User:Brittainia/Cartel Attacks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This has been copied from the Administrators' noticeboard from 11 March 2007. It is an example of attacks by a cartel who tightly control the Global warming pages and attack any editor who tries to insert any neutrality or opposing viewpoints. -- Brittainia 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reigning in Uber's trolling[edit]

Can some uninvolved admin please look into user:UBeR's actions. Specifically:

  1. His trolling and POV pushing on Global warming and related articles
  2. His repeated and persistent harassment of William M. Connolley, one of our resident experts on global warming. To wit: Unfounded sockpuppet accusations, trolling, specious 3rr warning, trolling William's article, 'etc.
  3. The "hit list" that Uber keeps (which, I will note, is the same act that got Wik perma-banned)

I would make the block myself but I am involved. I do, however, think his behavior merits some serious sanction. Raul654 20:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not an admin, but reading the diffs, I would support action. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have tried reasoning with him when he was trolling William's talk page, without luck (all I got for my troubles was this, where he seems to be saying that he is following my advice, while doing just the opposite). He doesn't seem interested in behaving like a member of the community - I'm not sure if the community's patience is exhausted, but my patience certainly is. Guettarda 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • His behavior amazes me. I worked with him on another article and saw his ability to do good work. So, I'm dumbfounded as to why he keeps harassing User:William M. Connolley. It is unacceptable and must stop immediately. If it doesn't, I do support some sanctions. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Three attack pages are up for deletion - Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion#2007-02-28 --Aude (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • These might meet WP:CSD criteria #G10, though I think we can let it go through MFD. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I think they can be speedied; they're pretty blatant. Trebor 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd toss out the SSP page as well. No need to dignify those allegations by archiving them as if they were worth keeping around. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To address to the first claim, I have not pushed any particular POV at Wikipedia other than that of consensus, if any at all (notwithstanding talk page discussions, of course). An overwhelming of my edits to that article have been to address sloppiness, style, grammar, spelling, etcetera. My mission here is for the betterment of Wikipedia articles. Let it be known that I support the consensus view on global warming, as presented by the IPCC. In fact, despite what might appear as undue support for the solar variation theory, my purpose is an attempt to bring balance and a NPOV to the global warming article, where a number of POV-pushers patrol and police the article.
  • To address the second claim, modeling doesn't constitute expertise. Second, there is a colossal difference in "accusation" and "suspicion," hence the name "suspected sock puppets." And it is true that I have a suspicion. How can you say it is wrong for me to have a suspicion? That's nonsensical. So, on behalf of Brittainia, an abettor of mine, I filed that suspicion, "so as to retire any further suspicion of sockpuppetry of this user." Third, I will keep in mind now to keep comments that specifically relate to an issue (in terms of previous occurrences), but may be considered "trolling" by Raul654 and his cronies, to the talk page of the originator. My apologies. Fourth, my notice of 3RR was merited on the basis of his three reversion on that particular page.[1] I felt it necessary to advise him, because he often reverts content on that particular article, as well as related articles. There's isn't much to that. Fifth, my template of notability on that particular article was well merited. I've attempted to discuss the issue, but users, along with Raul654, digressed terribly from the issue. The particular ad hominem attacks/arguments abound when such issues arise.
