Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 122.x.x.x (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 2 February 2012 (→‎Alleged disruption by User:122.x.x.x/122.108.140.210: Lam Kin Keung, Are there any more important diffs you want to add before I make my reply?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]


    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • We have never had a rule that says bans are not punitive. T. Canens (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Misleading statements and suppression of evidence

      • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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).[reply]
    17:45, 30 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
                  • 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]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Any misrepresentation was unintentional; I have again changed my summary to a direct quote. Nobody Ent 16:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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."[11]

    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[12] 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"[13]
    • "you have been told this before"[14]
    • "Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour."[15]
    • "you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references."[16].

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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[17]. 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)[reply]

    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[1] discredited, and certainly[2][3] 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: [18] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The context of the NLP situation has been mentioned before recently: [19]. 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: [20][21][22] was linked to. Subsequently, more Inspiritive.com related commercial links were recently removed:[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. Commercial links continue to be removed:[31][32][33]. 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:[34][35]. Discussion is encouraged even so: [36][37][38][39]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the removal of those commercial links except for maybe the 1996 interview of John Grinder [40] 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)[reply]
    Interesting development: Following the lead from postings of user Congru and confirmed sockpuppet Syductive: There are the other further diffs [41][42][43] to commercial firm [44]. Firm appears to be an example company of comaze.com [45]. This all relates to the case: [46]. Comaze.com concerns with writing promotional NLP sites and the search engine optimization [47]. This needs more following up. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that the example company NLPcorporate has now gone from Comaze.com website [48]. It was there a short time (minutes) ago. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Screenshot evidence of recent coverup on comaze.com: [49]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Good catch ISTB351. Following up on your lead: The edit summaries are similar here also: Sydactive: [50], User IP122... [51]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "Autoreverting" is an accusation used also by now banned user Congru: [52] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [53]. Doing same using misleading edit summaries [54]. Doing same using accusatory edit summary [55](creating unpleasant editing environment). Removing reliable source critical of NLP [56][57]. Personal attack [58] (no WP:SPI made). Misleading edit summaries to remove mainstream critical view [59] misleading edit summaries similar to banned user [60]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Especially significant is line on the site [61] 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 [62] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User 122.x.x.x. also advocates the OED (Oxford English Definition) here on 17 January 2012. [63]. Also advocated by user Encyclotadd [64] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [65] 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)[reply]

    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 [66](photo evidence No 6).

    Also, the information on “NLP new code” advocacy site [67] 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 [68] (photo evidence No3).

    Concerning the commercial connections between companies involved, there are the hosting similarities with NLP companies related to case [69][70][71][72] all companies being remotely hosted from Houston area according to the links. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    User 122.x.x.x recently applied for a self SPI and will be likely rejected [73]. 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 [74] 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 [75][76] both in the same commercial directory [77].
    User 122.x.x.x. promoted as user Action Potential using the links (inspiritive.com.au) [78][79]. They are the same commercial site identified very recently as the spam[80] [81]
    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)[reply]
    Further commercial information: As of 1st Feb 2012, Comaze.com has been changed again [82] photoevidence No7[83]. Before 30th Jan 2012, the website included promotion of company NLPCorporate (photoevidence No1) [84], a company promoted by probable meatpuppet[85] notified here on Jan 30th [86] 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)[reply]

    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.

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    References

    References

    1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Norcross et al 2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Norcross et al 2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    3. ^ Glasner-Edwards.S.,Rawson.R. (2010). "Evidence-based practices in addiction treatment: review and recommendations for public policy". Health Policy. 97 (2–3): 93–104. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

    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)[reply]

    "...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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Sock puppetry & Meat puppetry is unacceptable. All puppeteers (upon being discovered) should be immediately banned. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That worries me because I have openly stated that I am using single purpose account so I technically a sockpuppet account. But I choose to do this for privacy reasons. I am not simultaneously using multiple accounts to support myself or make my viewpoint appear more widely held. I can absolutely assure you that I am not a sockpuppeteer. When looking for sockpuppeteers please take into account that someone has been deliberately copying my contributions including edit comments(e.g. Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and supporting me in a strawsock way (e.g. Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I believe that a long term sock-puppeteer has changed tactics. As part of this this latest attack, sock-puppeteer pretends to support to other editors in an uncritical or exaggerated way in order to muddy the waters and make their own position seem more rational. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are persisting with the conspiracy theory idea? I assume (from your attacks on other other editors in a previous guise) that this is part of the Headlydown stuff? SPI reports on that have been dismissed. In contrast we have clear evidence here that you are maintaining a web site to at least coach other editors to support your commercial interesting in a specific variety of NLP, and that you have altered those sites during this debate in an attempt to cover up that involvement. --Snowded TALK 23:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at the edit history of Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Its a blatant example of a strawsock. --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User 122.x.x.x, timing is against you in your conspiracy argument. Your advocacy for the Oxford English Dictionary [87] comes after the last edits of the NLPwikipedia google site (photoevidence[88] ). You are repeating advocacy of the website, not the other way. Also, timing of the commercial cover-up [89][90][91][92] is the most incriminating of evidence. It is consistent with your changes in ID on Wikipedia to apparently attempt avoiding association with the now covered-up neuro-linguistic programming promotion/search engine optimization company[93], Comaze.com. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have too much drama in my own real life already, my ADHD provides me with too many distractions, and now I'm to worry about being shown to be a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet? :snort: This should be interesting. htom (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged disruption by User:122.x.x.x/122.108.140.210

    There has yet to be any recent credible evidence that I (using my permanent IP or User:122.x.x.x) have engaged in disruptive editing. Show me some recent diffs (in the last 6 months) where I, not an alleged sock or meatpuppet, have been supposedly been disruptive or engaged in promotion. Please see my discussions and edits in the context of the Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming talk page. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarify: "(using my permanent IP or User:122.x.x.x"). GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He is now admitting the link, it would help if he would acknowledge the links to the two previous IDs but you make a good point GoodDay. Otherwise 122.x.x.x shifting between identities and reopening the same issues that were resolved with your previous manifestation is clearly disruptive. There are also multiple examples provided of your disruption above. You are not responding to those, just opening up another section and making statements again (which is what you do all the time on the NLP page). --Snowded TALK 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see from the logs that 122.108.140.210 is my permanent IP address that does not change. I would rarely log in from another IP address unless I am on my mobile device but I don't recall making any edits not logged in. I used the name User:122.x.x.x so that there was no confusion that I wished to remain anonymous but wanted to continue from my previous edits and contributions under that IP address. Except for make initial accusations against one user as being a a HeadleyDown reincarnate, I tried to remain civil and engage in reasoned discussion. On the balance of edits, I think I was neither promotional or overly skeptical. I did ask for help at the NPOV noticeboard at one stage. The advice to compile a list of reliable sources and engage in a reasoned discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the long history at Wikipedia, edits of IP 122... User122.x.x.x appear deliberately disruptive: Asking for evidence using different identities [94], adding material when no consensus reached [95], [96],[97], attempting time wasting debate or original research [98], as IP adding edit without consensus [99][100][101][102] disruptive tagging [103], and many others.
    Disruption is related also to the off-site activity: [104]. Comments “Looks like Scott and Inspiritive are doing a pretty good background check on Snowden” indicate some connection with the neuro-linguistic programming community. This in the combined with recruit site [105] appears to have bought the severe disruption to the neuro-linguistic programming article in addition to the meatpuppetry and NLP link promotion on related articles. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lam Kin Keung, I am preparing a reply to your allegations below. In your post you said that here are many more. Are there any more important diffs you want to add before I make my reply? --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Point by point reply to Lam Kin Keung (work in progress)

    I will be updating this section as I prepare my response.

    Lam Kin Keung claim 1
    "Asking for evidence using different identities"
    Lam Kin Keung claim 2
    "adding material when no consensus reached"
    Lam Kin Keung claim 3
    "attempting time wasting debate or original research"
    Lam Kin Keung claim 4
    "as IP adding edit without consensus"

    diff 4a

    Lam Kin Keung claim 5
    "disruptive tagging"

    --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This has veered into the realm of nonsense posts, possibly for filibustering. Any editor who has a problem with the RS/N closure needs to follow the dispute resolution process, as no admin has seen fit to take action in nearly a week. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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). [106]. 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))[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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))[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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 [107] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]

    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. Noformation Talk 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    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). Noformation Talk 02:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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))[reply]

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

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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. Noformation Talk 08:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    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? Noformation Talk 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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))[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    WP:NOTDEMOCRACY; also, WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    It's at least a more creative insult. And amazingly enough, I found an example.[108] The internet has everything! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Olive's gratuitious post at the article talkpage [109] 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)[reply]

    I've posted [110].
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]


