Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:51, 20 April 2007

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header

Complex vandalism by User:Anacapa

copied from WP:AN
User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.

Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2007 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article. A few days ago I identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant. I am requesting a community sanction against User:Anacapa for their long term disruptive behaviour.
See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles

After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil has done an excellent job of documenting this abuse. I urge the community to support this proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we asking for a community ban or a community topic ban on an editor that hasn't edited in two months? There's no sign that there is anything ongoing from this editor, either from a registered account or an IP Address? I'm just afraid any topic/site ban from the community would be closing the barn doors after the horses have already left. SirFozzie 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my sentence above, if it was ongoing, I would wholeheartedly agree that this is a PoV pushing account that needs a topic ban.. I'm just not sure that with at least 4 weeks since the latest post by this account (or IP), I'm not sure that I can fully get behind it. SirFozzie 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon my experience fighting the Joan of Arc vandal and JB196, I believe it's necessary to be flexible about our time frame of response to a really long term sneaky vandal. This isn't drive-by vandalism that goes away through benign neglect. This sort of person will change tactics or sit out a while when they sense the heat is on, then return to cause more damage. So yes, this is a worthy exception to our usual standards about account activity. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the length of time it took me to bring this here, but in all honesty I took me weeks just to complie diffs & to prove that Anacapa was the same user as (drop in editor). I also think it is more than possible that they will return. Anacapa has taken wikibreaks before, certainly between May 2006 and October 2006 there was no activity on their account, [1] but when they came back they were just as active as before. I expect Anacapa to resurface, it would be consistent with their behaviour & pattern of edits--Cailil 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to apologize for, Cailil, this is well researched and Durova's post above that this is a special case (that community sanctions won't become a common bludgeon to be used against an editor who's since quit his activity through either inactivity or behavior modification), I support a ban. SirFozzie 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with (drop in editor) and I have to agree that this is one of the more disruptive editors within their sphere of interests. Far more interested in starting off-topic arguments and derailing discussion than in actually building an encyclopedia. Based on their previous tendency to sit and wait, I would also expect this one to return again to the same tactics, and so I support enacting this ban now. The smoking gun imho is 209.129.49.65 signing as Anacapa, but even if they couldn't be connected I would support a ban on (drop in editor). I would suggest not advertising the list of evidence from any pages this editor frequents; if possible it would be best for them not to know what their own telltale habits are (people often are unaware of their own quirks). When they come back, better to be prepared to begin reverting and blocking, than to have a ban discussion later in the midst of the damage. Good find, Cailil. — coel acan — 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After quickly scanning (and if I have missed it, please throw egg on me :P) I do not see what is being asked. Topic ban, siteban, what type of sanction is being requested here? Navou ^banter 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban for User:Anacapa. I can only show evidence of their disruption on the gender category pages but I've seen at least anecdotal evidence of issues with their behaviour in other topics.--Cailil 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't this user propose policing the use of "gender" and "sex" in all Wikipedia articles? If we attempt a topic ban it might have to stretch to the entire encyclopedia anyway. Natalie 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A full siteban is the only appropriate solution for a sneaky vandal who attempts to undermine the encyclopedia's integrity in via this many different complex strategies. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tobias Conradi

The Community consensus was that User:Tobias Conradi would be placed on Civility Parole, and strongly cautioned that recreating of Personal Attacks would result in an indefinite block, as well as urged to seek consensus for future page moves. An Arbitration Case has been opened against User Tobias Conradi, so the community sanction is not in effect at this time. SirFozzie 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Tobias Conradi is placed on civility parole. 1 week block by uninvolved admin for violations: after two such blocks, the block length may escalate in accordance with administrative discretion. Recreation of personal attacks can result in a indef block. When in dispute with others, he is encouraged to remain calm and follow the usual channels of dispute resolution in order to seek an amicable resolution, rather than simply cataloging perceived wrongs. The editor is strongly urged to discuss contraversial page moves. Failure to discuss a move may result in a brief block by an uninvolved admin. The block log will state specifically that blocks placed are a result of this discussion in the block log. (This statement was after I closed the discussion, the discussion has been reopened since) Navou ^banter 12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested unblock on WP:AN/I as a result of this discussion. Navou ^banter 12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've all had enough of this user. A perusal of his block log and talk page will show you all we need to know. This user has been uncivil, and has been here for nearly a year, so it's not like he doesn't know better. It all has accumulated in the thread on AN. 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Too many ~s, Part Deux? :o) REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ

Agreed. Uncivil and Argumentative with apparently no chance at improving either. SirFozzie 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil and Argumentative? Why not go for a civility parole if this is case? If that's the problem there's no need to siteban outright. Lesser measures should be tried first. I could be wrong, but either way some diffs of this behaviour would be nice. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have expanded it. Constant recreation of attack materials on his userpage (see [2], that was actually the THIRD go-round on his material. I'd be willing to go for Civility Parole with a promise NOT to recreate that material for a fourth time, but I have a hard time thinking that he'll follow it. SirFozzie 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)If I may point out from what I have seen, this user feels unjustly persecuted by members of the admin community and other members of the community at large. Request for a community ban only furthers this feeling. I believe this needs to be reviewed either by ArbCom or at minimum uninvolved editors/administrators who take into account the fact this editor has had serious concerns that were never addressed, and an attempt to catalog what he feels as abuses of power, he has been shot down and censored. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a hard time buying "let's try something else first" when he's got such a huge block log. Looks like all sorts of things have already been tried. Is there any evidence that he's here to work on an encyclopedia? Friday (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

evidence that Tobias Conradi is here to work on an encyclopedia? Who made more edits in the mainspace, the abusive admins or Tobias Conradi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias, you're on thin ice as it is, please stop the equivalent of tap dancing on it. (Yes, I know, horrible metaphor, but eh) SirFozzie 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x5)Just to diff people up as requested - here is where people started to get annoyed on AN, then here, then this bit of clear trolling here, and here. The matter was summed up in the now archived discussion here. Time for the parting of the ways, I think. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If I may point out, in many of the diffs/links you've added show that the user in question raised a concern and was replied with remarks to 'just move on', and even some snide and uncivil comments (such as *cough*potcallingthekettleblack*cough*). No one it appears have assumed good faith on many of this users concerns and simply either poo-pooed the discussion or inflamed the situation any more with their comments. Also, this user feels as if the community is attempting to censor his concerns over alleged admin abuse. While the editor should be requested to take those requests to arbcom, 'deleting' them and removing them only provokes the situation. Tobias is not in the clear here, but there have been issues on both ends. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two options here, then.

Tobias Conradi is placed on civility parole. If is deemed be any uninivolved adminstrator to be in violation of WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for up to a week: after two such blocks, the block length may escalate in accordance with administrative discretion. Additionally, if he recreates material in his userspace that contains personal attacks against members of the Wikipedia community - for example, stuff like this - he may be blocked indefinitely by any adminstrator without warning. When in dispute with others, he is encouraged to remain calm and follow the usual channels of dispute resolution in order to seek an amicable resolution, rather than simply cataloging perceived wrongs. He is also strongly urged to discuss potentially controversial page-moves before making them: continual violation of this final condition may result in a brief block from an uninvolved admin: adminstrators are urged to use their brains when implementing this condition. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard.
Or we just siteban him. I personally favour option 1: thoughts? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have a long block log? Yup. Is he being accused of trolling right now based on limited and misunderstood evidence? Yup. Is that probably making the situation worse? Yup. Make it a civility parole, and make it with admins who have been uninvolved with blocking him in the past - if he's able to reform, he will, and if he's not, we've shown we made more than a good faith effort to give him a proper hearing and listen to his concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can go with Option 1, as long as it's made utterly clear that he is exhausting the community's patience (then again, I'm pretty sure that this thread makes it clear, as well) SirFozzie 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough: I just tweaked the parole conditions slightly to reflect that. This editor does seem to have a history of valuable encyclopedic work, along with the bad stuff. Methinks an editor worth trying to retain but also rein in. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case anyone asks: yes, those conditions are maybe fairly harsh for civility parole, but this guy has a history, a lengthy block log, and has been around long enough to know better. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better. The editor should also be advised that any further accusations of admin wrong doing need to be taken to the appropriate location. If he chooses to catalog such issues, he should do so in a text file on his PC, or a blog should he choose to do so. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support option 1. I would also like it if an uninvolved admin were to drop by his talk page and discuss some of Tobias' grievances with an open mind. As he has rather a lot, I would suggest the conversation begins with just his top two or three. This might help balance things a little. --Dweller 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. The concept of dealing with concerns by sanction and deletion processes does not, and will never, work. Dialog is needed. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe someone tried that last time around. --pgk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for option (1) rather than being specifically about recreation of certain material, it should be that if he is in dispute with others he shoud follow the proper dispute resolution channels. (That would preclude merely creating his catalog of perceived misdeeds). --pgk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added something to that effect, but without removing the bit about the junk on his userpage. We just can't have people doing that: it's massively disruptive and strikes at the basis of assuming good faith on which this project is based. Best, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can a community sanction address the issues raised about the editor here: [3]? ShivaIdol 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a condition of the civility parole be that he seek consensus for all page moves before doing them? SirFozzie 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer seek consensus for ALL page moves (reduces the chance that trouble could be caused when one side thinks it's "possibly controversial" and the other side disagrees). But I might be quibbling over details. SirFozzie 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his page-moves have apparently been fine and unreverted: it's only some that have caused a problem. I'm wary of to what extent we should legislate over editing habits in this manner. WP:BRD does exist, and is not a bad idea, and applies to page-moves. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem concerning WP:BRD is that unlike page edits, moves often can't be reverted without the significant hassle of going through the WP:RM process, as described at WP:MOVE. This really puts the people on the receiving end of the editor’s mass page moves at a significant disadvantage. WP:MOVE says In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed / moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and list several cases such as if you believe the move might be controversial. Since the editor didn't do this for any of the 100 page moves cited in April, including some FA standard pages, something needs to change (and maybe be enforced) with his editing mindset. ShivaIdol 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the whole shebang here will have rubbed in the message that this editor has almost exhausted the community's patience. With luck, Tobias Conradi will act with more care in the future in all his actions on-wiki. I don't see a need for more punitive measures, which are evil anyway. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility parole sounds good, but with follow-through. It's frustrating to see a talented editor get locked into this cycle of conspiracy and recrimination, and if there's something reasonable that can be done, it's worth trying. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This archived discussion, in my view, shows sufficient justification what the current state of the proposal regarding this editor - not only the page-move mess but also plenty of casual incivility en route, but the last part has to be implemented with care, otherwise we'll get a right mess. This is enough of a slam-dunk of us to be able to keep this one away from ArbCom for now. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of rant[4] is really a disruptive influence on the project. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the community civility parole was in affect right now, that would be violation #1 of WP:CIVIL right there, at least to me. SirFozzie 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were any other contributor I'd favour option 2, as Tobias has had a LOT of chances in the past. But he does have a lot of positive contributions, regardless of how abrasive and inconsiderate some may find his actions. So I favour option 1. However I seem to remember being near this same place (one step away from a community ban) at least once before. I still favour 1 though. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on option 1 vs. option 2, but after seeing AN and MFD recently, I'll say he's been causing enough trouble to warrant some kind of action. 69.201.182.76 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Tobias Conradi is so full of venom towards Wikipedia administrators. But I'm somewhat puzzled that people are only putting him on civility parole after he has received 23 blocks, from 9 different administrators, over a 14-month period. Does anyone know any positive precedents? I.e. people who have come back (and stopped being intensely annoying) after 23 blocks? At one time (several months ago) I briefly crossed paths with him, and thought of engaging him in a Talk page conversation, but after viewing his previous Talk comments I decided I'd move to a different area. At any normal rate of block escalation, 23 blocks would be over the threshold of a permanent ban. EdJohnston 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a good process for well established editors who do good work but are also a bit of a handful. I suggest that we use it. Make a case in a new request for comments, and we'll see how it goes. If things don't improve we can go to request for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment, It looks like this editor is being given a surprising amount of lee-way because of his valued contributions to the project, but after reading the comment above, I find myself wondering if tolerating one very active editor may have cost us countless less active but equally as valued contributors along the way. You know, would we rather tolerate, through gritted teeth, one really rather unpleasant editor making 1000 edits at the expense of countless editors each making 10 edits. That perhaps is something that needs to be thought about. -- Nick^t 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias has just been indefblocked by ZScout (per this discussion on the block log), so I guess that's that. SirFozzie 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically avoided blocking him as I thought some sort of parole or shorter block might've helped. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like the consensus was for option 1 (civility parole). Why was option 2 (indefinite community ban) the one implemented? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have let this run a bit longer. But I won't overturn unless consensus here at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:Tobias_Conradi seems very clear. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised at this action. It seemed unilateral. Consensus seemed to pretty firmly have been reached for option 1, before some voices with some justification began to query the rationale, but no consensus for an indef block had been reached here. Perhaps what happened is as follows: my reading of the user's talk page is that he's unrepentant and unwilling to back down at all, rendering option 1 impossible? --Dweller 11:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus to overturn this, and there is still substantial disunity on the indefinite block, I think we should take this to arbitration. By myself I would accept the block as a reasonable interpretation, but if there are a substantial number of others expressing disquiet about blocking a long-time editor in this way I think it's a classic case for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely matters can be a little simpler: overturn the indefblock and use the suggested civility parole instead? There seems to be consensus for the parole. Moreschi ^Talk 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could, alternatively, approach Zscout370 and be nice. Then we might save ourselves a bit of a hassle. --Iamunknown 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Quite possibly he knows something we don't. Moreschi ^Talk 12:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony. The matter seems to warrant arbitration. Community-permaban seems to be an unfair option for a long-time very productive editor. Does he has a current misdead warranting a temporary block? I do not think his edit on Chairboy's talk warrants blocking. There was a strange software glitch on the deletion of Tobias' User page [5] that make it look like an oversighted deletion. Indeed if the page was oversighted it would have been an abuse of oversight rights. We know that Chairboy does not have the oversight bit and the admins can look into the deleted history and see that all the revisions are there. Tobias cannot. Thus, I would discount the matter as a misunderstanding caused by a rare software bug.