  • To address the third claim, it would be wholly inappropriate to label this as a "hit list." It serves as a notice board that "will serve as a notice board that will be updated when necessary. The evidence gathering process is ongoing and, along with other users, I have begun this process." I've been consumed with the vexation of particular administrators who consider themselves above Wikipedia's policies. This is the sort of desecration up with which I will not put. It serves as a watch list, as it is titled, to my abettors and other users who wish to be cautious and watchful of such activities that I have observed and begun to document. It serves to no other purpose. Banefully, it is without proper evidence/references at the current moment, for which I apologize (and quite frankly, may abet in the appearance of personal attacks). Real life activities detract my availability on Wikipedia, but my "watchdog" activities will continue, and, with further aid, the notice board shall be complete with references, etcetera. The goal is not to detract the editor, but rather the particular edits by that user that have been contrary to Wikipedia policies. My regards, ~ UBeR 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I can speak for at least the first claim and say that from what I've seen of UBeR's contribution to global warming-related articles, they are not trolling, nor POV pushing. These articles are highly controversial and continuously raise heated debates. It's easy to come here like Raul654 just did and throw accusations of trolling or POV pushing, but it seems to me that this has little or no merit. Besides, I have seen many users complain of William M. Connolley's POV or behaviour regarding climate articles, and I have witnessed myself at least one disregard of WP policies by him so far. I guess it is legitimate to keep a file with regard to his actions. --Childhood's End 23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that Childhoodsend (along with a few others - Roncram, Rameses, and the above-mentioned Brittainia) are, like Uber, POV pushers attempting to weaken or otherwise degrade the global warming and related articles. Their opinion of Uber's biased edits should not be taken as accurately representing the content of those edits. Raul654 01:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I will not respond to this POV pusher accusation. I'm trying to bring balance and as far as I know, my contributions have been appreciated so far. --Childhood's End 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Raul654, please remove yourself from this discussion; we are trying to have a serious discussion. You are not. You may sit here all day, with your ad hominen attacks, trying to discredit those who see the injustices of yours and WMC and others. In the end, however, you are only detracting from the issue at hand. Lets take a look at some of these examples you trying to put forth as POV-pushing, shall we?[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] These are all of my edits made to global warming, not marked minor (all my edits marked minor were stylistic, grammatical, reversion of vandalism, etc.), of my last 500 edits to Wikipedia. Since you are making these claims, can you please explain how these are POV-pushing? ~ UBeR 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read the evidence for yourselves and give UBeR a fair hearing. UBeR is truly a very hard working, fair minded, long standing contributor to Wikipedia. He (along with many others) has simply become increasingly frustrated by the kinds of tactics used by User:William M. Connolley, User:Raul654 and a few others who constantly delete all contributions by UBeR and anyone else not agreeing with their POV on all pages having to do with Global warming - See: [21] (Fight this insidious Censorship) William stop deleting relevant discussion, Connolley's Revert Censorship of Wikipedia Evidence. 12 out of the past 50 edits by User:William M. Connolley are reverts [[22]] (the rest are mainly talk page entries) and almost all these reverts are to global warming pages. when he runs out of reverts himself he pulls in others to start reverting. Given that he makes his livelihood in this field and clearly has a very strong POV, he should avoid this area for the obvious conflict of interest reasons (esp. so for an Administrator). [23]

User:William M. Connolley has already had two official complaints reported against him in the past for similar tactics and has been prohibited from making more than one revert per day See: ([24], [25]). Also he has rather strangely been taunting an editor to report him on that editor's userpage: [26] His actions certainly do need to be seriously examined by Administrators as his form of control is damaging to Wikipedia. I believe UBeR is justified in suspecting a sock puppet and in starting to gather evidence of these tactics. -- Brittainia 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The WP:NPOV policy has an "undue weight" provision, but the sceptics keep pushing for equal coverage of the GW sceptic position. We attract an awful lot of sceptics, so we hear the same complaints over and over. But this isn't about the sceptic POV-pushing, this is about Uber's (and Brittainia's) disruptive activities - laughable accusations of sockpuppetry, trolling William's talk page, trolling Talk:William Connolley, setting up attack pages, etc. Guettarda 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Guettarda, you are not representing my actions fairly. If nothing else, the solar variation theory is probably the most debated topic within the scientific community. This theory holds water. Many scientists have researched the effects solar variation has the Earth, and there shouldn't be anything stopping these substantiated scientists' research from being discussed in relationship to how it affects Earth's climate. I've added nothing to the global warming article that was either against the consensus or POV in nature. For all intents and purposes, your claims are unfounded. ~ UBeR 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry if my comment wasn't quite clear. Brittainia talked about "all the other people" who have had similar problems with William. Not only is that a misrepresentation (since, after all, it isnt just William), it's also expected, since there's always been a movement to give equal weight to a minority position. As I said, this isn't about...POV-pushing, this is about behaviour. I think I've represented your behaviour fairly - your continued repost of a 3RR warning, your sockpuppetry accusations, etc., your creation of attack pages...this behaviour is unacceptable. Guettarda 14:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry then, I misunderstood. But I still disagree with your assessment. The overwhelming amount of dissent is that in the direct of William M. Connolley. This isn't about skepticism. You have misunderstood that idea. Second, how am I supposed to address my concerns with this particular user? Shall I go to to his user page? Of course not, that's trolling! Well then, shall I go to some committee or report it to some official noticeboard? Of course not, that's silly and nonsense! Forgive me for not assuming the assumption of good faith, but what else can I do when there is a particular administrator who has been elected to be given a large amount of power, who, based on his personal feelings that he hasn't been able to subdue, can only categorize my every action as unwarranted, when, in fact, this is solely biased and unfounded! If anything, this is nonsensical. I've made by rebuttal above, and the author of these claims continuously avoids the facts, but rather simply attacks some unrelated point of view, and has yet to substantiate anything he has said. ~ UBeR 18:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Fight this insidious censorship" comment Britannia linked to (well, tried to link to) above was posted by Ramses, and it's really quite illustrative of the whole affair. A contrarian POV pusher tries to put bias into the article, gets reverted, and decries the "censorship" in the article. That's pretty much the same of these accusations.
