Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive602

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Abuse of Page Protection tools[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have left Wikipedia. I think I have the right to say this on my user page, and mention why. However, because I left pretty much solely over abuse heaped upon me by Durova, her friends keep deleting the message, and have now protected my user page. Here's the message:


This user has left Wikipedia due to harassment by Durova which attempted to prevent free discussion of her featured picture candidates. Long story short, polite criticism of her work there was met with disproportionate attacks, and, thinking back, I realised that more subtle forms of this bullying had been going on a long time. Having had it made very clear that noone cared about harassment by her, I have left Wikipedia. Evidence available through e-mail to anyone I trust to have my e-mail.

Durova, meanwhile, is evidently constantly complaining about how few people capable of working with historic material there are.


The incident in question involved her repeating "Fuck you, troll" on Skype over and over, because I politely pointed out in a FPC that one of the images was upside down, this looks like a mistake, and even if it wasn't, it's not something that you should go without mentioning. I offered ways around this when she began berating me over it, such as offwerin two versions, so that people don't have to turn their monitors over, which is much easier with a book.

She continued to berate me, threatened me, and then began acting to remove all connections I had to people that might give me material for Wikipedia that had any connections through her, even in media where she doesn't do things.

This was not the first time, I doubt I'm the only person she's bullied into doing what she wants, or into deleting comments about her restorations that she disliked.

I don't want anyone else to get into the position I was put in, where they are bullied and harassed for months for not living up to Durova's ideal of perfect yes-man, all the while being used for propaganda purposes by her. And whenever I complained about ANYTHING that was being done to me by anyone, she swooped in and encouraged people to close the thread, because I hadn't talked to her first.

I supported her goals, incredibly strongly, but, in the end, the goals were less important to me than getting out of a relationship where, days after telling her I had just experienced a massive personal crisis, she was brutally attacking and bullying me over trivial matters.

Shoemaker's Holiday talk 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova notified. I don't know the circumstances of this conflict, but in any event, retired or not, expressions of derision with a specific editor on one's userpage are usually removed per WP:UP#NOT. Equazcion (talk) 05:03, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)
Some diffs would help. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey Shoe. :( Not great to see you under these conditions, but hey anyways. Some diffs: [1], [2], [3]. As per Equazcion it's not unusual to remove this kind of stuff. Plus your last edit prior to this was this vandalism of a Signpost story about Durova. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Equazcion. Let's call this water under the bridge; this goes back five months. If Shoemaker wants the semiprotection taken off his user page I've no objection. Shake hands and let bygones be bygones. Durova412 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the rant is inappropriate. Feeling harassed and being harassed are very different, though the difference is not obvious to the victim at the time (I have had both, with on-wiki disputes escalated to off-wiki crank calls and the like). To say that they left because of a dispute with a named user is fine, left due to harassment with no name is OK, but the Wikimedia Foundation's resources are not really here ot be used to pursue grudges from beyond the grave. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd say, if Durova, does not mind, take protection off. I more worried about the user than his user page. The user is clearly very upset, and needs some understanding and help. Durova, I would like to appeal to you please. I know the two of you used to be the friends. Maybe it is possible to have a talk or to have a meditation to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to Commons and to Wikipedia. If I could be of any help to bring the two of you together, I will be happy to do so. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you for being considerate, Mbz1. He's welcome to return at any time. I'd work with him onsite or maintain polite distance, per his preference. Although yes, I would prefer if the personal attacks stopped. Let's put it in the past. Durova412 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait. Via Skype? Woogee (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So Durova forgives me for... her having harassed me off the site. But I'm welcome to return to being harassed any time. How kind of her. 86.138.86.138 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • What?! *The* Shoemaker's Holiday hounded off Wikipedia? The world is going to hell in a handbasket. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Shoe, buddy, you really need to calm down. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of what happened between you and Durova, but I do know I've seen you get really angry over small things before (like whenever people would start trolling you about global warming denial and things like that). If you want to edit Wikipedia, awesome, come back and the project is better for it. But if not, what exactly do these occasional returns complaining about the same issue accomplish? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is another example of a contributor feeling unappreciated & suffering WikiBurnout for all of the hard work she/he has contributed to the project. (And if you agree that this phenomenon exists, then you might consider that Larry Sanger is the first significant example of this phenomenon.) Without taking sides, I have to wonder if any of us (including me) had extended more appreciation for SH's contributions, matters would have reached this point. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said what it was: Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues: writing an article on sound restoration for the signpost, when she wanted to do one; making a joke page with another contributor she disliked, and then, when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype, said "Fuck you, troll" about 10 times in said conversation - I'm not exaggerating, people have the log, and, indeed, it was posted to Wikipedia for a while, until Durova had it oversighted in direct violation of WP:OVERSIGHT. (Oh, sure, the oversighter in question claimed the policy didn't reflect standard procedure, but they could have edited it any time in the last 5 months to make it permitted. That they never did means they were clearly ignoring policy, or had no consensus to act in the manner they did.) - In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice:
  • To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.
  • To keep me from working on Tropenmuseum items.
  • An implied threat to keep my name out of a Tropenmuseum exhibit, for which she had got large numbers of us to do major restoration work. Of course, this exhibit was never talked of again once she got access to archives she wanted, because she's a manipulative little bitch that way, but we didn't know that at the time.
In short, this was harassment, threats, and was part of a chain dating back about 2 months, if not farther. Durova is completely unrepentant, as seen here. Note that the harassment was explicitly in order to subvert the Featured picture candidates voting, by suppressing politely stated dissent. I might have gotten around this, but when I pointed this out, it was made very clear that noone wanted to hear anything wrong about Durova, and I was explicitly told no evidence could convince anyone of any wrongdoing by her.
If you want me back, Durova needs to face consequences for her actions, or at least be warned, or, in a far more unlikely event, Durova accepts wrongdoing, apologises, and promises never to use harassment to suppress free commentary of her restoration work again. Barring that, I'm NOT coming back. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, had she merely pulled this stunt at a neutral time, it might've been bad enough. What she actually did was pull it three days after I had confided to her a severe trauma that had just happened to me. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt most of this. Since she's been nothing but nice to be despite any disagreements we've had and given what I've seen from you, Shoe, exploding at the slightest provocation on numerous occasions. Again, I don't know the details (despite your yelling at me on my talk page that I know the full details), but this was supposed to be an ANI thread about page protection, not a far-reaching conspiracy to deny you a scanner or whatever. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You were there for the discussion when the event happened, as far as I'm aware. Why not ask on Wikivoices whether anyone remembers when Durova went crazy? Because I made a point of putting people into that conversation so I'd have independent backup of what I was saying. If I recall correctly, Juliancolton was one of them. Why not ask him? This isn't a conspiracy theory, if you had the log you'd see that Durova revelled in taking back every half-baked promise she had made regarding me in the previous six months, just to rub it in.
For the record, my scanner broke, which I used for almost all my Wikipedia Featured Pictures work. I knew it'd be a while before I could afford a new one, so Durova stepped in and promised to sort out funding. about four months passed without a word from her, until she brought it up again to rub in my face what I lost by daring to politely question her FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'll go post the log somewhere and give a link. Hold on. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


<link redacted by Rlevse> Shoemaker's Holiday talk 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoe, without getting into the merits of the ongoing long term issue btwn you and Durova, your links to the blog are merely exacerbating the situation, stop it now. I've removed them from the current versions of the pages. RlevseTalk 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a victim of harassment who is having the harassment denied to have been that bad. This is a situation where providing the evidence is my only recourse. How is that "exacerbating the situation"? Shoemaker's Holiday talk 08:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Baseball Bugs above, WP:DIFFS provide the evidence. Provide the evidence, please, as you have indicated you must, and you might have a case. No "evidence", no case... Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Any "Skype" evidence "off-wiki" should be submitted to admins willing to look at such evidence (a checkuser admin would be the best choice). If you can't submit evidence you've been harassed on WP with significant diffs, I don't think "claiming" harassment without solid evidence is good for any case you may have... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
So, if the harasser is sneaky, keeps a semi-good public image while privately harassing you severely about Wikipedia, and on-wiki actions, the harasser gets off scot-free? Shoemaker's Holiday talk 11:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"Sneaky"? What "image"? You are casting allegations with no direct evidence. Support your claims with diffs for "on-wiki actions" (which anyone could do if the evidence is there). Off-wiki actions are far more difficult to prove, especially when it concerns edits on WP... Doc9871 (talk)
Oh, fuck Wikipedia. I gave Wikipedia a last chance, this is what happens. Requests that I dig through a year of history for diffs from before I left to show the rare tmes her harassment spilled onto Wikipedia itself, instead of being on Skype. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Shoe, when did you "give Wikipedia it's last chance"? You came back after months to complain about page protection, and then after getting a handshake and everyone agreeing lets just let this be water under the bridge and move on you start exploding about a completely different subject. And during none of this have you actually done anything on the project. Tired of a user? Here's an idea, don't interact with them. BOOM. Done. Drama, in a case like this where Durova is very clearly not doing anything to you on site, is something you are entirely bringing on yourself. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Durova is claiming copyright in the log in question, I'd like to ask directly and explicitly:

Durova, is the chat log posted by Shoemakers' Holiday an accurate record of a conversation between the two of you?Werdna • talk 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the log that was linked to, I can certainly understand why he wants it on the "community record". Way beyond the pale, and suppressing it by copyright claims only makes it worse. He is justified in wanting some sunshine here. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This has long since ceased to be a matter for ANI, but since respectable Wikipedians are asking direct questions here's a reply. Only two Wikipedia arbitration cases have ever been vacated; Shoemaker's Holiday was the subject of one of them. For more than I year I campaigned on Shoemaker's Holiday's behalf to get its findings vacated. Throughout that time I was his strongest advocate, friend, and supporter--frequently putting his needs ahead of my own. This was not easy because his conduct was erratic: for a number of months he initiated more arbitration motions than any other editor. Often he would agree in private that his actions were poor choices and attribute them to his health. I made many difficult choices to support him--or at least excuse him--because he often seemed to be doing the right thing in all the wrong ways. There were people who believed his outbursts were staged; I trusted him. I prioritized his arbitration appeal ahead of my own and made no appeal of my own case until after his had been vacated. After his case was vacated, though, he acted in ways that undermined my appeal. Other incidents occurred with other editors where he failed to share credit where credit was due or undermined other editors where their priorities differed from his own.
A few days before the chat log you have read, a different chat occurred where he boasted that his onsite outbursts had indeed been staged throughout his arbitration appeals: he would email a request to the Committee and if he didn't get the response he wanted he would raise a fuss at the boards, and his strategy was to resume the outbursts and tie up arbitrator time until they vacated his case to get rid of him. He thought it was clever to do that. So the skeptics were right: he had been lying to me all those months. He had exploited my goodwill. Until he made that boast I was unable to correlate those events because he usually hadn't informed his friends when he was emailing ArbCom. At first I was speechless. Then I asked a former Committee member whether this chain of events had really taken place; in light of the self-disclosure that person was able to affirm in very general terms that it had. My real reaction came out a few days later when Shoemaker's Holiday violated WP:NOR to undermine one of my featured content candidacies. I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one. Strictly offsite, of course.
If anyone needs substantiation please email me. These events occurred many months ago and I'd rather put it in the past. I remain willing to work with Shoemaker's Holiday onsite but have no desire to communicate with him in any other context. For the last five months nearly all of his contributions at two WMF sites have been focused upon me. I have had no contact with him, onsite or offsite, since last October other than at this thread. Let's resume our shared mission and build an encyclopedia. Durova412 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm glad that you're being forthright – your version of events at least explains (though it doesn't excuse) the outburst in question. — Werdna • talk 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would take a dig through archives from last October to check the log line by line, but what he's published appears to be incomplete and possibly altered. The context is completely misrepresented. The "polite criticism of my work" he refers to occurred here. Shoemaker was actually proposing that we invert the orientation of an illustration of a shadow on a floor. Shoemaker's Holiday had no source at all for his opinion. I had made all the appropriate notations both at the file upload page and at the article caption. There was a point in chat where he tried to claim the Library of Congress staff had uploaded the image wrong and I replied that the spine was on the correct side (they had scanned the whole book). He was really clinging to the idea and hadn't done basic research; don't suppose he published that part of the discussion. This blindsided me a few minutes after I woke up that day. Suppose Shoemaker guessed wrong and Wikipedia republished a work by one of the most important French impressionists upside down? Durova412 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me one place where it was cut or altered. You have the logs. We're not the only people who have them, others have seen them too. Go through line by line, and if you can show alteration, do so.

Furthermore, "staged"? Hell, no. I told you that I never got anything from the Arbcom in the entire months where I followed your insistance that I sit back and do nothing, only politely poking them at times, and waiting months for responses that never came. But the moment I *did* get upset, things happened, and I pointed out that it was ridiculous of them to set things up with perverse incentives, which made it much easier to give in to outbursts when the stress built up next time, in the full knowledge that nothing would get done otherwise.

Durova fails to mention things like her revealing my private health information on Wikimedia Commons, which I'd look for, but I believe it was oversighted. She was not a friend, her friendship was entirely conditional on me doing exactly what she said, and never arguing with her. The slightest thing I did that wasn't discussed beforehand resulted in her coming down on me like a ton of bricks.

I have a challenge for Durova: If I edited the log, post your version, and let people compare. Presuming you aren't projecting about editing, that'll let people see whether mine varies any.

In turn, you have my permission to post the log where I supposedly boasted about staging things. However, you must post it in full, from the time the conversation started, to when it ended, censoring only personal details like our real names and any exact description of my medical information.

This needs some sunshine. If you're unwilling to do this, I think that everyone has the right to ask you why.


Furthermore, may I point out this diff from over on Commons? [4] I'm not going to link the post discussed in that diff, for reasons that will be clear upon reading that diff. Who is the more credible in this discussion? The person who has been warned for harassing someone by revealing personal medical information, or the person who had said information maliciously revealed? Shoemaker's Holiday talk 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday came to this board with broad-ranging complaints regarding events that happened five months ago, in a way that led reasonable observers to mistakenly suppose that they occurred recently. The closest part of his post to a request for the use of administrative tools was an objection to semiprotection of his user space. When he got an approval for that he broadened the complaint beyond the scope of this board. Related statements of his have already been Oversighted and revdeleted on two WMF sites and he was blocked for edit warring and personal attacks on one of them. This thread has compelled me to make statements that reflect poorly on him which I had no wish to make. This person is welcome to initiate a user conduct request for comment or maintain polite distance. I wish he would do one or the other; it feels like I'm being baited. This is draining time and energy from useful encyclopedic work. Nothing good can come from the continuation of this thread; would an administrator archive this please? Durova412 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of editing the log. I challenged you to provide your log, or point to where it has been edited. You now seek to shut down discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is an experienced editor who knows how to initiate a user conduct request for comment. I have no wish to initiate one on him. There is nothing else to be done at this board: no block, protection, or unprotection is being sought. Please archive. Durova412 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point out, the moment she's given permission to substantiate her claims with logs, if she were capable, she tries to close down discussion. Let's see what others think. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 20:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing comment: I am sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere; it appears to be an argument between two editors that has gone too far. I'm not siding with either party, but it has got to stop. There is nothing for admins to do here; blocking, protection, etc, are not options. I suggest dispute resolution is sought outside this noticeboard. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Durova makes accusations about me, I challenge her to substantiate, giving permission to post materials, she immediately backs away, asking for the discussion to be closed and one of her friends closes it for her. Peter Symonds is a member of the Wikivoices Skype discussion group, which Durova founded. It's great that she has a coterie of friends willing to suppress any negative material about her; but they shouldn't be using their admin powers and oversight powers to do so. Why does Durova always have the right to end any discussion whenever she wants to? Shoemaker's Holiday talk 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Let's pretend I closed it. I personally can't stand Durova so I guess that makes me neutral in your eyes Shoemaker. PeterSymond's close was correct - this is not the place as no admin action is required. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Block evasion by Vote (X) for Change[edit]

Resolved: Blocked at WP:SPI. –MuZemike 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Vote (X) for Change is evading blocks placed on 156.61.160.1 and 62.31.226.77. and 62.140.210.158. This edit by 62.140.210.158 was substantially reinstated in this edit by Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This should probably go to WP:SPI. Other admins might differ, but I can't see anything with which I can justify a block or even a warning. Tan | 39 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
So you don't think there is any problem inserting obvious falsehoods such as "The reformed [Gregorian] calendar violates the canons so it is anathema to Catholics." I'm pretty sure Gregory XIII was a Catholic, and he's the guy the calendar was named after. No calendar article on Wikipedia is safe until something is done about this editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance; I'm not Catholic or even religious. Nothing in that statement is an obvious falsehood to me. I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about, but I cannot see that the motive of this editor is in bad faith. I could be wrong. Tan | 39 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I know Catholics have some weird beliefs, but that the calendar is satanic is not one of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, hold your horses JC. You asked for a block for evading a ban and sockpuppetry. Tan was spot on with his reply. Please revise your comment. JodyB talk 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My point about Catholics not considering the Gregorian calendar to be anathema is intended to support my claim that 62.140.210.158 and Vote (X) for Change are the same person, and thus the later edit by Vote (X) for Change constitutes block evasion. I find it not believable that two independent editors would want to insert such an absurd statement. (Fine print: "Catholics" can cover several different denominations, some of which would consider the Gregorian calendar to be anathema, but in the context of an article about a calendar ordered into force by a Roman Catholic pope, the word "Catholic" can't be used in a way that totally ignores Roman Catholics.) Jc3s5h (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone link me to the sockpuppet investigation? Tan | 39 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
More thorough explanation to you, Tan, on my talk page (Sorry, saw it there first). ~ Amory (utc) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, block evasion etc... by User:199.60.104.56 who is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Haida chieftain[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Haida chieftain was blocked for sockpuppetry and general asshattery and has since been reincarnated as a string of different IPs. Semi-Prot has been applied to Canwest to stop his vandalism and unconstructive editing, editors to that article (including myself) are now the targets of some strange smear campaign where he's making comments accusing me of being hare krishna (where he got this idea I'll never know), censoring a small nation's (Canada) free press, being a zionist spy, and a zionist agent. I'm not particularly tweaked but considering the disruption on the article talk page is now spreading to user talkpages is there any chance an admin would be willing to review and consider a rangeblock? Nefariousski (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:C.Fred blocked him for 24 hours last night.--Iner22 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw that. I'm requesting a longer term rangeblock since there is a long history of sockpuppetry and IP jumping from Haida. I'd bet money that we'll see even more postings at Canwest or in related userspace from related IPs before the day is out. Nefariousski (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've applied a rangeblock, slightly smaller than the one suggested in Haida chieftain's SPI case. Chance of collateral is low. We'll see how it goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I appriciate it. If any additional IPs pop up I'll let you know. Nefariousski (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
He has also edited from 24.69.128.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which looks like an ISP's address. I think collateral is way too high to go blocking that subnet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm right there with you C.Fred. By no means do I feel we should rangeblock on sight but I'll still keep track of the IPs he uses for review on a case-by-case basis. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, for dealing with Haida chieftain on a go-forward basis… I may have been the last editor willing to work with him, and then he launched into the aforementioned round of personal attacks, which burned his last bridge with me. Since we're now in a state where no administrator is willing to lift his block, is he effectively banned at this point, and should we treat him that way from now on? —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to consider him banned. Then again, I'm a nasty piece of work so take that with a grain of salt. -- Atama 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't get the Oh Henry! bar reference. Tan | 39 17:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not a very good one. When I was growing up, I used to see Oh Henry! bar commercials on Canadian television (I'm from western Washington state and we're close enough to Canada to get CBC broadcasts). Recently some friends from Canada came to visit and brought Oh Henry! bars, because they sell them up north but not where I live. What I didn't know is that they do sell them in certain parts of the US. So it's not a Canadian candy bar at all. Maybe a Mr. Dressup reference would have been better, I used to watch that show as a kid. -- Atama 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, my childhood neighbor's father was caught cross dressing by his wife and son one day (they came home early I guess) and it was quickly the gossip of the block. So we started calling him Mr. Dress-up (instead of Mr. Dresden). Nefariousski (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And he made another personal attack on his talk page, so he no longer has the privilege of editing that page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by another admin. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone block this user 23prootie's God (talk · contribs). It's evidently banned user 23prootie (talk · contribs) trolling and evading their block. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I nuked the site from orbit. It was the only way to be sure. Syrthiss (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick block. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Bravo for the meme / movie reference. I would have gone with Kill it with fire! personally but I like yours better. Nefariousski (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Future events such as these will affect YOU in the future! (watched it yesterday) Guy (Help!) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but we just got our asses kicked! Game over man, game over! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 1 week by Calmer Waters (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

