari 10:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per jni and others above. Several above say if she causes disruption she can easily be blocked again, but I doubt it would be so easy in practice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: while 5 years is a lot, her previous block wasn't caused by immaturity. I see a lot of negative personal traits behind it and I'm not convinced that they can be mitigated just as time passes. Furthermore, don't forget: she socked right before making her current unblock request! While I can understand creating a sock for requesting an unblock and nothing else (though email should really be used instead if the blockee can't edit their talk page) - she went far beyond this, knowingly violating her ban. How can we trust her not to violate our policies if unblocked if she managed to demonstrate that her disregard to them remains the same as it was 5 years ago?! Max Semenik (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Switched from oppose to strong oppose, after corresponding with her privately I'm absolutely confident that she's an unrepentant troll. Max Semenik (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock. So, Selina wants to start editing en.wp.org again, hey? What are Selina's motivations for asking for this? Lets assume the you know what. Her return will be very closely watched. If she's here to make positive contributions to the project, her return will be very closely watched, and zapped if it goes awry. If she's here not to make positive contributions to the project, her return will be very closely watched and zapped even sooner.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support after weighing all the arguments above it comes down to: Has Wikipedia changed substantially in the past six years, and have some of the "problem areas" for this editor been substantially changed, in some cases adopting the editor's positions? Facing the fact that some of the blocks would not take place under current policies and guidelines, I am forced to iterate that "draconian solutions do not work" and that the ban should be lifted. Collect (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock: First, and most strongly, per Max Semenik's comments about her recent socking and use of the sock account for any purpose other than appealing her block. Second, and much more weakly, I also received an email from her. Since I've never dealt with her or any of her issues and since she obviously sent those emails out en masse from what has been said above, that contact was plain old garden-variety spam as far as I'm concerned, all considerations of CANVASS aside. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Tentative support. Disclosure: I haven't been canvassed to comment here, but I have been editing long enough that I remember MSK from 2006. I distinctly remember her as a user who caused a fair amount of drama and wasn't great at working with others, and her indef block was arguably justified at the time. Having said that, it's been over five years now, and I'm willing to accept she might have changed and now be able to edit within our rules in a constructive manner. (The fact that she came back honestly identifying herself, rather than socking under a different name to avoid detection, is a positive I think.) It should be made clear, however, that she will be 'on probation' as it were, and if she fails to behave appropriately admins should not be hesitant to restore the indef block. Robofish (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - low the standard of recent sockpuppet edits and the very disruptive history. Youreallycan 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have to go with the same rational used in other opposition: the combative nature on the user's talk page, socking while banned, and the LONG history of a blocks and overall poor judgement in the past. I know it['s been a number of years, but I think this will be more trouble that ir is worth if the user is unblocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose User is under a full siteban. Since there's apparently no consensus to unban/unblock here, then her next step is an email to Arbcom. I do not support an unban due to recent socking. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Can someone find and point us to the ban discussion? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There may not have been one. There was once language in the banning policy for "de facto" bans. This was removed at some point by some very intelligent people until a couple months ago when certain editors insisted that ban discussions were a "waste of time" and people should just slap the banned tag on blocked accounts. The language has subsequently been rewritten several times and resulted in gigantic threads at the BAN talk page where nobody can agree on exactly what a "De Facto" ban is, how to implement it and what language should be used to describe it. In other words, instead of a couple ban discussions per month at AN/I, we have many KB of argument at another page and a policy in perpetual limbo. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Question. So, seriously, what is she interested in editing? Because we have enough editors posturing in heated disputes like this. We'd hope she intends to return to something more constructive than that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't really speak for her, and she can't speak for herself either, but I'm guessing stuff like this [24] or related to this.VolunteerMarek 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock at this point. If she hasn't socked for 5 years, but merely returned under a very-identifiable username, there's no reason not to consider the standard offer fulfilled. If there are problems, they can be handled the way they always are.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Six years is enough time. She was blocked mainly because of her involvement with certain banned users who herself later banned from Wikipedia Review. My main concern though is MSK actions seems like she is so out of touch with the community by using practically 2006 tactics that many editors used back then but it's clearly unacceptable now, such as the emails. She was also kinda inactive from Wikipedia Review as well. I think with the right mentoring, and the reading of some guidelines she can become a productive editor. In worst case, just reban her and that's it. I highly doubt that the community will be "outraged" if she goes back to her previous behavior that got her blocked in the first place. And note I was there when the discussion to unblock her and another (now banned) editor took place, and I was one of the editors who discussed her ban soon after when her behavior was unchanged. I also put the final ban on the editor she was most involved with (Blu Aardvark) not long afterwords. Secret ^account 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. I'm not terribly confident that this is a good move, but I'm willing to WP:AGF that something has changed for the better in 5-6 years. Give that the current concerns are about trolling, I think that in case she is unblocked Ms. Kyle should try to focus on content including learning how to contribute according to current Wikipedia standards (e.g. how to format citations), and should try hard to avoid the kind of rhetoric-filled discussions that led to her indef block. Perhaps assigning a mentor to her would not be a bad idea either. Alas my wiki time is limited, so I can't volunteer for that job. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempted outing on Talk:Evolutionary psychology

I have this page on my watchlist. Memills (talk · contribs) has made these consecutive edits [25][26] which seem unduly aggressive and appear to be an attempted WP:OUTING. Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No outing is possible of a dead person -- David M. Schneider. Memills (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No outing is possible of a dead person -- David M. Schneider. However, I do have concerns the user account DMSchneider.

As noted by my comment in this section of the Talk page,

"I would ask DMSchneider to state here that he is not in fact Holland using DMSchneider as a sockpuppet account. Also, the fact that the account apparently is named after David M. Schneider, a cultural anthropologist who believed that kinship was purely culturally constructed, also raises some concerns that this topic is being approached by DMSchneider primarily from a cultural anthropology perspective." Also see this concern about the Holland account. Memills (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I just restored what you removed above. Asking somebody to say whether they are X (in this case a living person) is WP:OUTING. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DMSchneider (talk · contribs) has now confirmed that he is not Maximilian Holland.[27] But why was he asked in this way by Memills? Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci -- I did not give you permission to revert my comment above to a previous version. I removed my concern about a sockpuppet account because it was irrelevant to the issue of OUTING. Please do not do not restore material that I have deleted from my posts again without my permmission. Memills (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Memills, the edit you left was deceptive. If you want to check that Maximilianholland (talk · contribs) and DMSchneider (talk · contribs) might be the same undisclosed person, then you should just file a request at WP:SPI. A checkuser would be no good since Maximilianholland has not edited since August 2011. In the same way, people are not allowed to make inferences from your own user name on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[[

Mathsci -- no, my edit was not deceptive. Again, you do not have my permission to revert my posts to previous versions, whether you believe them to be "deceptive" or not. That is unacceptable behavior on WP. [User:Memills|Memills]] (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More WP:IDHT? On wikipedia you cannot confront another user by telling him that they are "John X, Smith", or another real life identification. That is WP:OUTING. But you seem to do as you please. Mathsci (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

disruptive edit by sockpuppet of banned user Echigo mole - see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and WP:BOOMERANG
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mathsci is quite correct. For an example of the sort of thing that is unacceptable, see here. Even in conflict of interest situations, "be extra super-duper careful about outing, which includes speculation of an editor's identity." "Outing is grounds for an immediate block" "just remember, and I mean this in the strongest terms, be careful" William Hickey (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my original post (although you still have the portion that I deleted included above in the box).

Maximilianholland (talk · contribs) used his real name as his WP identifier, and he also previously identified himself as that person on the Talk page. He outed himself. I cannot out him once he has done so. There was good reason to ask DMSchneider if that user name was a sock puppet account of Maximilianholland given the similarity of the content posted by these two accounts. DMSchneider said that was not the case; I'll take him at his word. Memills (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

If one person edits under their real name, that does not mean that you can ask a completely different user whether they are the person with that real name. In this case you could have asked whether their account was an alternative account of Maximilianholland (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I will take your advice re this -- it is an unusual situation when an WP editor uses their real name as an identifier. I would ask too that you refrain from reverting others' comments to previous versions without their permission. Deal? Memills (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Commenting here with my admin-hat on. Mathsci, whether you feel that Memills was editing deceptively or not, it's inappropriate to edit their contribution here. Per WP:TPO there are a limited number of situations when you can edit another person's comment. If you feel that a person was being deceptive by redacting part of their comment, there's a very simple and uncontroversial way to handle that; just say it. You can even quote what they had said before or offer a diff to show it. There's nothing wrong with doing so and it is more effective than doing what is essentially a minor edit war over another person's comment.

