User talk:Ned Scott/sandbox/IncidentArchive405

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Prank phone calls

User Supernatural3 created a user page and posted phone numbers [1], purported to be those of celebrities, but stating they really weren't, and encouraging readers to make prank phone calls to them. If some person or organization has those numbers in some area code, they would not appreciate the posting on Wikipedia. I deleted the phone numbers and warned the user against such a practice. Has this come up before, and was my action correct in editing his user page? How much latitude is a user allowed on his user page? How far could the sanctions go if a user persists in such posting? Edison (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only really permitted use of userspace is to tell people a bit about yourself, and for material relevant to improving the encyclopedia. As you say, a little latitude is allowed, but anything that's more trouble than it's worth, for us or anyone else, is clearly not in order, I'd say. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. I received prank/annoying phone calls from a vandal who somehow found out my phone number for about a week but I think he eventually got bored. I think in this case it is obvious that the user is not posting the numbers with any intention of helping Wikipedia so if they repost them then a block would be in order. James086^{Talk | Email} 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, these need to be deleted from history as well, to be sure. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a larger ongoing campaign of phonenumber posting on userpages. See also User:Bryanwood343 where that user posted similar text about calling the phone numbers [2]. See the text also at User:Specialwolf where that user posted it [3]. What is the proper course here to prevent this? RFCU to sort out meatpuppets? Cleanup and warnings or block and protection? Edison (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say block them all for now, and delete the userpages. Practically their only edits are to each other's user pages, anyway. An admin already deleted the revision containing phone numbers from the first page, and that, at least, should be done for them all. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:OVERSIGHT might be in order for some of those cases. SWik78 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the numbers from the other two userpages. One of the pages has apparently been scrubbed of history with them by oversight, and the other two should get it. Is RFCU justified to see if they are in fact separate users? Edison (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the three users, User:Bryanwood343 re-added the numbers to his talk page and added a personal attack against me [4] on the talk page of one of the others, for which I added an "Only warning" on User:Bryanwood343's talkpage. Too severe? Edison (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Too severe?" Heck, no! I would support you if you'd blocked him then and there! --Orange Mike | Talk 13:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They've been blocked. See below: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Phone numbers. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism on Walt Disney article by User:Spadge47

Resolved.

User:Spadge47 is vandalising Walt Disney article ( see [5] [6] [7]) inspite of repeated warnings. I request an admin to block the user...thanxGprince007 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please take issues of simple vandalism to WP:AIV. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blenheim Palace

Resolved.

Can someone take a look at the above's recent history. I have reverted twice. Now, I'm not quite sure what is going on there. Giano (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected now, but looks like a good-faith attempt to provide pop-ups in French, the French wikipedia already has an article, but much shorter. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that, but was not sure - I don't think it's a proper vandal, but whatever he was doing was beyond my limited knowledge. Giano (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] another Pinoybandwagon's sockpuppet

short summary: please block User:Martindanza for being a sock of a blocked user, and repeating the same stuff that got him blocked.

This user Pinoybandwagon was blocked for using socks and not respecting wikipedia naming convetions, including altering them to name one of his socks as top authority for philippine radio stations. He has created another sock called User:Martindanza, wich needs to be blocked asap. For proof, see the sock case, his changing of names just like his socks on the templates [8][9] and on moving articles to bad names after being moved back by admins and warned by it [10]. He has been denied unblock by 3 admins, and his talk page was protected to avoid him editing it. He's still doing the same stuff that got him blocked. Check out his latest contributions. Also, his user page is very similar to one of the sockpuppets of Pinoybandwagon (User:Bad false). -Danngarcia (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sock case and he other things are no proof that Martindanza is a sock. All that proves is that this Pioybandwagon created loads of sockpuppets.--Phoenix-wiki 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I need to open *another* sockpuppet case for what is an obvious sock just like the ones blocked at that case? The behaviour of this account is totally online with Pinoybandwagon's socks, up to the recreation of the same hoax article that got recreated several times with the exact same text by several different socks already blocked, addition to the same templates, re-naming of the same articles to the same names, exact same wording of some comments, exact same lenghty additions to the same articles, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I requested block on WP:AIV and got declined for his edits not being actual vandalism (notice I had got confused with another user, hence the re-block request instead of simple block) [11] --Enric Naval (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This user already has *two* resolved sock cases against him here and here and has even edited the first archived case to blame his blocked User:Map_inc account for some of the socks and salvage some of his accounts --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking at probable sockpuppets and there's any dispute on it, best to just create a new case at the top of the old RFCU. Some RFCU's I've seen have 11 or 12 instances over a period of time within the same report. Unless it's a clear WP:DUCK case and you can prove it, it's safest just to add it. On looking at the guy's edits, though, I must admit he has a good point re the naming, it wouldn't be a violation if Philippine stations are generally known by name as they are here in Australia. Orderinchaos 11:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a WP:DUCK case, with his user page being identical to other socks and identical edits. I will prove it tomorrow here with damning evidence, I can't do it today --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget his characteristic addiction to the use of ALL CAPS to ORDER other editors to LEAVE HIS EDITS ALONE and NEVER CHANGE THEM BACK! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence for this user being a Pinoybandwagon's sock:

• user page almost identical to blocked socks, and follows the same layout patterns, compare User:martindanza with 3 differents sock's user pages before being indef blocked [12], [13] and [14]
• same answer to block warnings on talk pages, with emphasis on same words and CAPS use, compare his anwer "There is NO NEED to block me."[15] with blocked user anwer "THERE IS NO NEED TO BLOCK ME."[16]
• Tries to move DYCL-FM to 96.3_WRock three times [17] [18] [19]. Pinoy also tried the same move [20] and so did Bf2 (a Pinoy's sock) [21]
• edits a template edited by Pinoy's socks and Map inc's socks template history, and make the same noming changes. Compare his name changes at [22] [23].
• same pattern of not following WP:Naming conventions#Broadcasting by not using the callsign as name of the article despite all stations having a callsign. See changes on templates here, here and here, all of them on templates where only socks of Pinoybandwagon have made that type of changes, like [24]. Creating AU_Radio_104.1 instead of DWAU, 107.1 Dwee FM instead of DWEE (I intend to move those articles later), as well as placing the frequency in front of the name. Also moving from the callsign name to that sort of names [25][26][27]. There are dozens of examples of this on the sock contributions, I'll pick some of the most recent ones: creating 98.3_One_FM instead of DZLT, moving from DWKX to 103.5_Max_FM [28].
• Making the same redirect as blocked socks, from 99.5 Campus FM to DWRT-FM here and here again. Admins can look at the deleted pages on 99.5 Campus FM and see the blocked socks trying to create the same page there.
• Recreation of deleted hoax article 99.9 Hot FM (admins can look at the deleted pages and see how it was re-created by at least one blocked sock with the exact same wording on the page creation). See the link reinclusion on a template by martindanza [29].
• similar contribution patterns to socks, like editing always on philippine radio stations and even on the same articles, and not editing on any other topic ever. Also, as explained above, re-creating the same redirects, performing the same page moves, creating article with the same non-compliant names, restoring the same deleted article,

Editor testimonial: I'm sure that User:Orangemike and User:Danngarcia will be happy to confirm that there are lots of evidence pointing unambiguously that he is a Pinoybandwagon's sock --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

need an admin to look at the evidence for the sock status, and make the block if he is convinced. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

still need an admin to look at martindanza and block him as a sock of Pinoybandwagon (see evidence above). Today he has started editing again, keeping the same behaviour as the blocked socks, moving articles to the name he prefers against Wikipedia:Naming conventions [30] [31], and creating unsourced articles about closed stations instead of simply listing the old names under the current name [32], thus causing the philippine radio stations templates to be overloaded with articles about non-notable articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

still need an admin here --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

please...an admin... even if it's just to say "your evidence sucks is not convincing enough for ANI, go open a sockpuppet case" --Enric Naval (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

still waiting for admin input on evidence --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] я вам пишу, чего же боле

Resolved. No longer occuring. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen many many IPs adding "я вам пишу, чего же боле" to various articles (reversions:[33],[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. And those are just a few of my reversions. User:Thingg and Cluebot get a lot as well.) "я вам пишу, чего же боле" is Russian. It means (per google translator) "I am writing to you, what pain". It appears that the vandal is using a proxy server, and he is mainly targeting random pages in the Wikipedia namespace, and articles related to visas and passports in the article space. What I am asking is, may users file reports to AIV with the first vandalism, and can admins block the vandals for a week the first time? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been blocking those accounts like mad today. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's slowed down now, maybe he ran out of IPs finally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting the spambots on m:User:Drini/daylog for blocking on other wikis as well. Mr.Z-man 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs that change that much will continue to do so, especially if the editor is using a service such as AOL. I have a feeling that it will continue despite the blocks. Not to get ahead of ourselves, or myself, but could a range block be entertained at one point? Also, Z, the editing didn't seem to be done in rapid fire succession, how can you be sure it was a spambot? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Targeted based on article title, nonsense in edit summaries, and adding random nonsense in Russian. Very likely that it is coordinated to some degree and not just random vandalism. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

One correction: not "what pain", but "what else". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? (I see it does appear on Google in its Latinised form, and has several thousand hits in Cyrillic.) Orderinchaos 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I used Google's automatic translator, and came up with "I am writing to you, what pain?" MasSem (who I assume actually knows some Russian, unlike me) said above that it means "I am writing to you, what else?". Either way, I know one word in Russian, and I do not know how to write that one word in its Latinised form, let alone in Cyrillic. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the opening of Tatyana's letter to Evgeny Onegin; in the Johnston translation, "I write to you -- no more (confession is needed)". I don't know why it is being spammed, though. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record 'bolye' is not 'pain/ache' (cf.'bolyet') but more. 'what more (would one require/need = what else could you want)'. Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And anyone interested can listen to Leontyne Price sing this aria, from the Tchaivovsky opera, here RolandR (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unhelpful and persistent comments on R&I Talk page

Reference is made to the "Race and intelligence" Talk page: Talk:Race and intelligence. I have mentioned unhelpful and persistent edits by User:Slrubenstein like those shown below to administrator Moonriddengirl:

"Also, please note these more recent edits by user Slrubenstein that seem aimed at preventing an amicable resolution over the sentence discussed above. He seems to be encouraging his buddies not to participate in the discussion or am I supposed to assume that these edits were well intentioned?[40][41] --Jagz (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He is definitely not assuming good faith with those. I will address it with him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"

Moonriddengirl asked him to refrain from making edits like that but he has continued anyway: [42] He is not participating in those discussions on the Talk page and seems to be encouraging others not to participate as well. Is there a way to get this to cease? --Jagz (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• And again here: [43] --Jagz (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC) and here: [44]

This seems to violate WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point --Jagz (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• And here: [45] --Jagz (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, I fail to see where you asking the help of an admin is alright, but where Slrubenstein asking for another admin to comment is wrong. That smacks of double standards to me.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • (ec) WP:AN/I is not a scrapbook. Jagz seems completely incapable of backing up his flimsy assertions with convincing diffs. Mathsci (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion [46] identified the problem editor on R&I. It was not Slrubenstein. 131.111.24.97 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that so far, it is User:Jagz who has exhausted the community's supply of good faith on the R&I article, by repeated edit-warring, unhelpful comments on the talk page, and repeatedly bringing the same complaint to different forums in hopes of a different resolution. I'm wondering if a topic ban might not be appropriate at this point? If anyone wants diffs to support these, I'll supply them, but the Race and Intelligence article and associated talk page are a good place to start, in addition to the revision history of Jagz' talk page.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit [47]

I take it that you are LGBT?

is quite uncalled for. Editors are often blocked for such personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, only one example of Jagz' wit. This edit is no more brilliant.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz has already been warned twice at the beginning of this month for disruptive comments on Slrubenstein's talkspace[48][49]. It is clear that he has chosen to ignore proper warning and continue to behave disruptively--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This diff [50] shows how Jagz edits when unobserved. Here he removes cited criticisms of the WP:FRINGE scholar Philippe Rushton. On Race and intelligence he cannot make edits like this, because the article is under constant surveillance, but his ultimate goal seems similar and involves the same scholar. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask again: where do we go from here? It seems quite clear he has exhauste the community's patience and capacity to assume good faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to treat all editors as equals, like we're some perfect utopia. But the fact of the matter is slrubenstein is a long-time editor with work across a wide range of articles, someone who is well aware of a vast majority of the ideals that make an article great. Jagz is essentially a WP:SPA, and whose edits can charitably be called biased. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Jagz has been consitently working against consensus, while Slrubenstein has been working towards building consensus. Also, in a recent request for mediation (see link above), Jagz is the only one who turned down the mediation. I do agree with Slrubenstein that I fail to see what Jagz is attempting to do, except behaving like a POV-pushing troll.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was one of the parties involved. Without Jagz, it was turned down. Jagz should be receive a community ban, or at least a long-term block. He is a troll.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Might it not be appropriate now to run an RfC on User:Jagz's conduct, prior to a possible community topic ban? Mathsci (talk) 06:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on the R&I page I do think it's time to do a User RfC. His allegation that SLR did anything wrong by informing me (the User who warned Jagz about asking the other parent and for ABFing on SLR's talk page) that the issue is still on-going adds further weight to my inclination to consider Jagz's contributions tendentious--Cailil ^talk 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editor Jsn9333 and FNC talk page

Noted.  And this needs to stop.  R. Baley (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLobbying campaign organized offsite by political pressure group

See wikilobby campaign for discussion. No timestamp. Kwsn (Ni!)