  • As to the one revert parole on WMC, the arbcom reversed it and acknowledged they had made a mistake (For the record, I voted against imposing that parole, and was the only arbitrator to do so) But Britannia already knew that parole had been revoked, because Stephan already told her. So she is simply repeating an allegation she knows is false. Raul654 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As a close friend of WMC, why didn't you recuse yourself from the voting since it was an obvious conflict of interest? -- Brittainia 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Raul654 has labeled me a "contrarian POV pusher trying to put bias into the article". But all I was doing was defending the words: "However, there remain respected scientists who hold differing opinions." which had been deleted from the Global warming article. Surely these words do not constitute pushing a biased POV, as alleged? The control group will not even tolerate this tiny amount of NPOV in this important article. UBeR is a good person who has been the subject of these bully tactics for too long. Please seriously review whether User:William M. Connolley's conduct shows his fitness and neutrality to remain a Wikipedia Administrator. (The link to the relevant section is: [27]) -- Rameses
  • This is a witch hunt. Most of the edits UBeR has made have been reasonable as far as I have seen. He's been fighting what many of us believe to be a systemic bias on many global warming related articles to shut down and revert edits that are anti-GW. I don't believe any action needs to be taken against UBeR. Oren0 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This situation is extremely complicated and something that anyone who is not a regular participant in global warming related articles will be hard pressed to untangle. In terms of disclosure I should state that I am a climate scientist, and am taken by some as one of the villains in the affair. Discussions on the topic sometimes get heated, and even those who are acting in good faith sometimes make remarks that could have been put more tactfully -- certainly I have. Consider all this however you will.
The global change articles see a steady stream of editors who wish to promote a point of view that gives undue weight to the skeptical viewpoint. Some simply make gratuitously provocative edits in order to stir up trouble; others have an agenda and are fact-averse. Representatives of each of those groups already have responded here. But I don't think UBeR belongs in those categories. He genuinely believes that the skeptical side is not being given fair play. In other words, while I think he wrong on the facts, I think his position is held in good faith. He also is an excellent copyeditor. The problem is, the same single-mindedness and persistence (some might say obsessiveness) that well serves a copyeditor is less helpful when dealing with other individuals. One has to learn to be flexible and that some battles are not worth fighting. I have tried to warn UBeR against personalizing the situation but unfortunately to no avail. To make a long story short, if any sanctions are meted out they should recognize that unlike some others, UBeR can make and has made constructive contributions to the articles themselves. The problems mostly lie in his actions outside article space as outlined in Rau654's point 2. I hope that the situation can be resolved in such a way that he can continue to make constructive contributions.