Memills, as to the outing, Maximilianholland hasn't edited for 5 months, and DMSchneider has only had an account for a month. If they were the same person, then it would give the appearance that the old account was abandoned and a new one created. This is explicitly allowed under our clean start policy as I see that Maximilianholland has a clean block record and certainly had no active sanctions when DMSchneider was created. An account change could have been done for privacy reasons, and I'd suggest honoring that need for privacy, until and unless the older account becomes active again. DMSchneider has denied a connection and I think it's good that you're taking them at their word.

But was the question itself outing? I don't see any difference in asking someone if they edited under the account Maximilianholland or if they are someone named Maximilian Holland. If someone asked me if my name was Atama in real life I wouldn't consider that outing. As to the appropriateness of asking the question, it's acknowledged that questions like that will be asked in a situation like this. Our clean start policy warns editors who continue their old editing patterns with the following:

Editors who make a clean start and then resume editing in the same topic areas may be recognized by other editors in that area. If the previous and clean start accounts are not linked, this can result in direct questioning and/or sockpuppet investigation requests, and the linkage between the two accounts may become public knowledge. Clean start accounts should not return to the same topic areas or editing patterns if there is a strong desire to separate from the initial account.

So I think we can let this one be for now. Take DMSchneider at their word, and I see nothing sanctionable from anyone else in this discussion. -- Atama頭 19:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Competance issue

There appears to be a WP:COMPETENCE issue with User:Ananthutom. Although he has some useful edits, he has a penchant for blanking content without explanation, the first warning for which he received on November 11th, and has since received four more warnings for. I gave him a final warning for this behavior yesterday for this which he attempted to deny was him on my talk page. He also as of today has moved his user page and talk page to User:Ananthu Tom, without the normal name change process, thus complicating article history (the original history of his talk page is located at [28] now). Although not forbidden, he also has a penchant for removing the warnings, which leads me to believe that he has read and understood them - despite denying that he does. Could someone take a look at this? Thanks. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have untangled the moves and restored the history of his talk page, and told him how to apply at CHU if he wants to change username. JohnCD (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it also appears that there is a vague overlap between User talk:Bothiman's edits and that of the subject of this section. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See, I am so sorry for my previous edits. I will try my level best to do my edits carefully. I renamed my username because I thought that it was better. I don't know how to change my user name. Please say to me how to do it. I blank out my content because I don't like anything to be in my talk page. You may not believe all these things, but I am saying this most sincerely. Please don't criticize me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthutom (talk • contribs)

The problem isn't that you attempted to change your username incorrectly, and you are allowed to blank anything you want on your own talk page. However, your blanking of sourced content on article's and then trying to deny that you just had, and multiple warnings for the same thing warrants scrutiny here. An administrator left you instructions on your talk page on how to correctly go about changing your username after fixing the mess created by your last attempt, and you have apparently done the same attempted thing again. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh Wanderer

Resolved

 – Reporting editor blocked for disruption by Superm401. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edinburgh_Wanderer (talk · contribs) has been engaging in some disruptive and bizarre behaviour over the last couple of days. He has shown WP:OWN and WP:COI issues over the inclusion of Scotland's second level league in the football project's list of "fully professional" leagues. EW flooded a recent discussion over the league's suitability for the list with repetitive and false spam. here . He has been spoken to previously by admins over this habit. [29] EW then circumvented dispute resolution and raised an ANI, trying to have people who disagreed with him blocked. Accusations of personal attacks were made with no evidence. When prompted, diffs like [30] were supplied.

Despite EW's repeated breaches of WP:AOHA, I accepted a warning at the ANI for comments I had been provoked into making. However it was not long before 3rd parties at the ANI were making similar comments about EW's tiresomeness and apparent lack of maturity.[31] [32] Since the ANI failed EW began hostile wikihounding of other editors who disagreed with his viewpoint. Murry1975 (talk · contribs) was dragged to a spurious SPI and subjected to more unfounded and hysterical accusations. Although EW now claims to have "retired" for three months, I feel a temporary block to run consecutive to the retirement may be in order. At the very least a topic ban for EW may allow users at the Football project to discuss the issues in good faith without further disruption. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

PorridgeGobbler is shit-stirring, and knows he's shit stirring, and has been warned by me and Atama a day or so ago. If I wasn't leaving the house this second, I would block him myself, but instead I'll leave it to others to review. The fact that EW is not reacting gracefully to pressure is no reason to tolerate intentional poking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, PorridgeGobbler has all the appearance of a disruptive POV troll. Support block. Youreallycan 20:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Its just as well i always watch ANI as its clear he wasn't going to notify me. I think this latest response by him about me and other editors says it all.[33].Edinburgh Wanderer 20:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You were (briefly) "retired" after not getting your way and had instructed no messages to be left at your talk page. See also legal threat by DUCKISJAMMMY (talk · contribs) [34]. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And you haven't notified him either.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your latest allegation is incredibly unfounded. That's just a standard template, that's not a legal threat in any way. Please, stop grasping at straws to get your opponents blocked or you might discover it boomeranged on you... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NLT: "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation." It doesn't say who or what I am supposed to have defamed. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

All you have to do is read the previous discussion above to see that there were clear personal attacks not just this time but when he was originally blocked.. Given that he is accusing another editor of something its only correct they are notified which i will do now. Regarding the diff that i was spoken to by an admin i was not warned or anything infact I'm part of a group of editors who are now trailing it and it was about an issue which involved technical aspects of wiki code and has nothing to with this. I re affirm my point above that this is clearly someone who has a clear knowledge of our policies and is not a new user. Im not going to comment here again as this is clearly a boomerang attempt.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a bigger problem now hence why I'm posting another comment. He has been constantly advised that first division footballers are considered notable and there currently no consensus to change that look at discussion at WP:Footy. Back in August he attempted to get articles deleted by prod using various ips and he is now doing it again see here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David McGurn he just won't listen to anyone. Even if we decided future seasons were non notable a player who played in any season prior is notable as notability is permanent. This is clear attempt at disruption Edinburgh Wanderer 21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

