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. 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

Block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action will be taken for this request. 28bytes (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm closing this ban proposal as "almost enacted." The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by User:Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor. The only reason I am not closing the ban proposal as "enacted" is due to the well-reasoned and good faith opposes of a number of editors which pushes this into a "not-quite consensus" zone. So there will be no sanctions for Delicious Carbuncle at this time. However: it should be made crystal clear that repeated behavior of this nature will result in significant sanctions, most likely an indefinite block and/or community ban. (For the record, this was already closed once, but as there were objections to the close due to the closer being neither uninvolved in the discussion nor an admin, I am re-closing it independently.) 28bytes (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Note I'm not re-opening this, because it should be closed. However, the closer's remarks are inaccurate and amount to a "supervote". There is a clearly simply no consensus for action, it is not "almost enacted" because, if anything, the majority are opposing it. I agree DC ought to be a lot more careful, and I suspect if he isn't there will be further calls for action. But absolutely nothing was decided here.--Scott Mac 10:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm more comfortable here too. "Almost enacted" feels like a little bit of a stretch. Begoon ^talk 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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)
      • I'm afraid it's just your word against his [9] that can be discussed on-wiki. Should you have "secret" evidence that is not allowed to be discussed on-wiki, please send it to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • There's a limit to what can be shared publicly, given the privacy concerns, as I'm sure you'll understand - but ArbCom are already aware of this and previous incidents. My purpose in bringing this here has been to give the community the opportunity to deal with it first. Given that it's a crystal clear example of an egregious, premeditated privacy violation, for which there's clear precedent for banning, it shouldn't be hard for us to agree on the solution. Prioryman (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Given that this is little different from the RfA itself, which was along the lines of "trust ArbCom, it has all the evidence and know best", I see little point in the community being asked to rubber stamp another decision made behind closed doors. ArbCom should just ban DC and get this over with. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment There is a sense in which what DC has been up to here is simply doing some "due diligence" on the community's behalf regarding a somewhat powerful representative of the community (since he speaks to parliamentary committees and all). Due diligence is never much prettier than sausage making, but you wouldn't want to buy a house without checking the crawlspaces for asbestos or raccoon poo. DC's approach certainly seems to have a aggressive element to it, but since Fae (& co.) do seem to be rather disposed towards hiding anything that remotely qualifies a dirty laundry, a non-aggressive approach probably would never work. While the good folks in the "hasten the day" party at WR might give me some grief for saying so, I do think it's probably better for WP in the long run if this sort of thing is done "in house", and if you're going to do it in house, you need people like DC who (for whatever reason) seem predisposed to do so. That's particularly true in this case because it's fairly well known that there will be an exposé in the (very much mainstream) press about Fae fairly soon. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Fluffernutter. If Delicious Carbuncle had followed up their mistake in posting Fae's home phone number on Wikipedia Review by quietly dropping the case then I'd have been inclined to accept it as yet another reason why Wikipedia Review is to be avoided. But running an RFC on a gay editor whilst simultaneously campaigning against them on a site that allows Homophobia, and doing so after you've posted their phone number seems to me in breach of our policies on Outing and Canvassing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Peter cohen. Well said, Peter. As an observation, in this discussion editors are using the word "homophobia" to draw fire away from Fae and back at Delicious Carbuncle. Homophobia is not the motivation behind Fae's user RFC. ThemFromSpace 04:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing a lot of attempts here to distract attention away from the main issue here. Forget about the RFC. There are three key facts here, none of which are under dispute: the privacy violation happened, it was not accidental and it was done in the full knowledge that Fae was under off-wiki threat at the time. Wikipedia's harassment policy does not recognise any justifications for privacy violations. For those tempted to excuse what DC has done, ask yourself this: if you were being harassed by someone off-wiki, would you be happy if someone posted your name, home address and phone number to a forum whose participants have a history of harassing people? Prioryman (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: DC was acting in response to Fae covering up his previous account at Ash. The Ash account having come under scrutiny for bad conduct. DC should be reprimanded for his methods, but ban/block is a drastic overreaction. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ban on balance, block is superfluous now. This is a tough one, especially given Fluffermutter's persuasive rationale. That the two accounts are linked seems proven beyond reasonable doubt using strictly on-wiki and chapter links, by information that an editor chose to voluntarily disclose in public fora. That the editor left under a cloud (open RFC/U) is apparent, and RTV covers those eventualities. Now it seems that a vanished editor has returned and obtained adminship, and has now returned to the problematic areas which formed the original cloud - thus, the vanishment is now moot, and the premise for granting adminship is legitimately called into question. I also accept that at the time of disclosure, personally identifying information was available from a simple WHOIS report. That is all public information, but there are two possibly aggravatig factors left. The first is the tenor of the site where the data was made available and the tendency of that site to enable homophobia - and whether DC intended to promote a hostile attitude based on homphobia, as opposed to just disliking an editor. I think that WR is vastly improved from a few years ago, but I'm still not a fan and like any forum, no individual contributor there is representative of all the others. I've seen no indication that DC has pursued this case as part of a general homophobic attitude. Much more important is the issue of disclosure of private information, namely the domain name used in an email address, which led to publicly available personal information. If this address was obtained through deceptive means, that is a huge problem. If it was obtained through use of the MediaWiki Special:EmailUser interface, well, I believe all the disclaimers are in place. I would personally hold in strict confidence the content of any email I personally receive through the interface, but I do accept that anytime I send an email, those contents are beyond my control. If anything, we should change the interface for entering your email address to ask you "are you that fucking stupid?" when people decide to use an identifying email address. For me, this is not much different than registering with one's real name. I frown on thia, and can't readily envision a situation where I would publicly disclose informationm I received privately myself - but it was information entered on a website which does clearly state that your email address will be revealed, wasn't it? Franamax (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding visibility of the email address, I just did a Google search for Ashley Van Haeften and the email address appeared in the snippet view of the 7th result. So, that's fairly public. I guess Whois was a more reliable source than that genealogy site for connecting the domain name with Ashley. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've missed a key point that I emphasised in my original post. At the time that he posted Fae's home address and phone number, DC was fully aware, and had acknowledged only 20 minutes earlier, that Fae was being threatened off-wiki. DC's posting delivered Fae's physical location up to the harasser. That's what makes this incident so egregious - the absolute disregard DC showed for Fae's physical safety. This was not just an intrusion - he put someone in physical danger for the sake of some petty wikipolitics. Could you address that issue, please? Prioryman (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the saying about "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity"? I agree it was a serious error. However I can understand the thought process that if the information is available with a single click anyway, it makes no difference ro reproduce it (which betrays a flawed understanding of how web crawling and archiving works). Myself, I would contact the other person privately and ask if they were sure they wanted that information public, but I don't have a WR account either. Franamax (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

How can it be an "error" if he had to go out and search for this information in the first place? It wasn't disclosed to him. I'm frankly irritated by the way some people seem to be describing this as an "error" or "mistake". It was nothing of the sort. It was a premeditated act. He went out looking for this information, found it and posted it. That was entirely intentional. He's described it as an "oversight" but that's merely a justification for an unjustifiable act. Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: even if the intentions are good, even if the information is available off-wiki, these are no excuses for outing; the policy is pretty explicit on this. There is no recourse for someone who chooses to publish such information, especially if they are cognizant of the fact it may facilitate homophobic/transphobic harassment. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

However the "outing" (i.e. revealing the real name) was done by the person themself, on the website of an offical WMF chapter, so to say the information is off-wiki is not necessarily true. It's a grey area at best. That's distinct from revealing the address information, which I address just above. Franamax (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of ban/block. There is no direct evidence of harrassment, as confused with trying to show that a person is socking as 2 different WP usernames (Ash/Fae) and perhaps lying that those usernames are not the same person. I did not see enough evidence of harrassment for "homophobic" whatever, and the link to a comment of "You're gonna burn in this world and the next" (on his talk-page: oldid=473666355) does not mean "homophobic" because fires of Hell could be for extreme cases of lying or "bearing false witness". More evidence would be needed to prove malicious intent. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:32, 31 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)

• Support one-month block and interaction ban on DCarbuncle vis a vis Fae pending RfC St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:23, 31 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is against an interaction ban at this time. 28bytes (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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)

• Support - Speaking from personal experience, I can tell you that interaction bans do work - provided they are fully embraced and honored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hopefully this won't be necessary after the conclusion of the RfC/U, and instituting the interaction ban before is detrimental to normal WP:DR processes. I for one would like to see first what ArbCom decides in a similar case where a Wikipedia editor has decided to investigate the identity of another. In the honored ArbCom tradition, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Proposed decision keeps getting postponed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• In the TimidGuy case, which involves me, there was no investigation and no outing information was posted publicly.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• • That's a good point (about the DR process) but I can't see these editors kissing and making up. ArbCom is not supposed to set precedent, although it seems nobody uses them for anything else much. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC).
    