Finally, should the remarks of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia become material to the outcome of this matter, there are reasons to believe a RFCU on those two usernames could be worthwhile. Raymond Arritt 04:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raymond. UBeR genuinely believes the skeptical side is not being given fair play and I agree (the Global warming controversy article needs work). UBeR attempts to edit in good faith and has made positive contributions. I would encourage UBeR not to personalize the situation and to focus on the facts even when being attacked personally (as is sometimes done).RonCram 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've speedy deleted UBeR's attack pages based on the MFD discussions and general consensus that they are attack pages. I have also listed them at WP:PTL. If UBeR wishes to collect evidence for an RFC, he may ask me to unlist the pages.—Ryūlóng () 04:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The next step[edit]

It seems to me that while there is disagreement as to Uber's article editing practices, there's more-or-less unanimous agreement that his treatment of others users (the harassment and the hit list, points 2 and 3) is way out of line. (I'm discounting the opinions of the contrarians, whose solicited support [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] is both transparent and non-credible ) I suppose the question now is - what's the next step? Raul654 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty easy to say "I will ignore all who disagree with me." It's pretty typical of you. If you notice, however, I simply ask them to review the case on their own. You reject their judgment, not because it is wanton, but because they disagree with your judgment. I've already made all my points clear enough above, all of which have not been responded to. If there is any next step, if for you to be reviewed. ~ UBeR 09:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Raul, this is getting absurd. Until that last post, I thought you were doing this is good faith, but that's obviously not the case. You're right. I came to this page because of a notice placed on my talk page. Have you thought (*gasp*) that maybe not everyone checks the administrators' noticeboard on a regular basis? So because Uber or one of his supporters solicited my opionion, I'm immediately non-credible? I think I've contributed enough to WP at this point that I'm obviously not a troll. My opinion should be worth just as much as the opinions of people that disagree with you. Can I discount anyone that's posted on your or WMC's talk page as "non-credible" as well? Give me a break. You're just trying to discount 8 editors' opinions because they disagree with you. When did WP become about censoring ideas you disagree with?Oren0 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, in a perfect world the next step would be an investigation into why Uber is behaving in this manner (because I think there is fault on "both" sides). Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world, most people are here because they are willingly contributing their time. This is a really difficult call, you ought to enforce the rules, but by enforcing the rules you probably are doing an injustice because some are using the rules to bully others. You ought to investigate the bullying but that would take too much time (as I found out) and I'm sure there is fault on both sides. Probably the best solution would be to ban anyone who has contributed to this debate from editing any of the various global warming/climate change/mars heating up/etc. articles again! Mike 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 - I think the next step is to thank those administrators who do give up their own time to read all this argy-bargy. To do a good job moderating these disputes must take an awful lot of time and effort. Well done and thanks. Having read the israel-palestian and global warming, perhaps it might be worth considering creating new pages which can only be edited by one "side" which are linked to the main page (the main should not be edited by those taking a "side"). By asking people to decide whether they wish to be "neutral", "pro" or "anti" it would allow them to contribute to the article which best suits their own background. But more importantly it would allow the articles to include contentious information often repressed by one group. The "pro" group would be balanced by the "anti" group obtaining an overall NPOV within wikipedia (but not within those articles). Just an idea! Mike 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Forking is bad. --Onorem 15:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Proof that Raul654 filed this complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"[edit]

Raul654, this post [36] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [37], [38], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [39] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are so right. To bad we organized our secret conspiracy on public talk pages. Now all our hopes of complete world domination via accurate scientific representations are moot! Back to the UN mothership! --Stephan Schulz 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated here. ~ UBeR 19:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, this post by William M. Connolley on a user talk page [40], is clearly designed to appear innocent and is a pointer to the next post on another user talk page [41], where the actual conspiring and planning of your group's next move is clearly discussed. WMC was obviously attempting to hide this discussion otherwise why would he say "Where next? - I have (reluctantly) started a discussion of this at User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#RFC? William M. Connolley 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)" and give a pointer to another user talk page before starting the actual planning session? The "where next" comment makes me question "where was it before?". Your self-serving mischaracterization of user talk pages as "public" is false as the public rarely (or never) visits them for "general browsing". Now that your group has been exposed, I hope that the Wikipedia community takes this seriously and considers permanently banning your control and POV pushing on all GW pages. -- Brittainia 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to tell if the above post is a surreal attempt at humor, or is meant to be taken seriously. Assuming it to be the latter, if anyone wants to conspire, it would be trivial to use the "email this user" function on the side of each user's talk page.
Furthermore, there is nothing unseemly about either [1] my message informing WMC as to the existance of this thread (after all, Uber's persistent harassment of him was one of the three primary complaints here; obviously a de facto part of that is to inform the person being harassed), or [2] the fact that WMC asked me to participate in a discussion about how to follow up this thread. Raul654 06:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Although a conspiracy is not proved only by the discussions that Brittainia unearted, circumstances are of concern. I was perhaphs naive, but I must say that until now, I did not understand how it could be that these three editors are on the same line 99% of the time in GW related articles and always backing up each other. I mean, in normal circumstances, the odds are that they will disagree here and there on occasion no? This being said, the "monkey-off-your-back" post by Raul654 as well as the one where WMC gives an awkward pointer to his friends do not seem to be within normal Wikipedia behaviour. --Childhood's End 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Um...maybe our usual (though by no means universal) agreement has something to do with the fact that all of us can recognize and read scientific papers, and distinguish them from political pseudo-science. Moreover, 99% of the time, Raul is not even there. As of the end of January 2007, he has 8 edits on talk:global warming (as opposed to William's about 700 and my 400). And, of course, the secret conspiracy on our talk pages is open for all to see. My talk page has never been archived. According to the article contribution counter, William has 11 edits there, Raul has 1 (and that is the official notification about the closing of William's ArbCom case that I reopened). Given that User:Brittainia herself has indeed widely canvased support (even on pages of users who have been inactive for a long time), this conspiracy theory is laughable.--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
His 8 edits to talk in contrast to his 76 on the main article. Pretty bad ratio. ~ UBeR 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, you sound like the accused in the accused box who is yelling that the accusations against him are laughable. Although you can of course have your say in this new affair, you should stick to facts, not rant. Let the discussion go and see how the case unfolds. As a party to the "conspiracy theory", your testimony (since you chose to testify) must be flawless. It is true that your talk pages are public, but you also know just like us that they're not widely read, far from that.