If no other opinions I propose to unblock Tobias.

BTW the main grievance against him are unilateral article moves. Can we somehow adopt a community-enforced 0R on article movement on Tobias? If he moves an article and anybody find the move controversial, then he can just revert the movement, if the reversion require an admin bit any admin would help. Tobias cannot re-revert moves or would have a 24h block. It seems enforceable and solves most of the problems. If it would work the arbitration might not be needed Alex Bakharev 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already left Zscout a message. I've found him quite reasonable and willing to explain his actions in the past, so I think once he gets a chance to respond this should all get sorted out... I'd rather not see this go to arbitration if we, the community, can avoid it... the case is perhaps simple enough. I'll say that I recall proposal of a commmunity ban at least once before and it was avoided with a pretty clear "last chance" sort of thinking/rationale, IIRC (the diffs are hard to dig up given how many ANI archives there are). CBD knows more context as well. Let's not block or unblock further till it is clear what consensus is. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, so many things happening at once. An unblock request is already at ANI, Lar. --Iamunknown 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its time for part 2 to be archived yet. --Iamunknown 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, some of you are thinking why did I give him the indefinite block. The short answer is that I think we, as in Wikipedia, had enough. The long answer is the following: at the top of this statement, it says he was put on civility parole. Fine, I have no problems with that. However, it showed in statements later that he breaks the parole hours after being put on it, so this shows me that he doesn't care about what we think or saw. It doesn't bother me that the block was issued to a top editor, since it doesn't matter to me how many contributions you make, I will hold you to the same standard. And with his previous behavior, the recent MFD of his userpage and refusing to follow consensus about content on his userpages, I decided that we have better things to deal with instead of playing babysitter for him. That was my intent for the block and I would appreciate it that the block sticks until ArbCom sorts this out, assuming they take the case. If not, then let this be the final chapter in this story. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

A little under a year ago Tobias Conradi was kidding around with User:Ezhiki in e-mail and then as a joke blanked Ezhiki's user page. For this he received a vandalism block despite a long history of positive contributions, no past history of vandalism, no vandalism warnings, et cetera. He complained. Loudly. Ezhiki jumped in and said, 'no no it was just a joke'. The initial block was removed. But then new blocks were imposed to punish the incivility in his complaints about the original block... so he complained about those blocks... which led to more blocks. All the while his 'list of admin abuses' continued to grow. Somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty entries on his block log are directly derived from that page blanking and the fallout over it... and all but a few of the others are indirectly related (e.g. he was denied access to AWB because of his long block log, he complained, he got blocked, the block was found to be before he was warned - so he was unblocked, but he complained about the block so he was blocked again, et cetera). In another series he was blocked a few times for 'sockpuppetry' after two accounts showed up asking for his block to be reviewed - his talk page had been protected to prevent him from doing so himself. Checkuser later found that these were not sockpuppets, but rather friends from entirely different countries (he runs an 'international tango dancers' website of some sort) who had posted because Tobias asked them to. Somewhere along the line he called the Wikimedia foundation to complain - and according to Tobias someone there mocked, insulted, and yelled at him. He tried to complain about this on Meta and by adding it as an example of problems in articles about Wikipedia and the communication committee. More blocks. Longer 'admin abuses' list.

Tobias Conradi has reason to feel abused - because he has been. Yes, he 'leaves himself open' by getting mad and denouncing the "abusers" who blocked him by mistake/outside process, deleted his stub, blanked/deleted his user page, called him names, et cetera... he isn't friendly or forgiving in conflicts and the language barrier sometimes adds an extra level of difficulty to dialogs. He could be alot more patient and accepting of mistakes and disagreements, but then so could the admins and others who have been in conflict with him. Many people recently told me that it was improper to issue a 24 hour block to a long term user with thousands of positive contributions 'just' because they'd received over a dozen warnings about harassing another user and repeatedly calling them things like "moron".... meanwhile Tobias Conradi is just as long term a user with just as many positive contributions, who sometimes gets blocked if someone thinks he looked at them funny. The real difference? Tobias Conradi has fewer friends.

So where does this leave us? Tobias Conradi will complain harshly about what he considers unfair treatment. That's obvious from the history. Things he has perceived as unfair/abuses include those which I would call misunderstandings, legitimate disagreements, and yes many actual 'abuses'. In the world of what Wikipedia claims to be (at least when a 'popular' user is the one causing the hubub) we admins would 'be the bigger people' and accept these complaints stoically and politely work with Tobias to straighten things out. In the world of what Wikipedia actually is he will get blocked... which will lead to more complaints and more blocks. It has happened over and over again. Even here... people are talking civility parole - someone comes along and does an indefinite block instead. Think Tobias won't call that an abuse? Add it to the list? Get blocked again for complaining about it?

I'd like to see Tobias allowed to continue editing and his complaints dealt with patiently and fairly. I just don't see that actually happening. There is always going to be someone who is quick on the block trigger and the cycle just goes on and on. --CBD 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflicts>What's the rush with closing discussion that's still ongoing, reporting to ANI etc? Waiting for Zscout seems reasonable. A message to that effect could be posted at Tobias' talk page. --Dweller 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict again>A lot of people are suggesting he is 'productive' and 'prolific' and thus valued. Is quantity an automatic sign of quality? In fact, it is this quantity of unilateral moves that has annoyed a number of others. It is not just about admins - but us lowly normal editors. It is only worsened as he refuses to cooperate, is overly hostile and paranoid, and consistently uncivil, while telling-off other users who disagree with his edits claiming he is 'attacked' and editors are 'xenophobic' and more often than not a list of policies that his 'attackers' have violated.

No-one disagrees this guy has a major and ongoing incivilty problem - and has been blocked and mentored before for just this - look at his talk page. Thus, one would presume his contributions to the encyclopedia must be amazing to excuse his incivilty. For me, such invaluable quality doesn't jump out of the page. From my quick perusal of this talk page, his contribs are unilateral moves, and followed by a whole of disambigging to the new locations. Not a team player. Perhaps I am wrong (really) and missed what is so valuable about his contributions. Maybe there is value - but could they be pointed out? Merbabu 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any fundamental objections to the solution consensus [and closing summary] of the above closed discussion? Navou ^banter 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one accepts that the earlier blocked (now revoked) didn't actually happen then the 'solution consensus' it's a step foward to managing the issue. I would be more satisfied if Tobias' 'valuable' contributions are pointed out, ie the ones referred to above that apparently excuse such persistant incivility and disruption. But, yes solution is fine with me for now. Merbabu 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to assume good faith on both the indef, and the unblock, I know Z will do the same after s/he reads the above discussion. I don't like edits like overturn, revoke. The editor was unblocked. :P What I am looking for is substantial objections to the above solution and summary. In order for me to undo the closure, there would have to be a stronger consensus or no consensus above. If the only objections to the closure, are process objections, not the consensus for solution objections, I do not see much good in unclosing this already closed discussion. I am not averse to more discussion, but I would prefer that if there are objections, they regard to the summary and not the process. If the process is messed up, we should take it to the talk page of this project. With best regards, Navou ^banter 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes. Unless I'm misreading it (possible) it doesn't reflect the status quo, which is that he's currently indefblocked. Anyway, what's the hurry? --Dweller 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