D.red.devil (talk · contribs) seemed to be a good faith editor until starting multiple vandalisms today. Woogee (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]

Resolved: All clear now! (But for how long..? How long?!)-- Atama 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged. If an admin could clear that out, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with my talkpage, huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's all covered with words and stuff. -- Atama 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indef block: Roman888[edit]

Having originally blocked for 48 hours, I have indef-blocked Roman888 for repeated copyright infringements after it was pointed out to me that his previous 48 hour block, in September 2008, was for the same problem (I saw "disruptive editing", and I'm afraid I presumed it was edit warring; I didn't read far enough in the log, obviously). He is the current subject of a much-needed CCI, and he restored copyrighted content to the article Malaysian Armed Forces within hours of its removal, even though he had been explicitly warned that material must be completely rewritten. This material follows far too closely for this to be a simple misunderstanding, and he had been thoroughly warned before. The CCI itself provides evidence that this has been a long-running issue. It seems he does not intend to stop. Posted here for transparency & review. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block, nothing more to be said really :) EyeSerenetalk 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Per the extensive evidence at the CCI page, fully endorse. Better nuke his uploads as well. Wonder if he's on Commons as well--if he is, better alert the admins there. Blueboy96 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Upload log here contains no active files (many deleted ones) [5]; upload log on Commons still has some problems: [6] --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Commons uploads have been deleted, and the user has been indef blocked over there. NW (Talk) 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all. Just wanted to note that he has already begun IP socking (with which IP sock he restored the copyrighted content twice more) and is threatening at his talk page to sock further and to better cover his tracks if he is not unblocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some thinking, and given Roman888's stated intent to keep inserting this, I decided to semi-protect the article for a week. If we have a liberal semi-protection policy for BLPs, it would seem to make sense to do the same for copyright issues. Blueboy96 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock[edit]

For action - User:Orang77 appears to be a sock of User:Roman888. He has prolificly introduced copyvio content on articles on Roman888 introduced copyvios. On Malaysian Military Issues the restored content appears the same as the deleted content from Malaysian Armed Forces, just without the urls for the sources: [7]. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged conflict of interest and misuse of Administrator privileges during a GA review[edit]

I would like to report what I believe to be a conflict of interest and possible misconduct by administrator Geometry guy, regarding my quick fail of article Münchausen by Internet during a GA review. What took place is as follows:

Currently, a third review of Münchausen by Internet is taking place on the once deleted second review page. The correct page for the third review, Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA3, was never created. I do not mind that User:Moni3 questioned my experience in good faith... that is a non-issue; but is it appropriate for Geometry guy to use his administrative authority against my role as a reviewing editor, and then renominate the very article I was reprimanded for failing? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the discussion your talk page, and geometry guy seemed quite willing to discuss the matter with you, so I'm curious as to what purpose is supposed to be served by posting here. What administrative action do you feel needs to be taken to resolve this? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate conduct; or do Administrators have carte-blanche authority to initiate a conflict of interest by renominating an article under someone else's sig AFTER deleting a review of the article because he disagreed with the result? I'd at least like my review restored to its correct location and context, and move the third review to the page it belongs. Also, a good faith reprimand of Geometry guy. I myself will assume in good faith that I'm not being considered a fly to be swatted if in the wrong :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that is remotely appropriate and he should have his ownership of the tools seriously looked at as it looks like an attempt to push PoV using admin tools. I'd recommend an RfC, except its a broken process with no hope of accomplishing anything, but its unlikely anyone would do anything until one is done.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My actions were purely clerical and are misrepresented and/or misunderstood in this thread. I have replied on the user's talk page. Geometry guy 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And there is disagreement with your assertion that it was a bad quickfail. It would have been better to discuss it first rather than doing what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The GA process is a joke. "Nominate until it passes" is the name of the game. The article in question is largely based on a single paper from an obscure medical journal. Pcap ping 07:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's relevant to this discussion...how? Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the quick fail was entirely appropriate as I explained on User talk:Rcej#MBI, and the decision to ignore it and "restart" was surely not. Pcap ping 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
AFAIK Rcej made a mistake in closing GA/2 - he/she [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AM%C3%BCnchausen_by_Internet&action=historysubmit&diff=348053142
Rcej's review was based on a very narrowly medical point of view, ignoring the social aspects - in fact Rcej wanted to merge the article into another wholly medical one. That's which Rcej's review was deficient. -Philcha (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the article should have been failed or not, Rcej's review falls well below the standard I would expect from an experienced reviewer. I accept that it may be at the reviewer's discretion as to whether to fail or to hold an article based on a variety of relevant issues that affect its GA quality - however, a detailed review is required, and that was lacking here. I see practically little reference to GA criteria even in what was supposed to resemble the review in this case. The lack of communication was also unhelpful. All this said however, I'm not sure what existing practice or policy/guideline pages Geometry guy relied on to wipe out the review as an inappropriate quick fail - even where it's been inappropriate, I'm not aware of any practice whereby it is wiped out of the article's history. It really should not have been moved in the manner in that it was. Unless I have missed something, it seems to me that this has been poorly handled at all ends. But I think by raising wider awareness of this poor quality GA review, Rcej has effectively done the opposite of defending his experience; GA reviews should do more than just fail/pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That the GA process isn't perfect at producing consistent results is irrelevant to this report and not exactly a secret - the GA reviewers are well aware of it and are on the whole a conscientious and dedicated bunch (and the GA WikiProject has improved the quality of thousands of Wikipedia's articles). I think Gguy's explained the reason for his "clerical actions" perfectly well on your talk page; it seems to me that you may be retroactively fitting the reasons you gave for quick-failing the article into the fail criteria, because you didn't reference them when making your assessment. I agree that your review was in good faith and you may have a point about merging the article, but surely that's a discussion point outside the GA review criteria (as is, for example, article notability - which is tangentially related to your concern).

    Your claim of tool misuse is, I assume, based around Gguy's use of the delete button? I may be misunderstanding what you're saying happened, but it looks to me like Gguy archived your review here: Talk:Münchausen_by_Internet/GA2/archive before deleting the original page - nothing has actually been lost. Therefore I don't see where he's supposed to have abused the tools. He's pulled rank only in as much as he's been with the GA WikiProject for many years and applied his understanding in an attempt to guide a newer reviewer in how project assessments should be carried out. EyeSerenetalk 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for all the comments above. It is actually a fairly regular occurrence for GA nominations to be reopened when there are problems with a review. In such cases, as the nomination is not new, it should not have a separate entry in article history. It may instead be appropriate to link to the original review from the new one (and I've added such a link in this case). Cleaning up in such situations occasionally requires administrator tools, and that is how I use them: I have very much "the mop" philosophy in this regard; our purpose is improving the encyclopedia, and facilitating a fresh review in this case will likely have that effect. I have tidied up reviews that went awry in the past in a similar way.
Occasionally editors will misunderstand other editors actions, as here, but that is why User Talk pages exist. In this respect, I acknowledge that I should have notified Rcej sooner and in more detail about my archiving of the review, and for this I am more than happy to apologize. Geometry guy 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I too apologize for any rash decisions on my part. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evading and sockpuppetry by User:Njirlu[edit]

Ianisveria (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of banned user Njirlu (talk · contribs), based on his editing style and the content he adds on the Aromanians article. Njirlu has also previously created another sock Victorminulescu (talk · contribs), now blocked, and GeorgeSamarina (talk · contribs) is also a possible sockpuppet. Constantine 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comment at community de-adminship discussion[edit]

User:Brews ohare has just been banned for 48 hours by User:Sandstein because Brews violated an Arbcom restriction of posting on such venues. While this seems to be a routine Arbcom ban, I see two problems here:

1) Sandstein's previous block of Brews on similar grounds and his subsequent unblocking by User:Trusilver is still under discussion at Arbcom. Is it proper for Sandstein to act again while the previous case has not yet been settled?