    • Given that they sometimes pass principles which are not obviously found anywhere in Wikipedia policies, this is certainly one of their powers in practice. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I do not like the very concept of the wikipedia "interaction ban", and will always oppose these things when the call comes. Tarc (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just the end of the proposal line - indef - no support - three months then - no support - a week then - no support - what about an interaction ban then.. I support interaction bans only if the users clearly need to be kept apart, which doesn't seem the case here, or if one of the users or both are requesting it themselves as a last resort , which also doesn't seem the case here. - Youreallycan 22:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until the RFC is over. This feels like "silence the critic" more than "lets protect the project and its editors" --Guerillero | My Talk 05:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support: High time, too Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Conditionally support interaction ban as proposed, pending outcome of RfC. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal information about User:Fæ

Could people please refrain from publishing methods or results of their exploratory searches to find personal information about me? If you try hard enough you can find my Mother's home address, her email, her phone number and her photograph. Proving you or others are smart enough to find details about my personal life is not the point being made here, the question is how such information is used. Extended internet searching and minor detective work can find a wealth of personal and professional information about me, as demonstrated by an old copy of my CV being used for public ridicule in yet another Wikipedia Review discussion that Delicious carbuncle has created about me. This does not make it right to deliberately re-publish these details immediately after seeing a threat against me in a forum that you know that the person making the threat (based on timing and choice of name) must be following. Even worse is to then republish the full details of the threats as part of the same ridicule.

You all know that me and my husband are being harassed with homophobic attacks, evidence from our own Wikimedia projects of this happening has been put forward of this by others. In my opinion anyone using ANI to provide an effective cook book of "how to intimidate User:Fæ" is crossing the line.

Please be aware of the fact that repeated Google searches, and then viewing the related websites, increase the ranking of this personal information, so statements about what appears where on the first page of a Google search become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Thank you. --Fæ (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to un-archive

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Unarchived and re-closed; see comments above. 28bytes (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

---

• Request to un-archive The summary misrepresents my request for avoiding the creation of an effective cook book of intimidation. There is no need to repeat the content of threats or repeat outing information on ANI in order to have such a discussion. Fæ (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Any misrepresentation was unintentional; I have changed my summary to a direct quote. Nobody Ent 13:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Request to un-archive The discussion can be held without requiring repeated evidence of how "easy" the personal information is to get hold of. This was never the issue as precisely made clear in my request above "Personal information about User:Fæ". To close down community discussion based on that same request is excessive. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Fæ, I have urged you to follow dispute resolution processes if you feel that I am harassing you, a narrative you started as User:Ash. Although it is specifically prohibited in WP:NPA, you appear to have no qualms about making unsubstantiated allegations. Please file an RFC/U so that I may defend myself. It is clear that many in the community would support you, even if there is no appetite for a ban at the moment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I do not believe I have made any unsubstantiated allegations against you since my clean start 21 months ago. In particular I have never claimed you are homophobic. Please provide a few diffs if I am mistaken. Anyone who reviews my contributions can confirm that I have actually taken care to avoid interaction with you. Being forced to reply here is a rare exception. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You must have a very selective memory then, Fæ. Have you forgotten this:"How strange to see Delicious carbuncle and Bali ultimate turn up so promptly here and turning this thread to be all about me and about Commons; particularly considering both these accounts have a history of blocks on Commons for harassing me there"? You made that comment here on ANI last week in a discussion started by Baseball Bugs because of comments that you made about someone with whom you had a dispute on Commons. Speaking of Commons, do you recall this thread that you started on the administrator's board to attack me there? Or the comments you made in your failed Commons RfA? Your inability to represent the situation accurately continues unabated, it seems. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I was referring to Wikipedia. You were blocked on Commons for your harassment there, so that hardly seems to be "unsubstantiated", I think most readers would consider receiving a block for intimidation and harassment being "substantiated". Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, you do appear to want to compartmentalize your actions while making every effort to conflate my actions wherever they may occur. I was not blocked on Commons for "intimidation and harassment", I was blocked for connecting your prior account -- User:Ash -- with your current account during a discussion about unwarranted revdeletions made to contributions by User:Bali ultimate. I was unblocked very quickly by the blocking admin. As has already been pointed out by others, you self-identified on Commons using both your old and new accounts, so the entire episode is puzzling, to say the least. When I say "unsubstantiated allegations", it is precisely the type of misleading and demonstrably false statement you have just made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Given the way commons is run, getting blocked there is almost a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Sorry, then I misunderstood the reason for your block on Commons. As a personal request, could you please explain what you would find an acceptable outcome here to cease creating any more threads about me off-wiki where people are posting my professional details and that of my civil parter while making allegations that appear to be of adultery, paedophilia, fraud and repeating the details of threats against me made elsewhere? I am sure you have no deliberate intention of harassing me, but these seem to be the facts of what is happening based on my reading of the material. My question is genuine as I am frightened and could do with your help to make this end. --Fæ (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
              • The reason I was blocked is that I raised issues that they didn't want to address. As for you and DC, you need to leave each other alone. At present I'm not very impressed by either of you. He should probably be suspended for outing. Also, you need to resign your adminships, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                • My question was for Delicious carbuncle, sorry if the indenting was confusing. --Fæ (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Understood. And my (revised) comment above still stands. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • Baseball Bugs, please do not do your usual ANI routine here, in recognition of the seriousness of the matters being discussed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                      • Posting one's own personal information on the internet is foolish. Posting someone else's is evil. And admins who hide their past to gain adminship shouldn't be admins. Any further questions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                        • Two questions, actually. First question - is re-posting someone's information that has already foolishly been posted on the internet by that person foolish, evil, or something else? Second question - do you have any self-control whatsoever? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                          • Yes, it is evil. The good thing would be to gently caution someone against posting their personal info. Spreading it around is evil. And, yes, I have a great deal of self-control. How's about you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Fæ, I hope you will understand why, after countless accusations of harassment from both Ash and your current account, I doubt the sincerity of your statement "I am sure you have no deliberate intention of harassing me". If you or your partner are being harassed in real life in any way, I suggest you contact the police with the details. If it needs to be said, I do not condone this. As far as Wikipedia Review goes, I do not speak for them in any way, shape, or form and have no control over what happens there, any more than I have over what happens here. If you find specific threads or posts to be threatening, I suggest you contact one of the WR moderators, who have the power to delete threads or remove them from public view. I do not believe that there are any serious allegations of adultery, fraud, or paedophilia to be found there. I would ask you to post links to the specific charges, but I know you will not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Reply on the RFC/U talk page. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fae interaction DC [10] and, as documented Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ, Fae did not make a clean start. Nobody Ent 15:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• I also object in the strongest possible terms to this closure. The closer has completely misrepresented the case against DC. Where DC got the information from is a side issue. The central issue is that he posted Fae's personal information to advance a political dispute, putting Fae's physical safety at risk. That is blatant, egregious harassment for which there is no possible justification. Plenty of editors have understood this and have said so here. How is it possible for anyone to ignore the fact that this sort of thing is completely prohibited? The community should be allowed to have its say. Prioryman (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Any misrepresentation was unintentional; I have again changed my summary to a direct quote. Nobody Ent 16:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Having considered this further, I've unarchived the discussion. You are not an administrator and your closure has no force as an administrative action. As a participant in the discussion, who has expressed a point of view in the discussion, it is inappropriate for you or any other involved party to close the discussion. I've restored the status quo ante to allow the discussion to continue until such time as an uninvolved party decides to resolve it one way or another. Your closure was made on the basis of two fundamentally wrong claims. First, it is not a "claim" that DC posted Fae's home name and phone number - it is undisputed fact, admitted by DC. Second, you said that "any reasonable defense against such a claim involves demonstrations of relative ease of finding said information off-wiki". Wikipedia:Harassment allows for no justification whatsoever for such acts: "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy." Nor does it allow a defence of "the information was out there anyway": "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research"." Those qualifiers are there for a reason - posting personal information is not allowed, period. If a serious privacy invasion has happened then, by policy, no justification or defence is possible (that is what "unjustifiable" means) - the only thing to discuss is what sanction should be brought. In short, you have completely misstated long-standing policy as the basis of your non-administrative decision, and it therefore has no force nor basis in policy. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the archival was premature; not all the proposals had been thoroughly considered Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, per WP:CBAN, community ban discussions should be closed by an "uninvolved administrator". Nobody Ent shouldn't have closed it no matter what the outcome of the discussion might have been. -- Atama頭 22:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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). [11] The same thing happened with Talk:China too. [12] He is now requesting for semi-protection to seal his fraud. [13] [14] 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)