He's been unblocked, which I think is fair enough. I've left a gently worded message on his talk page urging him to listen to what has been said here. Hopefully, he will do so, and we can all move on. Moreschi ^Talk 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this case go to arbitration as suggested by Tony Sidaway. It’s a totally fallacious argument to suggest that this editor’s gross and consistent incivility and disruption over a long period of time can be excused and overlooked for any reason. It’s unfortunate there are a number of admins who are prepared to turn a blind eye to his behavior. Sweeping these problems under this carpet again and again has been proven not to work with this editor. ShivaIdol 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do what? Get him banned? How is that productive? If the community won't, I doubt the arbitrators will. The civility parole will mean these problems are not swept under the carpet: we should give it a chance to work. Moreschi ^Talk 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer ShivaIdol to CBD's wise and compassionate words above. I hate it when we lose committed editors. The Project would clearly benefit most from a happier and purely constructive Tobias remaining here. That might be achievable, if handled wisely. --Dweller 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest CBD is cheif among the apologists, willing to back this user regardless of how he behaves. Tobias will continue to game the system, and whenever he runs into trouble with his abusive and disruptive ways, run to his favorite cover excuse claiming that he is being persecuted by rouge admins. It’s a lame defence which apparently induces sympathy in some. ShivaIdol 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to shout "Hang him, Hang him" before this, which is pretty much his last chance, is given time to work? We can afford to let this go for now and busy ourselves elsewhere. He's on civility parole: he violates that, he goes. We can all go and write some articles. Moreschi ^Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, by the way. That's a pretty serious accusation to make against any editor without evidence: please refrain. Moreschi ^Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to shout "Hang him, Hang him". Yes. By any reasonable application of policies he should be permanently blocked. Is there anyone else with a block log this long? The editor is a dead weight, consuming massive amounts of time in response to his disruptions. His behavior reeks of attention seeking, and the disruption will continue so he can receive the attention he craves. ShivaIdol 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to edorse referral to arbitration. This is a complex case. CBD portrays this as snowballing from some bad blocks. I briefly reviewed one of Tobias' alleged admin abuses (a contested speedy deletion of something he wrote) and found his complaint to be entirely without merit. However, this is not to say that some of his complaints might not be valid, especially if CBD is right about the blocks. An arbitration case could reach a number of different findings, perhaps recognizing officially that some of Tobias' blocks were inappropriate or at least unwise (which might go a long way toward easing an apparent grudge), while also including findings that his subsequent behavior was disruptive. Also, as long as there is significant disagreement on whether to ban or parole Tobias, ArbCom is a more appropriate venue than this page. This board lacks the ability to investigate and deliberate on complex issues and often (without implying criticism of any one person) seems to function like VfB (votes for banning). Thatcher131 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be clarified. Was the close premature, and I should strike out my comments at the very top of this discussion, or do I leave them. I do not want to send a confusing message to the subject of this discussion. Best, Navou ^banter 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters. Strike out your comments if you think they give a misleading message. Leave them in if you think they're relevant. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a note in parenthesis to place the comments into context. They were out of context without the close template just below them. I will not object to any other uninvolved editor striking out the comments upon the eventual closure of this proposal in order to make room for a new summary. Best, Navou ^banter 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Subtle vandalism by User:JJonathan and his sockpuppets...

I only became involved in this case recently, so I can only speak of what I've witnessed but this does appear to be a severe long-term problem. JJonathan was originally blocked for these edits and was found to be evading his block with various sockpuppets (see his user page). However, the problem seems to go much deeper than that. Given his habit of identifying himself personally on the talk page of each new account, I searched Google for other 'missed' socks, discovering the older indef-blocked account, User:Js2Jo in the process. This may or may not have been his original account. So, all this may have actually been going on unnoticed for six months or more.

Anyhow, JJonathan's main shtick seems to be the addition of false/uncited information to articles about pop music and pop singers, for example date changing, adding false information, adding numerous uncited 'vocal range' templates to articles and creating hoax articles (see the history of the now-deleted Tatyana Ali's second studio album article, its associated AFD and the Tatyana Ali article itself).

I've been pretty successful at getting his socks blocked and reverting any damage over the past couple of weeks but every time one account is blocked, he just creates another - and another, and another. He is also very subtle with his edits - he'll sandwich the vandalism between style, dab and spelling fixes. As I say, this may have been going on for a very long time, so chances are that there are lots of error-filled articles still out there.

So, in a nutshell - User:JJonathan is already indef-blocked. Is there anything further that can be done? Thanks for taking the time to read my rambling. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This guy has used an amazingly annoying amount of sockpuppets. He doesn't seem to have any intention of stopping. IrishGuy ^talk 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but I think the user is banned under the old style definition "No Admin would consider unblocking him.", so there's not much more you can do. Having dealt with someone somewhat similar in long term vandalization of articles, the two things to remember is WP:RBI, and if you can figure out his ISP, send an abuse report to his ISP. SirFozzie 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If you want to turn that into a formal community ban, then OK, 'cause this guy is a colossal pain in the arse, but there's not much this can help bar getting the socks probably blocked a bit quicker. Possibly contact the checkusers and get them to block his IP for a bit? Huge congrats to Kurt Shaped Box on doing a great job keeping on top of this sock attack, by the way. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the names, hmmm... Is there any correlation in behavior to another "JJ" sockuser, banned Jerry Jones aka "JJstroker" et al (confirmed, suspected)? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have encountered JJonathan and socks previously over a two-month period, in which he consistently deleted legitimate talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue, apparently to push through his own edit whilst ignoring the consensus reached on talk. See my report on AN/I here: [6] and [7]. Also, to answer the question posed by User:Ben above: no I'd say the edit behaviour of that user is very different from that of JJonathan's. The latter's M.O. seems to be: editing pages of and about teen pop idols and pop stars/starlets, a complete lack of talk page discussion, hardly any edit comments, and, in the few comments he did make, a generally poor, almost childish use of grammar. Note also that JJonathan claimed to be autistic in a few of his user page edits,[8] which might explain his behaviour a bit. In his defense, I must add that his main user account JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely as a reaction to him creating socks following a temporary block (if you get my drift—see block log). This seems to be somewhat circular reasoning: a user creates socks because his main account is temp blocked, and then the main account gets perma blocked because the user is creating socks. I don't know if that's general admin practice, so I'm just pointing it out for your information. --Plek 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was already indef-blocked several months previously. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Js2Jo - I just pointed this out when I discovered it. JJonathan was not actually his first account. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

Let's just get this done right now, unambiguously, and move on. Support ban, this user has done virtually nothing (as far as I know) but introduce subtle misinformation, probably the worst kind of vandalism in my opinion. Grand master ka 05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BAN it is not permited to only have a handfull of editors or admin's (specially those that are not armslenght) take such action. --CyclePat 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assides from that. Is it worth while to go through his user contributions and revert them all? --CyclePat 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily required (revert-on-sight applies only after the user is banned), but in this particular case with the subtle misinformation, it would probably be very well worth going through and reverting his old edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a big job. I'll sit down tomorrow and take a look through for anything that's been missed. I've reverted the majority of his recent edits already... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban, per one of the largest sockdrawers I've ever seen. Blueboy96 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr oompapa

I request this user to be banned due to the recent events today, and in the past month. This user first started off spamming hundreds and hundreds of users with wiki-email avadible (including me). With news of a supposed "conspiracy" about Wikipedia. Which caused mild disruption, please note he was not blocked. Nothing happened for at least a month until a vandal account appeared called User:Mr oompapa which the following day, (the day I wrote this report) created about 30 sockpuppets using open proxies and then used a month old sleeper account User:The bedtime story man. To remove the WP:RFCU case so the ip range would not be blocked. This user was then blocked as a sock, and watching carefuly. I can see he put an unblock request up saying he was innocent until the admin declined the block as "Obvious abusive sockpuppet" or something to the kind. Suddenly. Mr oompapa's accounts returned, and rapidly attacked his talk page with obscence abuse including His real name. Which it is unknown where the user in particular got this from, and it continued and continued until the page was protected. Now the user has stopped, despite this report on WP:ANI [9]. However due to WP:OVERSIGHT being used and the recovering from page move vandalism, (In which the page was moved to an insulting comment on his real name) Diffs cannot be provided. This is the userpage [10] and he said he was fearing his contributions to Wikipedia were at risk to this. However, I do not See for any reason why this particular user should be banned. Retiono Virginian 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you mean why he SHOULDN'T be banned, but again, he is already indefblocked (and after the report at ANI, I don't think there's ANY admin who'd be willing to unblock, meaning he's already old-style banned) , you have a Checkuser open to get the range that he's using to be blocked, the only thing that perhaps could be done is to ask the WP:ABUSE Folks to send his ISP a note. There isn't much else that can be done. SirFozzie 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can add the banned tag at least, and after all this. We can go for an abuse report if it continues. Retiono Virginian 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine by me. No one in their right mind, let alone any admin, would ever unblock this chap...their are a few crazy admins, but we can ignore them :) Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was targeted by this vandal. I support a community ban on the person due to the abuse against myself and against other editors. --Yamla 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a formal ban is necessary in this case. He doesn't make any edits to articles, so it's just a way to employ WP:RBI.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of abuse reports, WP:ABUSE is severely backlogged, with stuff from the days of Cplot still going unattended. MER-C 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of Daniel Brandt

Copy of a public letter sent to Jimbo Wales by Daniel Brandt April 11, 2007

19:25, 18 April 2007 Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) unblocked Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs) (Courtesy unblock, he asked nicely, we are talking about a productive way forward in the future, it has been more than a year)

Jimbo Wales has been negotiating with a Mr Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs), a banned former editor who has some ongoing issues with his article Daniel Brandt and formerly maintained a "hivemind" website. Mr Brandt has withdrawn his site and seems to be interested in honest good faith discussion--which may involve some complaints against Wikipedia.

I'm asking administrators and all other editors to take this opportunity to help to resolve Mr Brandt's ongoing complaints with his article.