    Statement and Speech by his highness Granateple from Norway, father and mother, and aunt to the Transcendental Meditation movement.
    Dear fellow Wikipedians, let us first meditate together, so that our blood pressure might drop a little bit. For this occasion I have cut my beard with 2 inches, and it is now only 54 inches long.
    Who are you, if not for me? Who am I, if not for you? If not now, when? If not here, where?
    Let us feel united with the Transcendental. Who is the Transcendental or where is it? It is high up in the sky and under your feet, it is in your computer and on Wikipedia. You can’t see it, only feel it. Thus spoke Granateple.
    Until very recently, I thought of myself as a rational guy with scientific leanings, but not any longer. After Wikipedia (with the help of “Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”) appointed me a TM master, I now see things much clearer. The mysteries of the Transcendental is not for the faint-hearted. Try to embrace it, it will enlighten your Spirit. Thus spoke Granateple.
    Until yesterday my heroes were Democritus, Lucretius, Voltaire, Darwin and the Second law of thermodynamics. Not any longer. My heroes now are a couple of editors, great thinkers in their own right, and I am sure that future generations will find their names and deeds inscribed with gold in the Annals of Wikipedia.
    Where are we TM gurus? We are everywhere. During the McCarthy era in your country, when accusations and paranoia reigned supreme, a good citizen saw many Communists. A dedicated citizen spotted many more. A fanatical anti-communist saw a hell of a lot of them. They where everywhere. We TM masters, we are also everywhere. Some of us even assume a disguise; we are clean-shaven. Thus spoke Granateple.
    But all of the above is not true. I am sane and I have a certain interest in science. My areas of expertise is cellular biology, phytochemistry and medicine. I became a Wikipedian when I realized that the “health section” in the Pomegranate article was outdated. But on Wikipedia it is Anathema to report the scientific findings regarding the Pomegranate. I does not help that the Journal of Urology, the Official Journal of the American Urological Association, report the findings (clinical trials).
    I have now made up my mind. It can’t hurt to let ArbCom have a preliminary look at the two strange incidents: the closure of a free and open discussion on RS/N, and now my imaginary connection with TM.
    But maybe you will have my account blocked or deleted before that time, HandThatFeeds? Your blatant machiavellianism impresses me. It really does. Don’t you realize that it is detrimental to the community and Wikipedia? Send my regards. Granateple (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you're new, Granateple, so I should ask that you read up on WP:NCR. It's a fairly quick read and should be relevant to your current situation. Maybe it will help a little. If not, maybe it will at least be a bit amusing. :) -- Atama頭 17:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ha, suicide by cop? Drmies (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    YMMV, but when I was an admin we did serve schoolblocks on the request of school officials. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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[111], then outing[112], 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: [113][114][115][116][117]

    Warnings:[118][119][120][121]

    Notice to User: [122]

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

    You've got to admire persistence. More of the same, now on an Admin's talkpage, even after getting notice of this ANI.[123] Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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: [124], [125], [126]; 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Enlighten the board. Please. What is it precisely that you "realized was really going on here"? Don't be shy. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    SPAs with WP:TRUTH agendas are always like that Fladrif. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it funny that this user starts every sentence with "Shalom" whilst s/he continues to claim there is an anti Islamic agenda in relation to Euclid? Am I the only one getting confused? 2.96.245.231 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In itself there's no reason why a Jewish person or someone else we would expect to use shalom can't be concerned by Islamophobia to the extent of seeing it in places where it doesn't exist. However [127] does make me wonder of the user. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mr. Curious Man ban proposal

    Community unanimously voted to ban user:Mr. Curious Man and its reincarnations. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • Support Ditto. Wifione Message 05:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support - per this and many others. Doc talk 06:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Support. Persistent sockpuppetry, repeated declarations of intent to continue socking. Enough already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support The history of overlapping sock accounts clearly demonstrates the editor has planned from the beginning to be disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think this is an obvious ban that needs to be done given the disruptive editing, harassment and numerous socking attempts. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Even though someone will almost certainly come along, tell us we're wasting our time because "he's de facto banned and we can just tag him banned and forget about it". Never mind that the ban policy is now in permanent limbo as a result of this de facto nonsense. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - It is worth noting that a de facto ban has nothing close to the enforcement power of a community- or Arbitration-enacted ban, since reverting a de facto banned user's edits is subject to WP:3RR and de facto banned users' socks tend to get prioritized lower than a codified banned user's unless they've made a reputation for themselves (Case in point: [CENSORED PER WP:DENY], who got [it]self banned at ED for pulling the same crap). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at this point we've established enough consensus in 24h, requesting close. Calabe1992 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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)[reply]

    I requested a protect of that page last evening, which appears to have been done. Calabe1992 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Calabe. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [128] [129] [130] [131] and four other edits. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    Abusive Editor - Previously posted in error at Wikiquette assistance

    Hiding text pasted from Wikiquette. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I am being publically accused by this editor on the talk page of "meatpuppetry", and I have done nothing of the kind. This editor is now threatening me as follows: "Any further attempts to tamper with this page through a mendacious and systematic process will result in me submitting yet another easily proven entry on your to an administrator and a resulting permanent ban."

    [I request administrator assistance. I know that I am partially at fault for responding and reacting to uncivil behavior, and have been uncivil myself. However, my behavior may not rise to the level of abuse that I've experienced. Consequently, I'm bringing the entire discussion to this venue for review. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)][reply]

    After spending a considerable amount of time researching and finding proper citations, and working with other (more reasonable) editors trying to improve the article, it seems we had reached a consensus - only to be completely reverted by this editor. Based upon past discussions with him, it appears he has a COI, and has consistently attempted to remove or disrupt any negative information on the agency.

    As an editor with a couple hundred edits to my credit, Wiki doesn't pay us enough to have to endure this kind of abuse.

    Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. This is a contentious article, and Computer Guy 2 was blocked for sockpuppetry on January 14, 2012, for 3 days. Computer Guy 2 also reported AceD at WP:SPI, and the closing admin note stated, in part: "I do think this is an attempt on Computer Guy 2's part to try to deal with an edit war through alternative means." ([133]).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I was blocked - for stupidity in trying to change my identity. In all fairness, you should have pointed out that AceD was warned for Edit Warring against this editor and warned for using multiple accounts in August, 2011. Nevertheless, Bbb23, I thought we worked together pretty well to hammer out a reasonable section - which has now been deleted. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the link to the SPI report has the "warning" you refer to, but it's a bit more innocuous than that. HelloAnnyong said only that he warned AceD about being sure to log in and that he thought that AceD's edit was accidental while logged out. As for you and me, quite honestly, I found you difficult to work "with", but certainly not enough to complain about your conduct. The section in the article you're referring to is messy, and I haven't paid a lot of attention to what's going on since I did a bit of work on the article, mainly because I felt that to do so I'd have to go through it line by line, source by source, and I haven't had the time. However, at a glance, it looked like it wasn't the entire section that was at issue, but that numbered list of agents. To the extent that AceD is trying to eliminate the list and incorporate it into the text, I would - and normally Wikipedia also would - favor that kind of presentation. In any event, this report you've brought is more about the comments made by AceD than by the content war that triggered them, and I must say that his comments are a bit over the top - it's not clear to me that either of you is handling the article neutrally, or each other in a collaborative and respectful fashion. Both of you have a singular interest in the article and in related articles, which often doesn't bode well for neutral editing or calm tempers.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the referenced warning, I simply repeated the heading posted by HelloAnnyong on AceD's Talk Page, "Warning on multiple accounts". Just for the record, there is no "content war" on my part. I simply posted current, cited and verified information, along with other editors, directly pertaining to the heading and removed unverified material. Months ago, when it was clear that no progress was being made in discussion with AceD, I just dropped it and walked away. Since then, I've given considerable thought to this whole process, and personally resolved to be a better editor by not responding to flame-baiting, goading, personal attacks and other forms of incivility. While I do have a narrow spectrum of interest, it certainly isn't singular, and I've posted to a number of articles. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." Computer Guy 2 (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Some comments as an uninvolved editor: It's clear that there is a long standing conflict between you both (Computer Guy 2 and AceD). The comments by AceD are indeed over the top. And I can't be the only admin who is profoundly irritated by editors proclaiming "You will be blocked when I report you" and the like. Being treated like a compliant standby doesn't dispose me to look favorably upon the wielder's viewpont. It's also clear that you both have strong opinions on the subject and that this may be affecting your respective abilities to work together on this article. I have noticed a clear pattern in both of your talk page edits of 1) discussing the topic beyond what is necessary to improve the article and 2) disrespectful commentary on each other. I urge you both to evaluate your approach to editing and to talk page discussions and to think about what your goals are here. You will not convince each other of your respective points of view. The article will not look the way you would prefer and will probably appear biased to you. But, if you keep your conversations concise, the focus always on the article text itself and not the ATF generally, and have as a main goal finding a wording and form that is mutually acceptable and conforms to verifiability and neutral point of view, you can get through it. Computer Guy 2, it seems like you've already done this to some degree and kudos for that, sincerely. Danger High voltage! 07:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am quite tired of arguing with you about this, that much is true. As far as the content resolution side of it, you and you alone keep promoting this anti-ATF agenda dispite numerous editors on the talk page fundamentally disagreeing with the section you alone are responsible for, it is that simple.

    Beyond that, it is beyond debate that you have engaged in meatpuppetry. You have now twice referred to (here, and on the talk page) the "numerous editors" that you "built a consensus with" as support for your point of view, without acknowledging that these "numerous editors" are friends of yours from an anti-ATF message board where you posted this article and asked for support. Not the first time you have done so, either. Subsequently, multiple people registered for the first time for an account and promoted your same point of view to reach your idea of a "consensus". I haven't reported you yet, because I have strong suspicion that such an act will get you permanently banned so close on the heels of your latest sockpuppetry ban, but will certainly do so today if you persist in this action and vitrol. Beyond that, I think the true consensus regarding the content speaks for itself, and I am done with it.AceD (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    With the exception of 9 early postings, AceD has occupied nearly all his time on Wikipedia reverting the undersigned's edits and engaging in personal attacks on the undersigned. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AceD) To be fair, there was a short period of rational, almost cordial discussion. The AceD account was created on 5 Feb 2006, posted one edit, and was silent for over 5 years. AceD began using the account again on 9 August 2011, made 8 minor posts, then exclusively began reverting the undersigned's edits, edit warring and making personal attacks. He made no posts to any other subject area. When confronted with the evidence, AceD responded that he had "forgotten" about the account and had been previously posting under various IP addresses. Wikipedia specifically forbids this practice; "Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users."