EW, last night you made a spectacle of "retiring" while making worrying declarations about your own mental health.[35] I think that a spell away from WP may benefit you and certainly benefit the project. I was disappointed that my geniune efforts at going through conflict resolution were all rebuffed. You opened an ANI (then a SPI) to throw dirt at me and none of it stuck because you didn't have any evidence. I think the issues I've raised above are more serious and should result in you being formally warned at the very least. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I wasn't informed of this discussion despite the fact a user is making false rumours I made a legal threat. I find it highly hypercritically that PorridgeGobbler didn't notify me when he is the first to scream from the rooftops when he isn't informed when he actually was. As Salvio stated I didn't make any legal, just a standardised template. As for Porridge Gobblers claims that he is unaware the reasons why such a warning was given is also a lie, With the warning I added an additional message quoting what he had said so it's quite obvious the reason for the warning. His associated IP (which he has admiited is his) was given a warning by myself for a personal attack specifically directed earlier & now his user account was warning for defamation not specifically directed as it was placed on another users page who it wasn't directed toward.I think it's about time Admins take PorridgeGooblers disruptive action seriously & I suggest this case should most definitely boomerang, Since returning from an indefinite ban, he has continued to use different IP's to enable his behaviour, making nationalistic attacks, personal attacks, indirect acttacks, extremely sarcastic comments on talk pages, Project pages & on Wikipedia:Administrators associated pages & don't forget the constant antagonism. He's know taken out this frivolous case against Edinburgh. He seems to some have avoided being re-banned due occasionally appearing reasonable & showing a knowledge of the policies but it's a time for action to be taken. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Genuine I don't think so, he's acting against consensus adding inapproatte deltion tags, one of the reasons he was banned the last time, & his above comment yet another attempt at goading & shit stiring. His indefinite block needs to reapplied quickly he has not reformed. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple admins have already looked into these malicious allegations and concluded there was absolutely nothing there.[36][37] Please do not harass me by repeating them. PorridgeGobbler (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand now your being harassed you started this as a boomerang then displayed further evidence of what you were blocked for before. You were warned at the Above Ani which you clearly accepted but continue attacks[38] such as this one if already linked to above, trolling here again saying we have a conflict of interest[39] voting delete because a player wears pink boots[40] accusing other editors who have done nothing wrong starting AFD's when you know that they are not founded is clearly showing your previous behaviour. Given you are using admins comments out of context you really should be notifying them as well. This is disruption. Its up to the admins to decide what to do but this needs sorted promptly one way or another quickly.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone think this article he has just created is appropriate Roddie Clark it would meet WP:Footy but its clearly a joke also he then adds it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Scotland task force/New articles which he knows me and duck are very likely to see he is clearly trying to wind us up. This SPI also still needs admin close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PorridgeGobbler one way or another this isn't a new user this is someone who has prior wiki knowledge he knows loads of policies always misquoted. The miss use of Ips and possible other accounts out there mean this does need checked some of the Ips were linked at the time of Porridge original block and one he has used in last few days although he is clearly hopping a check was required.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's really is getting ridiculous he has started creating pages, like this & then adding them to the Scottish Taskforce new article section & then Afd the article he just created just five minutes later because he knew it wasn't notable & created it as a joke. He is directly trying to provoke Edinburgh who started the taskforce. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous he has just AFD the article he created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roddie Clark. Something needs done promptly.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I have blocked PorridgeGobbler for 36 hours for the Roddie Clark incident alone, given past warnings and blocks. Superm401 - Talk 23:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok i need some advice then. He is likely to go back to ip editing which is why i created the SPI or return to this after 36 hours i strongly suspect he's been an editor before. What do i do when he returns i was not believed at the previous Ani and nobody has touched the SPI i just need formal advice on what to do to deal with the situation then.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, give the sockpuppet investigation a little time. I'm not sure how long it usually takes, but it's only been a day and there are no comments from checkusers in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section. In the meantime, if you have evidence of sockuppetry, post it here and preferably notify me on my talk page (though I'll try to check back here). Similarly, if he continues disrupting after the block, open an ANI and contact me if you wish. Superm401 - Talk 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice i just to know clearly what i need to do. The article should probably just be speedy deleted and AFD closed though no point in wasting peoples time.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block; if trolling resumes after block expiration it can be upped to indef fairly rapidly. But can I make one more plea to Edinburgh Wanderer and DUCKISJAMMMY to dial back the full throttle reaction several notches? These things are 10 times easier for people to look into and deal with when the signal isn't overwhelmed by so much noise. Just because someone who upsets you says something doesn't mean you have to answer back. Seems to me this section can be marked resolved, so I'm doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for now and fully understand what to do if this happens again. I feel I was pretty calm this time but I needed to show all the things that was happening again this time was the same as the last time. Edinburgh Wanderer 10:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to note that I was involved in the old discussion regarding IPs in use by PorridgeGobbler (and the IP admitted that they were that editor). Given the behavior above, and the history of that account, I wouldn't object to an indefinite block. I'm not going to extend the existing block to indefinite, but further disruption from this account (or IPs from the account) and I will extend an existing block to indefinite, or re-block the account indefinitely. -- Atama頭 19:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age

Doc Tropics (talk · contribs) has been restoring conspiracy views by an unreliable author back into the Islamic Golden Age article (1, 2). The author, whom "Doc Tropics" acknowledges that he's not a specialist, calls the entire period a "myth...intended to distract attention from modern Islam". Another editor stepped-in and removed the harmful content. But I wanted to bring to your attention the insults by "Doc Tropics", where he wrote: "sorry [Al-Andalusi], but you are entirely untrustworthy and your edits are suspect. this needs to be defended on the talkpage". I also left him a note on his talk page and notified him about this discussion. Thank you. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone "entirely untrustworthy" is appropriate. But nor is using insults like "racist", "retarded", "hypocritical", and "idiotic." You should both make your points without personal attacks. Superm401 - Talk 00:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

unpleasant editing environment at Neuro-linguistic programming

• "The article on Neuro-linguistic programming, and related pages, are placed on article probation. Any user disrupting these pages may be banned from the article and related articles by an uninvolved administrator."[41]

I asked Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to stop making accusations of bad faith against me via his talk page[42] but he continues.

Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lam Kin Keung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not creating a pleasant editing environment. Rather than dealing with the issue they keep making accusations of sockpuppetry both direct and implied. The reason I created the account is that I want to be anonymous. I realize that this is an extremely controversial topic and that several editors have been harassed off-wiki by editors exposing their real identities in order to embarrass them to their friends and family, cause them anxiety or other harm.

I made it clear when I create this account that it is a single purpose account for editing the NLP and related pages only. I am not here to promote or disparage the subject. I want to see articles written based on reliable sources and relevant wikipedia policies.

Every edit I make in good faith based even when clearly based on reliable sources is automatically reverted. It has been going on for some time, but here are some examples from the past few days. I have been trying to ascertain how to accurately report on the Norcross et al 2006 paper. It is a poll designed to establish a consensus on "what does not work" in psychotherapy. It does not make any specific conclusions about NLP in the body of the article. There is a table which lists the results concerning NLP for round 1 and 2 in a table. Snowded and Lam Kin Keung argue that we can just use the data from the results table and make our own interpretation for the wikipedia article. I do not agree with their opinion on this so have been asking them to tell me the conclusions made by the authors. Rather than dealing with the issues they launch into personal attacks saying it has been discussion before and that I am wasting their time on the same sources. I do not believe I am wasting their time. It really does not matter what has been discussed or agreed to before if the article still misrepresents a source.

• "just by changing your name"[43]
• "you have been told this before"[44]
• "Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour."[45]
• "you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references."[46].

This is a highly controversial topic on wikipedia. Looking at the editing statistics here, Neuro-linguistic programming is probably more controversial than Abortion. The editors whether they are pro, con or neutral have been personally attacked and harassed off-wiki. I can provide more details privately to a trusted administrator as I do not want to give away my real details.

The user Snowded has been threatening for some time to reveal my personal information. I don't think he knows who I am but still the threat is there. Links and further evidence can be provided privately. I'd rather it done in a way that protects the privacy of editors including me. I think he is trying to put pressure on editors to conform to his viewpoint or "be exposed". He has also implied that I was responsible for creating a off-wiki web site designed to bring in meatpuppets. I have approached Snowded at his talk page and ask him to stop making the threats but he continued and even stepped it up a notch.

I believe I am within my rights to edit using this single purpose account so I ask that the editors remain civil and assume good faith. I request that they stop trying to accusations of bad faith. Rather than just dismissing and autoreverting all my edits, try to work with me in creating a better article. If I ask for clarification on a source they should not assume that I am trying to waste their time.