Please do not use this discussion to "vote" to endorse or oppose the unblock--unless he's actively disrupting Wikipedia there is no pressing reason to change his status. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, much of Brandt's abusive posting about Wikipedians, which includes actionable libel, is on the Wikipedia Review site, and so far as I know it's still there. As for his article, he wants to see it deleted, not improved, and people have voted against that 13 times. It's hard to see how the situation can be resolved without the Foundation overriding the previous decisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Brandt has gone from legal threat mode to negotiation in such a short period of time. But hey, if it works, who am I to complain. // Sean William 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like giving people second opportunities. What we would lose? We can restore a previous version, block him again, protect the article... I guess Mr. Brandt finally realized about this. If he is willing to change, maintain good discussions and accept consensus, I see nothing wrong. Of course, I have never been involved (I don't know nor care whether my name appears in Wikipedia Review or anywhere else), but I know others who are touchy and have their issues. I hope they find this thread and give an opinion. Personally, if he agrees to our rules, he should be in. Break them again, and he will be gone again. -- ReyBrujo 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the second I read this, I couldn't help thinking "Good grief, how many times do we have to deal with Daniel Brandt." But, that's just a first reaction. That said, I don't think we should be making this decision, until we get a proposal from Jimmy Wales. I see no point in doing anything that might or might now compromise Jimmy's ability to negotiate. Philippe 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jimbo's point is that, as a community, it's we who should be negotiating with Daniel Brandt. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it working. He has asked that his bio be removed, which I see as a reasonable request for all the reasons already explained. See my arguments during the 13th Afd. There's nowhere near a consensus for this to happen, however, and I can't see one ever developing, so leadership from the Foundation is needed, not more community discussion. But that's a completely separate issue from the material he's posted about Wikipedians. It's still online, so I'm having difficulty grasping how he's suddenly seen as acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiation takes two. If Daniel Brandt isn't going to negotiate that he may not achieve any improvement. If he does decide to help Wikipedia to improve the article, then we will all gain. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he removed the HiveMind page which was outing many of us. That is a huge step forward in itself, SqueakBox 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did that because he thinks it will harm his putative legal case, not because he wants to negotiate. Grace Note 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still a huge improvement though, SqueakBox 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proof will be in the pudding. This is not the same as unblocking someone like the notorious Willy on Wheels who actively damages as many pages as possible, so we're not risking actual damage to the wiki. In addition, this user will be watched as few others are, so any infringement, any attempt to revert to his former hectoring and harassment, will be spotted well-nigh instantly and jumped on from a great height (and all to the good—he would thoroughly deserve sanction for such blatant stupidity). At least this way we can assume the moral high ground: this should be interesting. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we're sending a clear message that Wikipedians can say whatever they want off-wiki about other Wikipedians, can make any kind of personal attack, no matter how serious, can libel them and stalk them, and it's okay. They may carry on editing regardless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, based on an old entry in AN/I relating to a blog threat against me, is that policy dictates that off-wiki activities are not the concern of wikipedia. What has changed? SqueakBox 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this is insanity redefined, but that's fairly irrelevant. I suppose if Brandt behaves himself, all well and good: if doesn't, I guess we kick him out for good. I've got a deletion nomination for his bio written up somewhere: to celebrate, shall I see if I can turn that draft into something real at AfD? Moreschi ^Talk 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin, the guy who runs website you mentioned is claiming that you've never sent him a takedown notice. With this apparent thaw, it might be interpreted as an invitation to send him one. --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a take-down request a few months ago to three of the adminstrators of the website, one of whom (Selina) is still an admin, I believe. They responded by posting my e-mail on the site and ridiculing me. I have no idea who is in charge of it now, and they don't publish their contact details, so even if I knew of a user name, there's no e-mail address. In any event, it's obvious that the material is libelous. It has now been copied all over the Internet because of them, and Brandt still links on Wikipedia Watch to one of the websites that copied it, a LaRouche supporter's site by the looks of it. Brandt has also posted the same material about me on other message boards, asking people to send him photographs of me. He hasn't removed any of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how these particular webistes work. Would it be in his power to remove something that he had posted, if he wished to do so? ElinorD (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he can remove anything that he himself has posted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, the guy who seems to run the site these days postured the other day about "accountability" and the willingness to remove offensive material, but as you note, he does not give any contact details. I think that unblocking Brandt while the defamatory content he has posted to Wikipedia Review, not to mention his continued attempts to out editors and speculate about their private and personal business, was another terrible misreading and misstep by the editor concerned. Grace Note 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an email. It's not completely in the open - you have to click on register and read through the stuff. They require an ISP address, and that if you cannot provide one, you can contact them at a certain Gmail address (in this specific case, it's for people who want to register with freemail ccounts, though it's general contact). hbdragon88 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now I think of it, just a couple of days ago, Brandt was enthusiastically detailing "My legal strategy" when it comes to suing Wikipedia, all for the edification of the Wikipedia Reviewers. And we unblock this guy? Or is there cause and effect? Brandt's editing style is basically "You do what the hell I tell you, or I sue you". That's blatantly apparent even from these latest emails. I still don't get this unblock, but I don't suppose that matters. Moreschi ^Talk 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it works, it works. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing, all right. Brand has made it clear that he doesn't want to edit Wikipedia. He wants his bio taken down. And yet we unblock him, despite his legal threats, harassment and stalking, but we leave the bio up, despite his reasonable request that it be deleted. It's all very through the looking glass. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not in a position to delete the article, and Brandt has recently made some positive moves. Negotiation has to start somewhere. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing positive in it. He has not taken down his outing page as a positive gesture but as part of his "legal strategy". I share Slim's view that the article should be deleted, not because Brandt has blackmailed Wikipedia, but because it is the decent thing to do in any case like this. But "negotiate" with him? You have to be kidding. He is not a militant group that you might wish to integrate in your society. Grace Note 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you and Slim Virgin that the article should be deleted, and for the exact reason you give. This is not possible at present. Negotiation is how we resolve problems on Wikipedia, it's part of our policy. If it will help, you can consider this to be part of Wikimedia's legal strategy: to remove all bars to Brandt's ability to discuss his problems, and acceptable remedies, with the community of the English Wikipedia, which created the article. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather unblock WoW. Willy, at least, only targets our content. Brandt targets the contributors. --Carnildo 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...I wish we had kept his article deleted..he's less notable than a lot of people who have no article...far less in fact. It's probably in the best interests of the Foundation from a legal standpoint to let him back in. I can't tell you from an ethical standpoint how much I am opposed to any second chances for him though.--MONGO 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More notable people not having articles is irrelevant. There are, IMO, tens of thousands of mostly people located in the Third World who deserve articles and dont have them but that doesnt mean that according to our current policies Brandt fails notability. There are arguably many less notable people who do have articles here. I think given he has an article here it is ethically correct that he is able to contribute to it and its talk page, SqueakBox 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr Wales is in contact with Mr Brandt could we get a statement as to what Mr Brandt thinks has changed in either his or our thinking that would allow him to productively edit here. In my opinion if there has been no changes there is little reason to give him another final chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.110 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do like about Daniel Brandt is the ability and willingness he demonstrated in identifying plagiarized articles some months back. Has he stated whether he intends to continue that project in his new role as a "welcome editor"? —freak(talk) 22:13, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... Brandt needs to apologize to all the editors whose personal information he revealed, show evidence of willingness to contribute constructively, away from his own article, actively discourage the harrassment of editors and shut down his own site if it is necessary to prevent further harrassment. Is he's unblocked without meeting ALL of these requirements, it's hard for me to see why anyone would want to continue with an orgainzation where the worst malcontents are rewarded, after doing things that have real-life consequences. I'll copy and paste this statement as many times as I need to when this issue comes up, because it seems as though no-one is getting the message. Grand master ka 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be put any better than Grandmasterka just did. Count me as one who has gotten the message. IronDuke 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just sent me the following. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you don't mind, Sarah (since Brandt has pretty much given outing you his best shot) would you care to report that (an unnamed Wikipedia admin) would like to express his total opposition to the idea of unblocking Brandt, but refrains from doing so because s/he really doesn't want Brandt digging through his/her past edits trying to unmask her/him?

"This isn't a discussion that anyone who values their privacy can participate in. Maybe I should just register a throw-away sock."

Folks, speaking as an observer, I suspect this is about legal maneuvering by both sides. That puts it on a level way, way, past "discussion". Save your breath. It doesn't matter. The only thing that can happen is that what you write appears in someone's legal brief, and that's probably not a good thing. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A welcome move. A thaw is good for both sides. He can help improve the encyclopedia through the aforementioned plagiarism hunts, and help out with any inaccuracies on his own bio by bringing them up on the talkpage. I supported the overturn just a few days ago, and it's wonderful to see Jimbo opening things up for him. This has become about so much mutual hate for each other, a detente will be well recieved. -M^ask? 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I didn't read the first comment very well... If he's withdrawn his site then that (apparently) takes care of two of my four conditions. I still think an apology is in order. Grand master ka 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment tonight, but I didn't want to go to bed and leave SlimVirgin with no support. The unnamed admin in the e-mail she posts made a valid point. People may be afraid to voice their opposition to this unblock, for fear of having their early contributions trawled through in the hope of finding some clue to their identity and publishing it.

I have just a few points to make. The first is that we should all remain calm. There was a lot of bad feeling last year, after Brandt outed one of the very nicest administrators we ever had, and Linuxbeak, with incredibly poor timing (regardless of other issues), decided to unblock two permabanned users who had given Brandt a platform in which to invade this administrator's privacy, and had done nothing to prevent further publicizing of her identity, although they had the power to do so.

The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle, which is extremely relevant to this new situation. A lot of ill will was generated because Linuxbeak unblocked people who had played a significant part in harassing and/or enabling the harassment of respected Wikipedians (not that you should have to be "respected" in order to have the right not to be harassed). Tempers were running high. Some users thought of leaving. There was a strong feeling that to invite those two banned users back into the community was disrespectful to their victims, and sent a message that it was okay to torment other users. There was also the point that Linuxbeak did not himself have the right to "forgive" these two for what they had done to Slim and Kate and me. The victims of privacy violations and abuse had not even been notified prior to the unblock; they discovered it from reading the admin noticeboards.

Jimbo, of course, has more authority than Linuxbeak, and is, I suppose, free to unblock someone regardless of what the community thinks. This decision, nevertheless, seems unlikely to promote a harmonious environment. I am not referring to what Brandt may or may not do as an unblocked editor. I am referring to the lack of consideration and respect for the feelings of people who have contributed enormously to Wikipedia, and whose privacy has been violated by Brandt, sometimes with risk of serious real life consequences.

I am not a trade uniony type of person, and I have always respected the right of those in authority to make decisions. But there are times when someone has the right to impose a particular decision, but still should not do so. I have never paid a huge amount of attention to external sites with malicious and salacious gossip about Wikipedians. I do know, however, that what Brandt has posted on other sites about at least one administrator would indicate that he should not be unblocked until he has tried to undo some of that harm, but that if he's going to be unblocked anyway, the administrator in question should be consulted, or at the VERY least, notified, beforehand. I get the impression that that did not happen. Yet this is a man who openly acknowledged that he was contacting former boyfriends (or what he believed to be former boyfriends) of this administrator — from twenty years back — in order to find more information about her. What a slap in the face to his main victims, to unblock him without any discussion with them!

I don't consider myself to be one of Brandt's main victims, although he did post my real name, photo, and workplace on his website without my consent. However, I do know about being seriously stalked in real life as a result of my identity becoming known. I know what it is to receive dozens of gloating, taunting, threatening, blackmailing e-mails, with graphic references to parts of my body, to sexual acts, to his plans to come to Ireland and show up at my workplace, with threats against my parents, with maps of the part of the city I work in and my work building highlighted and the words "Now that we have you surrounded we start slowly tightening the ring. Very slowly and firmly. Very slowly . . ." I know what it is to see my mother's health deteriorating, and to see her becoming afraid of answering the phone in her own house. I know what it's like to have my superior receiving dozens of weird, creepy e-mails about me, including one that said "Is Ann calling in sick today? She has plenty of time to be on Wikipedia." I know what it is to have the office girls and the porters threatened and harassed by telephone, because of a stalker's obsession with me.