Besides, we can all read scientific papers. It's just that we can also elect to be critical rather than elect for blind belief. Try reading David Hume (who proved that no certainty exists in science), whose work had a huge influence on Einstein, among others. --Childhood's End 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
There is so much nonsense in this that I probably miss some of it...
  1. I'm not an accused accused in any way that remotely resembles the situation in a court of law and warrants such a comparison.
  2. There is no "new affair".
  3. I'm not yelling (but admit to some ranting, which seems like an adequate tool in this situation).
  4. I'm sticking to the facts.
  5. I'm not a party to any conspiracy theory, neither with not without quotes.
  6. My testimony certainly does not have to be "flawless" (why should it have to be?) and, in fact, I'm not giving "testimony". At most I'm presenting evidence.
  7. In fact, I have no idea about how many people read my talk pages. Certainly most people I have interacted with have my talk page on their watch list.
  8. I have no idea if you are able to read (as in "read and understand") scientific papers. Certainly, "we all" cannot read scientific papers - its extremely hard to read and understand a scientific paper that is not in your field of expertise. Most people (and most Wikipedians) have no approriate scientific training at all. William and Raymond are actually specialists in the field.
  9. Indeed, there is no absolute certainty in science. None of us has ever claimed there is. But that does not stop us from using scientific results to calculate the statics of a bridge, to determine the ballistics of a weapon to put someone into jail (or, in more barbaric countries, onto death row), to develop a new vaccine, or for thousands of other tasks daily. Demanding "absolute proof" is at best a self-serving delaying tactic.
--Stephan Schulz 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, you claim not to be an accused - well I accuse you of conspiring with Willam M. Connolley to censor and control global warming articles. Here is a clear example of how you both work, (bolded to highlight obvious censorship and biased POV - from Talk:Global warming section titled: Svante Arrhenius)
Fair enough. I fixed it above.
Unfortunately, Svante Arrhenius has some problems (i.e. the standard sceptics claim that water vapour is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect). Will somebody with more knowledge about sources than I write a sufficiently nuanced sentence there? --Stephan Schulz 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed that by removing it. It wasn't relevant there anyway William M. Connolley 09:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot afford to let anyone (let alone Administrators) abuse and control widely read & controversial areas such as the global warming articles. Especially in so obvious a form of POV censorship. -- Brittainia 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Suprisingly, while you may think that the 95% claim supports your POV, it is unambiguously wrong. That's why I asked for someone (notice this high level of conspirational secrecy!) to fix it. I would have replaced it with a corrected version, but, on balance, I think William was right - there is no place in such a detailed discussion in a biographical article (that't why we have greenhouse gases). --Stephan Schulz 07:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
How odd that "someone" turned out to be William M. Connolley (who is part of your group [42]). That is a brilliant method of removing all of the inconvenient facts from the main Global warming page (almost sounds logical - hard to argue against). I may not agree with your censorship - but I have to admit to a grudging respect for the genius of your methods of execution. -- Brittainia 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So your argument is that even if something is known to be incorrect, it would be "censorship" to delete it? The 95% claim isn't just wrong; it's absurdly wrong, like saying the moon is made of green cheese. Raymond Arritt 20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No doubt I am also about to join the "accused". I don't really have a problem with the ongoing pattern of new editors arriving on these pages etc. I agree that UBer seems to be trying to improve Wikipedia in good faith. However, I find the pattern of personalising discussion on this topic by attacking other longer standing editors totally unacceptable, both on and off wiki. It violates Wikipedia:Harassment and a pile of other policies. If those who seek feel NPOV is in a different place (however good faith they are) throw tantrums and engage in personal attacks on other editors than we should warn and ultimately reluctantly exclude them. We have enough to do to stem the rising tide of outright vandalism without wasting time on petty squabbles. The attack pages have been deleted, some sort of good behaviour agreement should be sort before this is considered closed. --BozMo talk 10:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