2) This is a more general objection. The RFC is about Admins. If in this RFC we cannot allow in some comments by editors who are under sanctions, it seems to me that the RFC omits relevant comments and is thus biased in an essential way. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As for 1, while it is still under discussion, the Committee does not take issue with any of Sandstein's recent actions, so I don't see any issue with him acting here. As for 2, Brews's restrictions as laid out at the bottom of this page state that he is not to be editing the Wikipedia: namespace; this has not been rescinded. Most users under sanction would not be forbidden from commenting there. If you feel as though an exception should be made for this case, you should file a request for amendment with the Committee at WP:RFAR. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
If Brews ohare had, in the past, wanted to see that his comments would be heard and his opinion aired, he would have altered his behavior to within acceptable limits. It is the reasonable consequence of the violation of acceptable behavioral norms to have restrictions placed to curb those violations. If having his opinion be part of discussions was a motivation for Brews ohare, then he shouldn't have done what he had done to earn his sanctions. --Jayron32 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see any scope for ambiguity in the restriction and I don't see any problem with the block. Brews has to learn that you can't just ignore sanctions, if you want them varied you have to go through the right process. If people don't stick to sanctions then we have no hope at all of keeping Wikipedia on the rails. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From a purely Wiki-procedural POV, there indeed doesn't seem to be a problem. However, the "ban is ban logic" doesn't lead to good outcomes without proper independent appeals procedures in which the facts of the original case and how that's relevant to the latest complaints can be brought up. The situation Brews finds himself in now is similar of that 17 year old US citizen is who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Her angry dad complained and the boy was found guilty of "sex with a minor", branded a pedophile and is now in jail for violating the restriction that bans him from being within one kilometer from schools (the dad of the girl complained when he saw the boy near a local school). Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? *Cringes* Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Consider e.g. the way Brews was hit with the namespace ban. That had no basis in the orginal Arbcom case and was motivated purely by a few other involved people in the SoL case who had refused to drop the stick in an effort to get him permanently banned.


Brews was sticking to his topic ban when he was editing my essay WP:ESCA with the approval of me and all the other main editors ( and he he had already contributed to this before the ArbCom case). It were a few editors involved in the original ArbCom case who were following Brews' every move, including his contribution to the essay and launching frivolous AE requests time after time again. ArbCom decided to appease these editors and agree to a requested namespace ban. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've hesitated before involving myself in this, but I have some concerns relating to Count Iblis' point number 2. The comment at the CDA RfC was completely reverted, as opposed to being indented to remove its numbering. I would have no objection to doing so if it were clear to me that this comment had been a violation of the restrictions. I have no prior familiarity with this dispute, but I read the link provided by Hersfold, and I find the wording there confusing. "Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views." The CDA poll is in no way related to physics, policies etc concerning the editing of scientific topics, or minority views about science. On the other hand, it clearly is about "policy, guidelines...polls, RfCs and the like" in general, and the wording of the restriction is unclear, at least to me, about that. The first sentence of the restrictions places the Wikipedia namespace off limits, seemingly in its entirety, but then the sentence I quoted seems to restrict that limit to science-related material. So, I'm asking, was the comment at the RfC, in fact, precluded by the restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Tznkai's restriction of 07:33, 24 November 2009, contains two independent prohibitions:
  • (a) Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces.
  • (b) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to [make physics-related edits].
  • [Exceptions.]
In this instance, the first prohibition was infringed, not the second.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
This type of harassment should be stopped--- Sandstein is an adminstrator, and needs to be held to a higher standard. He could have let other administrators deal with the problem, if there was one.
As for Brews' block--- it was never justified to begin with. The political circus is distracting.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As a general comment, it should be clarified that the restriction in Wikipedia namespace was brought up by Brews repeated refusal to disengage from battles that stemmed from the ARBCOM/SoL case. This was done for two purposes. 1) So dead horses would stop getting beaten. 2) So Brews could get back to productive editing. Brews giving his opinion here is clearly a continuation of the recent developments of various ARBCOM/SoL-related issues, which again prevents him from being productive. I'll have to admit I'm stunned by the level of cluelessness displayed by Brews' by trying to test the limits of his ban once again, especially after being served a ban not even one week ago for the same reason (although last time it was physics-related as well, so that was a double-violation). I have no opinion on the appropriateness of this block however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Since my concern expressed above was with respect to reverting the !vote at the CDA poll, and based upon the answers provided by Sandstein and Headbomb, I now consider my question to have been answered to my satisfaction, and I have no objection to letting the reversion of the CDA edit stand. Obviously, I am not in a position to comment knowledgeably about the other issues here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer David Tombe's question to me below, it was simply that I AGF that these two users are answering honestly, which I still do. But, given that there seems to be ambiguity about whether there really was a sanction that applied to the CDA poll, I have stricken part of my comment, until I can find out what is really the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Now satisfied that there is no more reason for me to be concerned about the specific issue of striking the CDA poll !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been far too much weight attached to Tznkai's phantom sanctions. To begin with, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the original ARBCOM sanctions that allows Tznkai to make any sanctions in the absence of a transgression. Hence Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. Tznkai was acting beyond his powers. Secondly, Tznkai expressed his intention to end his phantom sanctions in January. You can see the relevant diff here.[8] Thirdly, Tznkai doesn't write in clear English, and most people have difficulty trying to figure out what he means. Tznkai submitted this statement to the ongoing arbitration case against Trusilver, relating to Trusilver's unblock of Sandstein's last block of Brews ohare. Here is the statement. [9] Despite the fact that it is very hard to understand this statement, it should nevertheless be at least clear that the phantom sanctions have expired. The most ridiculous sentence is where Tznkai states that he was intending to lift the sanctions but that Brews didn't seem to be interested! What sort of a ridiculous thing is that to say? Who is ever going to object to sanctions against themselves being lifted? Of course Brews wanted the phantom sanctions to be lifted. It is a straw man argument if ever there was to say that the sanctions would have been lifted if Brews had wanted them to be lifted, but that he didn't seem to show any interest. Fourthly, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Tznkai's phantom sanctions to be intra vires, there can be no possible reading of those ambiguous sanctions that would say that Brews could not vote in that poll. That poll had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics. Sandstein's blocking of Brews was a vindictive act of bullying, and it is sad that no sooner had Count Iblis opened this thread when three apologists stepped forward to endorse Sandstein's act of bullying, and that one of those three is a serving member of the arbitration committee. And it's further sad that when Sandstein blocked Brews ohare that he chose to put up a banner to intimidate other administrators from lifting the block, by claiming that it was an ARBCOM sanction that had been breached. It wasn't an ARBCOM sanction that was breached. It wasn't even a phantom Tznkai sanction that was breached. No sanction was breached. So now we have a situation where any administrator can block anybody and claim the lie that the block is for breach of an ARBCOM sanction, and that means that the block is secured. This is a dreadful state of affairs that needs to be reversed. There is no mechanism in place to review the legitimacy of a claim that a block has been based on an ARBCOM sanction. And to Tryptofish, it sure beats me what it was that Sandstein and Headbomb said that makes you now happy that all is well. David Tombe (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to unblock[edit]

I placed this unblock request for Brews ohare on his talk page. It was declined, because I am not Brews ohare (although Brews ohare, who I have been in email contact with for a few weeks, is currently on a trip and has limited access). I place it here to get review, and if nothing happens, I will have to ask ArbCom to intevene:

This unblock request is NOT FROM BREWS OHARE. I have placed this request for him, because I am outraged by this block:

  1. There is an ongoing ArbCom case involving Sandstein block Brews ohare. Why is he blocking him again? Couldn't he wait for another admin to do it instead? It doesn't look impartial. User:William M. Connolley was desysopped for this exact reason.
  2. The sanctions which are being enforced are seriously out-of-date and seriously misinterpreted by Sandstein. The namespace ban, if it exists at all, does not apply to voting on these sorts of motions. The intended scope of the sanctions were clarified by the sanctioner Tznkai at the Arbitration just a few days ago. They were a temporary measure, never held up for vote, never reviewed, and instituted for silly reasons. They have nothing to do with the original case, or the original complaints against Brews ohare.
  3. It is essential that administrators get together and stop abusive blocks using this template. Just because you claim to be enforcing ArbCom restrictions does not mean that you are in fact doing so.
  4. I am not happy with the way things are going politically here. The template above was designed to intimidate administrators from reviewing ArbCom related blocks. I am hoping at least one administrator has the courage of conviction to undo this.