Now this started before my details appeared on Brandt's page — in fact, I suspect that he got my details from my stalker. But the fact remains that people have very valid reasons for wanting to keep their identities secret, not because they were doing anything wrong, but because there are a lot of creepy people "out there". Brandt has made it his business in the last few years to track down the identities of administrators who were trying to remain anonymous, and then to publicize their full names and photos, thereby taking from them the only thing that could protect them from what happened to me. And now he's unblocked because he "asked nicely"? Has he shown any realization of or regret for the harm he has caused? Why not just delete his article, since he "asked nicely"? Surely, since that's what he wants, rather than the ability to edit Wikipedia, it would have made him happy, and it would have avoided undermining people whose privacy was violated, and who are seemingly expected now to edit side by side with the person responsible. (It should have been deleted anyway, since he's not notable enough for us to need to keep it, against his wishes.) Musical L inguist 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the unblocking of a man who has personally contributed to constant harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and public personal attacks of Wikipedia editors, nothing short of scandalous. In fact, if a person who arguably is the worst ever harasser and offender in the history of Wikipedia, with a Web site dedicated to harassment and attacks of our editors, is unblocked and given a free pass to edit here, alongside his (surviving) victims, there is really no reason to block anyone else, as the others' abuses pale in comparison to his. I consider this situation appalling and hard to fathom - it's as if the private lives of the dedicated Wikipedians, who tirelessly give of themselves for the good and ideals of the project, only to be attacked, harassed and victimized constantly by a vile and shameless individual, don't amount to much when some legal threats are made. I agree that deleting his article would be a small price to pay. Crum375 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO we should judge him for what he does on site and not what he does off site, just as we do with everyone else. What about the idea that off-site activities cant be used to block a wikipedia editor, SqueakBox 02:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has attacked and harassed our editors, and tried his best to destroy the project, it doesn't matter if he did it from the moon or from his bedroom - the point is what are his actions and their consequences, not the technicalities of the specific websites he attacks and harasses from. Crum375 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here, but I was an editor who was harassed, repeatedly, off-wiki. I voluntarily gave my information to Brandt to prove that not everyone is as crazy as he is. I got phone calls at all hours of the day and night. Someone even found out when I was flying down to Virginia to visit my parents and started yelling and screaming obscene things at me while I was trying to make my connection at Sea-Tac. I published what Brandt has said and done to me himself, but never any of the other things, for reasons of not encouraging it and hoping if I dont make a big deal about it it would go away (it did after 2 months). I know where the editors who feel betrayed come from. But to be completely honest, hate is good for no one, and if this can stop future editors from going through the same thing, lets do it. If this can convince Brandt that he's been a bit of an ass, I am fully willing to forgive him, and so should everyone else. -M^ask? 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The damage that he's already done to the project is immeasurable. He has not demonstrated any remorse. He has continuously, up until days ago, threatened us with destructive lawsuits. He is to this minute supporting a vile website, full of hate, harassment and attacks of our editors. That someone like that can be summarily 'forgiven' and allowed to work alongside his victims, defies logic. Crum375 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a huge difference between on-wikipedia and off-wikipedia activities, SqueakBox 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think any difference is artificial. In reality, an attack is an attack and harassment is harassment. When an editor's life is affected, the exact URL of the site that perpetrated the attacks is a mere technicality. Crum375 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be as responsive as possible to any suggestions User:Daniel Brandt makes regarding the article Daniel Brandt. Fred Bauder 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. The Behnam 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we shouldnt negotiate with terrorists but as we arent doing so your comment is confusing, SqueakBox 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why we're still having this discussion. The die has been cast. // Sean William 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not a 'terrorist' but I find them similar. A terrorist seeks to uses attacks and accompanying psychological warfare (like fear) to achieve goals. This Brandt has stalked information about people and scared them away from the project. There are probably people who would also oppose unblocking him but are afraid he will attack them next. I don't see why we should negotiate with this character. We need to be in the right here, and not compromise out of fear. And what a silly criminal he is... claims to fight a war for privacy and does this by violating that very principle. The Behnam 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple - someone who drives one of our best admins away from the project after threatening to get them fired has no place in this project. Taking down the Hivemind page - something he can easily undo if he doesn't get his way - doesn't make up for actions like this. Is there an apology for his attempt to get Katefan fired? Is there an apology for the things he has said about SlimVirgin at WR? Has he made some sort of guarantee that he won't engage in these actions ever again in the future? Without some sort of a guarantee, his unblock is an affront to the community. Is he going to pay substantial damages to the people he has or may have hurt? Throwaway account 111 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. And there shouldn't be any need for people to post in this way. The Behnam 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. A smack in the face for people like SlimVirgin and Musical Linguist. And what does the Community get out of it- nothing.... So now we have to resort to using spas if we want to say how we feel without our lives being unpicked by Brandt. At best he's just a bully, at worse he's a vengeful stalker. Either way we shouldn't be doing business with him. Jimbo's lack of sensitivity in handling the matter unilaterally without community input is staggering. Funny, it used to be the trolls who used spas... Can't quite believe it 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Someone who just recently had their community ban upheld, and drove away multiple good editors by harassment, gets unblocked? I feel sorry for everyone who tries to disagree with him without making sure they are untraceable... -Amarkov moo! 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. DON'T STRESS OVER IT! Really. I'm not a lawyer, but here's my analysis (which again, has no insider information, and I could be talking through my beard, so take it for what it's worth). This is what's called "going through the motions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen, something along these lines: Brandt makes some edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support claim that Brandt is an unreasonable unclean-hands vexatious litigant. After this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many legal friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ... I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in a collusive fashion, but rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic playoff over it. So sit back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do have inside information and both "sides" are sincere, Daniel Brandt about the intrusive nature of the article, and Jimbo regarding considering any way we can improve the article. We may fail, but out efforts are sincere. Fred Bauder 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that. A user who was just community banned was unblocked. The precedent that you may circumvent community bans by harassing people IN REAL LIFE and then promising to stop is terrible. -Amarkov moo! 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally oppose any unblock of this user ever. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose this. Crum's arguments above handle it well, as well as the frequent sock puppetry and other nonsense that has gone on in the Daniel Brandt article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really appreciate the way the unblocking occurred. One should consult with the contributers of the project. This user is not wanted here. I will not continue to contribute to the project if the user continues to remain unblocked. I use this SPA to safeguard my privacy in this discussion. Disposableusername 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in this affair directly. However, I'd like to point out that rehabilitating permablocked users hasn't been very successful in the past: many users who were permablocked and then unblocked later became banned again. Examples include Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Flameviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In addition, Wikipedia is not therapy, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is reblocked later on. TML 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear to me what unbanning would accomplish and as far as I can tell the current version of the article is one of the best sourced bibliography articles we have and is clearly NPOV. If Brandt wants to be a productive editor and isn't going to be simply spending his time agitating for the deletion of his article that's one thing. I have, however, seen no evidence that that is the case at this point in time. Indeed, the only public comment from Brandt on the taking down of hivemind that I've seen was a comment on Wikipedia Review that he took it down to better his postion if he ended up suing Wikipedia. This doesn't bode well. Of course, Brandt is welcome as always to communicate any policy based concerns he has to OTRS or other channels. JoshuaZ 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks do realize that he has already been unblocked, right? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. At least, I do. -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure. Some of the comments seem to indicate the opposite. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, Ben Hallert of Springfield, OR, strongly oppose this unblocking. He leads a group of people who have terrorized editors and admins at their houses, stalked them at their work, and (as noted above) even in airports while traveling. He is an unrepetant ~~slimy~~; person, and the community has clearly indicated that unblocking him is absolutely unacceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Let me redact slimey, I didn't realize I had made a personal attack. The actions of this user are so far beyond the pale that I let emotion tinge my edit. To clarify, I feel that his actions are slimy, but I apologize for the poor choice of words in my original edit. This is a bad unblock. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock without community discussion is tacky. If it an order from Jimbo, then so be it, but I am not impressed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the unblocking is an unrevertable WP:OFFICE action? Suppose User:Daniel Brandt will continue his litigations against the project, can he be blocked per WP:NLT. Suppose he out some wikipedian's identity can he be blocked per WP:STALK. Suppose he links to an attack site, can he be blocked per WP:NPA? Alex Bakharev 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a crystal ball and please let us NOT assume he is going to do bad things before he does anything at all. And obviously he'll be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Having said the which if he were to be reblocked one would hope it would be in a process that had gone through mediation and Rfc to Rfa. And lets AGF and hope for the best, SqueakBox 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have to assume anything. We know he blatantly violated WP:NLT and WP:HAR. Am I right that all the previous violations are forgotten, but he is has the same responsibility to obey these policies as any other user since his unblocking? Alex Bakharev 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has Jim used the block log to communicate this to us, no statement on AN or CN (here). I'm just not happy with it at all. It feels like a slap in the face for this editor to return. Disposableusername 04:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds. --WikiGnosis 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: User:Chairboy, has notified me on my Talk page that my comment might be construed as a legal threat. I want to assure everyone that it is not a legal threat. It is a philosophical analysis of a curious situation, and nothing more. I intended it to get people thinking about what they say and how they react to real-world threats upon their security. Is anyone thinking? --WikiGnosis 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we unblock Willy on Wheels while we're at it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm sure Willy could be a massive help assisting all those newbies who don't know how to page-move properly. Great idea.

Y'know, the more I think about this, the more it's got me confused. It's quite clear that pretty much nobody actually wants Brandt unblocked, and that Jimbo overrode community consensus to do so. That's fine by me, but then why hasn't Jimbo actually jumped into the pool rather than just poking his toes over the edge, and deleted Brandt's bio? I mean, having IAR'd community consensus once, which is fine, why not go the whole way? Brandt wants his bio gone, Jimbo doesn't delete it but unblocks Brandt and retains the bio...so Brandt might as well not have been unblocked if no one is compromising over the issue of his bio. So what, exactly, was the point of unblocking Daniel Brandt? Moreschi ^Talk 09:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No point. In fact I read somewhere he wrote he never intended to be an editor here, and I can't imagine him changing his mind. Since it would be a COI to edit his own article, I'm not sure how anyone is benefitted by this unblocking. Majorly (hot!) 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Jimbo may not have "IAR'd community consensus" but simply been unaware of it. Although a community consensus to ban was declared, that declaration was deleted with the edit summary "Daniel Brandt's ban is outside of the scope of WP:CN", the latter being the version archived, so from surface appearances that consensus declaration never occurred; it went down the Memory Hole. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if Jimbo did check the WP:BANNED entry, he might have done so after the mention of (and link to) the community consensus was deleted, and before it was restored. He can't be blamed for not knowing about it when it had been wiped from the record. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 13:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

Guys, guys, guys! Mr. Brandt has agreed to negotiate with Jimmy Wales. You know what evidence I have that he is at least partially serious? Hivemind is gone. He may have done some very dislikable things in the past, but if we put our act together, we could at last achieve peace. None of this "he's a terrorist" business -- the last thing we need is a defamation lawsuit on our hands because some people are reacting wildly to this. I say it's high time we forgive and forget and try to put this in the past. Yes, I was listed on "the Hivemind", but now that's a thing of the past. Let's throw out the bad memories and let the good begin. Be polite for once! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hivemind page is only a small part of Mr. Brandt's campaign of harassment and attack against WP's editors. His main site is still up as I type this, and AFAICT it still contains all the attacks, vile accusations and allegations, defamations and libel as before. That someone who is still attacking and harassing our editors is unblocked and allowed to edit alongside his victims is simply appalling. That any WP editor would be in support of such unblocking, when the perpetrator has never apologized and is still continuing these attacks and harassments by maintaining his site up as we speak, is hard for me to comprehend. Crum375 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This all legal positioning. Brandt says he took down his attack pages to enhance his legal case. He says he wishes to sue the foundation. The foundation says it is covered by a law that makes the editors responsible and not the foundation. The arbcom descion to keep him blocked is tainted because of foundation board member Jimbo involvement. Jimbo has just untainted the block. It is up to the community to demonstrate that his block is community based and not Jimbo or foundation or arbcom based. 4.250.132.113 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (User:WAS 4.250)[reply]