I need help dealing with this situation. Perhaps a mentor can be suggested for me. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the fourth "serial" ID that this user has used (listed at the bottom of this sandpit which has draft evidence. Changing ID of itself may be OK, but its not OK to use said change of ID to repeatedly return to issues which were previously resolved with his earlier persona. Especially as the first manifestation (Comaze) was subject to Arbcom remedies. We can then add to that a series of SPA's editing in conjunction with the current persona and clear evidence of meat puppetry linked to two of the previous IDs (both in comments from banned users and in the repetition of attacks suggested by external web sites organised by one group of NLP enthusiasts). I and other editors (see the article talk page) consider that the disruption has gone on long enough and I have agreed to put the evidence together and submit it to the community here for consideration. It is a fairly time intensive task which I can't undertake given work commitments for a week or so. I think this report is probably an attempt to pre-empt that report or at least muddy the waters. Oh, and by the way, as far as I am aware I am the only editor who has been harassed off wiki so I am not sure what that is about. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A cursory study of the talk page will reveal that recently 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated unilateral editing against consensus, or while subjects are under discussion. The user has consistently attempted original research, (a recent example of many being an accusation of plagiarism by an author of a journal article here), some of his talk page "queries" have verged on hoaxing (see this thread for example), and he has repeatedly tried to shift talk page discussions into general discussion about NLP, contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM. He has been given numerous warnings about this kind of editing behaviour. There are also serious and legitimate questions about whether the user is an spa or mpa, which are still to be resolved. In any case, the user's editing has been disruptive, and of itself calls for administrative intervention. I would suggest a ban on editing pseudoscience-related pages, but given the fact that the user has admitted it is a single purpose account, a block would be more appropriate. ISTB351 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the user here admits to being 122.108.140.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user does not make this openly clear, and there is an overlap of editing without declaration on January 17th this year. This is a fairly clear case of sockpuppetry, even if an obvious one, and there is much to believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. ISTB351 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia frowns on SPAs & the person behind the mulitple IP accounts, has just declared him/herself an SPA. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a quick point of order, Wikipedia doesn't frown on SPAs (or shouldn't), as long as they edit according to policy. Wikipedia does frown on sock puppetry, however (no implication on my part that sock puppetry's involved in this case, as I haven't really reviewed it). — madman 02:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit by certified sockpuppeteer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
:::Hello administrators. First up, there is an ongoing problem concerning the background context of the NLP article. Now there are some interested and concerned parties who have already pointed out the extreme likelihood that Snowded, Lam Kin Keung and others are sockpuppets of the banned Headleydown[47]. Putting that aside for now, it has been a sad spectactle watching a bona fide editor be bullied and pushed around by especially Snowded and Lam Kin Keung. They refuse to reply properly to questions asked. They regularly delete messages on their talk pages rather than reply responsibly. They have driven away good editors on the NLP talk page. I for one, if I were an administrator, would feel extremely let down by myself if I didn't deal with this situation by at least cautioning Snowded and Lam Kin Keung to stop editing NLP related articles at least until the article has been fixed by myself and other bona fide editors. I do hate to point out poeple's failings, but your lack of care and attention to that article is becoming obvious. Snowded, Lam Kin Keung, ISTB351 and others are producing an article that disparages and defames the legitimate field of NLP. Please keep in mind the reputation of Wikipedia. Congru (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not think that ISTB351 is independent of Snowded so his comment should only be taken lightly. I edit NLP and related articles under a separate name is that the topic is highly controversial within my professional and social circle. Unfortunately my Wikipedia identity is traceable to my real name and I have already been the subject of harassment. I don't want to discuss or give any more details because it might give them more fuel for the fire but I am willing to talk to a trusted administrator privately. For this reason I wish to use an alternative account to avoid this harassment and embarrassment in other areas of my professional and personal life. Snowded repeatedly claims whenever I discuss an proposed edit that I "repeatedly return to issues which were previously resolved". I'd prefer that we foster a collaborative atmosphere rather then the war zone metaphor. He keeps calling my edits "editing warring". I am not repeating previous discussion that have been resolved because I am basing my edits on what is currently in the article. If it was resolved, why do the issues remain in the article? ISTB351 claims that i have: "consistently attempted original research". This is not fair because I have been using reliable sources to make my edits. It is a stretch to call what I am doing original research. ISTB351 and Snowded said that I should not use the word "sought" in my change proposed edit: here: "Using a delphi poll methodology, Norcross et al (2006; 2010) sought to establish expert-consensus concerning discredited psychological interventions, they found NLP for the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders was ranked between possibly or probably discredited, and certainly discredited for substance and alcohol abuse." ISTB351 believed that the word "sought" was a weasel term. I knew it was familiar. I looked at the Witkowski paper again and found that not only was that word "sought" used in the context of reporting the intention of the Norcross study but it was also used in the abstract of the original study Norcross 2006. In fact Witkowski had plagiarised the Norcross abstract. Earlier in discussion Snowded that there is no question that Witkowski is reliable and we should take what he says at face value. But I noted that the journal was not highly regarded anyway - it is not listed as a reputable journal. I ran the Witkowski paper through "turn it in" and found a large plagiarism count. I was just making a comment that I questioned the credibility of the journal and the author and that we should report on the original two studies by Norcross et al instead. ISTB351 (falsely) claims that I "shift talk page discussions into general discussion about NLP". I strive to stay on topic and rarely discuss anything in general about NLP. My discussion is almost always about specific edits or I am questioning the papers cited in the article. I did attempt to divert discussion to what other editors would accept as reliable sources but they refused to be party to those discussion. They said you they need to evaluate the source in the context of a specific edit. So I made effort to be very specific giving the exact text in question and a proposed change. I need to add that I completely agree with the arbitration findings and suggested rememdies on NLP back in 2005/6: [48] but think the remedies should be extended to current editors of the article such as Snowded, ISTB351, Congru and even me, or anyone else who joins in. I would not be surprised if several editors banned under the arbcom remedies have returned to the article (albeit better behaved which is a positive). I do not want to name anyone in particular because I think that this should be a blanket guideline for anyone editing NLP or related articles. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit by certified sockpuppeteer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
::::In addition, there is polite disagreement from editors such as myself and 122.x.x.x. This seems to be the norm here at Wikipedia, or indeed any legitimate field where concerned collaboration takes place. However, there is a suspicious amount of agreement going on between Snowded and other editors to the point that would make one question the nature of their association. They never disagree with each other. Just a tip! Congru (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we have a number of new users who only edit NLP and who all edit in the same disruptive way, making accusations of sockpuppetry against other established users who edit a broad range of topics, and whose only alleged connection is that they also edit NLP. This is about as good a case of WP:BOOMERANG as we are ever likely to see. ISTB351 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ISTB351, don't pretend that you are independent of this dispute. Wait for an independent administrator to comment. And don't be fooled by Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who might be a strawman sock: "Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side."WP:SOCK Congru I would not doubt your authenticity if you used reliable sources more consistently and used diffs to give weight to your views. 122.x.x.x (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So everyone is a sock apart from you. You are in breach of AGF to an extent that WP:Conspiracy comes into play. This is of course despite the fact that you have been running SPAs contrary to wikipedia policy. It's laughable. ISTB351 (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) I filed a request for a third opinion, and then a request for comment on one of the points (the declaration that NLP is a pseudo-science) in the article. This complaint I mostly agree with; there is a hostile attitude towards NLP expressed in the article that didn't used to be there, and on the talk page; edits intended to return the article to the more NPOV flavor it used to have (at the time it was a good article candidate) are reverted. htom (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a point about article content and is not suitable for the ani. The reason that the article says what it says is because that is what the sources say. The user above incidentally is another who mainly edits NLP-related issues. ISTB351 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputes about article content, raised in improper, hostile ways, are indeed appropriate for ANI. As far as my edits on NLP or the talk page, recently that's been too true, and for a sad reason. htom (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that in their final decision the ArbCom decide that "The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact." --122.x.x.x (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single violation of that Arbcom ruling in the current version of the article. Nowhere does it state as a fact that NLP is a pseudoscience. The article reflects the balance of the sources. You are simply wasting people's time here with spurious and tendentious points. ISTB351 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that "the article reflects the balance of the sources"? What is your evidence? As I said in the discussion we need to work together to compile a list of reliable sources that represent the different viewpoint according to weight. It is not an easy task because the literature is spread across different disciplines. We should not just focus on the view of naive empiricists or evidence based psychologists, this is just one view. Balance can only be achieved by compiling a list of reliable sources that represent the different viewpoints. At the moment there is hardly any description of what NLP is as described by its founders. There is a book titled Frogs into Princes by Bandler and Grinder published in 1979. It has 700 citations in Google scholar but there are just two short mentions of it in the current article: (1) "Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and produced popular books from seminar transcripts, such as Frogs into Princes, which sold more than 270,000 copies."... (2) "According to Stollznow (2010) “Bandler and Grinder’s infamous Frogs into Princes and other books boast that NLP is a cure-all that treats a broad range of physical and mental conditions and learning difficulties, including epilepsy, myopia and dyslexia.” That is far from a fair and balanced treatment of the subject according to the sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The context of the NLP situation has been mentioned before recently: [49]. There appears to be a commercial element at issue. For the past months a commercial site named Inspiritive.com that promotes a “New code” of the neuro-linguistic programming: [50][51][52] was linked to. Subsequently, more Inspiritive.com related commercial links were recently removed:[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]. Commercial links continue to be removed:[61][62][63]. Some editors on the neuro-linguistic talk page tend to edit towards the new code version of neuro-linguistic programming and be towards edit warring or against BRD:[64][65]. Discussion is encouraged even so: [66][67][68][69]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development: Following the lead from postings of user Congru and confirmed sockpuppet Syductive: There are the other further diffs [70][71][72] to commercial firm [73]. Firm appears to be an example company of comaze.com [74]. This all relates to the case: [75]. Comaze.com concerns with writing promotional NLP sites and the search engine optimization [76]. This needs more following up. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the example company NLPcorporate has now gone from Comaze.com website [77]. It was there a short time (minutes) ago. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Screenshot evidence of recent coverup on comaze.com: [78]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And, per my earlier link the editor who brought this case, in his previous IP address was linked to a Hong Kong member of New Balance NLP, who was then apologises to "Scott" for her inability to get things changed just before she is blocked. Nearly all the SPA accounts on this page, including those permanently blocked have made multiple accusations of sock puppetry against other editors as part of their Headly Down conspiracy theory. That is again detailed on external web sites which includes clear guidance as to how to disrupt wikipedia. 122.x.x.x in a previous manifestation is no exception to that. What we have here is extensive meat puppetry, with some socks all geared towards a commercial interest. It really needs investigating by an experienced admin. --Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a certified sockpuppet of Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit, asking an editor: "Hello, have you ever previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user[6]. Please explain." 122.108.140.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is the same user as 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who started this thread, made this edit asking a different editor: "Hi, have you previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user. Please explain". The similarities here are too obvious. Even if 122.x.x.x is not a sock of Congru, then there is clear evidence of meat puppetry here. Admin intervention is required. ISTB351 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch ISTB351. Following up on your lead: The edit summaries are similar here also: Sydactive: [79], User IP122... [80]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I have nothing to do with that exposing socks site that you mentioned. I will support your efforts in guarding against that sort of disruption. I would not collaborate with editors who pop up with that sort of agenda. I do need to stress that your implication that I been editing "towards a commercial interest" is false. Point out any edit that I have made which is promotional. You will not find any. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then its a pity you have been making the same accusations as advocated on that site. As far as I can see from the Brenda Lim posting to your user page and the links the the NLP sites in Australia that you are associated with this is meat puppetry at best. The pattern of behaviour over the last year or so is your persona that attempts to adopt a "reasonable" position supported by a series of SPA accounts that change over time. Some of those SPAs have made commercial posts and have been banned, others have attacked other editors. The pattern is pretty clear and I imagine some more analysis of text (per ISTB351 above) would spot more links. --Snowded ^TALK 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment that I take the "reasonable" position. But don't be fooled Snowded. I don't know who is doing it but I can absolutely guarantee that I have no known personal, academic or professional connection with any editors on the NLP or related pages. I had to assume good faith with these people but always demanded evidence and reliable sources from them and certainly did not accept their support. I have not asked anyone to edit with me or for me. Didn't you consider the possibility that the SPAs (Sydactive, Congru and probably Brenda Lim) you referred to were probably strawsocks? Someone was just copy and pasting my words an using it in edit comments then adding links to commercial sites to try to embarrass me. Assuming what I said is true, you (Snowded) must be at least a little embarrassed that you did not detect it earlier. I'm willing to assume good faith with you (Snowded) again but you cannot keep autoreverting my edits and keep accusing me of things I have no control over. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its an interesting conspiracy theory but I doubt it and I am more than happy to be embarrassed in the interests of assuming good faith, although I did start collecting evidence last June. Also you are not "auto reverted", you are reverted when you ignore decisions or discussions on the talk page.--Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Autoreverting" is an accusation used also by now banned user Congru: [81] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP on precisely one point: That there is an unpleasant editing environment at Neuro-linguistic programming. In reality, the unpleasant environment is caused by a stream of different accounts - whether SPAs or socks or whatever - which all turn up to patiently advocate NLP or try to remove or water down the mainstream position. Still, at least we've moved on from the "skeptic" conspiracy theory and SPI... The offsite coordination is hardly a surprise, but nobody's going to confess to being associated with that site even if they act in accordance with its bizarre claims. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines editing content in dispute at DR/N while himself in a content dispute there