This item was marked "resolved" 12 hours ago. In what way has it been resolved? It's obvious all participants still feel the way they did before the discussion started, and no actions or directives have been put in place to change anything. Editors' behaviour can only be expected to continue exactly as before. Exactly what has been resolved? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Query to closing admin. How was this resolved, and what was the rationale for the action or non-action taken? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP is now rangeblocked by Elockid, who is a checkuser. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle's unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was a difficult discussion to close, not the least of which was the fact that the numbers supporting/opposing an unblock are divided (at my best count 32 supporting an unblock/24 opposing it). While such numbers indicate that a majority of editors support an unblock, it does not represent the level of support normally associated with a clear consensus (57%), so it required me to look deeper at a few things. First, I needed to look closely at the arguments themselves (as one should always do). Those supporting an unblock note the time passed since the block (5.5 years), the fact that the recent socking didn't obscure her identity, and the sentiment (if not the direct citation of) WP:ROPE, and the lack of a prior formal ban discussion. Those opposing an unblock note the recent socking and her prior block log as evidence of the need to remain blocked. Both sides make good arguments, but two factors helped me decide this case. First, someone has volunteered to be her mentor, a definite requirement for someone to return to the fold in this nature. Secondly, while some people early on switch votes from support to oppose, most of the recent changes have gone from oppose to support. That is, of people who have changed their votes, and changed them recently, the changes seem to be tending to go more towards supporting an unblock. In other words, there seems to be a trend among people who are following these proceedings closely to be changing their opinions towards having this user unblocked. Based on this reasoning, I am unblocking this account under the following conditions: 1) User:Mistress Selina Kyle is restricted to a single account. 2) User:Mistress Selina Kyle is reminded of WP:ROPE and is on a short leash. 3) Per agreement below, in a comment dated 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC), User:Volunteer Marek is assigned as a formal mentor to User:Mistress Selina Kyle 4) Persuant to the conditions above, if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock shall be swift and unforgiving. This is a last chance, not a free lisence to return to old problems. I will be monitoring the situation, and if I become aware of problems, I will reinstate the block. --Jayron32 04:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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 [15]) (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)

I think that some of her contributions such as [16] are up to current standards. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:30, 30 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 [17]. 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)

From that username? Not at all. It's his personal username. WMF pronouncements are clearly made by clearly designated usernames, in almost every case, and are disclosed as official position, somehow. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:30, 31 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)

  So let me get this straight -- you're arguing that her gigantic block log is not the result of her stupendously bad behavior (for which many diffs could be provided, I'm sure), but a conspiracy on the part of the 28(!) admins who blocked her? (Yes, I counted) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me yours. Raul654 (talk) 23:08, 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 [18] 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 Switched to Oppose 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)

  Oppose - evidence of recent socking erased any good faith I may have had. Manning (talk) 00:45, 31 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 [19] 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)
• '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)

• Well said. Raul654 (talk) 23:01, 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)

Can you provide more details (per wiki or email, insofar not confidential?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:56, 31 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 [20] 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)
• Weak Oppose (struck, see below) for now, subject to change (see later in this comment). 5 years is a long time and everyone that can demonstrate remorse and reform deserves another chance, however the argumentativeness and 'the rules say I can' lawyering on the user's talk page don't inspire much faith that the user is either remorseful of their own actions, or has committed to conducting themselves better as an editor. It should go without saying that when you want to be unblocked, you don't come in guns-blazing, making implications about maturity and shifting blame onto others. Selina would need to back down from the defiant attitude, address her own contributions to her ban without trying to dilute it with 'but everyone else was bad too' comments, and commit to investing time in familiarising herself with the way Wikipedia is now, in order to change my vote. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Support based on usertalk discussion with Selina. She seems (at surface level, at least) to be interested in leaving the past behind and the banhammer is set at hair-trigger if she screws up. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've recieved an e-mail from this user, it goes as follows:

Hey could you please take a look at my talk page where I included all the details and links to why I think my ban was unfair and maybe comment on WP:ANI#Mistress_Selina_Kyle.27s_unblock_request if you support ? I can't talk there as I am banned thank you for any help - I am also the owner of Wikipedia Review which is the main reason I was banned as it allows free speech on Wikipedia issues and is sometimes controversial and they held me responsible for not more heavily censoring it, if you look at my talk page it's all on there thank you for any help

So here I am. Don't know enough to lean either way, but this is an FYI. ResMar 00:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Current sockpuppetry [21]. Nobody Ent 01:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh for fuck sake, coming back under an almost identical user name with no attempt to evade detection is not socking. Reyk _YO! 01:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • "to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction" Nobody Ent 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• support per Tech Symbiosis Nobody Ent 02:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support. Don't let me down. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've been around long enough to witness this user's shenanigans, and their recent behavior is not giving me a lot of confidence that they can be trusted. MSK is either (a) a troll, or (b) simply lacks the willingness and/or ability to work with others and follow our policies. szyslak (t) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to weak support per TechnoSymbiosis and his discussion with MSK on her talk page. While I don't think she was showing the most pleasant interaction style I've seen on WP, I do see (hopefully) genuine willingness to give this the old college try. However, as others have mentioned, if she hasn't changed and repeats the behavior that got her banned in the first place, she should be immediately rebanned. szyslak (t) 18:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Scanning the user's talk page shows a style that is too combative to give confidence that an unblock would assist the community. Humility is not a requirement of an unblock, but we have enough of the opposite. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The original block reason seems to be unclear and occurred in the days when administrators acted with less transparency than they do now. Also, it has been 5 1/2 years. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for three reasons: The large block log, particularly on the her behaviour; the shouty responses on her own talk page (although there was only some of it, the all caps and the bold text that I've seen are unnecessary) and the fact that she still hasn't stated which articles in particular she wants to edit. Minima© (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support What harm can she do in the time it takes someone to reach for the block button?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support It has been over 5 years. Let her in and assume that she learned something --Guerillero | My Talk 17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to see at least 3 months of harmonious editing either at Commons or another WM project. I don't think it's too much to ask that the user actually demonstrate that they are serious. If the user does this, then I'm happy to change to support and I imagine many others will as well. N^oformation ^Talk 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblocking – Although some might have a distaste for a "revolving door" justice system, we shouldn't enact an "no exit [from prison]" justice system. It has been over five years. Some have pointed out that Selina is a part of the Wikipedia review. Although Selina plays an essential role as the WR's sysop and its main owner, Selina hasn't been recently involved in the WR until this month. See Talk:Wikipedia_Review#An_explanation_from_WR and this WR thread. Due to Selina's inactivity, the users assumed the worse. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • we shouldn't enact an "no exit [from prison]" justice system - to rebut one unsupported assertion with another one, yes, we should. If someone causes enough trouble to earn himself an indef - which is not a particularly easy thing to do - that's damn good evidence that he should not be allowed to edit, ever. Raul654 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm a little surprised to hear you say that, Raul. Indef is short for 'indefinite', not 'infinite'. Most indef blocks I've seen come with clearly stated criteria the subject can meet to be unblocked. I think 'go away and never ever come back' much rarer than you imply. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Wehwalt, AGF, and an expectation of paying domain registrations on time. Alarbus (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't think of a single reason for someone with that block log to be unblocked, especially after returning through socking.—Kww(talk) 03:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the socking incident is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the long log; SV usually got things right...Modernist (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Random break for convenience

• Support. Going for 5½ years with no socking, then returning with a seeming attempt at good faith editing and a request for unblock, is enough for me to say that we can give this editor a second chance. I don't see edits here that would be considered disruptive if they came from a user in good standing. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attempted outing on Talk:Evolutionary psychology

I have this page on my watchlist. Memills (talk · contribs) has made these consecutive edits [22][23] 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.[24] 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)

Atama, the comment has been restored for a long time and the previous version is in a quote box, so your advice is a little late. If somebody has the username DMSchneider, why would anybody ask them if they were, for example, Monique Elouise Moulins? That would appear to be attempted outing. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the previous version is in a quote box, which is not only okay, it's what I suggested that you should have originally done. I just wanted to remind you not to fiddle with others' comments, but I also wanted to respond to Memills's objection to the quote box; "although you still have the portion that I deleted included above in the box". I don't see a problem with the quote box as it is now.