The community already did, but that consensus declaration was deleted; see above the "Break 1" line. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose unblocking him, because of what he has done and enabled, and what I reasonably expect he will keep on doing. This is completely backwards. Why not delete his article and leave him banned? It seems like a lot of this discussion could have been avoided if Jimbo had sent a few emails to people like SlimVirgin. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an OFFICE action? Should be disclosed/confirmed by a foundation employee or Jimbo. Infodmz 13:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if this is imposed on us by higher authority this should be made crystal clear, if this is not imposed on us, then the block should be re-instated, indef. As it is, it is unclear if Jimbo is acting with his veto authority or just making a decision that is actionable to the community. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a me-too. As an admin, I don't dare get near Brandt with a ten-foot pole unless I know where the OFFICE stands on this. As well, Brandt was still taking shots at SlimVirgin on Wikipedia Review as recently as yesterday. (He was offering her Hobson's choice: either put up with the abuse on WR and elsewhere, or provide them with confirmation of her identity.) Just how much of an asshole do you have to be to stay banned around here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems that I'm not allowed to link to WR even in these narrow circumstances, anyone who wishes to fact-check my statement call pull up Daniel Brandt's post on the matter, #28619. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I've asked for clarification on whether this is an OFFICE action or not at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Formal_request_for_clarification. It might get lost in the static, but I hope we can get a response. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A note, I received a response when I asked Anthere, available here. It was not an office action. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that Jimbo is boss and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. What he says, goes, no matter how morally repugnant any of the rest of us find it. He's under tremendous pressure of lawsuits and wants to make the problems go away. I won't mention the obvious consequences of such an approach but it does not bode well for the integrity of Wikipedia. Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway. Make your choice. (My first sockpuppet edit -- I feel so unclean...) Iamnotmyself 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is the boss, yes, but that doesn't abrogate us of our responsibility to the project. If the user in question is not under the shield of a WP:OFFICE decision, then a community discussion can proceed under the assumption that a re-block is possible if that is the consensus. If not, then we're served notice that it's not going to change, without regard to the community consensus, and we know ahead of time that the exercise is just spitting into the wind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jimbo is the boss, but he is also an editor, and not every action he takes is as the boss. What we need is clarification. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, Jimbo is not the boss - as he has said himself, whatever powers he has, he has because the community allows him to have them. An OFFICE action is different - that's done on behalf of the Foundation. Quite frankly, the only "boss" here, legally, is Anthere, in her position as chair of the Foundation. The Foundation is a non-profit - it isn't owned by anyone. If Jimbo were to assert authority as "boss", it would put the status of the Foundation as a non-profit at risk. Unnamed admin 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not belive Jimbo would do something like this without even saying that he did. Brandt isn't Willy on Wheels who made easily repairable damages. How many users have been driven away from the project as a result of Brandt's actions? How many excellent users were/are too afraid to run for adminship for fear of having their personal information posted on the web? How many users have been harassed off-wiki by Brandt and others who got information from his "hivemind" site? According to WP:POLICY, Key policy number 3: Respect other contributors Brandt has not followed that policy and is possibly the worst violator of it. I commend those here who edit under their real usernames. I do not trust Brandt, there is nothing stopping him from restoring the Hivemind pages and similar actions to Hivemind are still going on on the Wikipedia Watch forums. The fact that he does not plan to contribute and the number of contributors using throwaway accounts (including myself) in fear of having their personal details posted on the internet for people who hate WP to see should be testament to why unblocking Brandt can only be detrimental to the project. It is my opinion that Brandt should be subject to a permanent community ban for his actions on his site and his repeated legal threats. I hope Jimbo reads all these comments and reconsiders his actions. Account342353 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note my absolute opposition to this decision and my absolute support of Slim, Musical Linguist, Durova, Kate and others who have been victims of very real stalking and harassment. Sarah 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the unblock

This is the text of an email I have sent to the English Wikipedia public mailing list, wikien-l. As with all other communications, this accurately represents my personal opinion and is not intended to be taken as expressing anything else.

On 4/19/07, Info Control <infodmz@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> It's really more a question of what is Jimbo's authority in this matter

> relative to the decisions of other admins.

Well, Jimbo was able to do this because he has been able to give good reasons, and a lot of editors trust his judgement enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

To say that I'm not a fan of Daniel Brandt would be an understatement. However as long as he isn't disrupting Wikipedia there is no reason to re-assert the block.

A purported "community ban" has been asserted by some editors, but community bans only operate insofar as no administrator is prepared to unblock, after contemplating the matter, the banned editor. Jimbo has been in discussion with Daniel Brandt and several other administrators have co-operated on the technical side of unblocking Brandt, which turned out to be quite difficult, so no community ban applies at this time.

--Tony Sidaway 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous community endorsement of banning

Wasn't that just last week? For full disclosure, who deleted that? What was the link to that? Infodmz 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. This was the previous conversation. I can't tell from the history who deleted it. It was closed with the comment:

"clear consensus to affirm existing indefblock as a community ban--Random832 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

But then User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson did this:

"While the community's opinion is always important, this issue is outside the scope of the CN - the issue has just been rejected by Arbcom, and no admin has ever unblocked. Keeping this open will cause more harm than good. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

To which replied Random,

"This is _exactly_ the scope of the CN - to discuss community bans. Brandt is now community-banned. It is unclear whether he was before, or if instead admins were afraid to unblock him because they believed he was. Now we know what the consensus is. --Random832 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

For some reason the archive only shows Jeffrey's comments and appears edited or doctored (for whatever reason). Does the community endorsement from 72 hours ago have authority over Jimbo?

~~Also, can someone please check to see who deleted? Infodmz 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Found it, was "disqualified" by a new admin. Can one admin override the consensus of a dozen or more others? Infodmz 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community bans are a lot less firm that some participants in this discussion seem to think. Any administrator can unblock an editor for good reason--it is up to the administrator to demonstrate that he has good reason. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an OFFICE action?

Making a section for Jimbo and/or foundation employees to respond. Infodmz 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked both Jwales and Anthere for clarification on this matter, and received a response here. It was not an OFFICE action, and of course care should be given to avoid doing anything hasty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo authority

If it's not OFFICE, can admin consensus overrule?

I thought as admin Jimbo had no more or less authority than any of you. Looks like that needs finally to be clarified: outside of OFFICE, does he get any defined extra power/authority? Infodmz 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo does have special authority, see m:Foundation issues. What is not clear if he is using that special authority to override the community consensus or not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His special authority only exists because the community gives him that authority. He can be overruled by the community, just like any other editor. He cannot overrule the community. Only Anthere or the Board can. Unnamed admin 15:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the devil is everyone creating socks just to talk about this? Who's afraid of Daniel Brandt? Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? The hivemind sites are gone, people. Get a spine. Moreschi ^Talk 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Daniel Brandt's history, which speaks for itself. I commend the editors who have had the guts to post on this subject under their main IDs. I do not, because I don't want to be subjected to off-Wiki abuse, "outing" or harassment, either by Daniel Brandt if this peace pact does not succeed or his friends on Wikipedia review. I have not been subjected to "outing" by his site and I don't want to be.

I am appalled that Jimbo would take this action and I urge him to reconsider. This is an affront to every member of this community. At the very least, Brandt should remove his defamatory posts from WR. This action is damaging to the project and to the community. I am sure others would post were it not for the record I mentioned.

~~Lastly I think it is deeply wrong that a member of the arbitration committee offered "cookies" to this person on his user page.~~--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder only reacted to the cookies by posting: "Cookies, for Daniel Brandt!". The cookies were posted by User:Academy Leader].[11] Crum375 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Fred Bauder indicated he was sympathetic to Brandt, in the fairness of full disclosure. Bauder also posted several times on the WR attack site. Infodmz 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Jesus, this is nuts. They're all tumbling out of the sock drawer. This just can't be real. Is someone having a laugh? Seriously, people, I'm no fan of Daniel Brandt and the maniac obsessives at Wikipedia Review, but what are they going to do? Eat you? No one's even saying anything particularly nasty. Real accounts, please. For the sake of sanity. Moreschi ^Talk 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt tried to get Katefan FIRED. He called her employer. He called her publisher. Ending up on the Hivemind would be a risk for me. No one with anything to lose can participate in this discussion. Unnamed admin 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, sockpuppeting paranoia Brandt can't do anything now that he didn't before except editing. Paranoid of being on hivemind? Blocking/unblocking makes no difference regards his ability to get information. So let's knock off the sockpuppeting paranoia. -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, the person did not see the need to comment before, when he was banned. —Centrx→talk • 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, I'm nobody's sockpuppet. Just wanted to post a prediction that Brandt's article will soon be gone and salted. The unblocking makes no sense otherwise, as Moreschi noted. There are too many WP insiders who want the article deleted - Tony Sidaway, Fred Bauder, probably Jimbo himself. Just checked the WikiEN-l archives, and other insiders like Moeller and Gerard are also endorsing the unblock, which will soon lead to the article's deletion. This reminds me of the Danny RfA. My prediction on that one was also correct, if I say so myself. Casey Abell 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I agree with Seth Finkelstein that something has been arranged (not explicitly) in advance. But I disagree that what's been arranged is more conflict. What has been agreed, tacitly, is the deletion of Daniel Brandt. Casey Abell 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you might think that, but as a matter of record Jimbo has stated publicly that he thinks the article should not be deleted because he considers Brandt to be "notable". He repeated this opinion last night in a discussion on IRC shortly before I started this discussion. I and one or two others stated the opposite view, which he acknowledges but does not agree with. Some prominent Wikipedians (who like myself are not in contact with Daniel Brandt) think the article should be deleted. Some equally prominent Wikipedians, including Jimmy Wales who has actually been in contact with Daniel Brandt, disagree. I don't think anything has been agreed in advance. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea what Jimbo said on IRC because I'm not privy to the conversations. But this is what he said on-wiki on February 23, when referring the Daniel Brandt wheel war to ArbCom:

"I am referring this case directly to the ArbCom to look at possible remedies for all parties involved up to and including desysopping, blocking, etc. I have absolutely no opinion on the actual content question (should we have an article about him? I don't care) but this log is a disgrace."[12]

Sorry to be cynical, but I think the ball is rolling towards deletion and salting. We'll see soon enough. Casey Abell 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will be absolutely pathetic if it occurs. I do hope you're wrong on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fix is not in. Wikilegally, this is what happened:

Daniel Brandt filed an arbitration case regarding his ban. Whether it was a community ban was one of the questions posed. Opinion was divided, but the case was rejected. However, one of the matters which the arbitration committee may consider is a community ban. Appeal of an arbitration decision is to Jimbo. Daniel Brandt appealed to Jimbo with the result we see. The arbitration committee can overturn a community ban, so can Jimbo.