If this is not the proper place for asking for an unblock, where is?Likebox (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  • It's funny, I spent quite a bit of time over the last few days explaining to Brews' friends that hyperbole, anger, aggression, assumptions of bad faith and assertions that the sky is falling have, in my not inconsiderable experience, very close to the lowest success rate of all ways of resolving contested issues. Seems you don't believe me. I suggest you do a little reading around, because I would venture to suggest that many admins are going to dismiss the statement you make above based simply on its tone and the number of repetitions of the same or similar stuff in recent days. You might want to give some thought to what Einstein said about repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude, Einstein never said that. Einstein repeated himself on relativity for twenty years and on quantum mechanics for thirty years. I am following Einsteins' lead here.Likebox (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When I did the original unblock of Brews, it was under the rationale that the block was excessive and under circumstances so vague that no rational person would have expected to get blocked over. I feel that Brews needs to address the heart of the issue - the namespace sanction itself, which Tznkai himself clearly said that he never intended to go on as long as it has. While this block does smell suspiciously like WP:POINT to me (it doesn't take much more than a shred of common sense to conclude that this sanction is being enforced for reasons completely contrary to the reasons it was implemented to begin with), the last block should have made it clear to Brews that his namespace block is still very much in effect and he needs to act accordingly until the sanction itself is removed. Trusilver 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, I concur with most of what you have written. But I do think that the validity and the meaning of Tznkai's additional sanctions needs to be fully investigated impartially, because abuse arises in the absence of clarity. See the statement that I made further up a few minutes ago. David Tombe (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
There are methods to contest sanctions you do not agree with. Violating the sanction because you don't agree with it and then claiming that the sanction shouldn't apply is not one of them. I note that Tznkai had attempted to communicate with Brews to work out terms for the topic ban to end in january, but it didn't work so well. (from the RfArb discussion, and the statement by Tznkai). Brews kohare knew that the sanction was still in effect from the last time he got blocked. While I have to say in my personal opinion that I would have preferred someone other then Sandstein have done the block, as we are working on the motions for that one currently, I don't see any issues with the block itself. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, The issue with the block is that Brews's edit wasn't physics related in any way. Let's see a bit more assumption of good faith please. You must know fine well that Tznkai doesn't write clearly. And you must know fine well that it was a total stretch to interpret his wording such as to make Brews's edit into an offence. In fact, if we were to take Tznkai's wording literally, it would mean that Brews isn't allowed to edit wikipedia at all. And you do know fine well that those supposed sanctions had lapsed if they ever existed at all. On your other point, you are wrong. There is absolutely no mechanism in place whatsoever to defend against false interpretations of ARBCOM sanctions. In the aftermath of the ARBCOM case last October, additional sanctions were heaped on Brews by a pincer process. I'll explain it to you, as if you don't it know already. Brews could be stating opinions perfectly legitimately on policy pages. The physics topic ban would have had no application. But it only took any editor with a grudge against Brews to take offence at the fact that Brews had the cheek to be expressing opinions at all, and they would then abuse the ARBCOM process and take out an arbitration enforcement action on the basis of a false allegation, for the purpose of settling a private score. It then only took an administrator to sign the false allegation. That is how it was done, and the administrator in question would justify himself on the grounds that since somebody else had made the allegation in the first place, then it must be true. It was a case of passing the buck of responsibility between two people, so that neither would feel any guilt, as like the ten men on the firing squad. Well if I hadn't pulled the trigger, the other nine would have, so it didn't make any difference. SirFozzie, this is called corruption and there is absolutely no appeal mechanism to investigate whether or not 'Tznkai type' sanctions are ultra vires or not. And so any admin who acts boldly on such a weak premises is clearly assuming bad faith. The original ARBCOM sanctions are quite explicit that a transgression needs to occur before the likes of Tznkai can issue a decree. And Brews's opinions on policy pages did not breach his topic ban. They only breached the decrees which Tznkai himself created. That is called moving the goal posts. And SirFozzie, the fact that you can see fault in Brews ohare's activities and yet not see any fault in Sandstein's activities indicates clearly that as a member of the arbitration committee, your bias is appalling. Sandstein blocked an editor with whom he is involved in an arbitration case. There is already a precedent for that kind of behaviour indicating that Sandstein has basically put himself forward for desysoping. I would imagine that if Sandstein is not desysoped that William Connolley will feel somewhat angry. David Tombe (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)\

David, even Trusilver, who did the unblock at issue in the case currently before ArbCom, says Brews should have been aware that his sanction was still in force, and he's not surprised that Brews was blocked for violating it again. I reiterate, if you disagree with a sanction, there are ways to have it reviewed. However, violating those sanctions and then again complaining that the sanctions "shouldn't count" isn't going to be one of those ways. As for your last couple of statements, I'd say that the "dispute" in the ArbCom case is not between Brews ohare and Sandstein, no matter how much you say it is (the better to disqualify him from taking actions in the area, right?). So I wouldn't quite be holding my breath for hoping for Sandstein to have his mop revoked. SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact, Brews was under the impression that voting would violate his namespace ban. I thought that this was ridiculous, considering that Tznkai qualified just now what he meant, and that the vote has nothing to do with blocks, or physics. It also didn't occur to me that anyone would complain, and I asked him if he could vote, considering that things are close.
There is a definite dispute between Sandstein and Brews here, but I don't think Sandstein should be desysopped, just asked to stay neutral. I honestly think that there would have been no drama if he hadn't blocked in this POINTy way. It honestly never occured to me that anyone would come to the same wrong interpretation that Sandstein came to twice, especially when there is an ongoing ArbCom case. My fault for giving bad advice.Likebox (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind that if Sandstein hadn't been following Brews around, nobody would have noticed the "violation" of a namespace ban that didn't really exist except in Sandstein's imagination.Likebox (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I had seen it, and I wondered how on Earth brews could be so clueless. So I wondered how long it would take before someone would report it. DVdm (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, Despite what Trusilver has said, it didn't even occur to me that Brews ohare had broken his ban when he voted in that poll. My guess is that Trusilver is as yet only slowly beginning to understand the depths of this can of worms. It's time that people started to examine the raw cold facts instead of playing card games with what other people have said. Tznkai resigned from the ARBCOM audit sub-committee in January, and then about a week later he revoked his resignation. Tznkai can't write in a manner that makes his point clearly. He doesn't seem to know whether he is coming or going. He doesn't seem to know whether he believes his ambiguous decrees are still in force or not. So please stop repeating so boldly that Brews ohare broke a sanction. There is more than sufficient grounds in this case, due to the ambiguities connected with Tznkai, to assume just a little bit of good faith in respect to Brews ohare. And I haven't seen any good faith whatsoever exercised in relation to Brews ohare for a long time. As regards desysoping, I don't want to single out any particular administrators for dysoping. As regards Sandstein, I was merely drawing attention to your gross bias in seeing fault with Brews ohare while seeing no fault with Sandstein. I was pointing out how another administrator was desysoped for similar actions to those of Sandstein, yet you could see absolutely no fault in his actions. And how can you possibly say that the ongoing arbitration request is not based ultimately on a dispute between Sandstein and Brews ohare? Of course it is. That's exactly the root of the problem. Trusilver is being used as a scapegoat, but the original dispute is between Sandstein and Brews ohare. And finally, nobody needs to go through any prolonged bureaucratic procedures in order to see that Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. It's very simple to see that Brews ohare did not breach any rules that would have allowed Tznkai to have instigated his phantom sanctions in the first place. If there is any good faith on the part of ARBCOM, they will formally debunk Tznkai's sanctions here and now and let's end all this ambiguity. But that is the last thing that I expect to happen, because it strikes me that certain elements are having a field day hounding and bullying Brews ohare on the back of Tznkai's ambiguities. Finally, I notice that there was some over-sighting went on here last night. One of my edits was over-sighted. David Tombe (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • OK, the raw cold facts here are that (a) Brews is under a restriction which he has been testing ever since it was enacted and (b) that every time it happens you and a few others come back wanting to overturn the sanction and ideally refight the arbitration case, which ain't going to happen here because it's the wrong venue (for either outcome). Oh, and (c) virtually every discussion is into WP:TLDR territory in minutes. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If you didn't read, JzG, you don't know anything about this case. Stop commenting on things you don't know anything about. I had to read repetitive crap for hours on Speed of Light archives and ArbCom archives, and it was a pain, before I could figure out what was going on.
I can tell you for sure that Brews has never, ever tested his sanctions. He has always acted in good faith to respect them, even though they were a crock of shit right from the beginning. The reason he gets blocked is because admins and Arbitrato are lazy and don't read, and Brews was indignant about the injustice and complained a lot (alone) in the beginning. So people exploited this to make up a large volume of specious complaints against him, and since he was in the doghouse and had no friends, he gets blocked a lot.
I did not get involved in this until much later, when I started to pore over the archived material on Speed of Light. Brews was arguing a minor point (which I disagreed with) but he was arguing it correctly, and arguing it persuasively, although the text he was inserting into the article was no good. Eventually, people got tired of talking to him, took it to ArbCom, made him look like a lunatic, presented crap evidence of do-nothing diffs, and ArbCom just went along with the majority without thinking, the way they often do, especially when the defendant is representing himself, incompetently.
The reason ArbCom went along is not because they are corrupt or blind. It was because Brews was longwinded, and had too much talk-page banter, and they wanted the Speed of light drama to end. But Brews was good intentioned, and never did anything bad-faith (that continues to this day). That distinguishes him from his opponents. The reason he was so incompetent at arguing his point is because he is a scientist, and it is impossible for scientists to beat lawyers in the court of popular opinion, because they talk too much and in a way that is too full of self-doubt, while their opponents sound like the voice of God.
The issue here is that ArbCom is not equipped to handle technical content disputes, and the Mediation Cabal refused to hear the speed of light case, probably because it was too technical. The technical disputes on Wikipedia cannot be resolved by blocks. They are deep content disputes which need to be resolved by people sitting down and thinking about what to include in a hyperbole free environment. You need a technical mediation cabal for this stuff.Likebox (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the points raised by Likebox here. Another factor that may play a role here is that Brews is a bit older than the average Wikipedian (I think about 70 years old). It makes a difference if you have been used to chatting on the internet from the age of five onwards or have been online only from the age of 60 (and only that for limited amounts of time). Just like an autistic person will have difficulties picking up nonverbal clues e.g. that he is talking too much, Brews was having difficulties seeing and acting on the not so explicit feedback that he should stop arguing so much on the talk page. So what he lacked was the ability to sense the general climate on the talk page which to most of us younger people comes naturally. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I am older than the average Wikipedian, too. I suspect my kids are average Wikipedian age :-) The fact remains that, and I really can't say this any stronger, this is the wrong venue. And the people above have consistently raised it in the wrong venue, and usually in the wrong terms. This has to be considered through the arbitration process. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Likebox et al. considered what the most parsimonious explanation was in this case.