If someone named Monique Elouise Moulins was showing particularly similar edits to another account, then I don't see how it's harassment to ask them if they're the same editor. Basically, if you want to edit Wikipedia under your own username, you're taking a risk. If you later decide to edit under a different account and in a similar manner than before, you're practically telling people who you are. We explicitly warn people about such things in our policies. We can't just turn a blind eye, otherwise a person could make themselves effectively immune to sockpuppetry charges by claiming a username that is the same as their real life name. We try to respect editors' privacy, but editors must take efforts to maintain that privacy. -- Atama頭 18:07, 31 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."[25]

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[26] 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"[27]
• "you have been told this before"[28]
• "Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour."[29]
• "you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references."[30].

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[31]. 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)<ref name="Norcross et al 2006">Norcross et. al. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, American Psychological Association. {{doi|10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515}}</ref><ref name="Norcross_et_al._2010_Pages_176-177">Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions, ''Journal of Addiction Medicine'', Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180.</ref> 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: [32] 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: [33]. 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: [34][35][36] was linked to. Subsequently, more Inspiritive.com related commercial links were recently removed:[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Commercial links continue to be removed:[45][46][47]. 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:[48][49]. Discussion is encouraged even so: [50][51][52][53]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of those commercial links except for maybe the 1996 interview of John Grinder [54] that was linked on the John Grinder article. That interview is also linked from the Skeptic's dictionary article about NLP and from memory is also used as a reference in several academic publications. It probably meets wikipedia guidelines for external links. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development: Following the lead from postings of user Congru and confirmed sockpuppet Syductive: There are the other further diffs [55][56][57] to commercial firm [58]. Firm appears to be an example company of comaze.com [59]. This all relates to the case: [60]. Comaze.com concerns with writing promotional NLP sites and the search engine optimization [61]. 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 [62]. 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: [63]. 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: [64], User IP122... [65]. 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: [66] 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)

Bobrayner, At no time have I tried to "advocate NLP", patiently or not. Show me the diffs where I have advocated for NLP. Also, can you give diffs where I have sought to "remove or water down the mainstream position" because the has never been my intention. I did try to clarify the Norcross pollshere. "Using a delphi poll methodology, Norcross et al (2006; 2010)"... My edit actually strengthens the "mainstream" or EBP position because it lets the evidence speak for itself. In this edit I added a reference to a high impact journal to support the "mainstream view". Also in relation to the use of NLP in management training, I made this edit followed by this edit to strike balance. It is difficult to know with precision how widely NLP is used so we had to base it on the estimations by independent sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your evasive use of multiple identities makes it the difficult task, but evidence can be found that is contradicting your claim: Persistent removal of reliable critical material [67]. Doing same using misleading edit summaries [68]. Doing same using accusatory edit summary [69](creating unpleasant editing environment). Removing reliable source critical of NLP [70][71]. Personal attack [72] (no WP:SPI made). Misleading edit summaries to remove mainstream critical view [73] misleading edit summaries similar to banned user [74]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading and editing the Wikipedia article about NLP for a few months now and fully agree with 122 that there has been an unfair amount of pressure put on him by Editors, many of whom sadly are disparaging him right here on this page yet again.

122 has shown a deep understanding of the subject and a balanced approach to editing. For example, he made a perfectly valid point about the Norcross reference, which reflected study and thought. That point was met with auto-reverting and attacks rather than with recognition of his ideas and cooperation towards a balanced reflection of that source on Wikipedia.

You can find the nasty responses on this page.... you don't even have to look at the article talk page: LKK says "evasive," Bobrayner says "unpleasant" due to "pro-NLP" people, Snowded has been accumulating references that he can use to attack "SPAs" and linked it here. Etc. etc. It's obviously not a nice atmosphere, just as 122 says.

Instead the Editors who are responding that way here should address the source not being reflected fairly on wikipedia, and then work towards a balanced reflection of the source. They are focused on the wrong thing. I do not believe this will be solved without intervention of some kind in support of knowledgeable people such as 122 simply trying to express well referenced ideas in a balanced manner.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh)Encylotadd is the latest SPA to edit the article (it might be worth pulling them all up with edit dates, as they all link with periods of active editing by 122). Encylotadd is currently on a final warning for personal attacks relating to the NLP page. And guess what, the accusations he made all came directly from the external web sites referenced above. He has stopped the attacks since that final warning, but it is ironic given his comments on atmosphere above. --Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of meat puppetry

This site relates specifically to new code NLP and Wikipedia. A check on edits shows that the author is Scott C. Same venue as this attack site. I have screen shots of the pages in case they are taken down. The sequence of serial editors culminating in 122.x.x.x together with the links to Scott C is:

1. User:Comaze, subject to Arbcom injunction account redirected to Action Potential
2. User:Action potential (user page linked to Scott Coleman of comaze.com) edits from 23rd August 2005 to 24th July 2010 (and we have six months of peace thereafter)
3. User:122.108.140.210 comes in after a period of silence, but is linked to other SPAs via web sites for New Code NLP. Here we have confirmation from Brenda Lo that IP is Scott and that she has been canvassed before she was blocked. Contributes from 12th January 2011 to 29th January 2012
4. User:122.x.x.x link shown by this edit shows the IP is 122.108.140.210 edits from 26th January 2012

Now I assume meat puppetry is reported here not SPI? Also this may be an enforcement issue given that Comaze is subject to an (admittedly old) arbcom ruling here --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Especially significant is line on the site [75] that states "The Oxford English Dictionary definition is by far the closest to the new code definition, and it is a lot more appealing than others". The last entry on the footer link of that page (recent site activity) is December 11 2011. User 211... continued to edit war for Oxford English Dictionary information in January 2012 [76] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x. also advocates the OED (Oxford English Definition) here on 17 January 2012. [77]. Also advocated by user Encyclotadd [78] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Content discussion already resolved on talk page of article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I always thought Oxford English Dictionary was an independent reliable source for definitions. --122.x.x.x (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC) IIRC, the OED is good for the history of usage for a word, and not all that good for any technical meanings or usage of words. It was never intended to be used for scientific discourse meanings. Collect (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I agree entirely. Dictionaries can get specialist words badly wrong. I recall a dictionary that called archaeology the study of prehistory, for instance, which of course excludes the work of probably the majority of archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC) I have to admit that the definition in the OED did focus on psychotherapy which excludes the majority of what NLP practitioners do so I can agree with Dougweller and Collect in that respect. Then we were left with the question of finding a definition that best represents the discourse concerned with NLP. The definition entry in the US NLM [79] is precisely "intended to be used for scientific discourse meanings" and similar to the OED but only mentions psychotherapy in the see also field so it excludes those academic researchers (and practitioners) who treat NLP as a form of psychotherapy. So the key is to use multiple sources for definitions but which ones? We need a stability point. --122.x.x.x (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of commercial involvement

New information emerging: Changes to Comaze.com website yesterday included removal of “search engine optimization” from the page, but evidence is left over in “search engine optimization” in the mouseover function [80](photo evidence No 6).

Also, the information on “NLP new code” advocacy site [81] includes “Neuro - we only know and represent the world through our neurological processes (our mind, body and sensory systems - the five senses.)”. This line and others also appears on the comaze.com website before Jan 30th [82] (photo evidence No3).

Concerning the commercial connections between companies involved, there are the hosting similarities with NLP companies related to case [83][84][85][86] all companies being remotely hosted from Houston area according to the links. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While I share your frustration in dealing with promotional editors, I certainly do not appreciate that you have taken out your frustration on me. Please show me diffs where I have supposedly added promotional or "commercial" links to wikipedia articles or otherwise engaged in SEO. If you think that I did it using another account then make a case to SPI. Otherwise, stop your unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry expressed or implied. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x recently applied for a self SPI and will be likely rejected [87]. This is a meatpuppetry case. It involves multiple editors some already been banned. It concerns neuro-linguistic programming, known to be a mainly commercial development involving mainly promotion on the Internet. It appears to be likely that the organization of the meatpuppetry would rule out the use of a single IP. There is also the possibility of the website company (ISP interactive [88] and following the company link there, Comaze.com) being able to access Wikipedia via shared proxy servers. Applying for an SPI would be without a point.

More commercially related information discovered: There appears to be the long term habit of meatpuppetry: It goes even back to 2005 [89][90] both in the same commercial directory [91].