Resolved

 – Not an issue except for tendentious report / WP:Boomerang. Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is not the right place, but I thought this was a bit odd and should be brought up here as I percieve this as innapropriate behavior. It seems User:Darkness Shines has taken it upon himself to add content back on one article[82] while it is currently in dispute instead of adding to the discussion to help form consensus. The behavior comes across a bit agressive, in that he himself is in the middle of a DR/N for content[83] and gives the perception that he is disrupting the process. I left a note on his talk page requesting a self revert and asked that he weigh in on the discussion as well as leaving a note at the mediators talk page (User:Steven Zhang).--Amadscientist (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

?? Am I in need of a good trout slapping?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't see any issue here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually do. I also don't think your behavior in this matter is helping or your assumption of bad faith from forgetting to notify the user. Do you often handle ANI in this manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else you want to lash out at while you're at it? If not, we're done here. Otherwise, keep typing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You should not be an admin here. That was uncivil and very off putting and I think you are stepping over a line to make such remarks. You done here sir...I am not. How exactly was this resolved? It wasn't....you blew me off. You didn't resolve it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm lost. You have a dispute about Occupy Wall Street at DRN that doesn't involve Darkness Shines. Meanwhile, Darkness has a dispute at DRN on a completely different topic. And you're complaining about Darkness's edit to the Occupy article because of the other dispute at DRN?? I see absolutely no relationship here, just a content dispute at Occupy Wall Street (how surprising).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

While you may have grounds to complain that Toddst1 was perhaps being a bit more flippant than was strictly required, his assessment seems accurate. To make you happy I will immediately deal with the first issue - Toddst1, consider yourself trout-slapped. Hopefully this fully resolves the matter. Manning (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think just plainly saying that to begin with and not treating editors in such uncivil manner would have been a lot better as I was prepared to strike the whole thing out. Thanks to the two civil comments I will not pursue this further.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the bad-faith lack of notifying DS coupled with canvassing all about a non-issue with someone you're in a content disupte with speaks for itself as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Perhaps you should stay away from DS for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Avoiding AN/I until you have a genuine incident wouldn't hurt either. Manning (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What canvassing are you speaking of? You don't mean the poke I was asked to make at DR/N on mediator pages? If so you prove to lack any sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This was the single most discouraging thing I have experianced on this site in 5 years. Thanks for showing me how things are handled here. While it may not have been an issue....all that was needed was simply to say that and not begin with a cryptic statement that gave no information at all.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist - You have a golden opportunity here to walk away and have everything forgotten. I am one of the most lenient admins around, but you are seriously starting to get me offside with these insults against another editor. Please consider dropping this and going away, before a less lenient admin becomes involved. Manning (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Post-hypnotic suggestion

I prodded this article on 1/22/2012 because it consisted of two lines, was covered in Hypnosis already, and apparently had no citeable material in four years of edits. Four hours after the prod expired on 1/29/2012, DGG, as an administrative action, declined to delete it (diff). His rationale says "If Encyclopedia Britannica has an article, so do we. Easily expandable or redirectable." The first part of the rationale is not defensible - we are not a carbon copy of EB, and just because EB had an article in it 100 years ago doesn't mean we need to have one now. That's very much OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The second part is partially defensible - it can be redirected, but if it was expandable, it would have been in four years. The problem is that much of the material doesn't meet RS, and therefore it's got more potential as a FRINGE fork than it does as an article. If DGG had a concern, it should have come up during the week prior, not be summarily adjudged by him after the time period for comment had elapsed. The prod ran its course and should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a PROD. That means that, even if the article had been deleted, any editor could have asked for its restoration at any time. If you want to pursue deletion, you'll have to go to AfD. CIreland (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the article was uncited except for one deadlink, per WP:BOLD I redirected it to Hypnosis#Post-hypnotic suggestion, which coincidentally is also an uncited one line section. If someone wants to dig up some WP:RELIABLE sources and expand, they can remove the redirect. Heiro 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

...Which was, almost certainly, the right thing to do. If EB has an article, that suggests that it's a topic that we ought to cover in some way, shape or form—or at least, that it's a term for which someone might reasonably expect to search, and for which – if we don't have an article – we ought to at least have a redirect to a relevant topic. Deletion was never the correct course here, and DGG's action was appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

On this day correction

Resolved

 – Promptly fixed by Floquenbeam.