    Before changing to the AceD name, he posted almost identical edits as 71.226.23.207 (13 July 2011 - 23 August 2011) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.226.23.207), beginning his postings by reverting the undersigned's edits. Just prior to 71.226.23.207, another ID (71.203.85.14) was used to post nearly identical edits and engaged in vandalism (17 March 2011 - 30 March 2011). When other editors were critical of 71.203.85.14 failing to sign his posts, he responded, "I don't sign things because I do not yet know how." How many other IP addresses were used by AceD is anybody's guess. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with some of the less involved editors that both of you are taking it too far. If you have suspicions of sockpuppetry or other policy violations, report it at the appropriate place and it will be addressed. Instead, both of you seem to be throwing the accusations out there to try to win the argument over the content of the article, which basically just annoys other people and accomplishes nothing. If your suspicions are justified, this conflict could be over tomorrow thanks to banning, or otherwise those accusations can at least be put aside and everyone can focus on improving the article. Since you specifically mentioned article content above, I'll just say that I'm generally closer to AceD's opinions in terms of article content. You obviously have strong feelings about the ATF and its actions, which is fine and maybe even admirable, but doesn't always lead to a better encyclopedia article. hɑzʎ ɗɑƞ 16:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way. AceD's sockpuppetry was previously addressed in a complaint, however HelloAnnyong was unable to make the connection between the various IP addresses and AceD. My background in other articles is irrelevant to this issue. I repeat the earlier quote, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, one who is blocked, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." The topic of this request for assistance is personal attacks on the undersigned. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to revisit a 6 month old complaint you made where the investigation found there was no wrongdoing on my part and that you were warned for superficially trying to carry out an edit war. Especially since you are the only sockpuppet in this conversation, and are even now continuing to engage in similar behavior.
    For the record, I have exclusively used only one username- not three like yourself- on wikipedia. Before that username I exclusively used a single IP address at a given time. I have never presented myself as different entities in the same conversation, unlike what you have done on multiple occassions. And never will. But I can't fail to see the irony of being consistently accused of sockpuppetry by someone who has been banned from editing this article for months on end and is within two weeks of coming off a ban for multiple sockpuppets.
    Further, to Hazydan's point- this is no attempt by me to "win" an argument or debate on this issue. Indeed, I do not see a present issue as over the past year not a single individual (outside of the meatpuppets that registered yesterday) have supported Computer Guy's well documented attempts to enumerate each and every issue with ATF. Numerous people, in various different venues, have explained that the section is unbalanced, redundant, uncalled for and/or crass NPOV.
    Now back to you, Computer Guy/Ike/Solo I Fatty- your history DOES matter. Even a cursory glance at your history shows that EVERYBODY seemingly has a problem with you. Even the people who do "work" with you subsequently explain the difficulty in dealing with you. This is very telling. I can honestly say that you are the ONLY person I have EVER had an issue with on wikipedia. You mention that most of my posts have been edits on your material, and in some way try to cast that in a negative light. However, by your own admission now, you recognize that the very same material you blasephemy me for editing did not belong in the first place and you, as the original editor, were wrong for posting? How in ANY way is that an indictment on my history?AceD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said before, "The only reason I brought out AceD's background is because my background was brought out for all to see - and not in a neutral or objective way." Now, we have yet another personal attack. I have no intention of responding to flame-baiting. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Query: how is a mutual focus on each other's editing history and behavior helping improve Wikipedia? Are you closer to finding a resolution to any disputes over content than you were yesterday? Danger High voltage! 01:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer. My purpose in bringing this situation to Wikiquette assistance is to clearly demonstrate the personal attacks upon the undersigned. AceD's continued speculation on my off-site identity is a clear and flagrant violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's threat to continue disrupting my work on Wikipedia is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. AceD's continued personal attacks upon the undersigned on this page consist of prima facie evidence of Wikipedia:Harassment. Further, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment....whether any such information is accurate or not." Other editors have engaged in Wikihounding and continuing the personal attacks. None of these violations contribute to constructive editing nor finding any resolution. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Again, yet another bait and switch on your part....and another outright lie. Please read these policies you so flippantly throw out. "Personal information" is defined by wikipedia policy as "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other personal contact information". Kindly link where any of these items have been posted by this user or any other. You won't though, because you can't. I didn't respond to you last comment, because there was nothing to respond to. Just leave it alone. You have made your "point", and repeatedly changing the issues that you have with me literally from post to post is only going to provide the opposite effect that you intend.AceD (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki-policy isn't a legal code. Repeatedly referring and linking to to a user's undisclosed off-wiki identity may be seen as harassment, regardless of whether that specific type of information is listed in policy. I see that you have not responded or apparently listened to either of my comments. What exactly do you hope to accomplish here? Danger High voltage! 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I have "listened" to your advice. I do not see the need to verbalize my acknowledgment, though maybe that was an error. However, the essence of your advice has been received and acted on- I am not posting anymore in the article, not engaging with Computer Guy, etc. I didn't even respond to his penultimate comment earlier today, but I did feel his most recent remark and false accusations merited a defense, without overly vindictive personal remarks or verbal comments that expanded the scope of the discussion beyond a defense. I was done with the "content" some time ago, as I also mentioned earlier. When viewed through the prism that I am not the reason that we are here and did not initiate this action, I can only say that I can truly answer your question "what do you hope to accomplish here" with...Nothing.
    Beyond that, there is no "repeated" action here- I posted the complaint and have been done with it. Computer Guy 2 is the only one bringing it up now. And the "off-wiki" identity isn't "undisclosed", in fact Computer Guy 2 is who disclosed that previously unknown website to this editor and into one of our previous discussions, while acknowledging his postings here there.
    Now, I will certainly be done with this issue....if allowed to be. And truly, thanks for the advice.AceD (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Both of you should really pay attention to Danger and Hazydan and just stop. Rehashing the bad blood, fighting about the content of the article - none of that will accomplish anything. Computer Guy 2, I suggest you end this topic. AceD, I suggest you be a little less strident in your language; regardless of whether you think it's supportable, it's not constructive. Both of you should pay more attention to the good of the encyclopedia rather than your own viewpoints. And if you can't edit the article neutrally, then don't edit it at all. Edit other articles you don't feel strongly about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur. Nobody Ent 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems I [originally] posted this on the wrong assistance page (Wikiquette assistance). I was looking for administrator intervention rather than any rehashing of bad blood. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so it's clear, CG2 has copied all of the above posts from WP:WQA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uninvolved Editor I saw this at WQA. I strongly suggest both of you (CG2 and AceD) drop it. The fact that you didn't get any sanctions applied at WQA and now pasted practically all of this into the ANI page instead of providing a link demonstrates not an attempt to resolve the problem, but to continue being disruptive and levying accusations of misbehavior at each other. I am willing to apply liberal usage of oily fish to communicate the point that you need to find something besides antagonizing each other on the site. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from reading the history, that's the same advice given to CG2 and AceD by several editors (including me). Frankly, I don't understand what CG2 expects to accomplish here (other than his stated request for sanctions).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will certainly heed this advice and abide by it. In truth, I have acted less than civily in the past with regards to the complainant but can honestly say I have limited my recent history (outside of reinitating a previously unrelated to me sockpuppet investigation that merited action) with him to defending myself in the multiple venues he chooses to vent against me, unprovoked. Whatever the respective culpability between our two parties, however, I will resolve to leave the issue alone even if continually baited. I hope better and more objective editors can continue the content editing over the contentious material, as it has certainly needed attention. Thanks for your time.AceD (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was involved in the WQA thread and saw no grounds for admin action. If another admin disagrees though, by all means take it. Danger High voltage! 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Block: a year: Help me

    Resolved
     – Nothing anyone can do here. Calabe1992 20:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My edit rights have been removed in Finnish Wikipedia for a year in my opinion based on my edits without any prior discussion of them [134]. [135] In my opinion blocking a person does not help anything if the other party has no understanding of its reasons and discussion is blocked. Finland has ongoing presidential election 2012. In my opinion I have hardly any permanent edits during the last month time and all my Wikitime is stuck to discussions. I ask: Does Wikipedia really allow political sensor in its pages before the elections? Repeted removals of my additions based on opinions, including my arguments in the talk pages, notability disussion of more than a year old articles and blocking before the elction date, make me feel to be subject of Wikihounding. In my opinion Finnish Wiki violates the guidelines by excluding me. Guidelines should be same for everyone. Blocks without discussion do not help to reach consensus. I have no email and if I had I would not give it to persons or organizations I do not trust. Help me. Who protects Wikipedia? Watti Renew (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't deal with the Finnish Wikipedia here. Calabe1992 18:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand a bit on what Calabe1992 said: This is the English-language Wikipedia. None of the various languages have any control over what goes on at any other language Wikipedia. In other words, no one at the Spanish or Russian or Hebrew or Korean Wikipedias can give you any help either. You're going to have to work within the Finnish Wikipedia to get this resolved. --Jayron32 19:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive canvassing at an AfD