  1. Brew's block is warranted, and those fighting to have it repealed every second week are only making things worse by beating a horse in every imaginable way possible (by wikilawyering, appealing to Jimbo, claiming violations of blocks you don't agree isn't evidence of disruption, ...) everyone but them thinks is long dead.
  2. Every arbitrator, every reviewing admin, and everyone who does not agree with those fighting it are lazy morons who are either incapable or unwilling to exercise independent thought, and have been brainwash be the "Headbomb Cabal".

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, The original injustice against Brews was done by ARBCOM largely at your behest. You instigated the AN/I motion which led to the damage being done on him. Therefore it's hardly surprising that you wanted him to bury the hatchet once the damage was done. Guy(JzG) you know nothing whatsoever about the case, but you are clearly one of these special kind of people who always stands by the actions of those who are in authority. You are very good at finding technical faults in the statements of those who are drawing attention to the injustices. One example is your pointing out of the fact that my statements have been too long. The problem is that it does actually take alot of words to unravel a can of worms. Corruption thrives on that fact, because it knows that there will always be plenty of people just like yourself who will gladly buy the cover story. As for the wrong venue, that of course is a classic. It is the height of folly to make a complaint to the very body that you are complaining about long after that body has been exposed as being biased. I know all about the original Brews ohare ARBCOM case because I was there myself and I saw what happened. And I can tell you one thing straight. Whatever ARBCOM does, it doesn't arbitrate. People might believe that it arbitrates because that's what its name suggests that its function is. But it doesn't arbitrate. Now let's get back to the point here. Brews ohare has just been blocked for 48 hours for no reason whatsoever. It's done and dusted. Nice piece of bullying ARBCOM! David Tombe (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That's begging the question. You and a few others see it as an "injustice" but you appear to be in a minority, and your repeated assertions of this perceived injustice and consequent demands for sanctions resultant form it to be undone because you consider it to be an injustice, are counter-productive. What you need to do, as I have said before in several places, is go to the arbitration committee with a calm, cogent, well-documented request for amendment to the outcome, which is not founded on allegations of bad faith, insanity and cabals, but is instead an explanation of how this could be a mistake based on misinterpretation of good faith actions. If your only case is that those whose evidence led to the sanction are evil, and your criteria for judging evil are that they supported the case against Brews, then you are wasting our time and yours and are probably going to end up with an STFU restriction of your own. Is this really so very hard to understand? Guy (Help!) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, You are dabbling in something that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about. Did you read my evidence at the original arbitration hearing? If not, come back to us again when you have read it. David Tombe (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Read what, this? Yes, I believe it is safe to say that it had been read, and rejected. It appears that Trusilver is, thankfully, about to be desysopped for his out-of-process unblock. What exactly are you still arguing about? Tarc (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
David, it seems to me that the only people you will accept as "understanding" this are those who agree with you. Yes I read your evidence, so did the arbitrators and as Tarc says they rejected it. But that's not relevant here. What is relevant is that you are continually refighting the arbitration case and doing it in the wrong places. Stop it, please, it's not going to help anyone. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm not the one who is still arguing. I made my concluding remark yesterday which was "nice piece of bullying ARBCOM!". David Tombe (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm FacepalmThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Logic Historian[edit]

Logic Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been busy canvassing about something zie was going to raise at WP:AN.

I was one of those canvassed [10], so replied on my talk to say "stop canvassing" [11].

I then looked at Logic Historian's contribs list, saw there was lots of it, and posted a "stop canvassing" msg to User_talk:Logic Historian.[12]

The canvassing continued after the warning, so I placed a 3-hour preventive block on the account.

The subsequent posts to User talk:Logic Historian suggest that there is some issue of a ban and/or socking involved here, but I don't know the history. Can someone else take a look? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they admit to being a whole whack of Peter Damiens...I'm extending the block to indef, and will being looking further into this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Fine, no objection to the block-extension, and you obviously know more of the history than me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Only slightly :-) Note that one of the accounts that he claims to be was blocked by Jimbo himself. Based on editing intersects, they could very well be the same person (single-minded focus on the History of Logic) - however, if a CU could verify that it's the same IP ... that would be the finishing nail, methinks... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Its worth mentioning that Peter Damien was a very strong editor, and highly valued in article space. Wikipedia eats its young. Ceoil sláinte 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:DUCK is enough for this identification. This is clearly Peter Damian, who also expressed a desire shortly ago to bring one article to FA.
I remember that ScienceApologist wrote an article on another website while he was blocked, and then the article was ported here. Maybe Peter could do the same thing? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
as always, I oppose proxying content for blocked users. If they want to edit wikipedia, they can behave.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Whatever else Peter has done his content contributions, so far as I'm competent to judge, have generally been of very high value, and ought to be preserved. Paul August 12:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There is more than a just a little irony at play here - Peter canvasses, outs himself, all for the sake of writing and bringing to FA the History of Logic which clearly is illogical....or is it? I think we should let Peter do his work - perhaps on a limited type track, - only work on articles, no talking and no pestering...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I would support that. Paul August 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
(Reply to Crossmr above) Here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose Peter offered to donate a thousand dollars to Wikipedia, would you accept it? If so why not accept his valuable content contributions? Paul August 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The system is automated, he can donate or not. Its completely irrelevant. He has found him in the position of being blocked because of his behaviour. That means at this point in time his contributions are not welcome. If at some point in the future that changes, he's free to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
By what logic are his dollar contributions acceptable but not his content contributions? Paul August 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested in the last AN thread that Peter could be unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace. I still think this could work - it's strict, but I doubt anything else would work. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If banned or blocked editors are still willing to contribute featured content, we should be able to find a way to allow that to happen. However. We have several precedents in other editors, and the behavioral disruption in some cases outweighs the content benefit by causing a drain on the time other productive editors could be spending in article work, as well as a drain on FAC morale. If the arbs and admins can find a way to make it happen, good luck, but take care not to set precedents that will bite us in the butt with other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal. Peter Damian just doesn't seem to be able to stay away from Wikipedia, and his article contributions seem to be valuable. The disruption he causes is outside articlespace, e.g. the Established Editors fiasco. Let him edit on one account in his userspace and in articles and their talk pages. Fences&Windows 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I support Ryan's proposal. And I'd volunteer to monitor Peter's edits and revert or block where appropriate. Paul August 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not know the history that led to Damien's block, but in terms of other cases, where the precedent concerns me, "unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace ... " may be too broad. I do know Damien contributed some rather underinformed commentary as a sock on the Catholic Church FACs, and prefer restrictions be placed on previously disruptive editors in terms of exactly which articles and talk pages they may edit, so disruption doesn't spread (thinking more of other cases). Also, if the door is opened on similar cases, I hope FAC delegates will be notified, and someone will monitor for disruption at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding. I do not know the extent or nature of Damien's disruption, other than the frequent socks and underinformed commentary at Catholic Church. I do know that FAC morale was seriously deteriorated, and many FA reviewers and writers put off by other disruptive editors. I don't want to see that spread, just as rebuilding FAC morale is (hopefully) underway; we shouldn't allow one editor's content contributions to sideline other productive FA writers and reviewers. If the arbs can find a way to account for that, I'm on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, he'd be banned from FAC discussions so hopefully that should eradicate your concern. Peter would solely be allowed to edit article page, article talk pages and user talk pages. Perhaps 6-12 months down the line that could be reduced slightly, but there would have to be a consensus to do that. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
How could he participate in a FAC if ... banned from FAC discussions? That implies someone would have to proxy for him, or all FAC discussion would have to move to article talk. Why not allow him to participate only in that FAC, with the stipulation that the FAC will be archived at any sign of disruption? Or something like that ... again, I don't know the nature of the behaviors that led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
He doesn't need to participate in any FAC, in order to contribute content. Paul August 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
But he stated he wants to bring History of logic to featured status, so that bridge would eventually have to be crossed. Anyway, you all know the history here better than I do; my real concern is that we take care with precedents regarding other editors. I'll leave it to those who know the case better to resolve, but if the article heads to FAC, I hope someone will let me know what the conclusion was. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Just because he wants to bring an article to FAC doesn't mean he needs to be allowed to. The key thing here is capturing the very valuable content that Peter is willing to contribute. Whether or not an article gets a gold star is wholly secondary. Paul August 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an approach that was tried first with ScienceApologist and afterward with Piotrus during their sitebans: assemble a team of three editors in good standing, and seek prior approval for them to proxy a specific article improvement drive (including DYK and GA pages). Wikipedia gained good content on both occasions and ScienceApologist has been uncontroversial since his ban expired. In theory that type of approach might be viable with Peter Damien, if Peter is willing to abide by the terms of the restriction and focus on content. It's one potential solution worth considering if Peter is amenable and if three capable editors are willing to assist him. Durova412 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to me involving sockpuppets[edit]