I noticed this help request - User_talk:Jetstreamer#Correct_Main_page. I think it needs attention because it appears valid, and would require an admin to alter the relevant Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries item. Begoon ^talk 00:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Begoon ^talk 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:TheREALCableGuy readding fair use images to userspace

I reverted a userspace edit by TheREALCableGuy which added non-free images and he (or she) undid my edit. The editor claims they are under fair use, however they're violations of WP:NFCC#9 as they are being used out of article space. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been about 8 hours since the last revert; hopefully the note on his talk page & in the edit summaries should be enough to stop this. If he does start this again, please re-file a note here! Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He did the edit again. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He now filed a personal attack against me. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

He now has a 1-week block (not his first block either). DMacks (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You should also remove this edit summary. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done DMacks (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ethen12

Interesting user here, ethen12 (talk · contribs). I'm tempted to call a block for WP:COMPETENCE, based on this evidence:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kamehameha:the king who changed everything, a completely nonsense article about something that already exists
• User:Ethen12/How to install windows 7 and User:Ethen12/computers and what they are, sandboxes on either things that already have articles or should not have articles
• Not one, but two attempts to create a bot despite obvious lack of know-how, using one of the aforementioned sandboxes as "source code"
• Vandalism which was self-reverted
• Another bad-faith edit
• Asking another user to nominate him for admin

The user's been here for a month, but out of 141 edits, only three are to article space: two tangential edits to Kamehameha I, and a clever vandalism on Mother.

I'm betting that the user here is very young, as evidenced by their highly impulsive nature and the borderline MySpace-y feel they're going for by awarding themself barnstars and brownies. If you've been here for over 100 edits, and still haven't done anything of note in article space, you just may not be cut out for the big leagues yet. I say block, as the signal to noise ratio is just too much here. They seem not to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to socialize. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this probably won't count for much at all, but after I left him a message about his adding himself to the list of adopters, he immediately removed the "adopting" userbox from his page and asked another editor to adopt him. Yes, I may be reading too much into that, but it tells me that he might just be okay at taking directions, and actually learning the rules of this place. As to his rather large myspace-y edit count...well...who here didn't add userboxes for their first 50 edits? Ok, maybe/probably everyone except me. Regardless, we couldn't give him just a little longer of a chance? Just my $.02...will let others more suited decide on the block. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 03:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/kamehameha:the king who changed everything seems like a good faith attempt to help build an encyclopedia, though misguided. But obviously the pattern of editing is not exactly encouraging, and I'm on the fence here, on the one hand there is some competence issues, on the other hand these issues are not too serious (yet) and the edits are not malicious. I would personally be more comfortable with some form of mentorship by a more experienced user, but then I would also agree with the idea that the editor may not be cut out for the big leagues yet and that mentorship/adoption can't make up for an apparent lack of maturity... :| CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They also asked for their talk page to be moveprotected and somehow it passed. And asked for rollback. And and and. Seems all they want is to gather trinkets, which is not what we're here for. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I am pretty sure I'm the "other editor" mentioned by Nolelover above. I first encountered this user when they posted a {{helpme}} tag on their page asking about that Kamehameha article. I've continued to offer assistance whenever they've asked, and I possibly would have already accepted his request but I've been on the road much of the weekend. Anyway, I log back in and see this ANI issue pop up, and had no idea he had even attempted to deploy a bot; it seems to me it's an issue of seeing that other users have bots and he believes he can have one too, if I were to guess (but that's purely my first impression). The request for rollback and other such requests mentioned by Ten Pound Hammer seem to confirm this. I would not be opposed to adopting the user, and think there is something to work with there, and I certainly don't believe any malice is intended by his edits. But I do agree they're a bit on the young side and would need to have relatively strict limits in place regarding editing. I'll follow this thread and am open to discussion/suggestions regarding this. --McDoobAU93 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually no. He also asked WLU (who I stalk and who I think I now need to notify?). Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 04:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone can take up the mantle to adopt this user and put some restrictions on them, that'd help. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, my adoption program has been quite effective in teaching new users the ropes in the past. It won't teach someone how to be mature, but I suppose it can explain we are a serious encyclopedia, not a social website. I've a relatively light workload at present, but I want to see what others think first. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt he'll be sticking around for very long anyway, but he should probably be linked to WP:YOUNG. -- œ^™ 07:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Also.. I know it's proper and all.. but do we really need to inform him of this (discussion) on his talk page? -- œ^™ 07:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Either a very young editor or a more than usually subtle troll, only time will tell. I'm willing to give him/her some rope (and explain what s/he does right or wrong) but also bring in an admin if things get too ridiculous. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So what kind of action should we take? They haven't edited since this ANI post, but I'd ask you guys to help keep watch on him. If they do get back to editing, maybe they should be restricted in some way — stick to mainspace, don't edit their talk page unless responding to someone else, don't edit their userspace extensively, no {{helpme}} spam, that kind of thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please review my closure of an RS/N discussion (restored from archive)

RS/N discussions occur under a culture of limited discussions soliciting outside involvement. As a long term RS/N editor, I have taken to closing discussions early that do not fit within the RS/N culture or mission, or where IDHT behaviour is occurring. I recently closed such a discussion. The closure was reverted, and then another editor reverted back to my close. One user is unhappy with this closure. Please review my closure (as stated in the diff) in the context of this evidence for the closure:

Diff notes:

• Movement over previous discussion
• Competence failure to comply with RS/N requirements
• Suggestion that initiator feels free ("If editors here feel this discussion is of no use they don't have to comment.") to ignore RS/N culture 2
  • and related ("draw") battlefield
• tag teaming; (this) and (this) by an involved editor (this) and (this) by the same editors
• editors fail to restrict general discussion 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
• over contribution by an involved editor 2 3 4 5 6 7
  • and noted in dicussion 2 3
• Core points for the closure 2 3 (regarding the business model of the publisher) 4 (regarding currency of RS/N reliability, future reliability can be determined in the future) 5 (regarding publisher quality) 6 (MEDRS context) 7 (journal indexing)

I have notified WT:RS/N; and the user who expressed concern (and reverted my closure), and the user who reverted back to my closure on their talk pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why some editors are annoyed if the issue hasn't been resolved, but personally I think it was the correct call in the end. If the editors want impartial assistance then they need to respect the spirit of the board; there is no way I would read through that mountain of crap just to help them out. Betty Logan (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think it was correct to close this. The underlying aim appeared to be to find a hospitable page on which to argue out the editorial policies of a publisher: such discussions could not have answered the specific issue that was raised. Andrew Dalby 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments per RS Notice Board action

I assume Fifelfoo acted in good faith. However, his action in closing a NB discussion was ill considered and inappropriate:

General:

There is no standard on NB which allows for an editor to randomly close a discussion, warn other editors, to make judgements about sources under discussion, and/or to make comments and judgments about sources not under discussion, for example (Anderson and Taylor-see closing statements). [84]. The NB discussion was closed after less than a day and a half.

Specifically:

• Fifelfoo's close was based on the misassumption that, "I am closing this as the discussion is moving towards the exclusion of RS/N editors..." Granateple is not an involved editor.

• Graneteple and 7 uninvolved editors (LeadSongDog, Granateple, Yobol, RexxS, Andrew Dalby, David Eppstein, Short Brigade Harvester Boris), with occasional comments by 2 involved editors (Fladrif, Littleolive Oil) made pertinent comments per the specific question posed which was based in the reliability of the publisher, whether a vanity press, and open access publication. The discussion was appropriately online with the issues on the source.

• Tag teaming assumption is based I presume on the idea that Graneteple was an involved editor. He's not. And lining up two editor comments and assuming they are tag teaming is highly presumptuous and in this case dead wrong.