    Yesterday I nominated an article created by Edvini (talk · contribs) for deletion [136], and today, a large number of "Keep" votes by users active on the Albanian wikipedia began materializing. This is because Edvini canvassed on the Albanian wikipedia [137]. One does not need to speak Albanian to see that he tells them to vote "Keep". This is disruptive in the extreme. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have given one of the commenters an WP:NPA warning, but my time is limited today so I hope other administrators can take a look as well. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In that posting i was discussing the creation of the most historical moment in the Albanian history, as this year is the 100 anniversary of the Albanian independence. If you check thoroughly, you will see that at least 3 voters are not Albanian at all, nor do they speak Albanian. And, all those voting against are Greek speakers or Greek nationals with one exception. Why don't you put a new rule if you are so concerned in deleting this article: Only votes of non-Albanians, non-Greeks, non-Macedonians, and non-Montenegrins will be counted. (Edvin (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Does canvassing in an AfD really make a difference? The closing admin is supposed to look at the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't make a difference - I've tagged it with {{Not a ballot}} to make others aware of that. GiantSnowman 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If canvassing in AfD didn't make a difference, WP:ARS would not exist. 109.151.89.180 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The justification for ARS exiting is that any canvassing that may be a byproduct of their activities does in fact not make a significant difference, but that the sourcing and other improvements that their work sometimes generates does make a difference, just as it ought to. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit that because "good" members of the ARS do good work rescuing some articles, we should allow otherwise non-notable trash to be kept due to the canvassing of their "not good" members? Interesting. 109.151.89.180 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless, it shows disruptive intent. At the very least Edvini should be strongly warned by an admin to refrain form doing so in the future, and if he does so again, he should be blocked. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So if i start an article, i put sources and other people start editing it, i should be blocked? Is the aim of this encyclopedia to enrich information or to limit to the tastes of a small group of people? If so, you don't need to block me, i can leave myself and contribute to less hostile encyclopedias.
    If you follow the article you have nominated for deletion, there is nothing wrong, and the people talking or commenting see nothing wrong except enriching it with more materials and sources. Since yesterday, you started attacking me, threatening to report etc. For what? For citing some books and writing an article....This is not fair! (Edvin (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    WP:CHILL. Calabe1992 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very strange, because I never "threatened to report you" yesterday, I only notified you of the AfD. On the other hand, I did warn this guy [138] that I would report him if he removed the AfD tag. Sockpuppetry, anyone? Athenean (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go. Calabe1992 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely enough, they are Red X Unrelated. Calabe1992 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    it clearly does. I can't count the amount of AfDs I've been involved in on stuff that has failed notability but which happened to be some kind of internet meme, joke, or other than that may have been relevant to a few people here, but produced no real sources that ended up being kept because no admin would close against the "vote". I've found very few admins who will truly discount WP:ILIKEIT votes and actually close to the arguments, this applies not just to AfD, but any remotely controversial discussion on Wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    GA review restart

    Resolved

    On Talk:Rani Mukerji/GA1, someone said they would review it, and then said they could not. Could you remove the page but keep the article in the GA review queue? BollyJeff || talk 20:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Only a note to say that this is the admin noticeboard, for getting admins to help with incidents, but anybody can be involved with GA reviews and not only administrators. For your query, somebody else will use the same page when they come to review it. Rcsprinter (message) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that anyone can do GA review, but they may not think to review this one since it seems to be under review already; in fact it is sitting idle. There is a note on the page asking for an admin to help; since that was not happening I posted here. BollyJeff || talk 20:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted it. I think the bot that updates the status of GA nominations automatically marks it as already under review if the page exists, so the page needs to not be there for the status to be set right by the bot. Either way it's no trouble for the person who actually reviews it to recreate the page. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the GAReview (in double brackets) manually, because the note was still there saying it was under review, but the bot put it right back. Maybe I'll have to review it myself. BollyJeff || talk 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it by replacing the GAN template, but now it says I nominated it...if someone can fix that particular quirk I think it'll be back the way it should be. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, got it fixed. It should go back the way it was now. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, BollyJeff || talk 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    PumpkinSky, sockpuppet of Rlevse

    In the last few weeks, User:PumpkinSky has made numerous personal attacks against me - so many that other people openly wondered where the animosity was coming from. But there's more - he's also been adding tons of copyvios. Well, it turns out that Pumpkinsky is, in fact, a sockpuppet of disgraced ex-arbitrator user:Rlevse (violating Rlevese's claims of right to vanish). When Amalthea confronted Pumpkinsky about this, Pumpinsky admitted he was Rlevese and claimed he was leaving the project.

    I have tagged Pumpkinsky, but not blocked him. (I'll let someone else do the honors). Meanwhile, people should be on the lookout for any more sockpuppets of his that happen to get registered in the next few days. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you should self revert tagging the page until something more official occurs, like an actual block. My76Strat (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with tagging the account. The sock account needs to be blocked and the Rlevese main account needs to be tagged as a sockpuppeteer and blocked. Anything less is going to be seen as blatant bias. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've switched the tag to a more appropriate one until a block is enacted, or whatever. Calabe1992 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disgraced or not, Rlevse is not a banned editor. Is there an allegation he's using more than one account at the moment? 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that he abused WP:RTV. I don't know if this is possible, but if so, I think his account should be renamed from Vanished User back to Rlevse. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And abused of it in order to specifically revisit old grudges (his disgrace via the defeatured Grace Sherwood, revisited in his attacks on Raul654 and FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, the Rlevse account is already blocked. Do the bureaucrats and/or ArbCom need to be notified? --Rschen7754 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, they have most certainly been made aware. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like Amalthea or another checkuser to comment here before anyone does anything drastic. Rlevse may be back, or Pumpinsky may be falsely claiming to Amalthea that he is Rlevse for whatever reason. Any action taken on the Rlevse account (e.g. renaming) should only happen if the first case is true. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Background:Rlevse was extremely active at DYK, which came under fire (um, from me) in October 2010 for extreme repeat instances of copyvio. This culminated in October 2010 with Rlevse's Halloween WP:TFA revealed to be a copyvio (Grace Sherwood). He stepped down as an arb over that, and then exercised RTV. Now he's back, going after FAC, and committing and passing copyvio at DYK, with them turning the same blind eye they turned back in 2010. But specifically, he is violating RTV to revisit his old grudge on Raul and FAC.Let me know if diffs are needed-- this is all pretty well known stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just picked up on this. Rlevse vanished, not blocked or banned, and although he disappeared following issues around plagiarism/close paraphrasing, I don't think he *would* have been blocked, as it wasn't copy-pasting-half-a-website or passing off ripped-off piccies as one's own work, it was a sentence or two, albeit in a lot of articles :( Which would mean he couldn't WP:CLEANSTART, and anyway I think his style is so characteristic that he'd get spotted fairly fast, but there is nothing to stop him coming back. The prescribed course when a vanished user comes back is supposed to be to reinstate the vanished account. Tagging the new one as the old one is also OK (as far as I can see) but there's no need for a block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (tons of edit conflicts) He exercised RTV. That means you leave permanently, not "rename my account to hide my history and then I'll come back with a new account to resume editing". If he's not blocked already he ought to be blocked. He exercised RTV, then came back with a sock to resume engaging in old grudges. This is just as bad as circumventing a block. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Account is blocked because he was editing from it - which vanished users are not supposed to do. If Pumpkinsky is also generating copyvios, lets focus on that. If he's come back to do it again, then I suspect the community will have an opinion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That (EotR) is an incorrect description of his copyvio, and users who continue copyvio and don't help clean it up are blocked. OK, so how many arbs are behind or aware of this and any other RTV or CLEANSTART accounts affecting FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So he is circumventing a block. The userpage is protected or something so can someone plase add the puppeteer tag? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 4) It's only a block from the standpoint that vanished users cannot be editing. It's not a true block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How about someone make a checkuser verification before this conversation continues along the lines that they are affiliated. My76Strat (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Amalthea is a checkuser (see User talk:Amalthea). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but I've seen no indication that tools were actually used. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This user must remain blocked. He caused all manner of damage to the project and, once made aware of it, exercised RTV. He then came back and resumed damaging the project, now without any excuse that he may not have been fully aware of what he was doing. This is precisely what blocking is for, and this is how blocks should be applied to this project. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    More background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. As to the attacks and disruption at FAC, too much to diff-- I sorta think everyone is aware of it by now, but diffs can be easily offered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    More background: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. Also, since October 2010, we've been quite aggressive at FAC about monitoring for copyvio, so Rlevse joined in a mere handful of editors calling for FA leadership to be thrown out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a general request could everyone just slow down a couple notches and think rather than just shooting from the hip? Everyone seems to be responding based on gut reactions rather than coherent, well-developed thoughts. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    speak for yourself, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've said nothing on the matter and have no intent to at this point. By the way, that indent may have looked like I was replying to you specifically but that wasn't my intention, it was more a general comment to everyone. Need another cookie? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I know Grace Sherwood was a fiasco, but editors who get blocked for copyvio are the ones who copypasta entire websites, rip off photos etc. This was a sentence here, two sentences there, close paraphrasing way too much. Yes, it was a huge issue for FA, I'm not denying that, and I'm not supporting a vanished user coming back and repeating problematic behaviour, but.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And to my knowledge, you are still wrong. Considering where the arbs' credibility is on this matter, and that as far as I know you weren't an arb then, pls reflect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not coming at this as an Arb Sandy. I used to work a bit in CCI, and I've blocked a good few copyright violators. All I'm saying is that the ones that get blocked are attempting to pass off the contents of entire websites as their own work, and hiding it by not citing the copysource. It appears Rlevse had great difficulty rendering his cited sources using his own words, which is a major problem for someone trying to write an FA, and a problem for the pedia, I'm not denying that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I have seen I agree with that: In my estimation the improper paraphrasing is caused by carelessness, not malice or intent to disrupt. Obviously a huge problem if done on this scale, but since it was a first offense back then the editor was not blocked: a block would not have been preventative. That part really is normal. Amalthea 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To the degree that an editor who generated copyvios is unwilling to help clean them up, I have to agree with SandyGeorgia; if Rlevse has returned to editing, he needs to lend a hand to the cleanup effort (and obviously not create any more). Other editors have been required to actively help clean up copyright messes and the ones who don't aren't allowed to continue editing. For consistency's sake I think we need to approach this the same way, assuming the identity is confirmed. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was only that at the time when Rlevse vanished back in 2010, the account was not blocked for copyright violations (edit: or plagiarism/close paraphrasing -- I'm in no position to judge whether any of this actually is a copyright violation.). He could have un-vanished and, yes, would have been expected to help with the cleanup. The situation is of course different now, and I'm expecting that this thread will at some point make that quite explicit. Amalthea 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Provided the two users are the same, I would support a block for flat out disruption, ignoring the sockpuppetry issues. --Rschen7754 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Just to clear up a point, which the conversation above seems to be confused about. Usually we do not permanently block an account if the person does not help clean up a copyright violation mess they have created. You only have to spend a short time at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Open investigations to see how unusual it is for a perpetrator to help clean up their mess. Not long ago a well known and prolific editor was temporarily blocked for hindering the clean-up process, but because there was no evidence s/he had been involved in adding any copyrighted material since the start of the investigations, the block was lifted once it was clear the person would no longer hinder the process.