User 122.x.x.x. promoted as user Action Potential using the links (inspiritive.com.au) [92][93]. They are the same commercial site identified very recently as the spam[94] [95]

The promotion appears by removing criticism on the neuro-linguistic programming article, adding favourable or preferred promotional phrases to it and appears to be using promotional links via a group of meatpuppets. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Further commercial information: As of 1st Feb 2012, Comaze.com has been changed again [96] photoevidence No7[97]. Before 30th Jan 2012, the website included promotion of company NLPCorporate (photoevidence No1) [98], a company promoted by probable meatpuppet[99] notified here on Jan 30th [100] removed minutes later on Jan 30th (photoevidence No2). Such a cover-up series appears highly incriminating in the circumstances. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Example SPA accounts

I think there are some more, but this is a basic list. All support 122.x.x.x in current and previous manifestations generally taking a more extreme position. The advise given here to: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances" is followed in most cases.

• User:Encyclotadd Nov11 todate warned for attacks using material from external web site
• User:Congru Dec 11 to Jan 12 blocked as sock
• User:Willyfreddy July 11 to Dec 12 multiple personal attacks re HeadleyDown conspiracy theory
• User:Colemchange Oct 11 to Nov 11 personal attacks re HeadleyDown conspiracy theory
• User:Jpjans July 11 too Aug 11 supporting 122.x.x.x on citations tags etc.
• User:Brenda Lo88 June 11 blocked

I have not listed non SPA accounts who may be linked to meat puppetry --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I have nothing to do with any of those accounts. If you think I am connected with any other account then please submit an SPI, otherwise, stop making your unfounded accusations. This is exactly why I made the complaint here. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is meat puppetry and disruptive behaviour not sock puppetry (I think, although I would not rule that out). Evidence has been presented in that respect, including direct links to offsite web sites edited by you which propagate a view of what should be on wikipedia for NLP. That plus the links to BrendaLo88 (not just her posting on your user page, but links to NLP web sites which can be provided if needed) demonstrate that your comment above is just bluster. ANI is the proper format for that discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

References

References

My 2 cents

I use Wikipedia often to research concepts/subjects that I am (newly) aware of, but not very familiar with. As I mentioned to Snowded when I first got involved in the discussion, I have avoided editing/discussing pages on Wikipedia because of the us vs. them mentality that often prevails (and is especially present here). Nevertheless, NLP was one subject that I had a passing interest in where the corresponding Wikipedia page was (imo) abhorrently lacking in informative, and unbiased, content. I first heard about it through my sincere interest in Erickson's work, but found most of the books on NLP to be awful. And so I chose to get involved.

Now, as to the "charges" against me from Snowded. They are all patently false. I never was involved in the HeadleyDown conspiracy theory. People pointed out their theories to me on my talk page, and I asked about getting someone with authority involved. That was my level of involvement. Secondly, I never offered 122.x (and his previous names) blanket support, not at all. In the past, Snowded has labeled me as a "proponent of NLP" simply because I disagreed with him (if I had more time, I'd find the diff on the talk page). And it is the same situation here: I have regularly disagreed with him and so he is labeling me as a confederate of 122.x. Furthermore, by highlighting this statement on some website: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances", he is now able to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of working in collaboration with 122.x. If I agree with 122.x then I'm guilty. If I disagree with 122.x then I'm guilty as well. It is because of users like Snowded that I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again.

Regarding the state of the NLP page, I do agree that it is in awful shape. Honestly, I think it's embarrassing. The majority of the lede is now devoted to criticism, and it amazes me that anybody could consider the article as demonstrating an NPOV. Snowded and LKK, two of the most active and vociferous editors on the page, both believe that NLP is "a fringe pseudo-science." (again, apologies, but I don't have time for the diffs) As long as both of them have considerable control over the article, an NPOV will never be achieved.

I wish everyone involved good luck. Willyfreddy (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"...I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again", that statement needs clarification. If you were never involved with Wikipedia before? then you couldn't get involved 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy of structured workshop to develop article

"A case against editors on Neuro-linguistic programming was closed on Monday. As a result, a form of probation was enacted on the subject, whereby any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles. The article will also be placed under mentorship, with mentors to be named later. Editors Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey have also been required to discuss any reversions on article talk pages, and have been reminded regarding NPOV and adequate sourcing."from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-02-06/Arbitration_report --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that it says that "any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles". The mentor run workshop was intended to help editors work together in a structured way to bring the article closer to NPOV. Unfortunately, the mentors gave up after banning most of the editors for failures to adhere to workshop rulesbanned. I think that another structured workshop is in order to encourage edits to work together and produce a better quality article based on relevant policies, especially regarding NPOV together with WP:FRINGE recommendations. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And you of course as Comaze (referenced in the ruling above) are subject to those sanctions which you have persistently over several IDs broken. We need to deal with the clear evidence of disruptive behaviour, attempted promotion of commercial links and meat puppetry outlined above. The view that there is some massive POV issue is yours and that of the SPAs that appear from time to time, other experienced editors brought to the site have in the main endorsed the current properly sourced position. --Snowded ^TALK 13:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well.

I invite any non-involved editor who intends to participate in bringing the article to a NPOV to read Bandler and Grinder's Frogs into Princes, Reframing, and The Structure of Magic I && II, and and then compare both today's version of the NLP page and the allegations about NLP above to what you know about NLP. That hucksters have taken it and used it to bad ends ... demonstrates that it can work; Bandler and Grinder also explain how it can fail, in Frogs into Princes, page 175:

If you decide that you want to fail with this material [NLP], it's possible to. There are two ways to fail. I think you ought to be aware of what those are, so you can make a choice about how you are going to fail if you decide to.

One way is to extremely rigid. You can go throught exactly the steps that you saw and heard us go through here, without any sensory experience, without any feedback from your clients. That will guarantee that you fail. That's the way most people fail.

The second way you can fail is by being really incongruent. If there's a part of you that really doesn't believe that phobias can be done in three minutes, but you decide to try it anyway, that incongruency will show up in your non-verbal communication, and that will blow the whole thing.

There are those who believe that NLP does not work, and they currently own the article. Eventually, they'll go away, and those of us who are skeptical of NLP while believing in NPOV will be able to improve the article. htom (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling was clear: any editor may be banned by an admin if they fail to adhere to Wikipedia policies. There is no need to produce another workshop because people were banned in accordance with that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry & Meat puppetry is unacceptable. All puppeteers (upon being discovered) should be immediately banned. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 1 February 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). [101]. 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 [102] 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)

Second trip to ANI

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)

Generally, if an admin does not weigh in before a thread is automatically archived, it can be considered that there was nothing requiring admin intervention. If it were serious enough to need intervention, they would have. Give it time and, if it winds up getting archived again, it's de facto not an admin issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a free, natural evolving and democratic discussion. “User Granateple is reminded that contributing too much to a discussion damages the quality of that discussion”. That was a part of the closure summary, just after they realized that the academic publisher in question was reputable and reliable. If this is not an ANI issue, could you please advice me whom to contact? Do Wikipedia perhaps have a shrink for these totalitarian chickens? Granateple (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; also, WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bushranger, on WP:NOTDEMOCRACY I can read that ”…method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion”. A discussion was closed on RS/N. What is more civil, to close a free discussion or to label the phenomenon? I look forward to your answer. Granateple (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, consider this a warning: calling other editors "totalitarian chickens" is a personal attack. Don't do it.

Second, what exactly are you asking for? The discussion was closed on RS/N with a resolution. No admin has seen an error there, nor felt the need to reopen it. There's really no recourse beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's at least a more creative insult. And amazingly enough, I found an example.[103] The internet has everything! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds: the user who closed the discussion brought the closure before ANI for review. You told me yesterday that this is de facto not an admin issue, and by that I presume you probably are of the opinion that this is de facto not an admin issue. Which forum on Wikipedia can be contacted regarding this incident? I and the user:olive have not received an apology. Granateple (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There's really nothing to be done. If you really want, you could open a Request for Arbitration but, based on what's been presented here, they'll reject it as unnecessary. And there is no requirement for you to receive an apology. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not as experienced as you on Wikipedia, and also not as clairvoyant. Thank you for your suggestion. I will consider arb enforcement, and I am hoping for a larger community input regarding this. Granateple (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Olive's gratuitious post at the article talkpage [104] from earlier today strongly suggests that she simply will not accept the consensus of uninvolved editor comment at RSN if it conflicts with her own position:There is a standard for WP:MEDRS compliant sources on Wikipedia. There is not a separate standard for TM articles. A NB is usually a fair way to get editor input, but editor input does not trump WP:MEDRS Fladrif (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've posted [105].