Moreschi has extended Zeq's ban to one year with an indefinite topic ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby_campaign#No.2C_no Lawrence Cohen § t/e 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi has indefinitely blocked User:Gni for "Attempting to undermine Wikipedia's integrity by organising off-wiki meatpuppetry to push a nationalist agenda." <eleland/talkedits> 11:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

I feel a few involved admins/editors should have their contributions examined on that page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC) breakoff. 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Involved" in what? <eleland/talkedits> 15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the issue is moot, unless all of them are involved. Under the ArbCom rulings, it only takes one admin to set these editing restrictions, so even if there are forty mad partisan admins, and one saintly person who's never had an opinion on the subject, the restrictions are still OK and have to be appealed to AE, not here. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive Editing on Archaeoastronomy

I am asking admin assistance in dealing with User:Breadh2o's edits since late December on Archaeoastronomy, its talk page and related pages, which have constituted a clear case of Disruptive Editing. Let me begin with a little background. The article was highly undocumented until April 2006, when User:Alunsalt performed a major rewrite. As a personal aside, that fine revision was one of the things that drew me to move from being an anonymous editor to editing under my own name. Among my other edits I continued to contribute to Archaeoastronomy, which developed to provide a solidly documented account of the growth, development and content of that complex interdisciplinary field.

Near the end of December, Breadh2o first appeared on Wikipedia (he occasionally edited under the IP 24.9.222.91).[57]. He opened his discussion on the Archaeoastronomy talk page with criticisms of the article's content, criticisms of the alleged suppression of archaeoastronomy by archaeologists, and ad hominem attacks on Alunsalt. Those of us who had been actively involved in the article first thought we would "give him time and space" to improve the article, but it soon became apparent that this was not leading to productive edits, so on 21 March Alunsalt posted an informal request for comments on the five Wikiprojects associated with the article to establish a consensus on POV. Shortly thereafter, on 24-25 March, Breadh2o posted a formal RfC for Science-related articles, questioning abuse by "two academics". As the discussion became increasingly personal, on 30 March Alunsalt tried to address the subject matter of the article by posting a notice on the No Original Research/Noticeboard. In order to get a wide range of comments, friendly notices of these actions were posted on the Talk pages of the five Wikiprojects associated with the article. Despite these friendly notices, only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:Dougweller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [58] [59] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

On 13 April admin User:Kathryn NicDhàna posted a notice on the Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents pointing out, among other things, Breadh2o's OR, POV pushing, and insistence on unencyclopedic tone and questionable sources. On Breadh2o's talk page, another admin, User:Blueboy96, cautioned him against personal attacks and attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox; about a week later Kathryn NicDhàna added a warning to the talk page about WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. A few days afterwards, Breadh20 had dismissed Kathryn NicDhàna's warnings as a case of her choosing "to side with Alun Salt's and Steve McCluskey's [alleged] carte blanche to revert any edit I might attempt."

In the course of the discussion, Breadh2o identified himself as as Scott Monahan, who has "edited for over a decade" an off-wiki site to which he provided a link in the article (see footnote 3), who operates another website, OldNews, concerned with demonstrating that "Plains Indians had visitors from the far side of the Atlantic a thousand years before Columbus," and that he makes his living in internet, broadcast and cable video media, in which he advances these ideas.

Our substantive concern was that Breadh2o's edits were intent upon pushing his own point of view, by using the archaeoastronomy article as a vehicle to propagate the marginally related fringe hypothesis that Celtic people left inscriptions in the Colorado/Oklahoma region and which involves a hostile opposition to the archaeological establishment. Examples of this process included:

• In his earliest posts on the talk page he made clear his open hostility to archaeology "which looks downward" and his perception that "the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists" was being used "to summarily veto legitimate inquiry."
• He presented an original research account of the origins of archaeoastronomy, which sought to place pyramidologists at the origins of the discipline and would conveniently remove archaeologists from any significant role in its establishment.
• He repeatedly insisted[60][61][62][63][64]that critiques of the archaeological establishment for its refusal to accept diffusionist and other unorthodox ideas was an essential part of the article, placing it successively in two different places.[65][66]
• He responded to a discussion under fringe archaeoastronomy of a site in West Virginia which was claimed to associate Ogham inscriptions with claimed archaeoastronomical indications, by adding a defense of diffusionism and an attack on the archaeological establishment for stifling dissent.
• He associated archaeoastronomy with the unorthodox hypothesis that Celtic inscriptions describing astronomical phenomena provide evidence of early trans-Atlantic contact.
• He engaged in repeated ad hominem attacks against editors who challenged his point of view, Alunsalt, SteveMcCluskey, User:Dougweller at the No Original Research/Noticeboard, against the archaeological community as a group,[67][68] and against the academic system in general.
• He provided a link to his off-wiki site on which we find an extensive bibliography and long history of disputes going back to 1977 between advocates of Celtic influence in the Southwest and members of the archaeological establishment.
• He refused to accept an attempt at consensus and in the course of his refusal did not assume good faith, accusing User:Bwwm, a new, but active, editor in articles on the History of Science, of being sockpuppet.

I had not realized he had accused me of being a sockpuppet, as I am not engaged in the discussion in an active way. I was trying to help by offering my opinion on a dispute. In any case, an admin can easily verify this by looking at my IP to verify that I'm not anyone's sock. --Bwwm (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's edits have concentrated almost exclusively on archaeoastronomy; as of 7 April, 277 of his 301 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page, the other 24 have been on user pages and the No Original Research noticeboard. In contrast, only 104 of Alunsalt's 393 edits have been on archaeoastronomy or its talk page and only 120 of SteveMcCluskey's 4480 edits have been on the archaeoastronomy pages. His pattern of edits suggest that Breadh2o wishes to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to continue his long-running conflict with the academic establishment. This conflict is one of the identifying characteristics of Pseudoarchaeology and the hostile method he employs is characteristic of Disruptive editing. Given the decade-long history of this conflict, the lack of resolution at either the RfC or the No Original Research/Noticeboard, Breadh2o's continued insistence that his unorthodox POV, that "pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" and claimed "Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma" has something to do with archaeoastronomy, and his repeated expressions of hostility, I doubt that it can be resolved by any of Wikipedia's conflict resolution procedures.

Either Breadh2o should agree to voluntarily refrain from editing on archaeoastronomy and its talk page, or he should be permanently banned from the article and its talk page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be expedient to remove me, as I have raised troubling issues about WP:OWN, WP:IDHT and WP:NPOV with Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey. Everything I have added to the article has been purged. I have not engaged in any article edits since the admin warnings of more than a week ago, and have only modestly engaged in Talk dialogues, moving the bulk off article Talk, onto my own user page, so as not to seem in any way disruptive. My belief is the dual authors are intent on controlling not only article content, but banishing me because I represent a contrarian, minority opinion. I do not have the time or patience to assemble an offset to the extraordinarily detailed and footnoted position statement by Steve McCluskey, above. I trust the edit history, the status of the present article with nothing of mine remaining and my good faith efforts to justify in discussion uncomfortable content that is notable, meets qualifications beyond tiny minority opinion, is sourced by reliable and verifiable mainstream news media organizations, and my appeals to common sense will suffice. If not, then so be it. Perhaps I haven't given it my best shot, perhaps I have been rude and uncivil at times, perhaps what I have to contribute as a journalist myself matters not one iota. I'll respectfully step back and await a determination on Steve's efforts to silence me permanently. I guess I assumed Jimbo Wales' libertarian idealism might have shown more tolerance than is to be expected in an organism that has matured over time to tilt more favorably toward what academics have to contribute versus what dedicated devotees think. I was BOLD and at times broke some rules to make the article better. But it's reverted now to only what Steve and Alun believe is suitable for readers to consider. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the above shows the challenge of editing with Breadh2o. He is unwilling to cite reliable sources to back up his assertions, but believes the depth of his feeling is strong enough to justify the acceptance of his opinions.

Normally it would be possible to accommodate him by reading his bluster and attempting to discern if there's a valid point buried within it. However editing on the article is moving towards a state where peer-review would be useful to prepare for an FA application. This isn't really practical if sections of the article are going to be replaced with wild speculations about Celtic America and the cabal of archaeologists which aims to hide the truth (I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy.).

While Breadh2o hasn't edited the article since being warned by admins for his tone and personal attacks, his first edits after the warning were to launch another tirade against other editors on the Archaeoastronomy talk page. This signalled his intent to persist in re-writing a history which had been shown to be an original synthesis based on unreliable or irrelevant sources. In addition he added a George Orwell quote at the top of a draft of this on his userpage. When he chooses to be uncivil he's willing to devote hours to the project, re-drafting to find the exact phrase. It's flattering, but does suggest that his abuse is thoughtfully constructed rather than a temporary outburst of passion.

Despite this I'm reluctant to say there should be a permanent ban. It is a pity that he seems to have leapt into conflict rather than learning how Wikipedia works. A possible solution could be a ban from the Archaeoastronomy page and its talk page, which can be appealed against when he can show from edits on other topics that he can work with other editors in a civil manner. This would avoid punitive measures or 'silencing' him, while providing the stability to make a review of the article practical in the near future. If he continues to use his user page as a soapbox rather than productively edit then he will be choosing to make the ban permanent himself. Alun Salt (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks pretty bad. I'm tentatively endorsive of a topic ban for some time, simply to let people find other ways to work on Wikipedia and to dilute the personal conflict here. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Having tried to reason with Breadh2o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and seeing admin warnings result in more attacks and POV-pushing, as well as a refusal to learn and follow basic WP community standards, I would endorse a topic ban on User:Breadh2o. Having watched the relevant pages and contribs for a little while now, I have not seen any of the other editors be disruptive. The others appear to me to be constructive contributors to WP. However I do believe a lot of their time has been wasted by having to deal with Breadh2o's POV pushing and personal attacks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the support! ;-) Defendant's exhibit A: April 10 lead paragraph in History deleted six hours later by Alun Salt. Defendant's exhibit B: March 30 append to Fringe archaeoastronomy purged April 10. Defendent's exhibit C: read it and weep, if you value the scientific method. Defendent's exhibit Z: my bad-boy essay removed for cause, I'll agree in retrospect. However, for curious admins who may care, it summarizes in my most coherent rant why tilting at windmills matters. WP:BURO Good luck with achieving GA, FA, and the eternal gratitude of the archaeological establishment. -- Breadh2o (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this means you'll be leaving this subject area to work on something where you have a less strong POV; it will make a topic ban unnecessary and this situation much more pleasant for all involved. --Haemo (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that User:Haemo is correct, although I think Breadh2p's last comment about 'good luck' was sarcastic. I think that if he does not remove himself from this topic a topic ban is inevitable.Doug Weller (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about interpreting Breadh2o's latest as a promise to leave; about a month ago he said on the talk page "I'm out of here and you are on notice." He's still around. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Since we've gone almost a day without comment, could someone other than me, Alun, or Breadh2o please interpret the consensus before the BOT moves the discussion to the archives. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban sounds reasonable. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest it premature to call for consensus after a mere 48 hours, particularly considering my request for mediation was submitted on April 9 and there has yet to be any response. On April 8 I had contacted user AGK seeking editor assistance, but moved toward mediation when Alun presumed consensus (which could well be interpreted differently, as the results were underwhelming after 3 weeks and 2 of 3 respondents did not engage in a consensus building dialogue) on the RfC and telegraphed an intent to resume edits. Indeed, on April 10, as I feared, he unilaterally purged both contributions of mine which I continue to believe met WP guidelines and policies for reliable and verifiable sourcing, is minority opinion (but exceeded "tiny" minority status) and which qualified both as notable and relevant. If and when mediation is forthcoming, I can make my case, unless I am silenced beforehand in a pre-emptive strike filed after my filing. It's confusing, I know. In any event, I believe a rush-to-judgment 48 hours after the post on AN/I would be premature, especially considering I have honored a voluntary suspension of any edits whatsoever since then, other than this response, and my two other replies above. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not in a great rush, I was just concerned that we not get archived by the BOT which, according to the recent history, has been archiving discussions after 24 hours of inactivity.

As far as I know, User:AGK has neither contacted anyone about your request nor has he scheduled this problem for mediation. I have posted a notice on his talk page so he is aware of this discussion on AN/I. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Although it might be somewhat early to close the AN/I, it is significant that in the month since this matter was first raised in an informal Request for Comments, the only person I recall who has come out in favor of Breadh2o's position was the anonymous editor who echoed his criticism on the edit summary to an article edit[69], and whom Breadh2o has called the Sunday vandal.[70] The remaining responses were critical or neutral. On the AN/I, at this point six commenters (including AlunSalt and myself) favored imposition of some form of a ban and one (Breadh2o) opposed a ban and called for delay. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy

User and I originally had a dispute over two years ago. This can be seen here: User talk:Hetar/archive1#22/7. I asked that the user keep the debate to the pertinent pages as I did not want to argue over it, and so that other people could also participate in the debate. This user refused to leave me alone, and continued to post on my talk page. Eventually I took the issue to WP:3PO [71]

Other diffs from my talk page showing repeated attempts to get this user to leave me alone: [72] [73]

After I had posted the issue to WP:3PO he finally left me alone. That is until, recently, two years later, when he shows up, out of the blue, still posting about the same issue. [74] After deleting this and again asking him to stay away, he posted yet again: [75], this time referring to me as a "hateful boor."