Offenses of the party and community opinion are taken into account, but do not control. Fred Bauder 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be absolutely clear, then—is Jimbo acting with the authority of the Board of the Foundation behind him, and should this unblocking be considered a WP:OFFICE action that is not to be reversed by any administrator without permission from the WP:OFFICE? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no OFFICE or Board involvement. Fred Bauder 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Drini - Brandt goes after after people who commented on him. Hivemind of full of people like that. Everyone here will end up on that page once he is reblocked. Brandt went after Katefan, tried to get her fired. That isn't paranoia, that's a fact. I don't want him calling my boss. I don't want him posting details of my private life, posting my home address. So I don't comment on Brandt. But I totally oppose his unblock. Let him pay compensation to his victims, then maybe he can be unblocked. Unnamed admin 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are good and sound reasons for anyone, editor or administrator, to avoid commenting on this issue using our usual IDs, as noted. It is not paranoia. It should be observed that Brandt has not taken down the Hivemind site. He has simply placed "John Does" where the names of his victims used to be. He can and probably will fill in the blanks at some future date. I do not trust him. Jimbo may have the raw power to carry out this action but that does not make it right. This project is built on volunteer labor, and this is an insult to those of us who volunteer our time.--Onlyjusthisonetime 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the two pages, hivemind.html and hive2.html, are no longer on the website. Trying to go to them gives a 404 error. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally question how a person who creates a website to attack Wikipedia can be expected to become a valued contributor. His biography though should remain. If Daniel Brandt feels that it is invading his privacy, perhaps he should have thought about not becoming an activist and putting the spotlight on himself. The same goes true for the owner or RipOffReport, or any other site that attacks other individuals and organizations, however for some reason expects the world to just leave them under a rock to their own devices. Undisclosed Editor 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the community just override Jimbo if they decided to? Infodmz 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if by policy if anyone can override Jimbo... but I think that if Daniel Brandt remains unblocked and his bio is deleted and salted, I can see a possible mass exodus from Wikipedia. Undisclosed Editor 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. I think that if the status of the WP:OFFICE action is not clarified, only Wiki-cidal admins would consider any action against him, no matter how egregious the action. SirFozzie 18:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that the DB bio is to deleted. Community consensus is that his bio should remain and as such surely DB has a right to contribute to it's talk page. Those who tried so hard to stop him contributing to his bio talk page were, IMO, wrong, and if they had we probably wouldnt be here today. I would oppose any alleged consensus based on SPI's, SqueakBox 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those who spoke with Jimbo last night, I'll clarify. This is my understanding of the current state of affairs.

Daniel Brandt recently wrote an open letter to Jimbo mentioning some positive steps he was taking. He gave a very well-reasoned summary of the sourcing problems of his article, and enumerated some potential defamation that had been published on Wikipedia as a result of poor research and failure to heed his corrections. He stated clearly that while he wanted the article deleted, he should at least be allowed to make comments on the talk page about matters like this. Apparently he has removed material of his own purporting to identify Wikipedia editors, on the Hivemind site.
Jimbo in due course responded by conceding the request to edit the talk page, which involves lifting the ban.
This is not an office action. Apparently the Foundation declines to get involved in this matter.
This is a well respected administrator on Wikipedia, the founder as it turns out, making a reasoned step towards resolving a long-running and very damaging dispute over Wikipedia content that has had real world consequences for several people including Daniel Brandt himself.
A community ban is a block that no administrator will lift. There is no community ban on Daniel Brandt at the moment.
If Daniel Brandt were to perform a blockable action on Wikipedia, and once blocked no administrator would unblock, then a community ban would again pertain.
Thus the community could again decide to ban Daniel Brandt.

--Tony Sidaway 18:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it comes down to what's best for us all: someone on the inside of the tent pissing out, or someone on the outside pissing in. Whilst I don't like it one bit, Jimmy has made the right choice by having Brandt in the tent voiding his bladder on to the grass. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious concerns about the Foundation's handling of volunteer safety issues

“Beware of him that is slow to anger: He is angry for something, and will not be pleased for nothing.” – Benjamin Franklin

When I received a private e-mail a few days ago from a good editor who had decided not to try for adminship because of the harassment I've experienced, I considered sending it to Cary Bass. Then as I thought about things more I decided my real beef is with Jimbo himself. Last month he unblocked Gregory Kohs, who is perhaps better known here by his username MyWikiBiz. I had notified the Foundation immediately when Mr. Kohs began calling my statements libel and followed up promptly to every query the Foundation sent on the matter. This included correspondence with Jimbo. I made every effort to cooperate with the Foundation on this matter. Mr. Kohs continued his campaign against me unabated on one of Wikipedia's better-known attack sites, yet Jimbo unblocked him without so much as sending me a courtesy message regarding that decision. Not surprisingly, Mr. Kohs soon sought me out and made not-very-subtle hints about his desire to take me to court until another administrator prevented him from editing. Mr. Kohs continues his campaign against me offsite.

During the same span of time another user posted a threat to hack my computer. I strongly suspect I know the name of the individual who posted that and, if my suspicion is correct, this is someone who has sufficient technical education to make a serious attempt at carrying out such a threat. Yet my checkuser request went unfulfilled for two weeks despite my appeal to the Foundation (specifically Cary Bass) to expedite it. As I expressed to Cary, my commitment to personal safety comes before my commitment to Wikipedia and I expect the Foundation to respect those priorities. Clearly, they have not done so.

More recently I blocked an editor for a year who had threatened suicide and got a community ban for yet another editor: a self-confessed psychiatric patient who had developed a sexual fixation on me. A few days ago I received a different legal threat - not the hint of a threat but an actual direct threat - and Cary Bass's reply was that I shouldn't worry because the Foundation had taken care of it.

Well frankly, I do worry. To date I have seen no promise that the Foundation would provide my legal defense if someone actually does file a Wikipedia-related lawsuit against me. I doubt even more that they would render any assistance if my computer were hacked or if harassment escalated beyond that level.

I would have written this directly to the Foundation board of directors, but in light of Daniel Brandt's unblocking I'll post here for open discussion: although Mr. Brandt has not targeted me specifically, he has targeted enough other administrators that I think unilateral Jimbo Wales or Office action on this type of matter is highly inappropriate and abusive of the goodwill of the site's most diligent and productive volunteers. We have a need to know about these things, a right to be involved in the process, and if our legitimate safety concerns continue to be ignored three things will happen:

Good editors will decline to run for administratorship.
Good administrators will quit the project.
Wikipedia will run into serious problems.

I consider it imperative that the Foundation change its recent practices regarding these matters. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you completely Durvora. The problems on this site, in respect to increasing levels of harrassment both on-wiki and off-wiki for admins and editors alike is staggering. This is the only site where I have had to actually reconsider having 'public-but-personal' information availble through. I don't think any editor or admin must simply be Editor ? or Admin ?, a faceless account void of all human atributes, but at the same time, people are risking more and more by being anything other than a faceless account. I'm not sure what the overall fix is... whether it be we re-examine this notion of being 'an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit' and become something that requires divulging a bit more personal information to the foundation to edit, or what. Either way, these are concerns that ought not be taken lightly. Hence the reason why I'm not disclosing my usual ID here today. Undisclosed Editor 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution that would satisfy me is very simple: handle these issues on a need-to-know basis. If the Foundation considers unbanning a user who has threatened or harassed specific Wikipedians, bring those Wikipedians into the loop before restoring the editing privileges. If an editor requests a checkuser and communicates the need for urgency because of a personal threat, prioritize that checkuser request and keep the editor informed if anything gets in the way of a prompt result. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, agreed completely. The last couple of months there have been many incidents that show cracks in the "Foundation" of Wikipedia, if you'll excuse the pun. Danny's resignation (and the subsequent RfA). CheckUser going down for a while (and while I do understand why it wasn't announced, due to WP:BEANS reasoning, at least admit that there's at least a delay in handling them!), and now this whole thing. I think action needs to be taken to fill in the cracks before they widen and start to threaten the project. For a project that prizes openness, there sure as heck hasn't been a lot lately. SirFozzie 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; in reply to "User:ForPrivacyConcerns")...and leaving people to start endlessly speculating who you are, rather than actually taking in your point. Sigh.

Nevertheless, I avoid giving personal information as a rule and obscure certain facts (ie, lie). I was never a target for Mr Brandt despite SNOWing one of his sock-driven AfDs and am gnome-y enough as an admin to be ignored by the psychopaths, sociopaths and general oddballs who post to WReview. But I get enough death threats (it averages at the moment 1 in 600 CSD-I3 deleted images generates a threat) to leave it to only the real nutters-with-patience to actually try to find me. A reason I'd never edit at Citizendum or whatever it's called - signing my own death warrant, albeit without Mr Brandt to (no offence) countersign. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated above, the whole reason for me not using my usual ID is due to the possibility of harrassment on this particular issue. I've worked with the American Red Cross Disaster Relief for years, and have had people give me face-to-face death threats, pull weapons, even had shots fired in our general area while responding to a situation. The difference between that situation and Wikipedia when it comes to wearing a name badge that has my name and face? I have support. I have an organization behind me that will work to protect me if someone gets ticked off that we didn't give them more money. In all instances where weapons were involved, the ARC knew ahead of time that it was a dangerous area of town and demanded the Police be there. The suspects were dealt with immediately. Here, we have a user who has in the past harrassed editors, and we're considering a "Good Faith" olive branch action to bring him in. That would be like the ARC asking the gun-toting maniac to come over and speak with us, as long as he's a good little boy.Undisclosed Editor 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Professional organizations offer support to people who are attacked on their behalf. It's the lack of professionalism here that's causing the problems, and I don't see any way round that, because the Foundation doesn't have the resources to protect people. On the other hand, it could try to avoid making matters worse ... SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt that what the foundation are trying to do by unblocking DB? I do feel safer myself because the HM page is now a 404, SqueakBox 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt isnt anonymous and neither has he issued any death threats. Some anonymous editors who have made death threats have been forgiven or ignored. To claim DB is someone who makes death threats has no justification, SqueakBox 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall where anyone has stated that Daniel Brandt has made death threats. Undisclosed Editor 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not claiming that anyone has but I am clarifying the matter, SqueakBox 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's being read into my statement, then I apologise but suggest my statement is re-read. I never said such a thing and never will. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation isn't responsible for the actions of editors. If a Wikipedia editor finds himself in legal trouble because of something he has done, he would be very foolish to expect the Foundation to fund his defense. The solution here is to take responsibility for your own actions and stop sheltering behind third parties. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the implication here is that beyond moral/policy type support "on" Wikipedia, all admins are on their own, and the WMF does not/can't support them if things go south, because the WMF won't do anything to risk their claimed Sec. 230 immunity? Infodmz 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Durova is correct above, but I do not expect any changes from recent practice. Like someone said, as long as the situation is manageable (in the Foundation's eyes) it will be neglected. Basically, no one is going to treat the volunteers with any more consideration than he must to keep the project going. It is not the first time this has happened, so the reaction must have been expected. How hard would it have been to have emailed some of the victims of harassment to get their support, or at least explain what was intended? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is likely that any ediTOr in legal trouble for actions made here would get a huge amount of media coverage, assuming they werent just engaging in death threats or something obvious, and the sheer public exposure of wikipedia as well as laws in the countries in which we all live all protect the law abiding wikipedian. The Foundation doesnt need to, SqueakBox 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)(an outed HM editor)[reply]

Do we have an internet-vs-real world issue here? Despite 10 years or so hanging around various forms of superhighway at various speeds, it strikes me that most people behave online in a way they would never consider doing in real life (save for the total loonbaskets, but you can never successfully base any policy on trying to cover the extreme).

People would like to think of Wikipedia/WMF safely wrapping them in protective bubbles because online isn't real. This is why we have so much trouble getting people to understand that accusing X person of being a kiddyfiddler in X's article, or uploading a copyright image or article are Bad Things to do. It isn't real, it's online! It's a giant text adventure! It's Second Life with words!