As it happens, through a noticeboard is not the court of final appeal for content matters, (that's the role of an rfc), the interpretation of MEDRES depends on the consensus, and the place where the consensus is formed is on RSN. We rightly have n separate noticeboard for MEDRES because of the very close relationship of the problems involved. Even actual policies need interpretation, and the community as a whole is the only body competent to interpret on content. MEDRES is a guideline, not policy, and is therefore specifically open to exceptions and interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update. I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and a strange thing just happened.

I got a notice on my talkpage that user:Fifelfoo had reported me to something called “Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”, and I was invited to give a statement.

When I did, an automatic machinery took over, closed the case, and sent me a message on my talkpage signed user:WGFinley.

I am now part of the TM Movement. LOL

Is this serious? Is this how Wikipedia works? I refuse to believe it. Granateple (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, yes, this is how Wikipedia works. You have misunderstood a few things.

Fiflefoo was notifying you that someone brought up your name atWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Admin WGFinley then notified you that articles about Transcendental Meditation movement are under community sanctions, which means editing of those pages has specific rules due to problems in the past. I suggest you read the links WGFinley provided on your Talk page, so you can learn more about how this works before you do something that gets you blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dattorro

Resolved

 – Templates. They're a beautiful thing. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

(Non admin comment) There are many hundreds of similar categories. Can robots.txt exclude them? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the "spam and abuse" shouldn't be in there anyway - it should just have the {{sockpuppet category}} template. So I've modified it accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've similarly switched away from the arguably defamatory words "spam and abuse" to the technically accurate "suspected sockpuppets" on a number of other pages and Mr. Dattorro has been notified that an effort has been made to address his concerns through my intermediary. I'm not seeing any WP hits for about 7 pages of a google search of his name. I think this thread can be marked as "resolved" now. Thanks for your help. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this worth worrying about

This popped up on my watchlist. The editor it is directed at has not edited here since September last year and going through the IPs contributions nothing stands out that could have triggered it here. It appears to be bullshit, but in accordance with Wikipedia:Threats of violence I thought I would report it here. I sent an email to emergency@wikimedia.org just in case, but got an out of office reply. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jalexander (talk · contribs) has replied and is looking into it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, is there any way that the Foundation could suppress out-of-office replies to emails sent to emergency@wikimedia.org? I sent a message a few weeks ago to emergency and got an out-of-office reply too, and had I not known that the address was monitored by a large number of editors I would have been concerned. A new editor might think that nobody was watching the inbox.

If there's a better place to post this, let me know. --NellieBly (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Reminds me of this old one, a call center answerer: "Suicide Prevention Center... thank you for holding... Hello? Hello?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I work in an ER for a rural area, which means there's one psych center we contact for all our psychiatric patients... and they have one phone line. Getting a busy signal on their Crisis Line always struck me as a bad thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll find out. Easier said than done, but I'll ask. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. If you need to give a look at the headers of the e-mail I received, just drop me an e-mail. --NellieBly (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Collins Island, Newport Beach

Resolved

 – blocked by WilliamH (talk · contribs), for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin with a moment assist me here; I have a user who can't seem to understand that copy>paste moves aren't acceptable. He copied the page to Collins Island, California and keeps redirecting the original title to there. Could someone assist with the speedy of the new version so the old one can be moved? Thanks. Calabe1992 01:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, this user (Mountain3144 (talk · contribs)) has made multiple copy>paste moves. Could someone help out with getting them straightened out. Thanks. Calabe1992 01:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violation. Hopefully the point was made and the editor is willing to discuss and not editwar. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toronto2503. Nothing else to do here. WilliamH (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Need a rev del

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Forwarded to oversight, redacted to reduce visibility. My76Strat (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Revdel'd, made my own request for suppression. Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppetry of user

I would like the administrator community to view the possible practice of creating multiple accounts and sockpuppetry related to HereToSaveWiki. The original account holder is Seeta mayya. Since I, and several other editors, are highly familiar with her and her tremendously disruptive behavior and her style of speaking, I found an immediate similarity. Please note, I have been very short-tempered with Seeta mayya mainly because of some unacceptably foul personal attacks which went unreported mainly because some supportive editors veered off consensus. The user has a history of making very irrelevant and inflammable attacks, especially against me and Meryam90. In addition, she seems to have a great fondness for Shahrukh Khan-related articles and often trolls them; the new editor has also begun the same trend on Talk:Shahrukh Khan. If this user is proved a sockpuppet, I suggest an immediate indefinite IP ban on the user, as well as indefinite bans on all the accounts the user has. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like the administrator community to go ahead and perform a sockpuppet check on my account HereToSaveWiki and if in fully true sense, I'm found to the one accused here as Seeta mayya, then I would myself request the community to block me or ban my IP or whatever Wiki does. But if I'm not found to be the one, then I would like you to take the same action against the above user who has accused me of being a sockpuppet. Please read my below points.

• I would request the administrators here to have a look at my contributions and see that I've created this account today and so far have just one main edit about a controversy (published in most of India's leading newspapers today) that too on a talk page to discuss about the matter rather than editing on the article page directly. Does this prove that I'm not a vandal atleast?
• Rest of my edits here are on several user talk pages asking them to provide their comments to gain consensus over that matter. Does this prove that I respect Wiki policies and avoid edit warring or violating 3RR?
• Next if you read my edits, you'll notice that I've not mentioned any specific editor in my edits thereby preventing a personal attack on any editor on Wiki.
• Further, as stated by above user "Please note, I have been very short-tempered with Seeta mayya", please note that the user is again being very short-tempered as and has used abusive and foul language here and here in replying to my edit. He should've kept his cool and not used words like "bullshit","Go do it somewhere else", "your level of shit talk", "I will throw you out of Wikipedia" etc.,
• I do not know the history but may be AnkitBhatt must have had sleepless nights with what had happened between him and Seeta mayya or Seeta mayya might still be a scary nightmare for him, but there was actually no reason for him this time atleast to lose his temper and raise his blood pressure levels. Such kind of person are mere patients of Hypertension
• I would like to state that it is in fact AnkitBhatt who has violated several Wiki policies of BITE, NPA, Civility, Etiquette & NLT and has threatened me to the core with just my single edit.
• Last, if convinced by my defensive claims, I request Wiki admin community to take fair action to prevent AnkitBhatt harassing new editors in future. -- HereToSaveWiki (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

AnkitBhatt, the correct forum for your concern is WP:SPI. User:HereToSaveWiki, I commend you on your knowledge of policy - unusual to see in newly registered contributors. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. But I'll be honest here. Though I newly created an account for myself today, I am not a new editor to Wiki. I've been editing Wiki since long but have always used the shared IP of my organization. Recently, a notice was put on the shared IP talk page stating that many users in my organization have been doing the same and will have to discontinue the practice to prevent vandalism. We are strictly encouraged to create an account for ourselves before editing further on Wiki. Hence the account was created today and the rest is what I just said above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HereToSaveWiki (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll see. And yes, if you are NOT seeta mayya then you can completely ignore whatever I said; the said user was an enormous pain and left a ton of unpleasant memories. However, you are not going to address me in the way you did just now. Is that clearly understood? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of any sock puppetry this notice is nonsensical. An editor cannot be summoned to ANI as if it was a panel of judges and issued instructions about the speed of their response. Cool it. --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)

I disagree with you, Snowded. It is not "nonsensical" to run an WP:SPI, if there are SPI concerns. Let it run, and see what the outcome is.

I disagree with you, Ankit. Using terms like "officially summoned", "expected to appear in front of the examining administrators", and "any attempt at resistance and your situation will be viewed with disdain" may possibly appear to be construed as not advancing the Wikipedia project.