Please help me. I am not seeking any kind of contact with this user. I have not edited or gone near any articles he is currently working on (or has worked on for that matter in the last 2 years). I have no desire to be involved with him in any way - and yet he continues to stalk me. Any help will be greatly appreciated --Hetar 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling you a "hateful boor" is an violation of WP:NPA. I think that you deserve an apology for that. Darkspots (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did someone mention an apology? Try Wikipedia:Apology - needs more editing! Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The occasion for my revisiting this issue is explained in this edit. I really don't understand what the motive is behind "Hetar"'s abuse---why my short respectful query asking for an opinion on a matter of Wikipedia editing would be answered by a tirade full of hatred. I don't think that user should be forever excused from having to be reminded of that episode before that question is answered. As for personal attacks: I am the target of that attack. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks is a non-negotiable policy. You called Hetar a "hateful boor," a clear personal attack, on his talkpage. The policy says no personal attacks, not to anyone. Yes, Hetar termed your repeated posts to his talk page after he had made it clear that he did not want to discuss a matter with you as "harassment" and "stalking". This seems to be the "attack" to which you refer. But, even if this were unacceptable behavior on Hetar's part, Hetar doing this does not entitle you to call him a boor. Again, I call on you to apologize--sorry, no wikilink, Carcharoth--for your personal attack on Hetar. This is the second time in two months that I have felt you have violated WP:NPA: [76] is the first time I brought a personal attack to your attention, much more mildly. Nor am I the only user to have ever admonished you for your lack of civility: User:Newyorkbrad commenting on your user talk page: [77] as an example. Darkspots (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So if you accuse me of "lack of civility" on my talk page, that's somehow not a "personal attack" in violation of the policy, but if I call Hetar a "boor" on his talk page, that's a "personal attack" in violation of the policy? Should I have said instead that Hetar was "uncivil" rather than that Hetar is a "boor"? Is there some crucial difference between the two words that matters here? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither User:Hetar nor I have ever posted on your user talk page about anything. User:Newyorkbrad has, so I will inform him of this discussion. I do not intend to argue policy on ANI with you, an administrator; I have stated that I think certain of your edits are unacceptable under policy, but I am interested to see what other editors that watch this page have to say about your edits to User Talk:Hetar. I am often wrong. Darkspots (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Uncivil" versus "boor". If you call another user "uncivil" you're upholding Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. But if you call another user a "boor", then you're violating Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks.
• If you post a short polite request for another user's opinion on Wikipedia editing when, unbeknownst to you, he erroneously thinks he has asked you not to post on his user talk page, then you're guilty of some offense, whose precise nature I don't know how to define.
• If the other user points to another page where he claims to have said to you: "Don't ever post on my talk page", and you respond that it doesn't actually say that, your response constitutes "harassment". But his erroneous accusations against you do not constitute "harassment" or any other offense.
• If a user writes on his talk page, "This is MY talk page and no one can post here without permission", how does that fit into Wikipedia policies? The talk pages exist for communication among Wikipedians, who are not supposed to live on isolated islands. How extensive is a right to forbid others to post on one's user talk page? Are they completely private property? Can I say: no matter what complaints you may have against my behavior, I forbid you to talk to me about them? Even on one's user talk page, which is not private property and which exists for a reason? Hetar claims a fully unlimited right to decide who can post on his user talk page. Only Hetar and the user who said no one can ever post on his user talk page have claimed such a right, as far as I know.
• Which is worse: to lose one's patience with a user when one SPECIFIES objections to their editing of an article, or to say "I have no objections to any of your contributions to Wikipedia, but I hate you for no particular reason so go away and don't do anything that might remind me that you exist"? Must one be meekly obedient to another user who addresses one in that way?

Michael Hardy (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

jeez louis, Michael Hardy done did it again, :-). one might guess here what happened. someone of relatively little mathematical experience made a, probably not very defensible or knowledable, comment/vote on a math related AfD. this is not uncommon and can be a bit irksome to professionals like Michael Hardy. when pressed further by Michael on their talk page, that person responded by being deliberately non-engaging/frigid/wikilawyer-ish. one might say both sides acted in a understandable, although not necessarily reasonable, way. let's everyone just drop it. Mct mht (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. The point is that everyone did drop it, then Michael Hardy came back two years later and started calling the user unpleasant names. This is a violation of WP:NPA, and it leaves this user thinking that as long as he contributes to Wikipedia, he is going to have to deal with User:Michael Hardy popping up and leaving messages about something that happened years and years ago. So maybe he stops contributing, because it's not worth the hassle (pardon me, Hetar, I'm getting hypothetical here, bear with me please) and we lose a user because of personal attacks. This, to me, is not "understandable" or acceptable, and therefore I'm not going to drop it.

So, Hetar has made his story clear. He has been through some dispute resolution, and yet Michael Hardy, years later, is posting on his talk page and calling him names. It seems to me that one of two things is true. One, he is being unreasonable to ask that Michael Hardy leave him alone on his talk page. Two, he is being reasonable to ask Michael Hardy to leave him alone. If #1 is true, then someone should politely explain to him why his request is not reasonable. If #2 is the case, then an administrator needs to get involved and make sure that someone explains to Michael Hardy that this isn't acceptable and that he has to stop, and back it up with action when and if Michael posts on Hetar's page again. The reality is that Michael Hardy has sysop rights on this website. It may very well be that the reasons of every administrator who has looked at this thread and not gotten involved have had nothing to do with the fact that Michael is an administrator. That still does not change the conclusion that the community can draw from this situation is that admistrators are above policies like WP:NPA. I might not feel that way (clearly), and you (the person reading this, not Mhc mht) might not feel that way, but that conclusion is still possible to draw from this set of circumstances. Darkspots (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Has been through some dispute resolution"? What does that mean, specifically, in this case? I think he posted on the "third opinion" page, and IIRC nobody answered. My reason for raising this again after, as you say, everybody did "stop it", is mentioned above: some issues were never dealt with. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The constant thread through your defense of your edits, Michael Hardy, is to compare your edis to the edits of other users. What you do not seem to do is compare your edits to the standards set by policy. You in effect are asking, if Newyorkbrad can characterize my edits as "uncivil", why can I not tell Hetar that he is a "hateful boor"? Why should my insults not be compared to the offense of Hetar's actions? What I believe you are failing to take into account is that WP:NPA is not a policy with an exemption for dealing with difficult users. I also wonder if you've noticed any of the short threads that have come and gone during this discussion with incivility reported, blocks and/or warnings issued, no fanfare. Darkspots (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not insulting him; I was accusing him. You're saying there have been threads where incivility is reported. But you tell me that when I am the one who reports incivility, then that is incivility on my part. Does policy say that I am the only one who is forbidden to report inciviility? It seems to be conventional practice to complain to the uncivil person that he is uncivil, before reporting it here on this page. That is what I did: I complained to Hetar of his incivility on his talk page. I used the word "boor" rather than "uncivil", and somehow that's being considered a different thing. I also said "hateful" and that appears to be factually correct: he hates me, for no reason at all that he's willing to identify. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." The first paragraph of WP:NPA. Other users have commented on your edits; instead of commenting strictly on Hetar's behavior, you have summed him up as a person, made a judgement, and delivered in an attacking way; an insult. An attack. A violation of our policies. People feel differently when someone attacks them, personally, rather than decrying one or more of their edits. You could be driving contributors away with these sorts of edits. This hurts the project. I will not compare your edits to the potential lost edits of these contributors, and say one outweighs the other. I do think it is possible for you to convey your dismay with something without calling other editors mentally challenged or boors or liars. Quite effectively, in fact, and in a way that is much less likely to "deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". Darkspots (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User blocked for attempted outing

I have blocked Arion 3x3 (talk · contribs) indefinitely as an emergency measure, after what I deemed to be his attempted outing of another editor at the current arbitration he is involved in. I was approached privately by both Filll and Durova, who noticed it, and decided it was worthy of oversight. In my opinion, whether or not his hunch is correct (which I cannot confirm) the fact that he was trying to out the real name of someone who had explicitly left the project due to the publicity of his real name is troubling. Sorry if this all sounds cryptic, but it's hard to say much, given the circumstances. I would like us to have a discussion now whether the indefinite block should be made permanent, or how to react. Dmcdevit·t 03:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection, blocks may be implemented for disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate). This neither confirms nor denies the assertion. Standard duration is indefinite, which is generally at least until the editor promises not to repeat the mistake. I have no opinion about whether this particular block should become permanent. Durova^Charge! 03:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The only issue here is that the user is involved in an ArbCom case, and being blocked will prevent the user from participating. Maybe a stern warning to desist, and a public commitment from the user not to do that again will suffice to unblock. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If he vows to refrain from repeating the problem, then that makes sense. Until then he can submit whatever evidence he wishes by e-mail. He isn't a named party in the case. Durova^Charge! 03:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a named party in the case, and this is a clear violation of policy and one that can often cause the user that is outed to leave the project. I support a block, but like everyone else am undecided about how long. Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Participating in an arbitration case isn't carte blanch to do thins kind of thing. No question of an unblock until the user undertakes to behave according to community norms. I haven't looked at their contribs. Are they a problem generally? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Arion is generally a recalcitrant edit warrior that uses extraordinary wikilawyering to weasel his way out of potential blocks. east.718 at 05:35, April 22, 2008

Remain blocked indef. a full appology and promise to knock it off, refactor to two weeks on top of time served. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Though he does have a JD in wikilawyering and has been routinely shown to disrupt, I would support (not that I matter) an unblock because he is named in the evidence and may have sanctions forthcoming (nothing workshopped, as of yet). It would only be reasonable for him to have a chance to defend himself. However, the unblock should be limited to the ArbCom case and, if he is not a party to any sanctions, the matter can be brought up here at the conclusion of the case and a decision be made. Thoughts? I take that back, Durova's idea makes much more sense. If he has further evidence, he can submit it via email. Outing is a serious offence and an editor who has been here for 1.5 years should know better. Baegis (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, Rocksanddirt, and should Arion 3x3 give such a commitment there will be no need, on a preventative basis, to continue the block (in the absence of cause to doubt the commitment, of course). --bainer (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is punitive to give the user an enforced break, as the user seems to be taking the disputed article and activities a bit more personally than is good for him/her. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's worth considering whether preventative applies to this individual's behavior alone, or in a broader context. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal is an example of how AGF can be gamed. The following exchange occurred shortly before arbitration, during a mediation request. Ilena's mentor acted from the highest motives, but his best efforts didn't help:

Durova: She posted that while I was composing my final warning, so I'll give her a chance to strikethrough that allegation. I'll wait a reasonable interval after her next post to this page and if it isn't retracted she's blocked.[78]

Peter M. Dodge: While dispute resolution is open I would strongly suggest you didn't.[79]

Durova: On the contrary, Wikipedia dispute resolution creates no shield against user blocks. Editors are fully responsible for their behavior and may be blocked during any phase of it by the same standards that would apply in any other situation. Blocking is actually rather commonplace during user conduct WP:RFC and arbitration. The only thing that active dispute resolution typically forestalls is WP:RFAR. I retracted my first warning when you requested it. The subsequent ones are very firm.[80]

Shortly afterward her subsequent actions did merit a block, and then a longer one, and after I extended it I became aware that she had also posted a link to her personal website where she had outed another editor's identity. Rather than alter the block again I opened the matter for noticeboard discussion and arbitration followed. Before the case ended she outed the same editor's identity a second time, and in the same way, and got an indefinite block from a different administrator. Months afterward, her e-mail access had to be blocked because of legal threats.[81]

That example was an extreme case and I do not know Arion 3x3's edit history well enough to speculate how comparable this may be. In fairness to Arion, he did make a prompt promise at his user space not to repeat the behavior, and also e-mailed me. I appreciate that he did these things. What concerns me is the potential that cases like these could make other editors shy away from arbitration, for fear that their identities could be outed with little consequence to the poster. This site has had recent issues with arbitration confidentiality. I'm not sure what's the best solution here with that longer view in mind. Durova^Charge! 09:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He did say that he would not make similar comments again, but the fact is, he did, and after exchanging a few emails with Dmcdevit, I'm not convinced his comments have been made in good faith. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we give Arion a chance, with this warning: "any further activity, insinuations, accusations, that could be construed as an attempt to uncover or release the identity of a Wikipedia user, will result in a permanent ban from the project". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If unblocked he will have to be watched very carefully. My experience with Arion is that he pushes things right to the limit, and that East's remark above is spot on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkles Gone Wild

Ziggy Sawdust (talk · contribs) recently installed Twinkle and has, for the past couple of days, been placing speedy tags on short articles indiscriminately. He was blocked for 30 minutes yesterday (at my request in the Twinkle IRC channel), which is probably the best example of a PREVENTATIVE block that I've ever seen, but did not bother address any of the concerns raised; instead, this morning he merely resumed with the same M.O.

Twinkle is a real problem if it lets people quickly and efficiently destroy the work of others without bothering to do anything constructive themselves, and without having to do any real work. We have too many "editors" who are only interested in doing this sort of "work" in the first place; we don't need to make it any easier for them. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate Twinkle abuse, but in doing a [very] quick [and shallow] look at his contribs, it looks like a lot of his tagged articles are getting deleted. *shrug*
Just as a general statement, I'm 100% okay with removing someone's installation of Twinkle and protecting their Monobook as a way of "insisting" they not abuse the tool. (yes, I'm aware that they can install the gadget; if they keep using Twinkle after having it forcibly removed, I'd consider it grounds for disruptive blocking) Not fully suggesting we do that here and now, just tossing it out there as an option if things go south. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Surely an admin can simply remove Twinle from his monobook and then protect the page (not sure if that's possible), or warn him that if he edits the page then he'll be blocked? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. It's like a newbie-biting incarnation of that infernal Microsoft paperclip: It seems that you've bungled an article creation... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My own experience, I've commented on 3 articles he sent to AFD. The articles had been in existance for 1min, 3min, and 5min. I'll abstain form recomending action, but at minimum there seems to be a lack of researching his own recomendations.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

EVula, the issue isn't whether or not many of the articles he tags are getting deleted--it's whether or not they should. Plenty of admins will delete all speedy noms without bothering to do any work themselves.