How refreshing: I am also now object of an off-wiki attack page: [43]. I ought to add for completeness that the poor Wikiquette issue I raised at AN/I before: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive198#Personal_attacks. It is a shame that we don't seem to deal with these kind of editors quicker. --BozMo talk 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you have done nothing wrong - why is this radio show investigating your group? -- Brittainia 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but I don't have any group? As a pretty straightforward demonstration of this I was recently elected as an Administrator here by a very marginal majority (76% versus the 75% required) but none of the editors with whom I am assumed to be "grouped" voted for me. What better demonstration is there of a lack of conspiracy? As for this radio show ("race to the right"?), as far as I can tell it is a couple of guys who have a very strong POV and are trying to make a story about people not accepting their views. But they are both contributing to Wikipedia and writing a website apparently attacking editors here alleging conspiracy just because anyone with a reasonable scientific background is reverting low quality contributions. This should be stopped now. --BozMo talk 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Bored Radio DJ's... that would explain everything, I suppose. But they aren't the only people complaining about a conspiracy - there are plenty of Wikipedia editors who have been complaining about the cabal controlling (and pushing their POV on) the global warming articles. William M. Connolley has already had three complaints against him - which two members of his group have admitted that they helped him to get out of (their admissions are right here on this page). After this latest complaint, he and his group conspired to launch this diversionary complaint which we are now involved in against UBeR (I am not sure why, if they had nothing to hide?). It is now time to begin a formal investigation of their tactics and the allegations against them from so many sources (including the bored DJ's). -- Brittainia 04:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, this looks like an unfounded allegation. Personally I have complained several times on AN/I about UBer and others engaged in personal attacks ref the content of the page. This seems to me to be the substance of the current complaint: if he and the 3-4 others in the "conspiracy theory" gang were a bit more civil we would not be here (and that group have a lot of cross comments planning on each others talk pages, and abusing other editors). This is not in appearance a diversionary complaint AFAICT and unless "having a monkey on your back" has a vastly different meaning in other countries there is nothing I have read above to make this claim substantial. I think it is time to go to the ArbCom and ask for a community ban for the disruptive editors. --BozMo talk 08:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm uncivil? Lets not fool yourself, Bozo. ~ UBeR 03:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are, as the multitude of comments above have born out. Perhaps you should go re-read some of them. Raul654 06:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Raul654, this post [44] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". Now you are trying to impeach UBeR for "incivility"? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. -- Brittainia 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ramses and Brittainia RFCU - sockpuppeting confirmed[edit]

Per Raymond's suggestion above, I ran a checkuser query on Ramses and Brittainia and - low and behold - they are the same person.They both edit from the same class B network, and almost entirely the same class C networks too, with many overlapping IP addresses (including one case where Ramese made an edit with an IP, then Brittainaia a few minutes later, then Ramses again a few minutes after that; and another case where they used the same IP address within 3 minutes of each other). They're clearly the same person. Raul654 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - user:Persianne is also linked to them. Raul654 04:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this not a separate issue? As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors in terms of location / computer use, etc. If your intent is to distract from issue at hand, please do so elsewhere. If, however, there is reason for the inclusion here unbeknownst to me, I apologize. ~ UBeR 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not see how the fact that Brittainia and I live together is anyone's business but ours and it certainly should not be relevant to this review process. I do object however, to the process by which Raul654 breached my privacy. No formal process was initiated - is this acceptable or is it more renegade tactics from this group? ~ Rameses 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently your concerted editing was enough, on its face, to make Raymond suspicious as to request a sockpuppet check.