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

===Request to WP:AN===
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The users listed seem to be sockpuppets of the same user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I combined the two sections, since they were about the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that this is the same person that wanted to introduce subtle vandalism as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia, and then started carrying out step 1 of his plan? (Diff here). Oppose any motion to allow his contributions, even in article space. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, that's not a "Diff" but a "link". A diff would show that he actually introduced some kind of vandalism - you know, two versions of Wiki article DIFFerent from each other, as opposed to a comment on an external forum. What the LINK shows is just some random "what if" musings, complete with a statement that he would be "uncomfortable" with vandalizing Wikipedia to make a point. This smacks a bit of thought-police and character slander.radek (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that he has abandoned that plan. He was lately planning to use a sock to bring an article to FA status, and then reveal the sockiness just when the article was entering FAC. This way he could see the fights between those wanting to remove all his edits because he's banned, and those wanted to keep high-quality content. This looks like the same plan but with a tweak. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think using a proxy is fine, no harm really if the FAC article is good enough. Its would be a pity to become myopic and put process before content. Which are we here for. Ceoil sláinte 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Good content or not, if we have to have other editors watch and confirm edits(because how can someone whose stated goals seem to be to fuck with this community be trusted to not put hoax material into their article?, it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb), why the hell do we want him around at all? This whole fiasco seems like an extention of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia. And he's just admitted to using 4 socks, and it seems to be confirmed. If someone one were to propose a permanent community ban, I'd be all on board. When you know your holding a poisonious snake, you dont put it in your pocket for safe keeping. Heironymous Rowe (talk)
I would treat case on its own merit. My impression of Damien is that he is proud of his article work and the integrity and quality of what he delivers. I dont see haox as likely. The wanting to destory wiki thing was about RFA as far as I remember, and something I found funny at the time. The reaction to it was totally OTT. Ceoil sláinte 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
"of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia" - do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What is he, Dr. Claw or something? I actually chuckled when I read that but now I just think it's sad that a perfectly reasonable request which would potentially benefit the encyclopedia is being rejected on the basis of some comments made on an external forum which, according to Peter himself were "tongue in cheek".radek (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I strongly support Ryan's proposal above. If he wants to take an article to FAC, he could co-nominate and respond—if necessary—using email via the co-nominator. He would be free to respond to reviewers' comments in the text of the nominated article itself. I must say, I'm mighty impressed with his "History of logic" article. We need this kind of writing. Tony (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Me too. It's an important article, even one worth taking a few risks over. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd also like to see him back editing, so I support Ryan's proposal; hopefully it could be reviewed after a few months so he could take part in discussions too. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Wrong venue. This is not a community ban so the community can't really overturn it. Any appeal needs to go to the arbitration committee's ban appeals subcommittee. I suspect that the chances of success will be limited given the history of sockpuppetry, ban evasion and breaching experiments, but let Durova do what she does and see how it pans out. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong on this, since there's much history here, but looking at the block log, [13], it does look in fact like a community ban.radek (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. At least one of those accounts did have a banner saying banned at the behest of Jimbo and/or the Arbitration Committee. Regardless, the history of breaching experiments does not show good faith to me. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Guy. All I'm really saying is there's a model that's had some success. If three of the people who want to see Peter Damien do an FA drive are willing to proxy and take responsibility for it, then let's settle a plan. ArbCom has approved that sort of thing before. Who wants to step forward? Durova412 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we should be very wary, Peter Damian has been block evading and conducting breaching experiments by his own admission, that is really not a great reason to throw in the towel and let him back anyway. He's been pretty unapologetic. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, apology schmapology, Guy, and fiddle faddle to boot. I'll be one of the proxying users, if desired. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC).
No, I am not asking for ritual abasement, and PD did seem pretty reasonable when he emailed me about something, but there are real past issues and concerns and the sockpuppetry thing is really not good. I know it's a cleft stick but I do incline to the view that the sort of person who can't keep away when blocked is probably just a tad too obsessive. To be honest I can't even remember the full details of the original problem (outside of the FT2 business, which I think was separate), only that there were a lot of noticeboard threads at the time and even more since. The last discussion was only a month ago: [14]. It seems that accounts were blocked even without knowing they were PD, on the basis of editing behaviour. That is not a good sign. Neither is Think of the children (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I get a lasting impression that he wants to be here for purposes of Wikipolitics and activism against certain individuals. It leaves me feeling uncomfortable. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of another user's comments on a project page[edit]

So there appears to be some confusion between three editors on striking out of another editor's comments on an AfD. It appears that we are all trying to do the right thing so no feelings hurt either way. Factsontheground asserts that comments on the deletion discussion made by another editor are misleading, deceptive, and even trolling. Two others disagree. Since there has been discussion and there is the beginnings of what could lead to an edit war, a quick note of guidance on to what is and is not OK would be appreciated.

Can "See previous deletion discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students" be allowed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam.

See User talk:Factsontheground#Removing the comments of others for even more info.Cptnono (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment that I initially removed ([15]) from a current deletion discussion stated that an entirely different, and vastly inferior, article that was deleted, was actually a previous version of the current article, whereas the only relation is that the articles roughly share the same topic. The new article was written from scratch and contains no prose or links from the other article. I don't know whether the comment was a mistake or an attempt to skew the debate towards deleting, I am sure that it was an attempt to skew the debate and it certainly has the potential to influence the discussion since it was at he very top of the debate, next to the nomination, and appeared to be official and not just Amuseo's opinion.
After I removed it, CaptNono put it back and I subsequently struck it through instead of deleting it to make it obvious to people reading the discussion that it was not official or true.
Just to be clear, that comment would have been fine if he made it clear that the article he referenced was unrelated except for sharing the same broad topic.
I am well aware that altering people's talk comments is frowned upon in Wikipedia, but according to WP:TALK, there are a few exceptions that condone the editing of other people's comments. Posting a purposefully deceptive comment that appears official in order to skew an AFD debate is an abuse of Wikipedia processes. As such it falls under the trolling exemption as explained by misuse of process.
This isn't the first time that Amuseo has been disruptive on or around that page. He also moved the article to a silly name in an attempt to make a point. Factsontheground (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think your refactoring was inappropriate and made sure to state your objection on the page with my removal of your striking out of another editor's comment. I don't believe that anyone can accept another editor striking out someone else's comments period. Speaking of refacotring: can you add a ":" before your comment to make this more readable?Cptnono (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that you would have been far better off to add your own comment noting your objections rather than tampering with another's comment. You say above "I don't know whether the comment was a mistake or an attempt to skew the debate towards deleting..." That being the case you can hardly rely on WP:TALK for your justification. Why not remove the strike through and add a comment below it noting your objection. Just my two cents...JodyB talk 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Jody, I suddenly realized that Amuseo was the same guy who disruptively moved the article being deleted to a silly name in an attempt to make a point. I am now quite certain that the deceptive link was on purpose and not on accident. So WP:TALK does apply here. Factsontheground (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually realized that nothing was going to happen even though it was inappropriate to strike out another user's comments. I added a disclaimer above an below and it wasn't good enough. So since Wikipedia has devolved into wikilawyeringboredome, I have made my own mention of the comment with my own disclaimer and my own signature. Factsontheground will surely not remove yet another editor's comments... will he? Chill out and let AfD take its course.Cptnono (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:TPOC applies; any comment that is not obvious vandalism, BLP violation, personal attack, etc. may not be removed without either the editors permission or a consensus among uninvolved editors. If there is an issue with the contents of a comment, then those issues should be raised within the discussion. In short, removing another editors comments equates to calling them a vandal - so it should only be done when it is apparent that is what they are.
    I have been blocking people for violation of TPOC following enforcement requests elsewhere, so I am pretty stringent about this. I will review this and issue warnings to those editors violating policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I removed the strikes so this can be closed. Unless, that is, an admin wants to do something about Amuseo derailing the AFD discussion with his false link and article renaming (unlikely).Factsontheground (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In other news,[edit]

while this discussion was ongoing, we had an edit-warring problem going on:[16]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • This group of edits, for example: [17] (incidentally, the "British Historian and author" Sir Max Hastings is known as "Hitler" in Private Eye and is better known as the exceptionally right-wing editor of the Daily Telegraph, he is primarily a journalist and editor, not a historian, as we say in our article on him; the insertion of "historian" in front of the names of supporters of the book does look very much like an appeal to authority - that's the kind of thing I'm seeing here) Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Regarding that particular edit, this is how he is described in Max Hastings, and the list of publications would seem to back that up, seeing as how we rarely distinguish between 'amateur' and 'academic' historians(unfortunately), we also tend not to denote which area of history academics have credentials in (this too I find unfortunate). Note though that I am not particularly versed in any of these people, but skimming their articles that we have here it seems that historian is applied liberally (likely for worse). Unomi (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Max Hastings is a journalist first and foremost. The point is that by adding "historian" in front of the sources he agrees with, he is boosting one POV. It's just an example, nothing on which to pin an entire case, but looking at the contributions overall they seem to consistently advance a POV critical of Israel, a subject area which is rarely made happier by the involvement of new partisans. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, describing Max Hastings as he is described on his own Wiki page is a "novel synthesis?"
Synthesis is using sources to support information that is not directly supported by sources, i.e using a and b to say c. How is calling Hastings a historian a novel synthesis? When you are using someone as a source you should describe their _relevant qualifications_. He may be primarily a journalist, but his role as a historian is more relevant on that page.
I don't see how that is anywhere near being synthesis, so show me one real example of a synthesis violation I have achieved.
Since you "see a fair bit or material from this user which looks like novel synthesis" you shouldn't have any problem doing this.
Anyway as User:Factsontheground/POV shows, I often write for a pro-Israeli POV if the facts and the NPOV policy support it. I am hardly a POV-warror.
This is the second time in the last week that a person has made vague accusations against me without any evidence. What's going on?Factsontheground (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
No, describing him as a historian when he's a journalist and adding historian to the supporters of your POV is advancing a POV. You give the appearance of being on a mission. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It may be relevant here that, although we use Max Hastings as a source in military history articles, we are fairly careful to attribute him as a "writer" or "commentator" rather than "historian"; that label is generally reserved for professional historians. He writes engagingly and well, but his he is very much an amateur 'historian' of the 1980s revisionist school and needs to be understood in that context. EyeSerenetalk 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pat1425[edit]