Frankly, the whole concept of "speedy deletion" is intrinsically broken, but that's another rant...right now the problem is this one individual going off the deep end. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, that comment was based off of a very brief, very unintrusive examination of his contribs; if I wasn't at work, I'd be willing to give it more than a few seconds of attention. I do agree that mindless tagging is a bad thing (though we disagree somewhat about speedy deletion), and it's something that should be addressed. I'd like to hear Ziggy's stance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid we won't. Although he has stopped Twinkling all over the place, it remains to be seen whether it's because he's giving up or because he just got a little tired and bored and plans on starting back up again. Regardless, he has made several edits since I notified him of this discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No he hasn't; you alerted him at :57[82], and his last (as of right now) edit was at :43.[83] You also didn't provide a direct link to the topic, which is a minor little quibble, but I can see a rather unknowledgable person not understanding that "Twinkles Gone Wild" (which is a great thread name, by the way) is talking about him, and he might not know to use his browser's Find feature to look for his name. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, this is disgusting and on its own deserves a 24hr block in my opinion... at the least. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm actually left somewhat speechless by this edit summary. I loves me some profanity, don't get me wrong, but... that just seems a bit out of place (though as it's self-directed, it's largely a non-issue, aside from making me go "wha?"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a reference to a popular bash quote, just by the by. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've got to agree with Kurt Weber Ziggy has been (IMO) overusing Twinkle without looking into what he's nominating. He's being far too quick off the mark with what he's doing. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-related to the above, simply blanking somebody's monobook doesn't always work. Unless you clear your cache, things removed from your monobook will often continue working. Additionally, Twinkle is now a gadget that can be enabled through an editors preferences, and there's nothing we can do to disable that. - auburnpilot talk 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  True, but if you let him know in no uncertain terms that he is not to use TW, then he'll have to stop or be blocked for disruption. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  Correct, which is why it would take a bit more of an eye to ensure that he doesn't use Twinkle. The edit summaries give any Twinkle edits away. Hadn't thought of the caching angle, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I'll stop. (AFK for a while). Sorry for any destruction I might have caused. I'll just go back to wandering aimlessly through backlogs. Ziggy Sawdust 17:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ziggy has also developed a habit of accusing certain individuals of "disruption", simply because they merely created a bunch of articles that happened to get speedy-tagged (and perhaps even deleted). Creating an article that gets deleted, however legitimately so, is most emphatically not disruption, if it's done in good-faith and if the user appears cooperative. Threatening the banhammer with an "only warning" is NOT the answer, and I urge Ziggy Sawdust to reconsider what he's doing here as well. These users he is giving an "only warning" to have done nothing wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Deletion rationales such as "What the hell?" or "Speaks for itself" are nothing more than disruptive. DarkAudit (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I hate to agree with Kurt Weber because I think he makes inclusionism look bad, but Ziggy's record speaks for itself. Deletion rationales should at least be grounded in policy, not offhand and dismissive commentary on the article using IRC-level grammar. Article creators should be treated with some modicum of respect on the order of "we're sorry, but this doesn't meet our standards". A mistaken approach to article creation (the Lessmoore example above) should be coupled with some advice on how to do it better. A brand new article on an intrinsically notable topic may not look that way after the first edit. This is why we have WP:STUB tags. I strongly urge Ziggy to reconsider how to approach article deletion, and how to deal better with other editors. A bad article about a notable topic, even a really bad one, is by no means an emergency, BLP concerns obviously excepted. --Dhartung | Talk 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dhartung. I'd actually go further. Even a bad article on a non-notable topic isn't an emergency. It's often the first thing that a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed newbie does, upon discovering the many possible ways they can contribute to Wikipedia. Any good faith contribution from a new user is the start of a potentially valuable editor's stay here. (Looking at it from the other end, many great editors did some pretty silly things with their first few contribs; they just don't know any better.) The solution is teach them how we do things, ideally in such a way that the "wow, this is cool" factor increases. In case this needs saying, I'm not bashing Ziggy here. Quite obviously Ziggy's own contributions are made in good faith too, and we shouldn't lose sight of that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem as if anyone let Ziggy know about this discussion, so I went ahead and left him a note. Maybe he'll chime in and explain his behavior. --clpo13_(talk) 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he commented above. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it. That dark signature threw me off. Apologies for my blindness. --clpo13_(talk) 09:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you had kind of point since the discussion moved on as if he hadn't commented at all.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he might as well not have. He didn't really say anything of substance. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed topic ban: User:JoshuaZ on Daniel Brandt

This ex-administrator has played a significant role in aggravating Wikipedia's conflict with Daniel Brandt, as seen in his attempts to bypass consensus on the Brandt deletion that was endorsed on DRV, yet again, on RFD this time. As User:JoshuaZ seems to be the integral player in sustaining the incredible conflict between Wikipedia and Daniel Brandt in the past year, as seen on his involvment DRVs #3, #4, #5, and now this new RFD, I sincerely question what good this user is doing for Wikipedia by sustaining this.

The whole damn mess would have been resolved and forgotten back in December 2007, were it not for JoshuaZ constantly picking and picking at Brandt to keep him up. This appears (apologies if this is a lapse in AGF) to be in part due to JoshuaZ himself being listed on the infamous Hivemind page where Brandt "outs" editors. The more important matter here is: is this really worth it, for us? Do we need to have a war every 1-3 months over Brandt? Do we need to allow this one user to constantly keep restarting the fight, every time the community checkmates him by consensus, to keep using different policy-wonk avenues to keep Brandt's article and redirect alive? How many times will we go through the AFD and DRV and RFD cycle, all initiated by or instigated by this one person? Enough. While Brandt's actions are patently harassment, JoshuaZ's actions here, in regards to Brandt, are the textbook example of harassment as well at this point. They can take it elsewhere.

For the good of the community, I put forth that User:JoshuaZ's services on Brandt, under any of his various usernames, is no longer needed. Enough. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Note As pointed out by Majorly below, JoshuaZ also double voted while an admin with his sock account Gothnic (talk · contribs) on a Brandt DRV. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I struck that btw. Majorly (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Snide insinuations aside, the bottom line is that I don't care about being on hivemind. So Lawrence's fundamental claim isn't warranted. If he's going to make any such attempted ban the least he could do is wait for the actual RfD discussion to be over and see if the community actually agrees with me or not. Oh, and since the closer of the last DRV was explicitly ok with this action Lawrence's fundamental premise there is flawed also. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The community already disagreed with you resoundingly at DRV #5. Stop replying to Brandt's harassment with harassment in kind. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• It didn't disagree with me about anything. Prodego agreed that there were timesenstive reasons for people endorsing that were only temporarily relevant which he wasn't aware of at the end of the DRV that made this closer to a no consensus. The closer of that DRV was fine with an RfD. And trying to have a legitimate community discussion hardly constitutes harassment by any stretch of the imagination. I suggest you stop with the personal attacks and baseless accusations. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thatcher has already closed your RDF as a baseless end run against policy and has told you to stop cherry picking Prodego's closing comments here. Please do not be deceptive. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lawrence, as I already pointed out to Thatcher I'm not cherry picking anything. It isn't my fault if you persist in not reading what I write. Prodego's close isn't where he said it. It was on his talk page which I've linked to for Thatcher. This discussion occurred after the close. I explained this already. Try reading what people write instead of assuming the worst possible faith and then assuming that reality fits that. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The comment from Prodego at User:Prodego/archive/61#Daniel_Brandt was: "My view is: I don't think it is necessary, and will not do it myself. But I have no problems if you do. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)" That is hardly an endorsement of the RFD. That is, "Sure, do it if you want, since you're entitled to try anything." That's different than, "My close was bunk." Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence there's no need to have the same discussion in a dozen different places so for now I'll just ask you to look at my reply to you on Thatcher's talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative, this discussion needs to be in a public forum. Your reply on Thatcher's page is that Prodego apparently signed off on this harassment off-Wiki. Well, no. We don't decide critical issues off-wiki, and your actions here are meritous in my view of a topic ban. Why you insist on battling so aggressively as you're already in trouble for sockpuppetry baffles me. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia is not a battleground for someone's campaign - no matter people's views on the target. The community has spoken on this matter, and further attempts to rekindle this nonsense are disruption bordering on outright trolling.--Doc^g 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I must say I've never seen the arbitration committee or the community ever ban a user from a topic which no longer exists (even if most of us are in fact serving various de facto topic bans in this and similar cases). In all seriousness I don't think this would be helpful. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The community can come up with novel solutions to novel problems. How would it be helpful if Joshua were free to constantly fight the Brandt War, again and again, until he gets satisfaction? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There were repeated nominations when there was a consensus to keep. Now, there is a consensus not to, and those favouring deletion want to ban those they disagree with from expressing their opinion on the topic? J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, this is a move to ban the ringleader of what has become on-Wiki harassment of a BLP subject. If any uninvolved user to DRV Daniel Brandt I would have no objection, but for an entrenched warrior on the Brandt and Hivemind Wars like Joshua to do this again and again smacks of retaliation, disruption, and harassment. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would you be opposed (this is hypothetical, at least in the short term) to me doing it? I first got involved in the whole thing in the final AfD, and I have taken part in some DRVs; no more than 3 or 4, and only 1 for certain (without looking). I'm just wondering who, in your idea of whatever principle this is based on, is allowed to disagree with you. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anyone can disagree with me. I know this will be an unpopular request, but if we have a problem with Brandt harassing Wikipedians the same courtesy must extend back the other way. JoshuaZ has been the principle figure in agitating the on-Wiki conficts related to this. My call for his being barred from Brandt issues is simply related to the fact that this endless drama cycle would be long since passed were JoshuaZ not keeping the home fires burning for months and months now. We've outright indefinitely banned users for causing less disruption. Telling Joshua he cannot work on this one matter out of a big encyclopedia is trivial. If you were to file a valid DRV with sound policy reasoning to review the last close and consensus, that is your right. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The endless cycle would have ended long before JoshuaZ started his 'disruption' if it had not been repeatedly nominated in the first place. By the last AfD, there were plenty of people saying 'delete, so this ends'. I stand by my assertion that the repeated nominations in the first place were downright disruptive; I can't see why you consider that fine, but JoshuaZ (who has sound reasoning) is 'disruptive'. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• The effective standing consensus, by far majority, has been to eliminate Brandt from Wikipedia--this since approximately last December or so. Since then, we've had nearly all the DRVs. 14 different people nominated Brandt for deletion and another what, half dozen admins pulled the trigger as speedy deletes? At least 16-17 people were key in trying to get it deleted. One person has been the central antagonist in running the DRV show for the past approximately half-year. Today was the cake, though, taking the closing admin's comments out of context, taking it to RFD (an out of the way rarely seen place, rather than DRV #6 where it belongs), and then having the gall to challenge Thatcher's close of the RFD as inappropriate--not to mention as Doc details below, by Josh's own words the RFD was payback to Brandt. Why again do we need Joshua's help on Brandt matters? If he can't work or comment on Brandt matters, Wikipedia will hum along just fine. We don't need JoshuaZ here working the Brandt show, and we certainly don't need him trying to restart his little Brandt intifada every few weeks or months by launching mortars at Brandt and Wikipedia Review. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Were it true that there was ever consensus to delete the Daniel Brandt article, then someone should be able to point to a standing AfD in which the article was deleted. The fact that you can't do so show's that there's never been consensus for the way things currently stand, no matter how much some parties would like to pretend otherwise. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with the proposed solution. The issue long since settled ought not be rekindled at regular intervals. To quote a line I observed on ANI somewhere recently... Josh <-- way, and DB issues --> way. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I do not agree with Joshua's decisions, it isn't likely that a topic ban here would bring any improvement to the underlying drama. Given that Mr. Brandt's past actions were singlehandedly responsible for the creation of the WP:BAN#Coercion policy clause, this proposal could have the effect of placing a new card in his hand. At Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions yesterday I opposed the notion that a sitebanned editor's preference has any bearing on who does or doesn't get a topic ban after they're gone. Mr. Brandt's choices have made him more notable; a few months ago his interactions with Wikipedia were a major element of a Harvard thesis. Periodic reviews for notability are appropriate for borderline BLPs (not too frequent I hope), and a topic ban here may have a chilling effect on any legitimate contemplation of future review. If there were any likelihood that Mr Brandt would move happily along with the rest of his life this proposal might be worth entertaining, but this has been a person who consistently generates fresh grievances where no provocation exists, so what would be the preventative value of a topic ban on JoshuaZ? If anything, it might be beneficial that he does stir the pot from time to time, because it temporarily distracts Mr. Brandt from trampling upon the privacy of even more of this nonprofit website's volunteers. Durova^Charge! 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Durova, are you actually advocating thus that we allow one use to wage war on the wishes of a BLP subject because having that annoyance factor from the BLP subject has benefits to Wikipedia editors? If so, I'm very disappointed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lawrence, it should be obvious that I'm not. See WP:AGF and straw man argument. Durova^Charge! 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• My reasons for supporting this have nothing to do with the merits or otherwise on the redirect. They have to do with the fact that Joshua is seeking to use Wikipedia's content discussion to wage a war on a non-Wikipedian he dislikes. We cannot say "we will pay no attention to Brandt's threats - because content stands independent of conduct" and then say "we will restore this to punish him for his activity". Here is what Joshua gave as his reasoning in the RfD "However, it then became apparent that as I had predicted Brandt had no intention to stop his campaign on Wikipedia. He has essentially [[84]] to continue his harassment and disruption until any mention of him be removed (see his comment that "I'm mentioned too many times on Public_Information_Research and I have some quarrel with that, as it threatened to become a substitute for my bio once the redirect was in place" Therefore I am relisting this redirect. I'd say using wikipedia in an off-wiki dispute is entirely unacceptable.--Doc^g 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not know why JoshuaZ wanted to keep this article, although he probably had good reasons. Nevertheless, I think that the assumption that JoshuaZ's activities are exacerbating a negative relationship with Mr. Brandt appear to be unfounded, from my investigations into this matter.--Filll (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Read his reasons for yourself. But is looks like "let's stick one in his eye" to me.--Doc^g 17:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• This can equally look like "let's stick one in his eye" when viewed from the other side. Take this to arbitration if you think there is a real problem with behaviour here. No need to resort to dividing the community over a topic ban. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Look at point E and F as a reason for inclusion, this section of Don Murphy talk page. This DIFF. It seems to not be localized to Dbrandt. That is one reason I support this. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• JoshuaZ's actions are definitely causing more Brandt conflict, evidence here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• According to Lawrence Cohen on Thatcher's talk page, JoshuaZ has already bent some rules as it is. Surely this topic ban would be a low level way of avoiding future issues? George The Dragon (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes, Brandt's actions are "patently harassment". No sanctions (not even low-level) unless there are clear, willful and egregious violations on the part of our editors here, over this mess. R. Baley (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Neutral for now, if someone could point to where the socking was confirmed, I'd appreciate it (if for privacy that needs to be an email, that's ok). I will only support, though, if (1) the socking is confirmed and, (2) it is absolutely clear that the topic ban rests on the abusive use of one or more alternate accounts, not on bringing up a sore subject alone. R. Baley (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose.(addendum to the above by R. Baley (talk)) It would appear that the socking charge has no foundation. I find it troubling that once again off-wiki activity has influenced our perceptions of each other and inflamed our reactions. And let me just state for the record, that I have yet to see anything from JoshuaZ that demonstrates *anything* other than, that he is vigorous proponent for his vision of wikipedia. His every action including and since the voluntary de-sysop has been to downplay drama (my interpretation) something everyone claims to want, but in his case something that he actually did. Move to close this thread and DENY any recognition or satisfaction to outside party(ies). R. Baley (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Really, Durova says it all succinctly. But from the "why should I give AGF to someone proposing a ban to a great editor", this looks like revenge on JoshuaZ, plain and simple. Whatever LC's real motives, this doesn't look good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is an additional diff above a few lines posted by me. REgards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• I've had nothing to do with the Brandt mess before DRV #5. My motivation is to stop someone from prolonging this off-Wiki conflict here another six months, as JoshuaZ has given no indication of being willing to stop. I can't have revenge on someone I've had no real conflict with before! Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support The one man battle against windmills must be stopped. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