    Unfortunately as can be see from the investigations many editors caught persistently breaching copyright first of all deny it, then plead ignorance, and then, despite the initiation of an investigation, they continue to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. To protect the project from further harm, it is those editors who are indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be sure it's him before we do anything

    It should go without saying that any editor can claim to be someone else. Some editors are better at such things than others, but we should eliminate that possibility first. 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the conversation I had it is very unlikely that he was pretending to be Rlevse, and that wouldn't have really made sense in the context. IP also matches older information that I can find, and FWIW, the latest mail I sent was CCed to Rleves' old address. I have no doubt whatsoever. Amalthea 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sent the person I know is Rlevse a text message and will call him later this evening. MBisanz talk 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder who leaked Arbcom-L to Wikipedia Review! Wait, no I don't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is Rlevse, it may not be the first time he's broken RTV: PumpkinSky started editing just two days after BarkingMoon quit last July. That may be worth revisiting. Geometry guy 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW: Rlevse strongly denied to be BarkingMoon. I myself am convinced that they are the same though, there are way to many similarities to explain it away.
    A cursory look through the articles created by BarkingMoon did not raise red flags, but that's not really my specialty: I agree that a closer look would not hurt -- but not on ANI. Beyond that, I don't think that anything needs or should be done. Amalthea 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mainly wanted to draw it to checkuser attention: the BarkingMoon account is blocked, but by user request, and is not tagged. An example of a point of contact revealed by this new information is the Noel_F._Parrish article. There may also be a pattern of behavior here. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the original barkingmoon SPI. Raul654 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, that one ended inconclusively. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be more accurate to say that it ended with Arbcom intervention: I have asked for clarification about this here. Geometry guy 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And I have not yet received a satisfactory answer, 3 hours later. Geometry guy 02:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, this is absolutely not the first time Rlevse has come back after his RTV. About a week after he left, he created another account. A firestorm ensued, and he left after a day or two. I am wracking my brain but I cannot remember the name of that account. (Someone help me here) Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought he came back and started editing with the vanished account, caused a firestorm and that's why it's blocked.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Elen is correct. He left after a lynch mob on AN/I, initiated right to vanish and then made a few edits after vanishing. Which resulted in a major firestorm. I don't recall any other incidents. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your account to be blatantly wrong, I was there minute by minute, but I'll leave it to others to read the link of the entire incident I've posted here. The minute his copyvio was discovered, he left-- there was no "lynch mob" at that point. The anger came later, when he continued editing after having exercised his right to vanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All this happened while I was going through one of my periods of "underground" editing (I embark on these periodically). I consider Rlevse to be a friend, and so naturally my first inclination is to support someone I respected. However it is easy enough to review the evidence, and Sandy's assessment is, unfortunately, painfully accurate. Manning (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Is there any possible relationship with the recently blocked User:PumknPi? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, he's a sock of User:TungstenCarbide, a serial socker and all around troll, which would fit with PumknPi's edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Scuse me...need to go and whack someone upside the head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Duly whacked [140]. He's definitely TungstenCarbide. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the fiasco surrounding the Grace Sherwood article what was ignored in favour of a mob like lynching was that Rlevese had asked for editor help on that article citing his own weakness in writing, and that as Elen said the sections which were too close to source text where sentences not pages which an editor was trying to hide. Clearly there was no malice involved.There are few articles on Wikipedia where one cannot dig up sentences that are close to the source text. There was and still is no established line where text automatically is judged to be too close to the source. Holding one editor to a standard that is difficult for most editors on Wikipedia is unfair. And I'll add that after the first incident with Rlevse I found numerous instances of the same kind of writing concerns that Rlevse had been attacked for in articles, and some of the writers were those who had attacked Rlevse. Perhaps More of Elen's calm and reasonable behaviour would be useful on the this thread, rather than another ugly lynching?(olive (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    He couldn't write well so he plagiarized in order to get ten FAs? How is that anyone's fault but his own? Also, lynching kills people. ANI does not. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lynching, bullshit. Rlevse has close to 100,000 edits, and during that time couldn't learn a simple thing like proper paraphrasing? And then comes back, a couple of times, doing the same shit? They should have used their time off-wiki at a community college, re-taking freshman comp. Olive, have you even looked at this, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky? If you're looking to do a nice thing for them, you might get started on that list. There's a couple hundred more to go. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What's more strange is that someone could make 100,000 edits before anyone else noticed the problem. Thankfully SOPA didn't pass. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was quite common place then, before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written, and if you'll read the description of the entire incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, you'll find it was a systemic problem at DYK. Worse-- still is. Rlevse came back there to continue more of same, and it still wasn't detected, and there have been multiple serial copyright violators at the top of DYK for years. Was always a problem, still is, what is shocking about this case is that Rlevse came back to continue more of same even after being discovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If Rlevese/Pumpkin Sky struggles writing articles without plagiarising, then they shouldn't be writing at all. Good intentions don't outweigh the disruption caused. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So after an editor has a certain edit number its not called lynching. I wonder how many editors on this page could stand the same scrutiny. Wikipedia is full of this kind of writing, full of it , and its tolerated and rewarded. I'm not saying its the best way to write, its not, but don't kid yourselves that this one editor has crossed some clearly identifiable line behind which we all stand, and he does not. Get real guys. Any editor here want to have all of their edits combed through? I won't cmt further.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    In four years on Wikipedia this is the most offensive statement I've ever seen. You just compared a difference of opinion on Wikipedia with the brutal terroristic murders of tens of thousands of African-Americans and the destruction of their families through rape and other forms of violence. And on the first day of Black History Month. (shakes head) --NellieBly (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called lynching when a mob drags you from your home or a jail cell where you are awaiting trial and beats you, hangs you, burns your corpse, then takes souvenirs from your clothes, and possibly body parts. It's some serious shit. ANI is a circus for children. Here I am, natch. Copyvio and plagiarism are problems, and perhaps pervasive problems, but serious editors should recognize plagiarism and copyvio, learn how NOT to do it, then not do it--and quite possibly help undo the copyvio they've done. None of what Rlevse or PumpknSky have done in this realm is respectable in any way. Rlevse quit when his copyvio was brought to light. Now he's used a sockpuppet to harass editors at FAC and sound like a dimwitted adolescent. What is there we should be mindful of in this instance? --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would we selectively take this term literally on an encyclopedia that includes terms like cherry-picking, WP:DUCK and we could go on?...TSK....(olive (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    I was friends with Rlevse, and also hold Raul and Sandy Georgia in high regard. What follows may imply my support towards RLevse, and that is not my intent - I am just trying to present his claimed position, (which has been absent thus far). So here's a diff of his farewell statement, posted by SirFozzie on his behalf back in Nov 2010. Make of it what you will. Manning (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, here's what I make of it. All true, but then he came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio, and back to FAC to beat on the very people who instituted checks for copyvio, making it harder to get an FA. And this goes to what Oliveoil is saying above-- sure, probably few hve a stellar record. In the early days of my editing (2006 to 7), I thought it was ok to cut-and-paste from public domain, and I thought it was OK to almost directly translate foreign sources. Then the Plagiarism Dispatch was written mid-2009 -- by the way, well before Rlevse's 2010 copyvio was discovered-- and a whole lot of us learned we'd been doing it wrong for a long time. So, bottom line-- once you are educated (and Rlevse was), do you try to clean up after yourself, or do you come back under multiple other accounts to 1) defend ongoing coyvio at DYK, and 2) continue creating copyvio yourself? He didn't help-- he continued same. Endorse indef block, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely wish I had some basis on which to disagree with you, Sandy. I'm so saddened by the whole affair. Manning (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, can you back up you claim that Rlevse "came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio"? Cause I see no indication that's true. Amalthea 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor phrasing on my past, because Rlevse defended copyvio, and PumpkinSky blamed "the FA crowd" for increased copyvio checks: more concise phrasing to put those two together would be "came back to DYK to continue defending the status quo" (which was and remains little checking for copyvio, and was what Rlevse did); see for example, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 76#Reflections of a long-time user. And generally note that Pumpkin appeared there to keep pushing things along, which lowered the chance of getting regulars to take copyvio seriously, even after a year and a half since the Rlevse Halloween debacle (which was not a few phrases as stated here several times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the PumpkinSky account indefinitely after realizing it had not already been done. I'm watching PumpkinSky's user page. There seems to be some confusion: a sock template was placed on that page and removed twice despite a confirmed checkuser. If it happens again, I'm going to protect the user page. As for this thread, I'm not sure what more can be said here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably for the best. Not much more can be done in this thread. Hopefully he realises that if he wants to come back and edit, he has to deal with the backstory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm staying totally out of the issues with PumpkinSky's battles with admins, as I respect him but I also respect many of you, (Sandy, for example, was at one time very kind in defending me when I had a major problem with a now-blocked user) but I was working closely with PumpkinSky on an article where he was a useful and gracious editor and feel someone needs to make some statement in his defense. I have spent hours and hours on the article myself, and now will probably have to purchase a hardcopy book to verify every last bit of his work and I am not happy about it because I suspect that it will be, at most, another Grace Sherwood situation where one or two sentences here or there might be a little close, but not a mass plagiarism issue. Seems most of this fuss is over personality issues, not content. I AM concerned about the level of vitriol here over the copyvio issues, because we now have about 800 articles to look at, mostly for what will mostly be minor edits and vandal reverts, with possibly be too-close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is a fine line on very short start class articles, particularly when there isn't a lot of source material. And that was a lot of what PumpkinSky was working on. As for Rlevse, I have no clue if they are the same person, but Rlevse was an admin who also helped me deal with the same individual Sandy helped me face, so I also considered him a kind and helpful person. I was sad to see him go and remember thinking the Grace Sherwood dogpile was a bit over the top when the problem was only a few sentences in one paragraph, which probably should have been quickly fixed (before the article hit the main page, agreed) and then move on. Seems to me that personality issues are getting in the way and minor sins are viewed through a lens clouded by other concerns. As for not writing at all, it is important to remember that in some fields of writing, scientific discussion or law for example, close paraphrasing is practically required so as to keep precision in nuance and interpretation -- getting too creative changes the meaning. So I have some sympathy for stuff getting cranked out that comes a bit close to the source. It's like WP:BEANS -- once a concept is in your head, it is a bit of a challenge to put aside a concept and be completely original. So my take is that I'd like people to separate the content from the contributor: PSky may have been wiser to have avoided engaging with admins on admin issues, I won't comment there because I've not been following the drama boards. But the content sins are, as far as I can tell, misdemeanors at most, and mostly less than that. I will admit that PSky bailed fast rather than defend his work, and that was the same pattern as Rlevse, but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters. So I just hope everyone tones down the rhetoric. I'd like to see these users -- whether one person or two -- return, as they were tackling things that needed to be done. I for one am going over the CCI stuff and trying to at least check off the low-hanging fruit. I'd also be willing to help these users if they return by being a second set of eyes. Montanabw(talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Montanabw for a humane and perceptive comment, "but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters."(olive (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Given all the personal attacks directed at me from his pumpkinsky sockpuppet, I for one have no intention of toning down my commentary on him. Nor do I have any desire to see him return. He should have the good grace to never darken our door again.
    And for any checkusers reading this, please make a note of any IP data used by Pumpkinsky, because if he stays true to his pattern, he'll be registering another sockpuppet very soon. (If he hasn't done so already). Raul654 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it seems quite likely even to me. Camp Disappointment. Google "Rlevse Montana". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, ha ... for example:

    I lived in Montana too, blacks were about 0.1% of the population there. Indians and Hispanics are far more common in that part of the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also "hear" where Montana's coming from, but no ... after all the attacks directed at FAC and Raul over the last months, this reaction is justified. It wasn't "just" copyvio that brought us to here-- it was coming back under a new account to visit huge amounts of disruption upon FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    1. Seemed like the dude was doing good work on the Yogo Gulch article. At least trying.

    2. The Grace Sherwood concern was vastly overblown. Especially the ZOMFG on the main page concern. Lots of articles get more traffic than a main page article just from Googling in and the vast amount of our content is not accessed through the main page. The main page of the NYT it is not! Isolated sentence level too-close copying exists (at least in history) in every popular and well contributed to article (every major element, country, etc.) The lack of perspective on a too close para (even just by Wiki standards, not real world liability or the like) and confounding it with blatant or large scale copying is a real problem. The genuine plagiarizer has a pattern and does it a lot and in stretches. Some of the parsing being done on phrases at Wiki would get laughed at by an IP lawyer or an academic review board.

    3. I'm concerned that copyvio is becoming on more weapon to use in feuds. (We already see this some with some of the Wiki rules and policies.) This is especially concerning since it is a perversion of what should be very much a content thing and not connected to squabbles of factions. I have personally seen this used this way twice recently. Both times very sketchy, too. I think concern of a single, nonremarkable fact in an article missing a references (in the Fae RFC) is similar.

    4. Thinking that Raul does not do much as FA leader or that the position should be elected is not a personal attack. It actually shows a lack of perspective and analytics to confound the two.

    5. The Pumpkiner dude's not perfect (like I want a more detailed map of the Yogo Gulch damnit, not that little red county!), but he is probably just bailing from the embarrassment more than anything.

    TCO (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah 100% TCO: all style "dude", no substance. Reminds me of, now who? Geometry guy 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If Rlevse wanted to return to Wikipedia after claiming to have left, he should have just taken the Elen-approved route - just claim that, even though he used it for years, he just realised his Rlevse account contains his first name somewhere. This lucky quirk of fate can then be used to set up a new account that openly claims to be a WP:CLEANSTART, but which can hide behind WP:OUTING if it's ever asked if it used to be Rlevse. This method of switchover takes two minutes, and allows immediate resumption of high level editing. If he'd done it this way, he could go right back to his old topic areas and activities no matter what record he had there as Rlevse, and in situations like this nobody would be getting away with pulling up old evidence based on the Rlevse history, they'd be getting told by Elen to compile whole new dossiers based solely on the new suit, or shut the hell up. That's of course the best benefit, but even better than just skulking back and hoping no-one notices, this method even allows the resumption of whatever wiki-friendships Rlevse had in place, right in plain sight as if it was all perfectly normal and allowed. Imagine the possibilities. It cannot be countered by anyone, for the experienced user of this con-trick there are easy plays available against anyone. So there you have it Rlevse, 100% satisfaction guaranteed or your money back, just ask User:Mo ainm for further advice if you can't pick it up from these instructions. Tora Bora Mora (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, dear, as if this topic wasn't already "entertaining" enough - now, a newly registered user pops up and posts the above and another post at Arbcomm. The post here reminds me of those who post how-to-make-a-bomb instructions on the Internet. Of course, I have no idea whether the instructions here would work.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is turning into "Ducks Unlimited" in more than one way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article created on en.wiki that forces to tr.wiki

    Resolved

    While on NPP I noticed that Mgc92 (talk · contribs) created an article at tr:In Bruges. Clicking on that link will take you to the Turkish Wikipedia. I tried putting a {{noredirect}} tag around the title in my sandbox, but clicking the link still takes me to Turkish Wikipedia. I finally was able to see the page this user created by looking at contribution history and clicking on diffs/permalinks ([141]). It appears that the user was trying to take some of the material from the In Bruges article and translate it into Turkish ([142]) and possibly copy it to the tr.wiki page. The question I have is is this page appropriate to keep on English Wikipedia? Note that I am not accusing Mgc92 (talk · contribs), whose only en.wiki contributions are to this page, of any wrongdoing or bad faith. I am just perplexed at this technicality that I've never come across before. I'm willing to guess that s/he created the page, made a couple of edits to it, and is no longer able to access the page for the same reason I can't access it. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. That is a serious software bug. I wonder how he was able to create that page. Give me a few minutes to see if I can somehow move that page to an accessible location. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Can't move it, can't delete it, can't even nuke it. Let me try some other things. It's clear the page isn't needed here, since it's just a stripped-down foreign language copy of In Bruges, which would be an A10 speedy delete. 28bytes (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Will not rollback either, getting a Turkish message that I'm guessing is telling me I don't have rollback there. Calabe1992 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't even edit it - trying to do so takes me to the Turkish edit form. Oh my. WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to take this over to WP:VPT. I may have to file a bugzilla report for this. I can't figure out any way to move or delete this page, and the software shouldn't have allowed it to have been created in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing. I tried deleting through API, but doesn't work either. I could edit it though. Amalthea 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it's gone. I /could/ delete it via API if I used the page id instead of the title. Should still be brought to bugzilla though! Will you do the honors, 28bytes? Amalthea 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be pushing WP:BEANS, but should someone tell the user to please not do that again? Calabe1992 21:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt they meant to do it in the first place. 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, will do. Thanks for getting it deleted! 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    bugzilla:34128 submitted. 28bytes (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Amalthea, I know Graham87 (talk · contribs) used a similar trick in the past. You might want to confer with him and document it somewhere for the future. MBisanz talk 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did? Can you remember which page that was? The only deletion trick that I remember doing was a history merge of the "Apple" page, and that was basically just watchful waiting. I've used the API before, but not for editing or deleting pages. Or are you thinking of this undeletion that I did with the help of a sysadmin? Graham87 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A script to delete a page by id would be easy, but the bug that allowed creating the page in the first place has already fixed, so hopefully we won't need that anymore.
    I can't really think of a place where folks would intuitively look for such documentation anyway, a quick post to WP:VPT should always be easiest -- someone there will quickly try the same things I did. :)
    Amalthea 22:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Mediation request