• I did not forum shop as Fifelfoo accused me of. LeadSongDog suggested moving a more general discussion here to the RS Notice Board here which I did.

My concern:

It was inappropriate to publicly criticize an uninvolved editor, Granateple, for commenting, and especially to issue reminders in the manner of an arbitration. This:

-discourages good-faith participation at a noticeboard

-discourages use of noticeboards

-discourages participation by an uninvolved editor such as Granateple

That said, I assume Filelfoo acted in good faith with the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. I believe closing of NB postings needs further discussion. I've opened a discussion here (olive (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

I think Filelfoo's problem was mostly the way in which the discussion was conducted. The purpose of the board is to get outside objective opinion, so when the discussion is taken over by the involved editors and made inaccessible to impartial editors it ceases to be productive. If the issue still needs to be resolved, you should restart the discussion but limit yourself to stipulating your opinion on the matter, and the opposing editor can do the same, and then let uninvolved editors judge for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: The discussion was in the hands almost exclusively if uninvolved editors. Fifelfoo assumed one of the uninvolved editors was involved which was not the case. He in good part based his close on that misassumption.(olive (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

• I rely on my impression of tag teaming between you and Granateple; Granateple's gross over contribution to discussion; and the "uninvolved" editors wandering straight back to the topic of the general discussion of the reliability of open access journals. (See diffs above). In particular your attempts to control the discussion (again, diffs above) indicated a stewed discussion excluding outside editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is absurd. You are accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy to skew a discussion. That's ridiculous. Attempt to exclude outside editors? They were all outside editors with two exceptions, Olive an Fladrif, Please feel free to accuse Short Brigade Harvester Boris and others of being part of some "stewed" discussion. And control the discussion? You're grasping at straws. My intent was to prevent an escalation of a few angry posts. I made very few posts. My real concern here is that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern.(olive (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Please do not misread my comments, in particular, I am not "accusing all of the uninvolved editors of some sort of conspiracy," I have accused your behaviour and the behaviour of another editor as constituting "tag teaming" and supplied diffs. I have suggested that the discussion wandered off into general discussion and supplied diffs. Your ownership and battleground behaviour excludes other editors—RS/N editors do not need to be invited by an involved party into a discussion on the noticeboard they frequent, and supplied diffs. As you may note from the extensive list of diffs, Short Brigade Harvester Boris' contributions were not contributive to the poorly constructed discussion. "that an editor who will skew events as you have here, is closing NB discussions and has taken an advisory rule in Wikipedia , and in doing so in this case is willing to blacken the reputations of all of the editors who commented on the NB rather than admit to a mistake. This is a serious concern." do you have any evidence for this, or would you like to make accusations without demonstration? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who needs to prove something. You have made assumptions and then found diffs to prove your case. I've never met or worked with Granateple. I came to a NB in good faith to deal with a troublesome source, to make sure that whatever was done with the source was compliant. The discussion was civil and helpful with many good comments. I question your closing of that discussion after a day and a half, and I'm telling you your comments about what went on are misguided. I am, as I said concerned because you made some massive misassumptions, closed a case based on those assumptions and warned an editor in the manner of an arb which can only serve to chill the NB environment. I have nothing more to say. (olive (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Awesome!

I think it's awesome that a civil single-purpose POV pusher can try to push a vanity published journal article into a wikipedia article where they have a massive conflict of interest, then, once totally uninvolved editors realize that the journal article is crap argue for pages and pages about how everyone is just behaving oh-so-terribly, and nothing is done to stop them! That's AWESOME! We should DEFINITELY have more of that! Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While my personal opinion of Hindawi is that it's not in the same rank as the really top-notch journals (and I'm annoyed at getting spam from them), casting Hindawi as a vanity press is going too far. The editorial board for their journal in my field includes a number of highly regarded researchers, some whom I know well personally. (If you want to check for yourself see [85] and do a Google Scholar search for e.g., Guy Brasseur or Klaus Dethloff.) They wouldn't be on the board if there were shenanigans going on; these are people with established reputations to uphold. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Stating that one journal is a vanity published does not mean the publisher is a vanity publisher. If you have any reason to believe that the "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" (ironically named almost identically to Nutrition and Metabolism, wonder why!) is a reliable source, that can be discussed at RSN. It might be - I don't really care or know. What I do know is that anyone who finds an article in "Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism" and thinks it's a good source for Wikipedia was either furtively directed their by someone who is an expert in the field as their meatpuppet, is an expert themselves, has a massive conflict of interest, or is googling for dollars. If olive is an expert, she'd know how to find the OTHER side of the arguemnt (you know, the one that the experts believe in). If she's googling for dollars, then she needs to be topic banned. If she's being directed by someone, perhaps the meatpuppetry needs to end. Of course, we know the answer is that she has a massive conflict of interest, but dare we say what it is? No, we'll be wikilawyered with OUTING OUTING OUTING all day. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What is amazing here, is that an editor can attack another editor on an admin Notice Board and no one says anything. That seems a conspicuously strange and ironic event. (olive (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Hipocrite - tone it down. I also strongly advise you strike some of your more accusatory comments above.
olive - If you've got a problem with how admins are reacting to a situation, there are FAR better ways to bring it to our attention.
Now this case requires a bit of examination before a newcomer can meaningfully weigh in, and I'm sure all parties would prefer a measured response rather than a kneejerk one. In the interim, both sides should focus on presenting the core elements of the dispute without descending into incivility. Manning (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil and I have been treated to Hipocrite's foul comments both here and on the RS NB talk page. My sense was to stay out of this after I did present the core element of my concerns, but this foul comment has been siting here for a good part of the day. Normally I would apologize for any kind of forceful language . Tt's not my style but in this case. No. I'm fed up with being bullied. Hipocrite has not been part of this discussion. His purpose seems to be simply to attack and bully. Thanks for your comment, I will take it to heart.(olive (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

Note: Olive has been topic banned by arbcom in the past for WP:TE and POV pushing on Transcendental Meditation and it was pointed out in the AE report that she has a conflict of interest, so there is merit to what Hipocrite is saying. N^oformation ^Talk 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no merit to bullying. NoFormation. One of the reasons poisoning the well is frowned on is that first , one has to be very careful to get the facts straight, and second one can be lacking in the understanding and nuances of some environments. Editors who edit in contentious areas can be set upon by all manner of those wishing they would disappear. What counts is that the arbitration committee has never sanctioned me for anything. (olive (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

User:Noformation - I'm not disputing (or endorsing) any of Hipocrite's claims, just asking that they be toned down a bit.
::olive - you WERE put under Arbcom sanctions by an Arbcom clerk, in accordance with the discretionary sanctions ruling handed down by Arbcom. (For the record I note that those sanctions have long since expired). These are considered equivalent to direct action by Arbcom, so you will achieve nothing by disputing that fact. Manning (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Manning I was referring specifically to the TM arbitration, where I was not sanctioned in any way, nor warned...and NW did not act as a arbitration clerk. Noformation has some of his information wrong and given what has gone on in this thread I'm reaching my limit on false accusations. I would request that you do not accuse me of being untruthful which is not the case.(olive (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

You were topic banned by arbcom, I didn't say that it was during the initial TM case so congrats, strawman successfully torn down. How can you state that NW wasn't acting as an arbclerk? What does this even mean? He's an arbclerk, he banned you, he logged your ban at the TM log of blocks and bans. You cannot separate NW's position as an arbiter from his actions in an administrative role and your attempts to do so come off as wikilawyering.

What does it matter when it happened anyway? The fact of the matter is that you were topic banned for bad editing practices and pushing your POV. Further, you were also sanctioned with a 1RR restriction as arbcom believed that you, Timidguy and Edith Sirius Lee tag team reverted edits in order to keep your POV in. You then tried to wikilawyer yourself out of the ban by claiming that you weren't properly notified about discretionary sanctions, and your appeal was denied. This was what, a year ago? And it seems as though you're still pushing your POV. The first three results searching for "User:Littleolive_oil prefix:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement" are the three AE incidents with which Olive was involved (though these do not contain the topic ban, which can be found here). N^oformation ^Talk 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am telling you what I said and what I meant. You can make out of that what you want to, but none of that is true to what I said or meant. Wikipedia is one dimensional. There is no way of explaining the multi dimensional environments which accompany what you think you see. I shouldn't have tried to given what has gone on here. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC))

I will continue a little bit because of the strange incident with the excommunication. I meditate very seldom.