*Support Lawrence forgot to mention that Joshua double voted in several Brandt related discussions using a sockpuppet Gothnic (talk · contribs), thus attempting to skew consensus to his own personal view. This silly obsession has to stop, now. Article (or lack of it) banning seems the best solution in my view. Majorly (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there some evidence somewhere that User:Gothnic is a sockpuppet of JoshuaZ? That account has voted in a few other instances with JoshuaZ (here and here and here for example), too, so if it is a sockpuppet, that's rather worrisome. --Conti|✉ 17:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please provide proof that this account is a sockpuppet, abusive or otherwise. And if it's not, does Majorly get sanctioned for spreading false information? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • These allegations are problematic, if true. I don't see history of a RFCU though or anything in JoshuaZ's blocklog to support the sockpuppetry claims. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This whole mess really needs to head towards arbitration. WP:CCC, people. Since there's currently no community consensus on whether either an article or a redirect on Daniel Brandt should or should not exist, certain admins who are happy with the status quo simply want to stop further discussion towards a new consensus. This is a case in point, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Why do admins who abusively sock get to hand in their tools in private while users who abusively sock are shamed in public? George The Dragon (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I'm absolutely no fan whatsoever of Daniel Brandt, having been on Hivemind myself, but this aggravation needs to stop and everyone needs to move on - Alison ^❤ 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Majorly Alison. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, my thoughts on this may be much like Alison's. Moreover, how utterly nettlesome if a sock was brought in on this. (stricken out following Majorly's retraction) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Alison and especially Majorly. -- Naerii 17:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support per Majorly; when you start socking to push a pointrefactored *shrug* the point stands though it is very clear that JoshuaZ needs to step away from the subject; and if not, needs to be made to do so. If someone wants to waste everyone's time again by dragging this through DRV, it should not be him. Black Kite 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, and Majorly's information is a bit incomplete. It's actually three accounts abused, as well as logging out repeatedly to support them. Double-voting occured at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 9 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2, as well as various occasions of triple voting elsewhere, and even the closing of a DRV that he artificially stacked. Once you start gravitating towards conduct this unseemly to get the upper hand, it's game over. east.718 at 17:45, April 22, 2008 Assuming the best per below (haven't received any information, and frankly I don't care enough). east.718 at 18:17, April 22, 2008
  • Ok to be clear. I never socked. I wouldn't sock. The accused socking was frankly incompetent. I have a pretty decent explanation of what seems to have happened and I'm more than willing to email any user in good standing a summary of the relevant evidence which the ArbCom has seen and is still as I understand it evaluating. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Joshua, a suggestion. Rather than offering a lot of us email evidence of why you didn't sock, why not post it here? It would be a lot more transparent! George The Dragon (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I can offer some of the evidence here but not all. Part of it requires disclosing very personal information regarding my medical history while other elements involve details of checkuser data. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Majorly has now struck his comment so it may no longer be worthwhile. But for the sake of openness, could you confirm you handed in your tools due to a sockpuppetry allegation that was put to you off Wiki? George The Dragon (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I can confirm that. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I found myself here after researching JoshuaZ's history related to deletion arguments. I was trying to understand why this obviously nice person (I've met him, too) was so very passionate about those related issues. After seeing him claim Brandt's harassment as part of a justification for undeleting some page that might upset Brandt [85], I was pretty much forced to conclude that JoshuaZ needs a break from Daniel Brandt, and probably from deletion in general. :( A break can do marvelous things for a person. :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it is good to know you think I'm a nice person. I've always thought I'm a bit of a jerk in person (the whole lack of a preview button in real life seems to have a lot of bad results). In any event, you misunderstand my logic there. My point is that we deleted the redirect in part under the assumption that Brandt would stop harassing people as a result. That assumption is at this point clearly false. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken my comment above due to information I have received which shows I jumped the gun a bit when I made that comment. My apologies. I suggest everyone who voted "per Majorly" to think again. Still, I think Josh seriously needs a break from this article. Majorly (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, the accusation of socking is demonstrably false. And I am yet to be convinced that the only reason Brandt is behaving in an unpleasant fashion is because of JoshuaZ.--Filll (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's demonstrably false, but I have enough doubt about it that WP:AGF applies. Durova^Charge! 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't support an outright topic ban because I think we can trust JoshuaZ, but I would simply request he remove himself from the topic. Not that he couldn't participate in discussions if the dispute arises again, but that he -restrain himself- from the Brandt topic, and we could all move on. A noticeboard post, an arbitration proposal, allegations of sockpuppetry, bickering, name-calling... all could be avoided, I think, if JoshuaZ simply voluntarily removes himself from the topic. We don't need the community to fight this one out. So, JoshuaZ, I implore you to help cease this fight by simply voluntarily removing yourself from the topic. Mahalo nui loa, JoshuaZ. --Ali'i 18:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose an absurd situation where ANI/I is used as a venue to impose restrictions on an editor without any evidence of attempts at dispute resolution, discussion or mediation. I've looked over the evidence provided, Daniel Brandt is evidently someone publicly visible on the internet who chooses to harass WP editors and demands no biography, or even a redirect which does no more than avoid the one step of a search. There's nothing wrong with discussion on whether it's best to let such deletions go, but imposing formal restrictions on editors on that basis is out of order. .. dave souza, talk 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's close. Daniel Brandt is actually an individual who spent his entire life building an encyclopedia of BLPs (NameBase), and, one can imagine, enduring endless harassment because of it. His entire goal in getting his biography deleted is to demonstrate to the world that wikipedia is a failure because it gives in to such harassment. It's WP:GAME writ large. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose- due to this not being Brandt's sole or main reason for doing what he's doing. We won't stop Brandt just by removing mentions of him. He may sometimes claim that's why he outs wikipedians, in order to make people change mentions of him, but a lot of other times he says he believes all admins should use their real names in order to be accountable, so he will list them as people have a right to know, or something like that .(I don't agree with him). He has threatened to out and half outed someone over their responses to a thread about Jon Aubrey on here, so he's not just doing it about his own articles/mentions but thinks on principle that those who h thinks have been nasty about BLPs or people under their real names and allow them to be googlable on wiki and other stuff, should be outed in kind, as he considers that the same as outing. But in actuality he outs or lists even people who've done nothing wrong to BLPs, such as Alison and NewYorkBrad, so he clearly just thinks all admins should be listed there, IMHO.Merkin's mum 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. JoshuaZ's campaigns against multiple 'anti-wikipedia folks on the 'net makes him a target, which just gets him moreriled up, to go poke more fate bears. He seems to think it's his job to uphold the highest standards of inclusionism on these few articles for the purpose of pissing off the subjects. That he's resorted to socking to try to get his way makes it worse. I've read about his socking, and it's pretty clear cut socking. If he stops pissing them off, will they stop? Unlikely. But at least the things they like to rage about most can be eliminated or reduced, making them seem more like windbags and spoiled children than real, intellectual detractors, which they aren't. He needs a topic ban. As some like to say "go write an article." ThuranX (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, seems to be necessary after reading all the comments here. Wizardman 20:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, the repeated rehashing of this debate is getting tiresome and disruptive. Its getting very difficult to continue assuming good faith. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Durova, whose reasoning is impeccable and eloquent. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support This crap has got to stop. Jtrainor (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose on the grounds that the logic is ill-founded and Lawrence's statement to the effect that everything would have blown over smacks of conjecture at best, and an attempt to delude the WP population into believing that he can read Brandt's mind at worst. Also, given that it appears that consensus on this issue has waffled more than a sweating politician, I fail to see a "case" here. (And, yes, this crap has got to stop. Work on the encyclopedia, write an article, etc., blah, blah.) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've been writing some articles. Some more lined up tonight. I suggest that people do this whenever someone says "Work on the encyclopedia, write an article, etc., blah, blah.". Maybe this could start a trend? Carcharoth (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose JoshuaZ clarified this issue with the admin who closed the last DRV discussion. Even I had asked WJB if he would have been ok with a RfD, and he saw no problem with that (though he didn't want to undelete the redirect for the duration of the RfD). JoshuaZ is doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing, and there is absolutely no disruption going on here, at all. JoshuaZ has been far more calmer than I have in regards to this situation, and has acted appropriately far more often than not. This comes down to "JoshuaZ hasn't dropped this", but the fact is that JoshuaZ shouldn't drop this, and he's not being disruptive. I was ready to start an arbcom request until JoshuaZ stopped me, saying that he was already talking to the DRV closing admin. If anything, his actions have helped keep the dispute within reasonable limits. -- Ned Scott 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I am unimpressed with JoshuaZ's use of the admin tools with regards to this article [86] wheel warring (albeit over a long period of time) to restore the history. In the deleted history, this edit summary (admin only) bothers me and I think presents a fundamental disconnect with the now-demonstrated will of the Wikipedia community. It makes it a personal issue and that's the whole problem here. It's time to move on with life and quit bringing up Brandt every few months. --B (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  "with the now-demonstrated will of the Wikipedia community" That is a complete load of bull. And your assertion that this is a personal issue is false. The way this situation was handled brings shame to all Wikipedians, and he is trying to correct that. -- Ned Scott 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  Was the "quit bringing up Brandt" remark aimed at Lawrence Cohen, who's just brought him up? The idea that bending over and doing everything Brandt might like is going to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia is ludicrous. .. dave souza, talk 22:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Hopefully this will lessen the vinegaring of Wikipedia Review by Mr Brandt, as it is getting in the way of enjoying Somey's humour... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC) (real reason in edit summary)
• Support for the good of the project as a whole. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Joshua has been one of the calmest people dealing with this situation. Banning him from dealing with it is probably the worst solution for this situation, which was not caused by Joshua, and would have gotten this far without his involvement. -- Ned Scott 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. For the sake of minimsing drama, JZ can ask someone else if he really desperately needs a discussion on the merits of Brandt. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - not only on substantial, but also on procedural grounds. Anyone voting to oppose this topic ban must weigh the risk of being added to the Hivemind. Quite frankly, I can't see how any result can be considered valid, not when voting for one side (but not the other) may place your personal safety at risk. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While I appreciate the sentiment if we followed that logic we'd never be able to discuss anything where there were serious external threats involved. While it might be relevant when trying to determine consensus for this sort of thing it shouldn't be used to short-circuit any discussion. Furthermore, I think the vast majority of users aren't that intimidated by that sort of threat anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, can't see proof that JoshuaZ is deliberately being disruptive. It is clear that a significant part of the community thinks that a decent encyclopedia should have information on Mr. Brandt but that it's too tiring to fight with him about it, but that does not mean we should stop even talking about whether we should have an article or redirect or whatever or not. Anyway, much more review of the facts is necessary to decide such a topic ban. Go to WP:RFAR and file a full request (including full evidence from both sides and all) if you think a topic ban is necessary. Kusma (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think that JoshuaZ has brought more heat than light to this area and his activities are starting to look like a fixation. I don't think further work in this area by him is likely to be helpful, there are thousands of users with less involvement. Therefore I support a restriction on JoshuaZ's activities in this area as suggested. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lar, considering all the people who do want to continue the discussion on this (myself included) I am extremely thankful to have Joshua around as a cool headed user who does his best to lessen the drama, while still dealing with the situation. Users with less involvement will more than likely not be able to handle the situation was well as Joshua has. The heat with this situation is inevitable (since WJB deleted it without a discussion), and not something you can fairly blame Joshua for. -- Ned Scott

• Strong oppose. Really, after going through all of AfDs and DRVs for Brandt, I don't think it should have ever been deleted in the first place. I think he's in the middle area of notability, and I see no evidence that shows that a balanced, NPOV article can never be written about him. Regarding the user himself, it shouldn't matter ; this is an issue that needs to be reexamined so the project may continue to improve rather than ignore its past. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see JoshuaZ causing any disruption, and moreover many of the above arguments allude to sockpuppeteering; I find such insinuations, before the ArbCom has made a decision regarding their validity, to be wholly incompatible with assuming good faith. Evouga (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support but would prefer a voluntary abstention from the user. Has an attempt to achieve that been made? If it has and has failed point blank, then I think the community might need to provide guidance. Many Wiki editors (myself included) have had times in times past when they've been overly attentive to one set of matters to the exclusion of their own sanity. I've run into JoshuaZ before on BLP deletion debates, I found him to be a rather enthusiastic inclusionist who saw fit to open or support the opening of process after process to get any contrary decision reviewed. Orderinchaos 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• WJB made an extremely controversial and out of process deletion, and there are major hints that people were endorsing to keep the redirect deleted at DRV because of recent threats made by Brandt to a wiki editor. That is a far cry from saying he started a discussion simply because he disagreed personally. Joshua stopped me from filing an Arbcom case on the matter, to lessen the drama. Joshua isn't the problem here, and is actually one of the best users we have to deal with the situation. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

I have asked for a review from the arbs. I believe there to be larger issue here, and I think RFAR may be the best venue. I'm not asking the committee to ban, but I want this examined. RFAR. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure arbitration is the way to go, and I have no opinion at this time on the topic ban. However, the disruption of the user (and others) regarding Mr. Brandt's articles really needs to stop. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Has there been an RfC on this user? Only that usually happens before it goes to the Arbs and it hopefully is usually enough.Merkin's mum 20:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

JoshuaZ is not causing any disruption, let us be absolutely clear about that. This issue is far from over, and it's entirely within the community's right to continue discussions about it. -- Ned Scott 21:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intent of arbitration

Please be sure to understand that my request was not designed to subvert this discussion, and this discussion can continue re topic ban. There is no fourm shopping. Understand that I wanted other things looked at as well. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we please...