And it's extremely relevant to this discussion - The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual. -- Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Meatpuppets Raul654 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have AFD'd Persianne's only substantive contribution, Persian Panda, as a probable hoax article since I can find no confirming sources. If it is a hoax, it is worse possible kind as it appears both detailed and well-written, and would easily pass as legitimate (albeit unsourced) content to most observers. Dragons flight 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, both Brittainia and I would like an apology (for unecessary and unauthorised breach of privacy) from Raul654 and from Raymond Arrit. Failing this I would like to initiate a formal complaint and a review of their actions here. ~ Rameses 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note that, beyond your self-serving denial, we have no evidence at all that you, Brittainia, and Persianne are in fact different people. Moreover, the fact that your similar editing patterns were, on their own, enough to tip Raymond off strongly suggests otherwise. I have no intention of apologizing for following up on an (apparently correct) sockpuppeting suspicion. If that doesn't suit you, you can complain to user:UninvitedCompany, the checkuser ombudsman. Raul654 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Though this is pointless to respond to, I'll say it anyway for brevity's sake. Where is the breach of privacy? Raul654 has been entrusted with checkuser access to identify socks, meatpuppetts, and other uses of contributions to evade bans/blocks or misuse Wikipedia content or process. We are not all entrusted with such access for the very privacy reasons you are concerned with. Raul654 confirmed the IPs, and not a single shred of personal identity was posted. Only checkusers can view their logs. I don't know your gender, location either city or continent, editing patterns that aren't public or marital/tax/health status from the checkuser confirmation. So what exactly is your beef with a checkuser that would invite such a riled defense? This question is rhetorical, I do not request a response. Teke (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to point out, for the sake of clarity, continent, state, city, and even ISP can be determined with an IP. So you're not 100% correct in that aspect. On another note, I believe the very problem was that Raul654 WAS the one who did the check, as opposed to a more trustworthy and uninvolved person. ~ UBeR 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Now you are dragging a child into this, this really is typical of your smear tactics. It is reprehensible how low you will stoop to win! ~ Rameses 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on these comments as well as the signature at the end UBeR's comment here, I would not be surprised if Rameses, Brittainia, Persianne, and UBeR are one in the same.—Ryūlóng () 05:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of complete fairness, based on this comment and the fact that he raised the issue above ("As I'm sure you have checked many a times, I have no relation to these editors") I ran a check on Uber (my first and only one). There is no evidence there to suggest he is related to the Ramses/Brittainia/Persianne sockpuppetry Raul654 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
To add to Raul's comment, I am convinced based on editting patterns alone that Uber is definitely distinct from the others. Dragons flight 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflicts galore) That's going too far IMHO. I strongly doubt that UBeR is the same as the other two (or three, or one, or whatever). Raymond Arritt 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
So it is merely coincidental that Rameses just started to sign his comments the same way that UBeR does?—Ryūlóng () 05:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am truly disappointed, Ryulong. ~ UBeR 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (Or whatever cliche I'm trying to think of.) Raymond Arritt 05:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Well since your group obviously has no decency whatsoever, I have filed a complaint with the ombudsman. [45] (Is there no place in Wikipedia for families?) ~ Rameses 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Families are allowed on Wikipedia. My little brother has an account here. However, when all of the members of a family push the same point of view disruptively, we have to apply the duck test.—Ryūlóng () 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
That's the one where if you weigh the same as a duck, you're a witch? Because a duck floats, wood floats, you burn wood, you burn witches? "She turned me into a newt!" "You don't look like a newt." "I... I got better!" -- Ben 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ombudsman? What Ombudsman? Corvus cornix 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ryulong and all of you others, I must say that I am also truly disappointed by your continually dragging a child into this unseemly character assassination (it reminds me of Shakespeare's "the stabbing of Julius Caesar" scene). Persianne has certainly not "pushed the same point of view disruptively" (apart from one vote to save her dad's article from a similar assassination) and if you can show any evidence at all - do so. If you cannot, kindly retract your ugly smear and apologise. Failing this, I ask that this unwarranted and completely false attack on a child's character also be examined by the ombudsman. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... Checkuser only discloses similarities between accounts and general information in order to avoid revealing personal details. Personal details, for example, such as that Persianne is apparently the account of an underage female. In the future, you may want to consider not revealing such specific details in public, even when making such a response. Bitnine 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Rather that shes a daughter of a couple, which isn't quite so revealing. ~ UBeR 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
All that Raul has revealed is that all three users apparently use the same machine(s) to access Wikipedia. He did not reveal either the ISP, the location, or the (apparent) family relationships. The latter were subsequently revealed (in as far as we trust them) by User: Rameses and User: Brittainia themselves. --Stephan Schulz 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Since creating a hoax article is blockable already, you'd do better to address Persian Panda rather than bemoaning the "character assassination" of an account apparently created primarily to hoax Wikipedia. Dragons flight 19:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh - that article was her class project. She and her friends set out to prove their science teacher wrong - by showing that Wikipedia is a reasonably reliable source of information (through it's constant error correction). I guess that makes you a part of the project - the part of the hero...? -- Brittainia 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had the misfortune to try and edit the various global warming articles. Although I do not personally agree with Uber's point of view, I am firmly convinced that the faction that opposes Uber's views try is ganging up on contributors they don't like in an attempt to silent contributions informing readers of alternative & notable view points to the pro global warming lobbyists. I really do feal sorry for people who are trying to document the alternative view to the pro global warming lobby because they are up against some very nasty characters who quite clearly want to stop people like Uber using any means possible. This whole situation doesn't do Wikipedia's reputation any good. There is unquestionably a majority (of scientists) who are of the view that the minority should not be heard at all. The majority appear to be able to edit Wikipedia at all times of day and night, the minority seems to be "normal" people with an interest as they edit intermittently.