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Snowded meant that the notice was nonsensical, something which most of us seem to agree on. Lynch7 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil and Harassing behaviour

I would like the administrator community to have a look at this notice sent by user AnkitBhatt. The user has showed indications of uncivil and harassing behavior by falsely accusing me of being a sockpuppet of account Seeta mayya. He has used abusive and foul language here and here in replying to my edit. He should've kept his cool and not used words like "bullshit","Go do it somewhere else", "your level of shit talk", "I will throw you out of Wikipedia" etc., AnkitBhatt has in fact violated several Wiki policies of BITE, NPA, Civility, Etiquette & NLT and has threatened me to the core with just my single edit. I request Wiki admin community to take fair action to prevent AnkitBhatt harassing the editors in future. -- HereToSaveWiki (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they have already been appropriately warned. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue; Anhitbhatt ragequit Wikipedia in December and left a notice saying that he intended to attack his opponents if he ever came back ("if, in any case, I ever do think of returning, then I warn these two editors to stay away from me. I will be totally no-holds-barred, and believe me, you have not seen anything yet."). Temper has been an issue with this editor for months, and I'm disappointed to see that his wikibreak hasn't mellowed him. I would suggest an interaction ban between Ankitbhatt and his two main opponents, who he names as Guru coolguy (talk · contribs) and Seeta mayya (talk · contribs), said ban to extend to any accounts he believes to be socks of these accounts, as above. Ankitbhatt cannot hold his temper in regards to these editors, who may or may not be needling him, so it falls to us to force them to leave each other alone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What concerns me is this tendency to form deep-seated grudges to the point of incivility. Even if it's only against one or two users, it's still conduct unbecoming of an administrator.--WaltCip (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ankitbhatt is not an administrator, just an editor. But it's also behaviour unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor, imho. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Resolved

 – editor got the answer he/she was after. Manning (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this constitute a legal threat? I'm thinking specifically of the last sentence:

"I will wait for the outcome of for this week's board meeting of Wikipedia in San Francisco and if the outcome is not satisfactory, I feel it my duty to contact both http://www.irs.gov and http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ about the matter."

I'm not sure if this comes under the legal threats banner or not, so I'd like wiser minds (or failing that, admins) to take a look. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that this is a legal threat. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing an angry letter to a government agency is not legal action. Neither is writing to a newspaper, WR, a blog or Facebook. A legal threat is anything which states (or implies) an action will be commenced in a court of law. Manning (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but this person is acting in a disruptive fashion nonetheless. She can write letters to anybody she wants, but her demands that a certain thing be done on Wikipedia or else she'll do so are an obvious attempt to undermine the consensus building process Wikipedia is based upon. So, even though this is not a legal threat, the rationale NLT relies upon – WP:NLT#Rationale for the policy – certainly applies. A block is, therefore, warranted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing resembling a legal threat here, so a block under WP:NLT simply cannot be justified. However a block for disruptive conduct is a different matter, and I would support that. (My earlier statement was not meant to imply the user was behaving acceptably, merely that there was no legal threat at play.) Manning (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if common editors can write at this noticeboard, but I want to made you aware that I reverted Salvio giuliano deletion of Natbrown post at the Village pump. Since this person is a very sporadic editor, and that she has a legitimate concern, I think treating her as disruptive is WP:BITE. She should be educated, not punished. That's my two cents. Diego (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It very clearly resembles a legal threat by effectively saying "if Wikipedia does not agree to remove those images (that don't belong to Wikipedia in the first place, may I add) then I will attempt to have their charitable status removed". Clearly a chilling attempt to persuade Wikipedia to bend to their desired end state. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this comment (not a legal threat, though clearly meant to be chilling, as Bwilkins noted) was originally posted at Jimbo's talk page and no action was taken, so acting now after a repost at the Village Pump seems unfair. Asking the editor to tone it down and pointing out that blocks could occur if further posts attempt to intimidate would be reasonable, however. EdChem (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that's what I was talking about with 'educate' and 'don't bite'. Diego (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realised it was also pasted at Jimbo's talk; I encountered it first at the Village Pump and went from there. For the record, this thread was not a demand for a block, rather a request for clarification over whether or not WP:NLT applies here. It seems, per the comments above, that it does not. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. Our third this year. :) Manning (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Unhappily, he is being encouraged to follow through on his threats by other editors. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete an edit summary without removing the edit?

There's a bit of a kindergarten situation at Talk:Homeopathy and a user has made a PA in his edit summary and comment diff. I already removed it from the comment but obviously cannot change his edit summary. It's not an "awful" PA, and if this was on a user talk page I would tend to let them work this out on their own, but the homeopathy talk is very busy and (for once!) even looking like we're working on improving the article, so this kind of diversion needs to be stopped as soon as possible (and with as little drama as possible). --Six words (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

An admin can through WP:REVDEL. I personally don't touch these things though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think the personal attack rises to the level where the edit summary should be removed. If you're worried about the personal attack being visible on a highly viewed page, I would respectfully suggest that calling attention to it on a more highly viewed page such as this is last thing you should do. You've given a warning to Sleuth21, and that's probably enough for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make light of the decision to ask this, but if you think leaving it at that is the best strategy I'm okay with that.--Six words (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Very childish, but does not meet the requirements of WP:REVDEL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given the editor a formal warning regarding the discretionary sanctions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. I hope they are not needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:101.109.87.219

101.109.87.219 (talk · contribs) may need a block. A look at their contributions will explain why. So far multiple articles affected. Voceditenore (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, and edits oversighted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to contact the WMF (the oversighter may have already done so, but I want to make certain)? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Emailed emergency communications[at]wikimedia.org. Probably not the best contact point, but it's the only one I can think of. EDIT: Received an out-of-office message, so forwarded to communications. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The emergency@ email gets distributed to several people, and I believe at the moment one of them has the OOO message in place. This unfortunately creates the impression that emergency@ is unmanned, which I don't think is the case. (Disclaimer - what the hell would I know?) Manning (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MarcusMaximus0

Resolved: Editor blocked and an SPI has been opened, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to this sockpuppet that edit warring in uncited contentious material on a BLP is against the rules.[106] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think labeling users who disagree with you sockpuppet will help. I've filed a report at WP:BLPN so that the content can be checked. I don't think this is BLP vio.. infact you are editwarring with this user here on the pretext. The content is properly sourced with complete information. Deadlinks do not mean that sources are not cited... see WP:SOURCEACCESS. I've explained this to you on the talk page in much detail. Also please note that there is a sockpuppet report filed about the user being reported... so using multiple noticeboards about the same report raises a redflag in my view. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? So saying this In an interview with a Russian daily Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rendered Pakistan as "Evil empire" is all fine and dandy when it cannot be verified? And I told you on the article talk page that I looked for other sources. And posting here was the only option as the sock kept reverting it in. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And just in case you decide to not believe me [107] Not a single hit on GNews. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(editconflict) The sentence cited by DS about Lieberman definitely needs a working reference or two. The behavior by MarcusMaximus who just yesterday registered his account going straight into edit warring on contested issues is indeed suspicious as a sock IP with the same behavior was just blocked for a week for using multiple IP accounts. JCAla (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

98.103.186.3

Resolved: No. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Err...yes --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I get this (my) address blocked? It seems other students are primarily using it for vandalism. 98.103.186.3 (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't block accounts upon request. If the vandalism through this IP becomes a problem, we'll take the appropriate action. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, other than this edit, and the one immediately preceeding, which reverted some vandalism, I can't see a single good edit, going back forever. All the rest are juvie variants on penis vandalism. As this is a static school IP, I have blocked for a year. If the teachers ever want to use it, they can get the technician to email OTRS --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha, suicide by cop? Drmies (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Satinmaster

I would think that a block of some reasonable duration is in order for this SPA who, despite repeated warnings over first editwarring[108], then outing[109], and finally personal attacks, persists in asserting that experienced, uninvolved editors (as well as some involved editors) who disagree with his or her, are pursuing an "Islamophobic agenda". The editor has been warned at the article talkpage, RSN, and the editor's talkpage, but pointedly reposts the same attacks. A SPA vigorously defending a diploma mill is pretty routine on Wikipedia, but this is over the top.