Not vote on restrictions? WP:CSN died because of that, doing it here puts this place in hot water too. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Per that Deletion decision, this IS exactly the place to build community sanction consensus. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have votes for banning at any noticeboard. Not nowhere, not nohow. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, there's a clear vote above my comment, filled with supports and opposes to the ban. It's not a consensus, it's a poll result. Kwsn (Ni!) 06:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per FT2 of the Arbcom, this sort of question is something that the community needs to ponder. (Or maybe I'm reading that wrong.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't, but the method used to determine whether a topic ban should be imposed or not is not the right way to go about it. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this method's invalid, then the inclusionists must be orgasming repeatedly, because every AfD sports the same sort of !vote sort of bolding to summarize positions. Further, I don't see anyone calling THIS a vote, and most have some amount of rationale for this. In fact, the clear nature of support and opposition makes it more likely that a CLEAR consensus will emerge, rather than watching each side POV push to get their interpretation out of ANY possibly ambiguous responders. This is a strawman designed to protect JoshuaZ and deny the community the chance to create a clear consensus. ThuranX (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

So it seems to my reading that a) there is no consensus for a general ban on this topic and b) many users who I deeply respect think I should either be banned or should at best take a break from this subject. So I am going to make a simple compromise proposal which will hopefully handle most concerns in a way that makes a maximum fraction of individuals happy. Proposal; I will not start any discussions about any attempt to restore any Brandt related content. This wouldn't stop me from editing say Public Information Research or Scroogle or something similar but would prevent me from say starting a DRV on the Brandt article or a the redirect or the CIA cookie exposure (Yes I still remember that. As far as I'm concerned it was one of the best things Brandt has ever done). Dihydrogen Monoxide a bit above this makes a highly reasonable argument for this sort of position. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JoshuaZ for being calm and willing to compromise. I for one think this is a reasonable solution (per my request above). Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this proposal is reasonable and would address most of the concerns. If you don't start any discussions (or ask others to start them on your behalf), don't create any new articles about Brandt, and, should you regain the admin tools, don't take any admin actions on any Brandt articles, then I think most concerns here are satisfied. --B (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, JoshuaZ. This is exactly the way this kind of conversation should be resolved; it is much more edifying than the rather silly voting we see above. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sufficient, rather than continuing to argue over something which is never going to gain enough support. --Haemo (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, hell no. The offending editor gets to make the closing proposal? That's like letting Nixon judge all the Watergate facts and stay in office (see Watchmen). let's see where this actually goes. Otherwise, I'm going to insist that self-imposed consequences become official policy here, because self-rule like that will surely be good for all editors if it's good for one. I, for one, judge the line between blunt speech and incivility to be much further away than others do, and Icould then give myself a pass on all such incidences! ThuranX (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, I don't think it's fair that you have to make this needless sacrifice, especially considering that you've handled these situations very well, and far better than most Wikipedians. To everyone else, this is further proof that Joshua has not been disruptive over this situation, and has the project's best interests at heart. Shame on all of you who endorsed a topical ban. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked sockpuppet of User:Camptown

Hi, I blocked User:Bondkaka as a sockpuppet of User:Camptown based on continuing use of the sock for voting and other shows of support as specifically barred by the sock policy.

He used the sockpuppet to select his own nominations for the 'did you know?' template on main page (by listing them on the next update page). Here are the first diffs from Bondkaka's 5 most recent batches on t:dyk/n, every time the article was initially listed by user:camptown as shown in the 'credits' section: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. He also used the sock to show support on his position on Camptown's candidates for the 'in the news' section of main page. Here are the 6 most recent comments on wp:itn/c (barring spelling and formatting edits): [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. There are more shows of support on various other talk pages, and pretty much every edit I checked from the past few months was in support of camptown, either in reverting to his preferred version, or discussing issues on talk pages.

And now he's threatening to leave the project if the sock isn't unblocked :"Enough is enough. You have wrongly accused me of creating sock puppetry – and block the innocent user Bondkaka based on his DYK-nominations, spreading false accusations that I created user Bondkaka for my own benefit. If you don't unblock user Bondkaka immediately, I will seriously consider leaving this project." --Camptown.

I'm bringing it to a wider forum since he's disputing the issue. Comments are appreciated, thanks. - Bobet 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully endorse block. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse sockblock with a warning to the main account. And yes, agree with Blnguyen. Orderinchaos 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed I don't know what the point of that was. Nothing really wrong with self-nomming so why bother? :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Add to that self-selecting isn't really strictly forbidden but is considered to be a bit undignified...If something's running late, simply nagging another DYK regular would be totally fine. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with these accusations as they are in fact wrong and the user is a former collegue of mine. So, again, I have never set up additional user acccount and have no intention to do so. But since two admins have now spend so much time to "confirm" that I am wrong and they are right, why not block me instead of the innocent "sock puppet"? --Camptown (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:RyRy5

Resolved. No issue with User:RyRy5Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Something needs to be done here. Significant amount of admin and editor time are tied up in babysitting this user and his edits. A quick glance through the history of his talk page shows he has no understanding of Wikipedia, lacks the maturity to work in a collaborative environment and still attempts to 'mentor' other editors despite warnings not to do so. There is no evidence that he, User:Nothing444, User:Basketball110 and/or Stormtracker94 are providing any benefit to the project. Thoughts? Standatoms1985 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment at this stage, do you mean User:RyRy5, User:Nothing444, User:Stormtracker94 and User:Basketball110? George The Dragon (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being much too harsh. While I agree that they aren't the most mature editors around, they've still helped contribute to the encyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Harsh words coming from someone who themselves has yet to demonstrate "any benefit to the project"...care to provide specific examples? — Scientizzle 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Standatoms needs a lesson in patience, civility, no personal attacks, and all kinds of other things *ahem* sock *ahem* before posting at ANI about other users. Just my friendly opinionKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ignore them, and they cannot waste your time. Those trying to mentor him are utterly misguided, but it's not harmful for them to spend their time this way. It's a waste of their time of course, but we cannot exactly demand that volunteers do or don't do whatever we think is best. I'd be in favor of blocking him for disruption if he doesn't cut out the mentoring nonsense, but other than that, what is there to do? Friday (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Friday in that those who are "admin coaching" them are just giving them false hope but until such a day when we can ban those who bring nothing to the dance, nothing can be done George The Dragon (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to raise valid concerns without being judged. I'm not a sock, I edit primarily under an IP except when it's not convenient and/or possible as is the case now. In addition to "mentoring nonsense" he's closing AfDs when he has no idea how, 'creates' articles for other to fix his mess -- just ask User:Metros about how many messes he's had to clean, and generally makes a nuiscance of himself. None of them are any loss, RyRy is the worst of the lot. Standatoms1985 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

While I do have some degree of sympathy with you and would love to kick all of the social networkers off Wiki (and the problem is getting worse) there is no consensus to do that. On a related note, I would point to RyRy's constant requests for rollback and note how it ties in with my concerns about how that particular tool has become the latest "level up" option for the role-players, but what can we do? Let them have their fancy userboxes and let's just hope they keep out the way. One recent problem that did come up - by trying to restrict role-players and networkers away from user-space, they are then lose on mainspace, so perhaps we should just let them get on with it George The Dragon (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, nothing needs to be done here about RyRy5. There are no policies on "admin time" that I know of. There is no issue here. We should talk about Standatoms1985 though (WP:DUCK). Anything you want to tell us? Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Standatoms, did you notify the users that you are adamantly complaining about, about this thread? Such is the custom. Not doing so is rather sneaky, as the users don't have a clue what's going on, and therefore cannot defend themselves. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just finished informing him or her and came back to find Keeper's note. Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw no one ever actually asked Metros like he suggested. I feel left out! Metros (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen these users' (especially RyRy5's) contributions and can say that I don't find it to be *disruptive*, I agree that RyRy5 needs to drop the mentoring stuff and should put of his admin coaching for a while because he's just gaining antipathy with it. If these admins wish to spend their time helping these users than I guess it just shows how patient they are and should be applauded for their efforts. RyRy5 has been outright warned, but all-in-all userspace editing does not harm the project and neither does the chatting, I think RyRy5 and his friends just need to be told this and the rules then enforced but the point is they have made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. So, Ryan, take this as a request from me to stay to mainspace editing, keeping the smalltalk to a minimum for now, putting off all the adopting, admin coaching and rollback stuff and just have fun writing articles for now, when other editors feel you're ready to have rollback, adopt users or be an administrator, they'll tell you, but I can see that you are in disfavor with some regulars because of your apparent interest for 'advancement' rather than writing articles. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was really proud of RyRy when he told me today that he's accepted an offer to be adopted by someone. I think it's a huge step and it goes a long way towards his credibility in my eyes. There is no doubt in my mind that he's got great intentions, and that he now realizes that there are people who can help him advance quickly in his understanding. - Philippe 02:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would generally agree that these users should find more productive things to do with their time rather than admin coaching. General mentoring seems far more appropriate given their current standing in the community. Daniel (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Daniel. Basketball110 is fine though, I'm not sure why he's been named as part of this - he only had a peripheral involvement with the whole thing and does contribute fairly solidly and independently. Ryry and Nothing444 in particular seem pretty helpless without some form of mentoring, and I think Ryry is precisely the last person who should be offering it, given some of the comments I've seen him make to potential "adoptees" in recent days. Orderinchaos 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm unable to propose adding a "public relations" section to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid's talk page

I'm trying to propose the addition of a public relations section to the above article. I think this will improve the article, as public relations is just as important a part of apartheid as is brute force.

Seeing how contentious the article was, I obviously didn't edit the main article. Rather, I added a section to the talk page, and linked this apropos article, which I suggested using as the first item in the proposed section. [98] and [99].

A user reverted my edit three times, and refused to discuss it. Once I warned him about the 3RR rule, "another" user immediately logged in an reverted my edit. It's all detailed here. [100] or [101]

I'm not sure what to do, as I'm not even allowed to discuss my proposed change to the article. Thus this rules out 3PO or mediation. I can't do a 3PO if the proposed changed isn't even allowed onto the talk page.

--Ocean8765 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is because your comments are off-topic and violating WP:TALK. You are bringing up a blog that attacks specific Wikipedia editors. Further, it is not about "Allegations of Israeli Apartheid." Rather, it is about allegations of a non-governmental organization's efforts to influence content on Wikipedia. You are not proposing an addition to the article so much as you are simply posting the link to an irrelevant blog. --Ave Caesar (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First, so that the point is not obfuscated, you wouldn't even allow us to debate the addition to the article. Now that you are willing to discuss it a bit, how do you know what their affiliation is with the Israeli government? Besides, who said apartheid is exclusively the domain of government agents? Private citizens have always helped a society achieve its goals. Please add my change back to the talk page so that we can debate the merits of adding it to the main article. --Ocean8765 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because the talk page is not the appropriate place for such off-topic things to be discussed. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's relevant, again, is because it's about Israel's public relations machine, which is an integral part of maintaining the conditions which many people consider to be apartheid. Of course, by deleting the proposed addition from the talk page, you prevent even a debate on whether to add it. This debate that you're having here belongs on the article's talk page. Please restore my edit. --Ocean8765 (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sweet. A fresh single-purpose account from the anti-Israel side trying to get some ideological profit out of that miserable story. Last thing we need right now. Out with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful about crossing the line into abuse. I'm only proposing adding a reference to a credible article (the Wikipedia editors mentioned in that article have been banned for a year, as I'm sure you are aware.) Since when can't we even debate additions to an article?--Ocean8765 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If this discussion is allowed into AoIA's talk page, then that'd open the doors to all of the other article talk pages that this CAMERA mess has caused. Rather than having tangential discussions on many pages, why not bring your concerns into the centralized discussion area, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign ? Tarc (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin COI

Resolved.