I've been watching a series of mostly IP users for a while now, and I'm quite concerned. I believe them to all be Patrick Syring, a man sentenced to a year in prison for threatening some prominent Arab Americans. First, the articles and edits:

  1. Patrick Syring. The top editors, who together made 49.9% of the edits to the page, include:
    • Pat1425 - 118 edits (22.5%) - indefinitely blocked for "serial violation of WP:BLP"
    • 98.204.183.125 - 53 edits (10.1%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
    • 96.231.69.49 - 38 edits (7.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
    • 76.111.92.51 - 22 edits (4.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
    • 96.231.75.103 - 17 edits (3.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
    • 68.49.45.180 - 14 edits (2.7%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
  2. James Zogby - the most prominent Arab American Syring threatened. The top editors, who together made 25.3% of the edits to the page, include:
  3. Arab American Institute - the group whose members Syring was convicted of threatening. The top editors, who together made 42.3% of the edits to the pages, include:
    • 98.204.183.125 - 61 edits (25.3%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; same as the Patrick Syring article IP editor
    • 71.178.109.156 - 22 edits (9.1%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; same as the James Zogby article IP editor
    • 71.163.234.23 - 13 edits (5.4%) - traces back to Falls Church, Virginia; same as the James Zogby article IP editor
    • 96.231.75.103 - 6 edits (2.5%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; sames as the Patrick Syring article IP editor

Based on their locations and edit habits, I believe all these IP editors to be the same person as the banned user Pat1425. I garnered Pat1425's location from the following websites:

  • pat1425 on the DCist website, a blog focused on Washington, D.C.
  • pat1425 on twitter, which lists his location as Washington, D.C.
  • pat1425 on the AARP website, which lists his location as Arlington, Virginia and his birthday as August 30

Now the kicker: Pat1425 not only has the same location and same edit pattern as the various IP editors, he also shares the same birthdate as that listed for Patrick Syring. Furthermore, both Pat1425 and at least his latest IP address, 98.204.183.125, have made extremely racist remarks - similar to Patrick Syring, who was sent to prison for threatening Arab Americans:

  • 98.204.183.125 labelled Janine Zacharia "an evil Arab Palestinian journalist whore and a pig who shills for Hamas and Hezbollah"[18]
  • pat1425 wrote: "A world without Palestinians will be a world without terror. God Bless the State of Israel and the IDF." (off-wiki site; warning, graphic images)
  • pat1425 wrote: "America free of Arabs = America free of terror." (off-wiki site)
Proposed remedies
  1. His current IP address is 98.204.183.125, and it seems fairly consistent, so I suggest blocking 98.204.183.125.
  2. Unfortunately, this user seems to change IP addresses from time to time, so I don't think blocking one IP address will be sufficient long term (the user has been editing under various names and IP addresses for at least 2.5 years). I suggest permanently semi-protecting the James Zogby and Arab American Institute articles.
  3. The editor has been used the Patrick Syring article as an autobiography. I suggest deleting the Patrick Syring article, possibly merging information about the threats he made into either the James Zogby or Arab American Institute articles. It had been nominated at AfD before, and while at least a couple of the voters appear to be sock puppets, most were not, so if there isn't consensus to delete it, it should at least be semi-protected.

I've created this account as a legitimate alternate account because Patrick Syring strikes me as a mentally deranged individual, and I would worry about my personal safety if he learned my identity. I won't be replying to this thread, but I think I've laid out everything important here. Wikixote (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pat1425 is the original SPI that identified Jockgerman, FYI. SGGH ping! 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
And I have uw-3 warned the IP 98.204.183.125 for the vandal edit on Janine Zacharia [19]. Furthermore, Arab American Institute is already protected and hasn't been edited since October 2009 so we can discount that one. SGGH ping! 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Article vandalism: Average frustrated chump[edit]

Resolved: Offending link removed; vandalism removed; sanity restored

I am unable to fix some of the damage; something about a forbidden link. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational's repeated moving/redirecting of longstanding article without discussion[edit]

Unresolved

User:Linksnational gutted the longstanding article Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II with this edit on 6 March then moved the article to German brothels in World War II with this edit. Because the article was gutted and rewritten and moved to a different title essentially an almost completely different article was created. I disputed this move and returned the article with this edit and also tried to get some discussion going on the talkpage with this edit and subsequent notices both on the talkpage and a notice about article moves on Linksnational’s talkpage. Linksnational then tried to do the move again by the backdoor by twice redirecting the article to his new preferred title with this edit and this edit. When I undid this new redirect that had taken place without any two way discussion he then moved the article to yet another new title Camp brothel with this edit. The article has now been effectively moved twice and redirected twice without consensus. There are concerns with the original article but I cannot deal with Linksnational’s attempts to deal with this by a ‘’backdoor deletion’’ and no two way discussion. Can someone please restore the article to its original place (as I cannot do this over a redirect) and encourage Linksnational to gain consensus before major moves and wiping out of text and sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Waggers, who marked the article "Resolved" above, moved the article back and warned Linksnational.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry should have given this a  Done :) waggers (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I've rollbacked his various changes pointing to his preferred article titles -- someone else should take a look at his edits relating to German war reparations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

tried to get some discussion going on LOL. You haven't responded to my arguments and disregarded my proposal for solution. So stop crying. -- Linksnational (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational undid all the changes that were made by Waggers and SarekOfVulcan, so I've marked this unresolved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article written at the new name is substantially different from the old one, why is it done as a move-and-edit instead of just writing a new article on a new topic at its appropriate name? DMacks (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@DMacks Sexual enslavement is not a appopriate lemma. It's mispresenting the factual situation already in the title.

How shall someone reach a consensus with nobody ready to discuss? Skydeepblue's claim "stop making changes until you reach consensus with everybody" is absurd, if you don't join the discussion. It's a phrase to protect the article in status quo and results in a prohibition to edit. And I proved that this version contains total bullshit, which has to be changed immediately - in favour of wikipedia's reputation. This article is ridiculous. I showed Polargeo, where the article is wrong and he has conceded. Bullshit doesn't become reality by being part of an article for a long time. The article is not based on reliable sources, but on internet rumours, half knowledge and suspicion. I brought sources, which disprove the current version. The German version doesn't say anything else. -- Linksnational (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see at least one other editor contributed to the talk-page discussion. This issue isn't so urgent that it can't wait a few days to be discussed further. As you can now see, it's not a clear-cut issue in many people's minds, although it's apparently quite clear to you how you understand the pages should be titled/written. If you think the article is mis-titled, file WP:RM to draw wider attention to that issue. If you think the content contains a mix of two separate ideas, split/particially-rewrite it into to separate articles at new titles. Page-moving is a way of saying "what we have here now is actually better titled something else" not "what we have here is a mess". Maybe create those two new pages each on the specific topic you see in temp space so others can see really what you propose. They might have a better understanding of your position and how this will be a good result once they see it rather than just seeing you destroy a long-existing article. File WP:RFC if you want to draw wider attention to the general content concern. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not destroy the article, I have improved the text. But still the title is misleading. I suggested to split the text as in the de:WP to two articles: camp brothel and soldier's brothel. Polargeo admitted, the current article is mixing the phenomenon, but didn't respond to my suggestions anymore. Since the article contained fatal mistake, immediate action was needed. I showed, that the statements "rape camps", "prevalent", "sexual gratification for the soldiers" were not sourced and wrong. The article became a deposit of Anti-German sentiments, supporting rumours, mispresenting the facts. Is this an open project or not? How long an article exists, doesn't matter. Facts and reliability matter. Mischief doesn't get better, if you stick to it out for a long time. The deletion is the best idea. Sourced information can be found in the two articles corresponding to the structure in de:WP. -- Linksnational (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been given information about how to reach WP:CONSENSUS for your ideas. "Immediate action" is not needed, rational discussion to find a good solution is the way. You boldly made a change you felt was very important, others disagreed with both the process and the solution and reverted. Now it's on your shoulders to get more support for your idea, given that it's not presently the generally-appreciated solution--that's how WP:BRD works. DMacks (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The article has been moved several times before. Its prior name was German soldier's house. So actually I set back to a earlier consensus.
If you notice after month, that an article had been vandalized, do you wait until every author takes notice and agrees to a revert or do you take action? In this case it's not vandalismus, but a big harm with good-will. So I edited the article and made my point clear. Now, the biggest bullshit is gone. From this position we may discuss the necessity of this lemma. I wanted to solve both problems together. I do understand, that not everybody approves this procedure. But it's still my point: The lemma is misleading. We have to choose a non biased lemma. What do you think: Would we be able to write an neutral article about your life using the lemma Dork DMacks? All positions and theories can be presented. But reliable sources say, that talking about sexual slavery is not appropriate to the historical facts. We would discriminate this position by using that definite type of lemma. There are two possible lemmata for the content: Lagerbordell and Wehrmachtsbordell. This way they are used in the de:WP. The lemma sexual slavery is artificial. We should choose the lemma as it is discussed in scientific research. At this time I'm the only one in this context, who has able to read the German sources. I might have been quick or rude in my approach. Please regard, that I'm not a native speaker. Discussing is giving me a hard time. I have to look up in the dictionary. I'd rather spend my time on improving articles - especially when I see, how necessary it is. At the same time I could have translated parts of the German article and sources. -- Linksnational (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloydkaufmantroma[edit]

Resolved: Subdued he is. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)