I think this journal is tolerably reliable and okay, and that it suits the topic, which is limited and doesn’t belong to larger journals. Preliminary findings suggests that relaxation might cause a drop in blood pressure. Not very remarkable, and why should it not be mentioned on Wikipedia? We are not talking about the “Hypertension” article. On the 17th of February 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake because he dared to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Universe is infinite, with an unlimited number of stars.

But the sheeps need a shepherd. Every movement, when it becomes messianic, has its purists and priests, more catholic than the Pope. Take a look at the reputation of Hindawi, and the editorial board of the journal in question. What do we tell the researcher and professors on that board, many from reputed universities around the world? What do we tell Cindy Davis, now at the National Cancer Institute? What do we tell assistant professor M. Shauwkat Razzaque at Harvard? What do we tell Professor Dr. med. Hans Konrad Biesalski at Universität Hohenheim in Germany? This editorial board consist of more than 40 respected researchers, and they also have some self-respect. To say that Hindawi or their journals are unreliable, that is not in accordance with a scientific outlook, as I perceive it.

I hope you admin folks will read through the discussion (rather lengthy) on WP:RS, and judge fairly regarding this unexpected excommunication. Granateple (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This board is for discussing behavioral issues not content. Further, RS/N has already dealt with the source; it's time to drop this. N^oformation ^Talk 02:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine anyone? 67.119.12.141 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly --Guerillero | My Talk 21:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I have restored this thread from the archive. A user asked ANI to review his closure of an RS/N discussion, and the closure has not yet been reviewed. Granateple (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No objections from uninvolved editors and at least a couple supports is generally what you would expect from something like this. Consensus looks pretty clear that the closure was appropriate. N^oformation ^Talk 08:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Granateple is an uninvolved editor and he objects. I'd really like to get some facts straight here. I assume that on an Admin NB the desire is to have an admin make a judgement, however I'm not clear on that. For myself I don't care one way or the other. This was a simple NB discussion on a source that spun out of control and became nasty. I don't really need more of that. I do respect another editor's request, though.(olive (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Granateble is obviously involved, he was part of the RS/N discussion. One of the diffs mentioned by the OP belongs to him. How can you say he's not involved? N^oformation ^Talk 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Granateple was not an "involved" editor in the original discussion on the NB and he objected to the NB closure. He is asking here that that decision/closure be scrutinized. I assume now you mean by uninvolved that the editor was not a participant at all in the original RS/NB content before commenting here. That wasn't clear to me in your post. Any editor has a right to ask for clarification. I have to say NoInfo that your attitude towards me an editor you have never actually worked with is pretty darn aggressive.(olive (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

olive: It doesn’t matter how many times you say that you don’t know me. It will not help. And if I were involved, would it have mattered? Perhaps I am mad or a TM guru, or both, does it really matter?

We were discussing a review and the reliability of a source.

A RS/N closure is brought before ANI for review, by the user who did the closure. I expect this will be done. Granateple (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:69.124.114.170

Over the past two weeks, this editor has made some 200 edits. All but a handful have consisted of adding categories to articles, mainly food related. In nearly all cases, these have been inappropriate, often adding categories such as "Australian cuisine" or "Czech cuisine" to all foods eaten in these and other countries.^{[86][87][88][89][90]} These edits have been reverted by several editors, and the editor has received numerous warnings from many others regarding inappropriate categories. I have pointed out that "If a dish is listed as the national cuisine of every country where it is eaten, the category ceases to be useful"^[91], and others have added warnings for disruption. Deepite this, the editor continues, repeatedly performing the same edit.

The editor has also repeatedly added unsourced (and contradictory) ethnic origin categories to a BLP.^[92][93][94]

The editor has also made many similar edits to articles about the Chinese zodiac, and about fashion. I am not well-enough informed about these topics to assess whether these are helpful, but given the practice elsewhere, I doubt this.

Despite the regular reverts of their edits, and the many comments and warnings, the editor has not made any attempt to discuss these edits on the article talk page or their own talk page. Nor have they ever used an edit summary. It would seem that admin intervention is necessary in order to oblige this editor to act within the guidelines. RolandR (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I can watch, but as there has been no bad behaviour since the 'final warning' was issued, there's not much else to do at the moment. Manning (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego

Resolved

 – account indef'd for harassment. Manning (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I report here violations by User:Pacynka Sobkowskiego. "Pacynka Sobkowskiego" means "Sobkowski's sockpuppet" (in Polish). Actually, it is not my sockpuppet but presumably, a blocked user from Polsh Wiki (where I am an admin). Thus, "Pacynka Sobkowskiego" impersonates me and violates Wikipedia:Username policy, I guess. Moreover, tonight he or she has marked my user and user talk pages with the {{sockpuppetProven}} template, which I consider as a malicious vandalism. I ask for appropriate action. Michał Sobkowski (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Admin status on Polish WP confirmed (User rights}. The username does indeed translate to "puppet" as our Polish colleague says. Marking the user page as a sockpuppet seems pretty egregious to me. I'll send him on his way. Manning (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy action! Michał Sobkowski (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

IP editor evading block

This IP 86.184.209.127 user is currently blocked for one week for disruptive editing.Magog the Ogres block. Would someone please block his new IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

that is not me and I have not been blocked on the other hand you have been blocked and warned over edit warring and pov pushing as your block log clearly shows 86.184.209.127 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Same ISP, same country, same reverts as the blocked editor. WP:DUCK applies. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done blocked 1 week to match prior block. --Jayron32 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by IP-hopping anon

Over the last couple of days has there has been a lot of edit warring at Saint Thomas Christians by clearly related IP accounts. So far accounts have included 117.216.79.153 (talk · contribs)([95]); 117.196.129.126 (talk · contribs) ([96]); 117.196.149.0 (talk · contribs) ([97]; 117.196.132.91 (talk · contribs) ([98]); 117.196.137.218 (talk · contribs) ([99]); 117.217.131.29 (talk · contribs) ([100]); 117.196.137.104 (talk · contribs) ([101]); 117.216.74.69 (talk · contribs) ([102]). I warned one of the accounts about edit warring and removing sourced content here and here and tried to explain the situation on the talk page here, to no avail; they never make more than one revert from the same IP before switching.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Fully protected for two days -this needs to be sorted on the talk page instead of reverting back and forth. TNXMan 16:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

206.15.252.30

The IP editor 206.15.252.30 (talk · contribs) has been adding the {{GA nominee}} template to articles that cleary don't meet theWP:GA? criteria (Pink Friday: Roman Reloaded, Down in It or Invaders Must Die). I, and others, assmued good faith on this user, but after I see his edit at Talk:Arab Spring I noticed that his edits are the same edits that 71.142.222.218 (talk · contribs) [103] and There Is a Fifth Dimension (talk · contribs) [104], this last is blocked from editing as he is User:Guitarherochristopher, a banned editor. This IP needs to be stopped. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Post by banned (and now blocked) IP sock removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dattorro

This relates a long-standing legal-threaty sort of situation last year relating to User:Dattorro. I get this information second hand from another party. Troubled waters have been calmed in the very tense initial case although there is a new concern that the page <<Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dattorro>> is somehow visible to the Google search engine. The "spam and abuse" line is portrayed by the subject as defamatory. I have no opinion as to the merit of this claim, but the solution is very simple: hiding the page from Google. Would an administrator please take some sort of action that would make this page invisible to Google? Thank you. Carrite (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the full URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Dattorro Carrite (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistent WP:ERA violater

209.184.14.1 (talk · contribs) Persistent WP:ERA violations, has been warned here but continues to randomly change date styles against policy. Heiro 20:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek rollback

There was a significant amount of IP vandalism on Chiang Kai-shek earlier today (January 30). I need an admin to roll back the page to the last legitimate edit, by Shrigley.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)