Is the following situation acceptable? I may soon suffer a conflict of interest in a matter involving a specific Wikipedia article. To be clear, there is absolutely no COI at the moment. Am I correct in thinking it would be fine for me to set up a sockpuppet account, use that account and that account only, while disclosing COI, to suggest changes on the article's discussion page, but refrain from tying my primary account to this sockpuppet account due to privacy issues? Furthermore, again while disclosing COI, to use this new account (and only that account) to revert simple vandalism on the article directly? If either of my accounts were blocked, I would refrain from using the other for the duration of the block. If this is not acceptable, I will not set up a new account and will simply refrain from all edits to the article in question. --Yamla (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Two points; Alternate accounts are acceptable, although not encouraged. There is nothing about alternate accounts needing to be identified as belonging to another editor, AFAIAA (certainly the alternate account category is rather bare). Your only problem would be the consideration of operating Good Hand/Bad Hand accounts. However, the second point is that COI does not mean the editor is not permitted to contribute, only that there should be extra vigilance that NPOV is adhered to in both the subject and dealing with the contributions of other editors (i.e. it is not operated as a Bad Hand). The third point of the two is that dealing with vandalism falls outside most policy "don't"s. In short, yup - if edits within that admitted COI subject/article are made in accordance with WP policy it shouldn't matter if it is an undisclosed alternate account of another editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just don't cross the streams. Thatcher 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is scary when admins have secret alternate accounts. Is this a very important issue for you? Could you instead provide input via email to an editor you trust, if you think that the article is missing some important information? Surely others can revert vandalism just as well as you. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I share some disquiet here. Do admins disclose their "secret" accounts upstream, i.e. to 'crats? How does one objectively determine vandalism when possessing a COI? Are there safeguards in place, given that admins are apportioned a certain degree of trust? Franamax (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"LOOOOLL COCA COLA SUX DIX" is pretty obviously vandalism, while "Some consider Coca-Cola's activities in Foo controversial...(source)" is pretty clearly not. When there's any ambiguity, the conflict of interest becomes relevant (at which point it's wonderful that it's being disclosed -- generally COIs aren't). LessHeard vanU's post covers it well enough for my taste. There are certainly ways this can go wrong, which is why I'd recommend taking special care. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is scary when admins have secret alternate accounts. Agreed. If there's a need for a special anti-vandalism account for one article, there's a problem, and this isn't the right way to handle it. It smacks of WP:OWN. --John Nagle (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't see the section in WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternative accounts that says "unless you're an admin, in which case you're just SOL." The rest of your comment indicates to me you don't understand Yamla's reasoning for wanting an account -- it's a privacy thing, not so he can claim Supreme Ownership. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed an alternate account if they follow WP:SOCK. Admin or not. We respect people's wishes to be anonymous and if that is scary then so be it. _(1 == 2)^Until 05:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's scary to people then there may be legs for policy to change; just a thought. Any policy can change and likely will someday. Nothing if ever final here. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamla, if it's this concerning, why not just ask some you trust to watch the mystery article? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. I think the unspoken assumption here is that Yamla's main account will not edit either the article or its Talk page. Perhaps that is so obvious that it makes me look stupid for saying so. That's okay. :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I tried to make explicit that my main account would not edit either the article or its talk page going forward. It seems to me that some people have brought up some legitimate concerns here. For the record, I think so long as an admin is willing to disclose the alternate account to, say, 'crats, this sort of usage is supported by our existing policies and guidelines. However, because of the concerns raised here, I hereby declare that I will not set up an alternate account and will also refrain from editing said article myself. Again, I think it would be okay for an alternate account but I also think it is just generally a good idea for an admin to err on the side of caution, and so that's what I will do here. Anyway, the article in question is only occasionally vandalised and I'm absolutely sure others can deal with the vandalism when it happens. --Yamla (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, this is allowed. As Thatcher says, just don't cross the streams. As long as there's no interaction between your accounts or overlapping areas of editing, nothing is actionable. WilyD 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ThomHImself (talk · contribs)

These edits constitute a legal threat. He's also edit warring to remove well-cited information, probably close to 6 or 7RR, I'm not even bothering to count anymore. Moreover, he's the true definition of a single-purpose account. Any help will be greatly appreciated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"I will take various actions specified in Wikipedia policy in response to all future introductions of potentially defamatory claims that are not supported by references to sources permitted in biographies of living persons." I consider that a statement of intent to ask for deletion of the material under BLP, or even oversight. that's not legal threats. I'm not defending his general editing practices, which are possibly worthy of a final warnng about a possible topic ban. . DGG (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a threat without validity. How could anyone possibly consider it defamatory that Marks is an Intelligent design proponent, when he has written on Intelligent design, Baylor closed down his website because of Intelligent design, and he's mentioned in the Expelled, the intelligent design promoting moving. So, a legal threat that is just used to scare off an editor, is a legal threat that has no basis and is frowned upon by Wikipedia. Moreover, he violated 3RR after a final warning, but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to file a 3RR complaint. And now it appears that the editor is in fact Robert Marks, so maybe his motives are not so good. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not disagree on the underlying issue. My understanding is that Marks may now wishing ( to sever links with his former associates & might want us not to emphasize his association with them. I think he was prominent enough in that period that it remains relevant content, and anyway I consistently oppose accepting requests of subjects to alter articles to their views as destructive of NPOV. But, as you say, the threats have no validity, so there's nothing further to do as long as he remains within WP and is non-obstructive. DGG (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If OrangeMarlin sees a 3RR here, he should file at WP:AN/3RR. He would need to supply evidence that the deletions by ThomHImself can't be justified under BLP. ThomHImself can't use the normal BLP exception that you can remove incorrect claims about yourself, since this editor asserts he is not Robert Marks. If OM can provide evidence that ThomHImself has edit-warred more generally, that might justify a longer block. I'm new to this case; is there really no prospect of negotiation? EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG in that I'm having trouble seeing a legal threat here. Simply a statement of intent to use Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures. That's a good thing. However, as I've already attempted to explain to the editor given the sourcing anything short of Marks explicitly clarifying his position on his website or something similar isn't going to allow us to do much. In any event, this seems to be essentially a content issue and there doesn't seem to be much for ANI to look at. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder: Israeli lobby group subverting Wikipedia discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

We can use some more eyes there, the old link has floated up-page and lost in the churn. Basically, an off-wiki troll organization was uncovered from leaked emails manipulating Wikipedia content, fronted by now-indef banned Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a long-time contributor, and so far at least one other member of this off-wiki group has admitted to it and is discussing on the bottom of the sub page. More eyes needed. This one is a fantastic mess. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note, it's on OTRS [102]. This appears to be a relevant link, though I haven't checked it yet, may be NSFW or other nastiness⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA people are on OTRS? As in they contacted us over this? [[User:Lawrence

Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]] § t/e 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Just worth pointing out a possibly pedantic inaccuracy - he's been banned for a year, not indef as stated - the topic ban is all that is indef. I'll make further comments when I have considered it enough, but basically I support everything Lawrence Cohen has said on the matter.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd like to see more eyes to evaluate the truth of this comment: Shocking McCarthyism. Where does one go for a hearing? I did not verify anything except that I was a member of this group that the Electronic Intifada has dug up some emails. As I said, as far as I know it was not a CAMERA group. But that aside. I thought in America we were all allowed to join any groups and were responsible only for our own words, not the words of others in a group. Ditto with our actions. I deeply resent and dislike this situation. I am being judged not for who I am or what I have written, but by people I don't know and for my membership in a group and for words that did not get written here. I have not tried to push any "agenda" but to see that my side is fairly represented. I don't know zeg and who he is, but he seems to have been banned for a year for something that he apparently denies. Now you people want to ban anyone who was a member of this group. Talk about unfair. Juanita (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC). I'm tempted to agree, just scanning through that long page. The siege mentality and the 'thrill' of the investigation displayed by some of the editors in that conversation is worrisome to say the least. Avruch ^T 23:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This non-admin agrees with Avruch. Arkon (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we weigh in on that subpage about how to deal with a direct attack on Wikipedia's NPOV in an orchestrated manner, including getting "stealth admins", by a group of nationalists. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You reposted it here, and here it is. I think we judge each and every editor based on their actual actions on-wiki, not what we think they might have tried to do, assuming its them, off-wiki. If there is absolute proof that Zeq was orchestrating an "direct attack on Wikipedia" through "stealth admins" then maybe a topic ban is in order, but an indefinite (or equivalent) ban? How much of this "direct attack" actually made it on-wiki? Any evidence to suggest there is such a thing as a stealth admin? Moving past the Zeq block, the discussion is now all about ferreting out and blocking anyone else that might be involved - based on the "outing" done by a pro-Palestinian (and importantly - anti-Israel) web site. The search for clues to see who wrote some of the e-mails is creepy, and I imagine if you connect more editors to e-mail accounts there will be yet more calls to block or topic ban people without so much as a cursory evaluation of their actual edits. Avruch ^T 23:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I don't really like the vibe on that sub-page. Very mobbish. Anyway, my views on this are the same as my views on the drug war. Punish people for breaking the rules if they do, don't crystal ball them into being vandals, pov warriors etc. Judge people on wiki, by what they do on wiki. Arkon (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, admins on that page have stated they have confidential (i.e. for admins only) evidence that Zeq is indeed the zeqzeq2 that organized the attack plans. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack as in, maybe, taking Wikipedia down? Hacking the pages? When you say attack, do you mean something like that? Or getting a group of like minded editors together to edit a particular group of articles with the idea of changing the POV? The second isn't a good idea, but I'm not sure I'd call it an attack - Zeq's ridiculous phrasing of it as a war and an army notwithstanding. I'd be more comfortable with this if there were a long list of Zeq's edits saying "This one, this one, this one and THAT one violate this, this and that policy" rather than "See how it sounds like he wrote these emails where he organized a stealth attack against the home base and a sneaky infiltration effort to get enemies behind the front lines in positions of authority. We must circle the wagons and protect the fort!" Avruch ^T 00:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Avruch. That is not unusual language. Itzse lamented that Jaakobou went 'missing in action' when the latter suffered a week's suspension recently. One smiles at the computer screen, but cannot help thinking 'these guys really think editing in here is a patriotic act in defence of their nation and take the rest of us as pro-terrorist militants pledged to a jihad for systemic inaccuracy'. Zeq is not the only one to employ that metaphor of an intractable facing off between enemies. I'm not the punishing kind, and late last night I even asked for a suspension of the ban on him, simply on the grounds that I felt deeply uncomfortable in something like this hitting him over Pesach, and hoped that a little reflection in this period on his part might have helped a better dialogue with his 'interrogators' than he gave. There was an edit-conflict, and perhaps, for the best, it didn't go through, and got lost. Though I've had a lot of difficulties with him (and he with me) I reflected that the new measures in force on these articles had certainly made editing pages he works on as well, easier. But in the light of those emails, I couldn't help but wonder whether I was been lulled into complacency. Look at it again from the point of view of an average editor. Negotiating the drafting of some of these pages is extremely arduous by its nature, but a general principle seems to be lost on many. Many, perhaps most, of us are not editing Israeli-related articles. We are editing articles on Palestinians, mostly edited by Israeli/Jewish people and a mere handful of Palestinians. In trying to get the Palestinian side equally represented (I prefer to use Israeli/Jewish sources for this, for they are the best), we find that this effort, which is fundamental for an encyclopedic neutrality, is regarded as hostile to Israel's interests. There is a strong effort to associate mention of criticism of Israel's policies in territory technically Palestinian as a variety of the New Antisemitism, or as exhibiting, depending of the source Jewish self-hatred, or hatred of Zionism, or Left wing fringe lunatic views. One can deal however with 'attack' editors who see things in a powerful nationalist light (or darkness?), though it requires a huge amount of time-wasting niggling on absurd cavils (dozens of pages to justify the use of 'uprising' to describe, as international scholarship does describe, the al-Aqsa Intifada), with still no verdict in. But, for someone not gazing at the problems afflicting these articles except from the rarefied airs of arbitration-administration, but rather working past endless roadblocks of wikilawyered obstructionism, the prospect of having a tagteam effort seeping in to stack the numbers' game and complicate things, is not something that leaves one free to dismiss the prospective exacerbations as trivial. I agree that due process requires review. I disagree on your dismissal of the intense examination conducted of those emails as 'mobbish'. The emails themselves were 'mobbish'. I withheld my own comments for some time in the belief that some wrong might be wrought on otherwise innocent victims, given that EI was not quite the source I would personally like (I never quote it). But I'm afraid the three editors (one closing down access to that email group) gave ample if indirect corroboration of the suspicions that they were indeed part of the prospective gaming mentioned by CAMERA, and the administrative action taken at the time was, as an interim act, not improper. It simply requires review, to make sure that haste has not induced oversight, and that those punished be allowed full formal redress if they can prove that they have been harshly done by. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate your comments, as ever, Nishidani. Before anything else, I just want to point out that I didn't describe anything on the subpage as 'mobbish' - that was Arkon, below my comment. I understand the frustration that editors have with coordinated efforts on articles in particular areas of conflict. If a coordinated group with a particular point of view is effective, it makes attempting to maintain a neutral point of view extraordinarily difficult. This is a weakness inherent in a consensus system - minorities that make up a majority in a small subset of the community can have an unreasonable effect in their area of focus. I do understand the difficulty that is perhaps unique to the Israel/Palestinian conflict - obviously, the Israeli and Zionist contingent has the advantage in terms of technological access, a free and advanced press, a comparatively wealthy and educated population, etc. The two dangers, in this area, mean that editors of articles within the ambit of the conflict must be especially vigilant for bias in their own edits and those of others, and especially careful to craft representative and neutral articles. What I do not want to see happen is the transmutation of this worthwhile effort into a wide ranging investigation of the off-wiki activities of editors - particularly based on information found at electronicintifada.com. Our management expertise (that is, our ability to patrol content and conduct on-wiki) doesn't carry over to sleuthing against alleged POV-warriors off site.

• The risk here is that we will sanction these editors based on something other than their on-wiki conduct. I don't agree with Moreschi's description of Juanita's (sorry, can't remember the username at the moment) comments as hysterical - I think she is fully justified in seeing the work towards bans on the subpage as an attempt to punish association rather than conduct. This is an endeavor we should not get into, even at the risk of making more work for ourselves in presenting neutrally worded content in controversial fields. Take a page from how other sorts of administrative actions like this have worked in the past (including, incidentally, ArbCom procedures). What ought to be required is a cogent and comprehensive review of the edits of editors who are proposed to be banned. Comparisons of e-mails with anonymous addresses, linked somehow to pseudonymous editors, just don't cut it in my mind. Still, perhaps the community disagrees. Avruch ^T 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That the whole affair needs review to see that justice is done, and that part of this requires editorial review, is more than reasonable. It is, I agree obligatory, ethically and technically (Juanita = Dajudem). Our only difference is, I suppose, on whether those emails are usable. They do counsel not being provocative, playing by the rules, (things that make onwiki evidence look innocent). To say that the EI evidence cannot be used, is to dismiss the possibility, canvassed on Camera, that indeed something like an organized effort was underway, since the only evidence for it is to be excluded. The point is certainly a delicate one. OPne suggestion, though I don't know how it stands technically. I should think that the best thing would be for a request that editors from all over the place (beginning with myself) refrain from complicating the discussion on the relevant Arbcom page. Too much kibitizing muddles things, and editors from the ranks, like myself, do well to watch from the sidelines, to avoid complicating with irrelevancies, personal takes and mere chat, what should be a succint, analytical review by highly experienced administrators. I suppose the request can't be made formally, but it would be for the best if the rest of us shut up,at least until most of the work was done by yourself and the other involved administrators (since I rarely look at Arbcom proceedings, perhaps the hoi polloi are excluded? If so, all the better). Best regards Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Another sensible comment that was ignored:

"We will go to war after we have build our army, equiped it, trained..." Good times. Actually, the mechanisms to deal with this are already in place. I seriously doubt that CAMERA-solicited POV-pushers will slip under the radar; the problem in such situations is more a matter of the will and energy to deal with obvious problems. I'd suggest the following as good general guidelines for this or any such situation:

• Watchlist requests for adminship and demand evidence of actual commitment to and understanding of Wikipedia policy in admin candidates. Wikignoming and rolling back vandalism are great, but they don't require the tools. Adminship is a very big deal in April 2008, largely as a result of a series of ArbCom decisions which have handled thorny issues by empowering the Platonic "any uninvolved administrator" with extraordinary discretion. It's entirely reasonable to oppose people who haven't satisfactorily demonstrated a grasp of core policies and conflict resolution before requesting the tools. You wouldn't give someone a drivers' license because they can change a tire, would you?