    This is a job for (the) Dispute Reolution ManBoard, not AN/I. The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm inviting administrators to mediate the following discussion taking place on Talk:Anti-Defamation League. The debate is about properly sourced material being removed under different charges. All material had as references reliable sources. These are the edits arousing controversy:[143][144] Arguments from both sides have been laid out on the Talk Page, and no consensus has emerged. Please, weigh in on the discussion. These are the users I've been debating with:

    Guinsberg (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong page. You don't need admins for a content dispute, and I would expecy Jayjg to be contributing as an editor, not an admin. Try one of the steps in Dispute resolution - third opinion, DR noticeboard, mediation, RfC.
    DRN is probably the way to go here. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruption by User:Orfeocookie on Talk:Clavier-Übung III

    Over a period of six months last year with over 1,000 edits, I created the article Clavier-Übung III, considered Bach's most important single collection of sacred organ music. It was carefully sourced, with history, musical analysis, audio midi files for all the music prepared by me, new images and a long section on the reception and influence of this seminal work. The material was written in a similar way to other articles I've written (e.g. Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Canonic Variations, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Handel concerti grossi Op.6). The work itself is large and complex, often considered either inaccessible or unplayable, and there is a considerable literature. It is made up of 27 individual pieces.

    Orfeocookie has made 11 article edits to wikipedia so far, with an extended series of edits in user space preparing a sortable list. 3 days ago Orfeocookie arrived on the talk page of this article and demanded it be split up into bits. He has suggested titles for bits of this work which do not exist in the Bach literature and are thus WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. They happen to be titles of sections of the article that I invented myself, following the sources, but they are not suitable titles for wikipedia articles.

    At no stage has Orfeocookie discussed any sources. I explained that if he wants to edit music articles there are plenty of gaps, one being Clavier-Übung I. He did not take kindly to being told about these gaps and in this diff[145] more or less told me he was retaliating for these suggestions by going ahead in actively dismantling the article Clavier-Übung III to chop it up into parts with names from the arbitrary section headings I had invented myself. He has had no prior experience in editing articles on music on wikipedia (apart from two lists).

    I had already explained that a new article on the reception of Bach's organ music, the last and longest section of the article, could be written incorporating parts of what I had written. But I added there was no point in splitting up the musical analysis (which is unusually detailed because it uses several sources). Creating a new article on "Bach reception" would be a lot of work (3 or 4 months). Orfeocookie did not respond to that suggestion. Graham87 has helped with the article for a long time now and is one of the main people with it on his watchlist. He agreed that, although long, by its nature it could not easily be divided into pieces.

    From my point of view, Orfeocookie appears to be disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. This is a carefuly written article which cannot be split apart in this way, except for the section on Bach reception. That could only be split off once a new version had been completely prepared. Orfeocookie's current attitude, which has not involved engaging in calm discussion based on sources, does not seem at all helpful. He has in addition referred to me as having "slaved" over the article,[146] which is another indication that his actions are not being conducted in good faith. I am not quite sure what to do in the current circumstances. Orfeocookie's actions seem unduly aggressive and verge on harassment: a sort of luddism. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Saying that you "invented" those section headers sounds a bit own-y to me. But (T)the only piece of advise I feel qualified to offer is that advising an editor leave "your" article alone, and suggesting other places on Wikipedia where he/she might be more welcome, is, perhaps, not condusive to a collaborative environment, and invites a bit of push-back. I would personally be insulted by such a sugestion. But I'm not an Admin so what the heck do I know? Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, at its core this is a content dispute. Have you broached the idea of an RFC if Orfeocookie feels this strongly about the proposed split? Especially if, as it seems, there are not a lot of eyes on this article? If nothing else, that would (hopefully) provide a relevant consensus if the issue arises in the future, as it seems like it might, since you even admit (and I agree) that the article itself appears overly long at first glance. Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY 03:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)They are the titles I invented myself and were tailor-made for the particular context in the article, given the lede and introductory sections. As such they are not recognizable outside that context and are not in usage in the literature as titles. This is not a question of WP:OWN. I have already suggested a way of shortening the article, which would almost halve its size. That is in fact something I have thought about for quite a while. (Incidentally one part of the "reception" stops more or less at 1920: there is material on the use of Bach organ music and the choirboys of Bach's Thomaskirche in the Nuremberg rallies. Hitler had a monster organ built with 5 manuals.) Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted. After reading further, I take your point and will retract my statement referencing WP:OWN as a mistaken interrpretation. I see that you have put a lot of work into this article, but I still maintain that this is not the correct forum, and advise you to strive work with Orfeocookie in efforts (radical as they may seem) to improve the article. I feel like there is potential for compromise to be made here. Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY 04:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    TBH, I don't think this is anywhere near ANI level ... nothing here requires administrative intevention. It might have been better to get a third (or fourth) opinion? Graham87 03:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Graham87 03:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikiproject Music would be the normal way. The wider issue of articles on Bach reception would be a sensible matter to discuss there. Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I sought opinions on the topic of splitting by the method suggested on WP:Split, which is adding banners that automatically place an article in the category of articles for which splitting has been suggested. After I had done this, Mathsci said that I ought to have gone to the Wikiproject on Classical Music. I have looked at it and did not find anything that seemed pertinent to the issue. I accept that people in the know might think that that is the 'usual' method, but I didn't just make my method up off the top of my head. I acted on suggestions from Wikipedia's own pages. Again, I fail to see how this qualifies as 'disruptive'.Orfeocookie (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly did not demand anything. If I was demanding it I would have gone ahead and started modifying the article instead of raising an issue for discussion on the talk page. I certainly did NOT expect, given the pleasant history of the last few weeks when raising points for discussion, to be flatly told that my opinion didn't matter because I was new. It is also a mystery to me how placing a suggestion banner at the top of a page constitutes 'active dismantling of the article'!!
    The constant requirement for 'sources' seems to come from a basic misapprehension that I am challenging the quality of the content of the article. Not a bit of it. I am raising a query about whether an article well over twice the size of the guideline in WP:Split is the smartest way to present that content so that it can be comprehended by readers. The issue isn't the quality of Mathsci's research, the issue is readability - and I did provide a page with some sources on that issue. How this material is presented in a book is not the only relevant question for presenting it in the online medium. Mathsci appears unwilling to even discuss the notion of daughter or sister articles that enable users to come into the content from several different directions. The whole reason for raising this is that I came looking for information on Duets (Bach), followed the link to the article on the Clavier-Ubung, and was totally overwhelmed by what was there. The same information could be presented in a different way so that a person who 'just wants to know about the Duets at the moment' is not daunted by over 40 pages of other material first. The beauty of hyperlinks is that they provide different routes of discovery, so that a person can learn about the Clavier-Ubung III either 'top-down' or 'bottom-up'. Mathsci appears intent on requiring everyone to accept 'top-down' as the only viable way of learning the subject.
    Mathsci has neglected to mention that as well as removing my move/split suggestion banners twice, he has previously removed a 'very long article' banner only 5 minutes after it was put up by a very experienced editor. So I find the idea that I am a disruptive newcomer to really be a reflection of a deeper reality, that Mathsci believes he 'owns' this article, and that no-one, be it an editor of many years standing or a person familiar with Wikipedia policies on article size or readability, should be allowed to even to question Mathsci's decision as to the 'right' format of the article.
    It is perhaps also worth mentioning that I sought help as to how else I might seek the opinions of others on what is going on and how to resolve it, but Mathsci has saved me the trouble of deciding by bringing the topic here.
    And finally, I have already indicated to Mathsci that the word 'slaved' was not intended as derogatory and merely meant that he had worked very hard. But apparently this has not been accepted as an explanation of my intent. Orfeocookie (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue in writing articles about music is not about providing hyperlinks. A glance at Clavier-Übung I shows that it is at present very little more than a list with some unsourced and misleading commentary. On the other hand there are plenty of sources out there and the main effort is usually to locate them. I'm sorry that you don't like discussing sources, but that is the way we edit on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that treating this as a behavioral issue is the best approach. I brought this up at the Classical music Wikiproject where in my opinion this would be better handled. I think you both would get some good opinions there. (Excellent article, by the way.) Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that, all else aside, this is a fantastic article as it stands. Very well written. Quinn ❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources are required for content. I am not proposing any new content! Orfeocookie (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not sure that this rises to the level of an administrative incident yet, but it easily might. Orfeo's edits are certainly POINTy, as are their talk page comments. It is a mystery to me why they would want to pick this argument over this article in their first one hundred edits--unless it is to make a point or, of course, if they've been active here before. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand WP:POINT correctly, it involves making edits elsewhere for the sake of 'consistency'. Which is actually what Mathsci instructed me to do with another article on the piano music of Faure!! (Unfortunately I have not yet learnt the diff technique to show you exactly where this was said). So no, my edits aren't POINTy in that sense.
    I have not had an account here previously. What I do have is years of experience in relation to the topic of how to organise, structure and present material for an audience. Readability, basically. This is not an issue which is exclusive to Wikipedia so I somewhat surprised that the length of time I have been on Wikipedia comes into it. I am happy to take advice on the content of Wikipedia policies, on the method for raising discussions and seeking additional opinions, and I am in fact quite content to defer to Mathsci on factual questions about Bach's organ works. But none of that was what I was hoping to address when I first wrote on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orfeocookie (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Voluntary Human Extinction Movement – User:Skyeking