From what I have seen this is not at all a fair fight, this is the Wikipedia equivalent of the overwhelming force of the Nazis attacking the minority jews (with the same vicious belief they are right). The "Nazis" may be technically operating within the law, and the "jews" may be behaving in ways that in other cases would be acceptable, but until Wikipedia finds a way to redress the balance and in particular starts to enforce NPOV, I'm with the underdogs and would urge you to see their actions as extremely restrained given the intolerable position they are under. Mike 11:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Godwin's Law in the first attempt. Impressive. And with regard to your edits here: I suggest you retract the "professional lobbyists" claim unless you have any serious evidence that anyone in this conflict is paid for his work on Wikipedia. I'm still waiting for my cheque... --Stephan Schulz 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"The climate change establishment's suppression of dissent and criticism is little short of a scandal" - Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer (Prospect Magazine, November 2005) --Childhood's End 19:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"A fascist group can easily hide itself by quoting Godwin's Law whenever anyone reveals the true nature of their activities." This has the added benefit of smearing their victim's reputation. You can call that Brittainia's Law. -- Brittainia 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to call this an uncalled for and unjustifiable personal attack. --Stephan Schulz 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can we please stay on topic. These ad hominem arguments do nothing but to distract from the topic. It is becoming increasingly annoying. If you feel so inclined, please bicker on each other's talk pages. ~ UBeR 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've worked with Uber on the minimum wage article. In that context, I've found him to be one of the few, intellectually honest Wikipedia editors. -- Mgunn 07:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been away dealing with my own server issues lately. I have had the horrid experience of attempting to edit/balance the Global Warming pages. My own research of edit histories, etc. has shown some extremely disturbing things about Wikipedia, its administrators and its policies. The short of the whole issue is this: there are a number of admins (the group being discussed here are not the only ones) who flex their power over any other editor that dare disagree with them. The tactics used are vague references to policies to 'prove' the other editors are out-of-line; carefully crafted cheap shots in the article edits summaries & talk pages to 'push buttons' of the 'bad editors'; talk down to them as being too inexperienced to understand how to properly edit Wikipedia; revert edits wholesale and in tandem (when one's rv is undone another will re-revert for the admin. The harder the resistance to the will of the abusive admins the more destructive the admins use/abuse of policies become. People talk about the blue veil of protection for police officers and a perfect example of that in Wikipedia can be found in reading the past 2 years of action, complaints, activity, etc from the admins and their colleagues in this particular complaint.
This entire RfC is a part of the constant efforts to chase away editors who do not comply with the viewpoints of various admins. To some degree it worked with me personally...I have chosen to not edit Wikipedia until I talk with certain key people in Wikipedia about this problem. Their actions are so intrusive I have recently received messages from some of these people attempting to dictate content on my own personal webspaces. -- Tony of Race to the Right 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bold text

Essjay left[edit]

Ok, noting that User:Essjay is gone, and is no longer around to use his tools. I think for the short term we will be fine without him acting as a B-crat, Where we will miss him most is on WP:RFCU and WP:MEDCOM. I think attention needs to be drawn to those areas to prevent too much of a backlog. Essjay ran 11 bots, and they are all currently down, though this is being worked on. The new bots will run under new usernames Folks I think we need to make sure that this gap is filled. The best way to do so is to support those that have the buttons already, and try to make life as easy as possible on them. I'm sure the clerks for the various processes don't mind new helpers. We might have a few problems down the road, but we can absorb the loss. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I need a TS root to grab a root archive sometime...... if Essjay doesn't care if we continue to use his code -- Tawker 05:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)