• Watchlist problem articles, even if you don't participate. Agenda-based POV-pushing thrives on a lack of outside eyes. The more these issues devolve into back-and-forth shouting matches, the less effective we are at dealing with them.

• It's not hard to identify agenda accounts which place advocacy for their POV above Wikipedia's policies. It's really not. If you observe such behavior, then request outside input, here or via WP:RFC/U, sooner rather than later. It will not be pretty - in this recently-closed ArbCom case, I spent 6 months dealing with an obvious agenda account at every level of dispute resolution, only to be accused of "biting a newbie" when the situation ended up with ArbCom - but it can be done. MastCell Talk 15:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind that I'm cherrypicking the most useful contributions to the subpage to post here. Avruch ^T 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I do sort of object. I posted a fairly strong response to that wishy-washy statement by MastCell, and something which I think was three times as useful:

"Not hard to identify agenda accounts"? "will and energy"? What universe are you living in? If you had happened to step by recent AfDs sourced entirely to CAMERA quotefarms, you would have noticed that they became such a mess that people cheerfully closed them as no consensus keeps. Will and energy are strikingly lacking in the average AfD closer - naturally, these AfDs are hardly the straightforward closes one expects, nor are they scrutinised by higher-up muckety-mucks like that of some WR rabble-rouser. How will the standard mechanisms deal with that? When further up this page we have Durova cheerfully defending an extraordinarily tendentious editor she's mentoring, who's singlehandedly derailed normal academic sourcing on a dozen articles? When any admin is 'involved' if at any point they've edited these articles? When these "agenda accounts" are being taught to wikilawyer in such a way that it will not be easy to demonstrate, in the face of the usual cheesy uproar about character assassination and rushing to judgment and lynch mobs, that they have an agenda over and above WP's? Patience-schmatience.

As far as I can see, that is particularly relevant to all this concern. Frankly, Zeq's been a problem for years, and we all know it. Nobody else who's established appears implicated, but there are a couple of obvious corollaries if one accepts the "leaked" emails, on which I am agnostic.

We should not waste our time trying to locate which of Zeq's edits are disruptive, and then wikilawyering over how disruptive they are, and whether PalestineRemembered is more disruptive, and so on, when there is every indication that the assumption of good faith no longer applies. When a reasonable number of people think he is editing in bad faith, there is no alternative but to ask him to stop. I fully expect this to be just the first of many such efforts from diverse groups, and its important to set a tone now. Remember, we aren't here to give a fair trial, or due process. We have neither the resources, the time, the mechanisms, nor, frankly, the ability to do so, and pretending to do so would be a travesty. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree with your blockquoted comments, and made somewhat similar arguments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and elsewhere, particularly as regards "involved admins". For which I was tarred, feathered, and denounced as an anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian shill (cf. [103]). It's so nice to hear that I've migrated far enough to be called "wishy-washy", though. I must be doing something right. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. No, wishy-washy was a bit too emphatic. I admit that for some reason I've been wanting to use the phrase in conversation for days. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess it's better than being called a flip-flopper... "I !voted for the ban before I !voted against it"? :) MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to have some kind of defence mechanism against organized groups that plan to have their people start editing Wikipedia while concealing their relationship to the group. This is essentially the mass use of meatpuppets. It's no fun to participate in an AfD that's become the target of an organized group. Luckily the organized groups are usually incompetent enough that it's not a serious threat, at least for AfDs. It's more of a concern when there is a diffuse set of articles and it's hard to keep track of a systematic POV campaign against those articles. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Avruch by cherrypicking Mastcell's comments you have missed out the fact that she actually supports Zep's block (as do I, along with measures to nip this in the bud by extending it to his cohorts, and I don't think that's an inappropriate term to use given the very real situation we are faced with here, though I refuse of course to specifically name anyone as such at this stage.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I see MastCell supporting a topic ban only. Zeq may have earned himself a block just by his work on that subpage, but I don't see a good reason to go using these supposedly authentic emails posted by an outside and clearly ideologically opposed group to block, ban or out editors whose conduct bears no relation to Zeq's. Avruch ^T 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha - no wonder my ears were burning. For the record, my opinion was that it sets an extremely dangerous precedent to sanction someone on the basis of an email exchange reproduced on a partisan and unreliable website. I am not familiar with Zeq or his behavior. If he's otherwise a long-term problematic, partisan editor of the sort which are all too common on Israeli-Arab topics, then he should be topic-banned under the ArbCom provisions, emails notwithstanding. It's not exactly a newsflash that there is off-wiki canvassing on Israeli-Arab topics; this is the tip of the iceberg. I'm absolutely not happy about it, but the question is how we can most constructively deal with it. My point was this: single-purpose and agenda-driven accounts are remarkably easy to detect. I think it would be a better use of time to focus on identifying and dealing constructively with existing agenda accounts and POV problems, rather than running ourselves in circles and working up a fever pitch about an email exchange of questionable provenance on a partisan website. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be going out on a witch hunt, however I do feel we should be particularly wary of any sort of orchestrated attack. Vandals and POV pushers themselves require no extra attention, but if they have in fact "plotted" to do all this, then we should obviously be on guard. In any case, it's our nature to respond and defend, not go on the "offensive". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts in the Evidence? section. At the very least, admin/s need to make clear the sekret 'reliable source's evidence has been confirmed by others, and everyone on there needs to go to formatting and summarization school, it's shocking that the block justification is just linked to that unreadable mess of a page. MickMacNee (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More eyes, please

Three users are now under sanction because of this off-Wiki astroturfing campaign by a troll organization. Please review the subpage. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gone to arbitration

I have filed an arbitration request in regards to the Israeli Wiki Lobbying and attacks uncovered: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Israeli Wiki Lobbying. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPA BrianKarjala doing lots of editing on Tom Papania

This editing includes lots of information attributed to one Mr. Karjala that seems to be claiming he was unjustly accused of various things, without citations. I reverted once, I don't want to get into a war here, someone else look. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RedRocket reverted the unsourced nonsense, Brian then reverted RedRocket and continued. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also tried to talk to the user on his talk page, but based on what I've seen from him (including his IP contributions) I'm not sure he's going to listen. It might be good for an admin to keep an eye on it. Once it calms down over there, the article needs a good rewrite, anyway. Redrocket (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this user is editing an article that contains content about him (under the critics section) and actually linking to his own website as a reference, doesn't that make this a pretty clear WP:COI case? Again, I don't want to edit war there, but an admin's help or advice would be appreciated. Redrocket (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, allegations about mafia connections, Christian leadership, psychological issues, all for living people and all without sources. Great. Just wiped the whole thing out and let's start it over properly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See Karjala's user page. He claims to be a defrocked cabal member or some such, and therefore knows all this stuff by personal experience. In fact the article and his user page go fairly well together and make a more cohesive story than the article does at this point. I have some doubts that this will come out well, but I'm willing to give him room for a while IF he will put inline sources on his statements and not just say "the external sources prove this is true" as is his current stance. Currently the article is very poorly written (despite the large number of edits K. has made), but I don't see any point in a good copyedit until K. thinks it tells the True Story correctly. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

See the article now and the talk page. I'll leave it to the talk page to discuss whether his site passes WP:RS anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Succinct.  :-) Loren.wilton (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An IP left a note on the BLP notice board at WP:BLPN#Tom Papania, and I removed the unsourced content about the person named Brian. That same IP now says that the user is impersonating him. The user removed a comment from the IP here, to suggest it was the same person (Brian or not) that I was talking to. Since the same IP has since said that this person is not him, regardless of who Brian is or isn't, who ever is behind the user is flat out lying. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As such, I would recommend we block BrianKarjala (talk · contribs) until he can provide some evidence to his identity. I pointed him to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (the closest set of instructions I could see that might apply) to do this. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems the real Brian has confirmed this on his website at http://www.christianissues.com/updates.html . I've still left instructions for both the user and the IP to e-mail OTRS. -- Ned Scott 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson County, VA page

I want to ask about the continued editing by the students at Nelson County High School that are posting bogus things on the page. Even though the editing was blocked to annonymous users from our school IP address, students have started making accounts and are using them to edit the page. I reset the page to what it is supposed to be, but is there a way to look this page permanently unless the person is an admin? I hope that I am in the right place for this.

I've added Nelson County, Virginia to my watchlist to more conveniently revert and block. If this is just high school vandals, once they see that they can't achieve anything, they'll probably get bored and go back to throwing stones at cats. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's most of the people in my second block class, yes I am a student, so I've been trying to change it back as soon as they make changes. I just don't like them trying to use Wikipedia to get their own names on the internet and I don't agree with purposely altering the page with the stupid crap they put up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LRVladimir (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sock of 86.129.31.62 and 86.145.219.221, new user User talk:Argus-Bot

Resolved.

History: Two Ip addresses Special:Contributions/86.129.31.62 and Special:Contributions/86.145.219.221 were blocked today and yesterday for making multiple disruptive changes in articles like Video CD, DVD and CD Video. Repeated warnings were ignored. After the second IP was block User:Argus-Bot appeared making the exact same edits on the articles. They have not responded to talk page messages, and continue to disruptively edit with no edit summaries. I am also weary of reverting the edits at this point given how constantly the page is being vandalized. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Further addition: Argus-Bot has copied the entire Video CD article to Category:Video CD for some reason. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I edited my above post to be more concise. I'm concerned this complaint may be seen as a "content" issue, but I think the scope is larger as this person has disruptively edited these articles multiple times to the point of being temporarily blocked AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The User name should be blocked, since they aren't a bot. Corvus cornix_talk 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User indef blocked.-Wafulz (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 80.0.45.192

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

---

Resolved.

Contributions are almost entirely vandalism. I'm not sure what to do about the user removing warnings from their talk page, and particularly this addition: [104] swaq 16:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User blocked for 72 hours.-Wafulz (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

72 hours isn't going to enough.Obviously this user wants to get deleted.He apparently hates Wikipedia.Lets just give him what he wants. Mr. Green^chat 16:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an IP it may represent multiple users. It has at least one useful edit on it. If the problems return, we'll just extend the block.-Wafulz (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Cooly Mr. Green^chat 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

[edit] IP having trouble with registered user

Resolved.

No vandalism, IP warned.

Diff to a message left on my talk page. Appparently, it's an agrument with a vandal or something... 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No vandalism there and the newest edit was a week ago. IP has been warned about making personal attacks though. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Does that make it resolved? 21655 ^{ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ?} 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, though I'll watch the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado Avalanche had to be fully protected

Just a note regarding that article. It appears to have been the target of a coordinated attack today. Please see the last 250 edits. Enigma ^message Review 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still vandalism there, see this diff: [105]. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Some admin please remove the last sentence from the "Jerseys" section. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: in a situation like this, where there's an apparent coordinated attack, are we blocking registered users on sight? 'cuz several of them were indeffed without warning, or with one warning after one edit; I warned a couple of them (trying to follow the general procedure for blocking), who were then blocked without further edits after the article was protected, and I feel silly now for not doing it myself. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Trolling of this type needs to be dealt with severely, I believe. They can always request unblocking. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, a few of the users involved with this also vandalized the Jim Tressel article earlier in the week. I saw in some of the edits references to a local Detroit radio show, and I'm wondering if the hosts of this show are telling people to go vandalize the pages. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That would explain a lot. By the way, one IP went so far as to vandalize the entry at WP:RPP. Enigma ^message Review 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the obvious perpetrators on sight. There weren't a great deal of them so that should slow down the vandal edits and I think it would be safe to unprotect the article soon. Doubt a user involved in such an attack would become a great contributor in the future if they low enough to coordinate disruption with other users.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Normally I go back and warn all the vandals, but in this case there are simply too many anon vandals involved. The accounts are all indef-blocked, and that's the important part, I guess. Enigma ^message Review 18:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect most of the accounts were throwaways anyway. No big loss. Not a particularly intelligent rivalry prank, really. Vandalism reverted, accounts blocked, and anyone reading won't know that anything happened. Good job, Wings fans. {rolleyes} Resolute 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering e-mailing the radio show in question. Do you think it's worth a shot, or is it just encouraging further coordinated vandalism? Enigma ^message Review 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

radio show in question. Enigma ^message Review 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

RBI.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? How do we know, for a fact, that it was a radio station, specifically this one? And, *ahem* as a sidenote, don't group all of us Wings fans into the same group as vandals ;-) . - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you missed something. ;) Several of the vandals specifically referenced the radio show and its hosts. I would say there's a high probability that that radio show is responsible for the attacks on Jim Tressel and Colorado Avalanche. Enigma ^message Review 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think emailing the show is just asking for trouble. The odds of them caring about wikipedia policy is close to none. The odds of them realizing they've got to someone and sending out a second wave, much higher.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. WP:BEANS. Just disappointed that we know what's behind this and can't do anything. I guess the other possibility would be to e-mail the actual station director, but per the responses here, that's not a great idea either. Enigma ^message Review 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: It's confirmed that it was coordinated by the aforementioned radio station. User:Chaldean pointed me to this link, which discusses the coordinated disruption. Enigma ^message Review 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)