    Ok, odd issue here: I'm not sure about how to deal with Skyeking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). For background, I re-wrote our article on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement last month and accidentally stirred up a hornet's nest. Skyeking had been the primary editor of the article but hadn't edited at all for five months or so (I assumed he had retired). To make a very long story short, he didn't like my changes and has been discussing changes to the article at length on the talk page. For the past five days or so, I have disengaged and another user has been working with Skyeking on the talk page. Talk:Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is an interesting read, to say the least. I am glad that Skyeking is discussing things rather than edit warring, but at this point I think talk page guidelines are being violated to the point that collaboration is difficult. Skyeking has now began posting "Legal Opinions (by Skyeking’s legal advisors)" to the talk page. This seems to be unhelpful to collaboration, in my view. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "The group was founded by Les U. Knight"??? Are you sure this article isn't a hoax? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I recall reading that he changed his name after becoming an activist or something. It's not a hoax, but there's not too much of a real organization. Kind of like Anonymous I guess, except without the cool masks. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting idea. It obviously worked for the Shakers. I'm waiting for a punch line of some kind, such as, "Due to his busy personal-appearances schedule, Les has delegated many of his day-to-day responsibilities to his sons and daughters." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit looks like a legal threat to me. WTucker (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree--thank you for deciphering the gibberish. User is indef-blocked by way of WP:NLT. They may ask for an unblock, which would include a retraction--in English, in a format following the regular conventions, and without typographical fancy. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, there are more reasons for blocking. I have been trying to read that talk page--they did their own GA review (or tried to, anyway), for instance, and the other comments on the talk page can really be called trolling. Why Mark Arsten hasn't taken a shotgun to his computer screen is beyond me. Maybe there's gun laws where they live. Reading that talk page is purgatorial: read only small portions at a sitting, please. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "...translating one word at a time for greater safety. One editor read two words by mistake, and had to spend several weeks in hospital." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strewth. Looking that over, I'm reminded of Andy Loeb and the hive mind stuff from Cryptonomicon. Colonel Tom 05:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement"? I'm tempted to found the 'Nobody is Stopping You' movement... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "If people don't want to have any children, you can't stop them." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to assume good faith

    Hail the Dark Lord Satan blocked for disruption, virtually all of his edits stir up trouble. Prodego talk 04:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I am a returned user, coming back under the policy of WP:CLEANSTART. I will not disclose my previous account, but it is fully retired and I no longer use it. My new username seems to have bothered some people and I have been inappropriately accused of WP:DISRUPTION, in total contravention to the policy or WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Specifically, Cullen328 has accused me of disruption; AlphaQuadrant has similarly accused me of disruption; as has Nobody Ent accused me of disruption. The only disruption that has occurred is some editors cannot tolerate something outside of their own comfort level. Wikipedia has been severely disrupted by these editors who have decided to ban one religion, Theistic Satanism, but allow others, User:Jesussaves. If Jesussaves is allowed then my username must similarly be allowed. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, be aware that AlphaQuadrant compared me to Adolf Hitler. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You wouldn't happen to be Rlevse, would you? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, either way, AQ was discussing his user name, not him as a person, so that strike fell through. Calabe1992 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a look, I don't see a notice at AQ's talk page either. Calabe1992 03:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hail The Dark lord Stupidity, kindly add me to your list of people who have accused you of causing disruption. Then climb down off your soapbox... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've got several editors telling you your ID is unacceptable, then it most likely is. All you've done so far, besides editing your user page and arguing about your user ID, is a couple of edits to your old school or something. Do you intend to edit articles that you have previously edited? If so, then you'd be in violation of "clean start" rules. If not, then maybe you should chose a different ID, echoing the "Jesus Saves" ID. I suggest its funny counterpart, "Moses Invests". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If 30 people all tell you the sun is blue that doesn't make the sun blue. I utterly refuse to disclose my previous userid. I do not edit anything having to do with my old account- it is a full and complete break as in keeping with the letter of the policy. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If 30 people tell you that you are lacking in personal hygiene, and need to take a shower, you take one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And 30 people could tell me to shower is sewage, and I wouldn't. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, quit arguing gray versus black/white and let's get some consensus here. Calabe1992 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Block: Username is disruptive. Calabe1992 04:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Actually, he should have kept his trap shut about having a previous ID, since that only invites inquiries. And as per his own words, it looks like his current ID was selected specifically to "make a point". That alone is good grounds for rejecting it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What specifically is disruptive about my username? Other than the people who need to grow a thicker skin, that is. Hail the Dark Lord Satan (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hail Whoever, as far as I can see, everyone is saying much the same thing. We don't see your username as anything but soapboxing. How about trying another WP:CLEANSTART, with a username that doesn't immediately get everyone's backs up. If you actually want to contribute usefully to Wikipedia, this has got to be the most effective way to do it. What are you hoping to prove by antagonising people? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Bugs beat me to the punch. He announces that he used to edit under a different name, after having chosen a new username that he should have known would upset many people, whether or not it is his intention to be offensive. And then he complains on ANI about it. This isn't the way to avoid attention. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you've previously complained about not being notified about your username being reported to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (where from what I can tell it is not required), kindly read the big orange box which makes it clear it is compulsory here then go an notify all four people you have failed to notify of discussing here. (You only mentioned Jesussaves incidentally but they should still be notified.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I see you already notified AQ, sorry I missed that as there was a long time between the notification and this thread. However there is still 3 others you have not notified. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Action to safeguard policy at Wikipedia:Consensus, please

    I draw admins' attention to this edit at Wikipedia:Consensus. As he made that edit, User:JCScaliger simultaneously raised the contested issue in a current case before ArbCom, with this edit. The matter is therefore now before ArbCom, so in good faith I reverted the edit to a key policy page, put a discussion tag in place (and an inline note). I also left this note at the talkpage for the page.

    I request that an admin urgently protect the page to prevent abuse of it for pointy polemical purposes in current action at ArbCom; I request that the protection be lifted only through a motion at ArbCom; and I request that JCScaliger be counselled not to do this sort of thing during the conduct of a case in which he is a party.

    NoeticaTea? 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In the absence of edit warring over the policy, I don't think it's necessary to protect the page. And even if there were a contentious edit war, you can probably have faith in the arbitrators that they won't take a single revision of a policy as the community's will. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Also Noetica I believe you forgot to notify JCScaliger as per the orange box. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks. I'll notify JCScaliger now. I'm not used to this sort of thing! But I do know that when you're making allegations such as he is making in an ArbCom case, it is unhelpful if you also (provocatively) edit a page you are discussing without also noting that fact. It is not a question of what ArbCom will eventually rule in the present case; the page in question is not even within the rather vague ambit of the case. I just don't like to see that happening to a policy page.
    If someone now reverts me (after I protected defended the policy provision in question, which was subject to editing in December and discussion and editing in early January), is it then considered an edit war? I don't want an edit war! I don't appreciate being dragged into anything (sheesh, ArbCom is bad enough ☺).
    Perhaps the situation can be monitored here for a little while. It is not appropriate that it be discussed on the policy talkpage, now that it's before ArbCom; and ArbCom itself should not be expected to deal with mere incidents.
    NoeticaTea? 05:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Already in 2012 there are almost 100 policy page edits and over a dozen talk-page sections on edits to this important policy page. It's obviously an edit war, and JCScaliger was obviously trying to give himself more leeway to edit policy pages without consensus. Something needs to be done. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of the turmoil early in the month was caused by User:Collect; relevant to the present issue, in this edit by Collect, the idea that changing policy is special was removed; he changed this:

    Village pump
    For disputes that have far-reaching implications—mostly ones centered on policy or guideline changes—placing a notification at the pump can bring in a large number of interested editors. This ensures broad consensus across the project.

    to this:

    Village pump
    Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.

    which left no hint of special consideration for changes to policy and guideline. Key changes without consensus are the problem that caused JCScaliger (and some others) to be included in the current ArbCom case about other policy and guideline pages. He should be warned not to dig himself in deeper. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=474543863"