Diffs: [110][111][112][113][114]

Warnings:[115][116][117][118]

Notice to User: [119]

Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got to admire persistence. More of the same, now on an Admin's talkpage, even after getting notice of this ANI.[120] Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• On my talk page, Satinmaster asked "Why do you keep accusing me of working for euclid?" Actually, I don't believe I've ever accused that user of working for Euclid -- and, in fact, my interaction with this user has been relatively limited. I will, however, say that this user is a WP:SPA focused on promoting EUCLID (university), by embellishing that article with content that appears positive but is fundamentally meaningless, by discrediting entities that have published negative information about EUCLID (some diffs of edits against Oregon Office of Degree Authorization: [121], [122], [123]; Satinmaster's accusations against Accredibase are largely at Wikipedia:RSN#"cannot_guarantee_the_accuracy_of_the_information"), by accusing anyone who reverts his/her work of being an Islamophobe, and by hinting at the identity of various IPs who have reverted or disagreed with Satinmaster. All in all, Satinmaster is disrupting Wikipedia with these behaviors. It's time for a final warning that additional disruption will lead to a long block. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Court found 'Oregon Office of Degree Authorization' violated constitutional rights

Ah yes, 'Orlady', the wiki editor who thinks the fact that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization being found by a court of law to to have violated the constitutional rights of a non-accredited degree holder, should not be included in the ODA article. But I get accused of being disruptive. LOL . Satinmaster (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you must be confusing me with someone else. I basically ignored the innuendo that you posted on the article talk page, although I did add a lot of content to the article in response to the campaign to declare the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization to be non-notable. (On second thought, maybe I did respond when you posted that comment somewhere else -- you've been engaging in a bit of forum-shopping, so it's hard to keep track of the various different places that the same discussion might have been started.) It was another who user who responded when you posted a similar complaint at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. I did look at the court decision (which is, by the way, a primary source, making it questionable as a source for Wikipedia) and did not find it to be of sufficient consequence to bother mentioning in the article -- which might explain why there doesn't seem to be any secondary-source documentation of the court case. --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure Orlady, that if it was a court document saying something bad about a school it would be "worth mentioning". LOL Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the comment on your user page: "I no longer wish to contribute. No point. To many idiots with agendas and a keyboard." A promise to stop editing and keeping that promise might close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Bbb23, That was before I realized what was really going on here. So I am morally obliged to continue. Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Androzaniamy

Androzaniamy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Androzaniamy has shown time and time again that she is not competent enough to edit Wikipedia. Despite many warnings for creating articles without reliable sources that do not pass WP:GNG, she has persisted by feigning ignorance, being defensive of her actions, outright lying, and arguing with policy. I understand that she is still a relatively new user, but refusing to listen to others is disruptive.

Troublesome diffs to support my claims:

• January 9: [124], [125], [126]; January 13: [127], [128]; January 14: [129]; January 15: [130], [131] (followed by [132]); January 17: [133], [134]; January 21: [135], [136], User talk:Eagles247/Archive 30#Do you have a thing against me.3F, [137]; January 23: User talk:Wikipelli#I was just wondering..., [138] (followed by this discussion); January 24: [139], [140], User_talk:Calabe1992#An_apology; January 27: [141]; January 28: User_talk:Wikipelli#You still haven't made it clear, User_talk:Eagles247#Is_the_link_enough.3F; January 29: [142], User_talk:Eagles247#Not_another_one.21, [143], [144], [145], [146]; January 30: [147], [148]; January 31: [149], [150], [151], [152]

Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• To clarify: the mentions of "swearing" in some of those links appear to refer to the long-established (Sept 2007) redirect WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS which seems to be too strong language for this editor. PamD 23:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would concur that the considered user is at this point taking up more of other editors time than her(?) contributions justify, and presents maturity questions. However, in mild defense, it should be noted that the complaining user has allowed her to get under his(?) skin and has overreacted in at least some instances, insisting that material fails WP:GNG when that is at the very least not obvious (as witnessed by his attempt to redirect Hacker the Dog to CBBC; a usable article has now grown in that spot.) I think that suggests that the GNG-sense of the concerned user is more a bit beyond the edge, rather than utterly off the island. After the amount of effort that's been put in on her, however, I've lost hope that she is likely to become much more useful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(Androzaniamy is a "she" per [153]. I am a he.) Hacker the Dog does not pass WP:GNG IMO, and I refrained from taking it to AfD for the time being, but I do not feel this is relevant to this discussion. Here are links to the articles I've nominated that this user created: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker Time, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Ssebandeke, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Foreman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Well (TV series), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film). Three deleted, and two possible deletions on the way. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like what you mean by "possible deletion" is merely that you've nominated it for deletion. Let us note that one of the two not-yet-deleted articles seems on its way to being kept, and that one of the three deleted articles was not deleted because the topic failed GNG but for quite the opposite - the topic was sufficiently notable that it already had an article which has survived more than two years under a different name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:142.35.234.217

Resolved

 – No action needed. Calabe1992 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The most recent edit to this page (by the blocked user) claims to reveal an IP address used by another user. Could someone address this? Calabe1992 19:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No need, he's wrong on both counts. I've revoked talk-page access though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That'll do, then. Calabe1992 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New user blocked people?

Resolved

 – Blocked as VOA. Calabe1992 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

OLoveofYash is going around putting block templates on user accounts [154] Is this allowed? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a VOA to me. Calabe1992 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What is a VOA? Darkness Shines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC).

A vandalism-only account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Administrator note I've blocked OLoveofYash (talk · contribs) indefinitely as a VOA, and Reaper Eternal blocked Botanill (talk · contribs) (the account OLoveofYash attempted to "block") indefinitely as a VOA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought, there's no chance at all that these are User:Crouch, Swale socks? I remember his socks farting around with each other in similar ways. Calabe1992 20:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way -different geographic areas. TNXMan 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That was fast; thanks for checking. Calabe1992 22:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

80.192.x.x insults

I don't know if the person is real or not, but two IPs from the above range added some rather disgusting remarks about someone at Brothel, which I reverted. A similar edit was made at Cream pie, which was caught by the bot. Not sure on other articles. Calabe1992 22:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

All edits from these two IP's have been reverted (by others), and IP's blocked (by me). I didn't bother revdel'ing them, but if someone thinks that's important to do, the IP's in question are User talk:80.192.146.1 and User talk:80.192.210.65. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I revdell'd #1 as a possible BLP - the other doesn't seem to have the same issue. Skier Dude (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

IP editor stalking

Resolved

And reverting another editor for no reason that I can see [155] Darkness Shines (talk)

• And he appears to have added an e-mail address to this BLP [156] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked and reverted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mr. Curious Man ban proposal

Mr. Curious Man (talk · contribs)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr. Curious Man. After multiple previous socks (most recent was yesterday), the user has come back again with yet another IP. Refusing to stop socking, and I'm hereby proposing a full ban. Calabe1992 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Master is under the hardest possible block short of a global lock. Only would make rolling back this guy easier.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Ditto. Wifione ^Message 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Why shouldn't we? He is very problematic, and if he refuses to stop socking, there is no point opposing a ban. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - not just a formality (since I know somebody will make that argument), a community ban requires community consensus to overturn (vs. a "de facto ban" from indeffing). That said, I agree that this calls for a Cban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per this and many others. Doc talk 06:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support In a way, it wouldn't make much difference, as I regularly block (if no other admin beats me to it) and revert anyway. However, it would be nice to have it as an official ban, so that there is no ambiguity about it. The user has repeatedly been invited to agree to edit within policies and guidelines, after which an unblock request could be considered, but he/she has made it abundantly clear that he/she has no wish to cooperate, and has repeatedly stated the intention of socking indefinitely. We are beyond the stage where there is any reasonable purpose in holding back from a ban. (For what it's worth, I have a list of 48 IPs and 7 accounts used by this person, with no guarantee that the list is complete. The first trolling and other disruptive editing that I know of from this person was in April 2011, continuing since then up to now.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: Following further investigation, the totals now stand at 52 certain IPs, together with several other possible ones, and 9 certain accounts, together with one possible one. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support If I recall correctly, this user also undertook a directed harassment campaign against another editor, just to put the cherry on top. Danger ^{High voltage!} 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has made harassment campaigns against more than one other editor. The longest running one has been active from time to time from April 2011 to January 2012 on Wikipedia, and both the harasser and the victim have indicated that this is a part of a campaign of harassment that started on another site. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Persistent sockpuppetry, repeated declarations of intent to continue socking. Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I do believe this is a formality. Noone would even consider unblocking or overturning such a block, I see no reason why we can't treat him like any other career vandal. —Dark 12:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkAlexisGabriel and socks redux

MarkAlexisGabriel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated IP socks 76.109.99.165 (talk · contribs) and 65.34.131.50 (talk · contribs) have returned to their favourite passtime of edit-warring at Jessica Lange. Please see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel. A few preventative blocks are requested. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Reintroduction of copyvio

Resolved

Bopstar01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reintroduced copyright material into an article here after being warned here. Editors contributions have been adding copyright violations [157] [158] [159] [160] and four other edits. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Obvious copyvios can be reported to AIV in the future, provided they have been adequately warned. —Dark 08:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mraandthebigbrother

Could an admin please deal with User:Mraandthebigbrother, who seems to revert stuff he doesn't like with a "fuck you" in the edit summary. Maitch (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The editor concern appears to have been abusive in three edit summaries today, but I don't see any pattern of previous misconduct. I have posted a level-1 NPA warning with an addendum about use of edit summaries.
  That warning could have been given by any editor, including the OP ... and per the notice at the top of this page "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". That prior discussion was not done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I know, I could have done it myself, but I usually loose my temper in these situations, so I try to stay away. --Maitch (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)