People think the interweb isn't real, so make death threats or facilitate them by publishing enough details to allow for them to be carried out. The door swings both ways. I don't see how we can convince people that Wikipedia is real life, because the two are utterly divorced. This isn't Wikipedia's fault, it's an artifact of internet connection. People will expect to be protected; people will expect the right to make threats; they don't see this as mutually exclusive and it isn't, per se.

But now I'm drifting so far off topic as to make this somewhat rambling, so I'll stop. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still irked by the sockpuppets here. Has Daniel Brandt ever actually hurt anyone? Anyone ever lost money directly because of Daniel Brandt? Anyone die? No, I thought not. What are you scared of? Is it the nutcase delusionals at Wikipedia Review? Since when have they ever done anything but disappear up their own arses all day long? This puppet show is a complete farce, and quite frankly, I'm starting to think we're being trolled. Either that, or some people here are demeaning the rest of us by their folly. Stop it.

The silly hyperbole around this is just stupid. Brandt is back. I don't like it, but he is. By God-King fiat, no less. He wants his bio gone. Is that a bad idea? Probably not. He's done some bad things in the past. Are we big enough to show some clememcy about that? Yes. So, I can finish off my deletion nomination for his bio and we can all return to editing the encyclopedia, right? Moreschi ^Talk 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has actually hurt people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything so bad we can't afford to forget? It is the virtue of the great to pardon offenses: so many of the leaders of men of the past have been renowned for their clemency, Caesar not least. Why did he win the Civil War? Because those who he defeated he forgave, and in the end the world welcomed him as a merciful master. There were no proscription lists in the Forum. Let us do the same here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Because those who he defeated he forgave" -- Vercingetorix could attest to such "clemency". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that he continues to do it. He hasn't stopped, and hasn't removed the posts. It would be odd to forgive and forget something that is very much ongoing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, dragged back by the sense and reason above. Yes, Moreschi, right. Spot on. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of historical example. How did things turn out for Julius Caesar, anyway? Ah yes, he was stabbed to death by the recipients of some of his more memorable acts of clemency. Food for thought. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only after he'd been running the world for a couple of years, so not a bad innnings. Moreschi ^Talk 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "forgiving the lion for eating your children" and "inviting the lion into your living room because the big kitty purrs for the moment." Mr. Brandt has chosen his path. Any inconveniences that come along with that, including finding people who simply are not willing to "forgive and forget" his past disgressions, he must accept. Undisclosed Editor 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, if someone says they are going to kill him or herself, he or she is in danger, not us. Aside from that, unless Daniel Brandt has taken down the personal information page, why was he unblocked? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it very clear what I object to here: I don't like to see the Foundation respond to my direct appeals with the equivalent of Don't worry; we don't take that problem seriously and then make decisions as if no potential for danger existed - without consulting me - when it is my safety that is ultimately at stake. Jimbo and the Foundation can't have it both ways: when they take actions that affect volunteer safety, they should either involve the editors who are directly affected in the decision-making process or assume responsibility for the consequences to those volunteers (assuming the volunteers informed the Foundation promptly and followed its advice). Since I started this thread another good editor has written me privately to disavow candidacy for administratorship because of this issue. I accept trolling because it comes with the territory but I do not accept the Foundation's cavalier attitude toward the safety of its most dedicated volunteers. The current situation is untenable. ~~Durova^Charge! 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~Striking through. I've received a message from a board member which, I hope, is an indicator of positive things to come. Durova^Charge! 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Will the WMF protect admins acting as their agents to enforce policies?~~
Or are admins on their own legally? Perhaps a WMF agent should answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes. Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. Infodmz 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Responses by non-WMF agents~~
~~Post responses here if you aren't a WMF agent speaking for them, thanks. Infodmz 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Nothing to say, given we've gotten to this level of RfC-style, er, style, but people avidly watching and replying to this long thread might be interested in something I've just discovered. Some idiot just put an entire encyclopedia online and let anyone edit it! I'm going to give it a try instead of chatting here. REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Another admin who wants to remain anonymous (User:X) asked me to post the following. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Someone can register the distaste of another unnamed admin. User:X is in no position to post regarding it, as he was stupid enough to sign up with his own name. I've watched Brandt disruptions at points, such as when Katefan left, but have never said anything. There's much that's frustrating, not least that the blowback from these lunatics always hits female editors hardest."
I recommend editors protect themselves by ignoring Wikipedia:No open proxies. Use TOR and Privoxy. You'll be autoblocked sometimes, but... oh well. Also, I recommend that User:X use his or her right to vanish to change his or her username. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of forbidding open proxies if we encourage them to be used for self-protection? We can't see a user's IP address anyway, so why does it matter? // Sean William 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't recommending it... I am recommending it. Not that I would mind if we did recommend it and made it allowable to use an open proxy with an account. In the case of legal threats, Wikipedia might receive a subpoena from a government. If checkuser returns nothing but a bunch of TOR exit nodes, you are basically safe from needing to hire a lawyer. It's also a good protection against forgetting to log in, which would result in people seeing your IP address, if you wanted to take credit for your edit. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notice~~

~~Main page: WP:AN#Several blocks~~
~~—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Moved it here instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have blocked the following editors, as they are single purpose account that are effectively being used to troll the discussion concerning the unblocking of Daniel Brandt at the tread on the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard.
Can't quite believe it (talk · contribs · block log)

Disposableusername (talk · contribs · block log)

Iamnotmyself (talk · contribs · block log)

Throwaway account 111 (talk · contribs · block log)

Onlyjusthisonetime (talk · contribs · block log)

ForPrivacyConcerns (talk · contribs · block log)

Infodmz (talk · contribs · block log)
While I understand why these accounts were made, if administrators want to discuss things, they should do so under their actual account name, and give Mr. Brandt the benefit of the doubt.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding. Horrible, horrible move Ryulong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But consistent. Who benefits? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, that block delayed the posting of Jimbo's reply below. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific aspect WP:SOCK these accounts violated? Is 'trolling' the right word? I don't mean to sound like a troublemaker or anything here, but based on the threats and intimidation that some contributors have suffered in their personal and professional lives as a result of publicly disagreeing with the person in question, I can understand why some folks would choose anonymity. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is incredibly sad. I'm a nobody here. I realize that...but I disagree 100% with these blocks. --Onorem 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're no more of a nobody than any of the rest of us, Onorem. Or no less of a somebody. Or whatever. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a poor idea, as WP:SOCK#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area clearly seems to apply in this situation. I can entirely understand why anyone on either side of the discussion in question would want to use a sockpuppet to contribute in this case. JavaTenor 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the use of sockpuppets in the CN discussion, but WP:SOCK does state: "It may be legitimate to do this [use sockpuppets] from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment)..." This appears to be a case where editors wish to avoid harassment. I can see encouraging people to use their primary accounts, perhaps giving less weight to comments from sock accounts - but blocks seem overboard when they seem to be covered under WP:SOCK. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this block to be in extremely poor judgment, and clearly contrary to WP:SOCK. While I think that using one's real account is important in these discussions, given the history of harassment and attacks by Brandt on our editors I can certainly understand those who prefer to protect their real account. I have not seen evidence of these new accounts 'trolling' - what I saw are rational and reasonable comments and discussion. One can't avoid seeing a sad irony here - concerned editors, worried about being attacked by Brandt are blocked contrary to policy, while the attacker, whose attacks and harassing posts aimed at our editors are continuing as we speak on his website, is free to edit alongside his victims. In any case, I believe that immediate unblocking is called for. Crum375 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~These need to be overturned. A.) infodmz is a legit account, not a SPA, and B.) clearly within policy. This is not just a Bad Thing but Bad and Wrong. -M^ask? 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I normally have no time for sockpuppets accounts, but this is an obvious exception. We can't ask people to risk being hounded in real life because they have a criticism, and yet we want to know what people think. It is, indeed, an irony that the person engaging in the harassment is unblocked, while people objecting are blocked. I hope Ryulong will undo the blocks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This whole affair is sending a very bad message to people who have received creepy phonecalls, whose employers have been contacted, whose families have been threatened. The use of sockpuppets is not forbidden where people's personal security is concerned, and where there's no question of doubling up on voting or reverting. Musical L inguist 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. wp:sock says, "Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia." It seems like that applies in this case if in any. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong needs to overturn his own blocks in this case, or have them reversed for him. Bad decision. Not even following policy here SirFozzie 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left him a message. Crum375 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard was nice enough to unblock me. I presume someone will get the rest so that other users don't have to expose who they are by asking for unblocks/autoblock cleanup. :) Infodmz 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Ryulong refuses to overturn his block, I'll do it myself. // Sean William 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I'll be waiting to see Daniel Brandt discussion sockpuppet wheel war opened up via direct referral from Jimbo. hbdragon88 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. It's only a wheel war if it's reversed multiple times. // Sean William 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So DB is getting unblocked despite his vile attempts at outing users? -- Well, we are no democracy and we don't have a legal system in place but Wikipedia should provide equal rights for all users. So the question remains: what happens with users who only linked to attack sites once or twice? Are they instantly sysop-ed now? —Alde Baer 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went as far as unblocking all the accounts not unblocked already per discussion here Alex Bakharev 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think that's a good idea, the blocks were poorly conceived. AGF should at least work both ways. RxS 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Due to the impact of Ryulongs actions, I felt obligated to open an RfC on Admin Conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong (April 2007). Do with this notice whatever you see fit: ignore it, or contribute. That is all. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I have agreed to postpone an RfC, and have begun the process of discussing this with Ryulong. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reconsider asap. An RfC is not warranted or justified at all. I see you're calling for Ryulong to be desysopped over it, this is an absolute over-reaction. I think you should allow us to delete the page. Sarah 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ryulong made a mistake. A rather big one in this case, agreed, but I'm pretty sure it was not a malicious mistake. Before ANY RfC action should take place, we should get Ryulong's viewpoint. If he acknowledges that he made a mistake, I'm cool with that. SirFozzie 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I endorse the reversal of these blocks and agree that there was no valid basis for them. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've also posted on outside view on the RfC, but if there is consensus that it's unnecessary I have no problem with deleting it. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I should say for the record, that I unblocked User:Disposableusername and I removed the autoblock that another user was caught in. I also fully support Alex's unblocking of the other accounts. Sarah 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorese the reversals- I've only just caught up with this news re:Brandt as this isn't a board I look at regularly. I am particularly unimpressed that Ryulong appears to have blocked with autoblocks enabled, thereby presenting those who posted here with socks with an uncomfortable dilemma. WjBscribe 02:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reversals were a good call, but Ryulong meant well. There was plenty of discussion here about it, and an RfC might do more harm than good at this point. It's probably better to let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete his bio~~
Someone just go delete his bio already. You want nothing to do with him and he wants nothing to do with you. Just swallow your pride and go do it. You won't be "negotiating with a terrorist" or "giving in to his threats" or whatever BS cliche reasons some people come up with. Someone just go delete the damn thing and the rest of you back that brave soul up. End this nonsense. Frise 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~As I recall, Jimbo desyopped people who did that the last time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I thought they were de-sysopped for wheel warring though I think an out of process deletion of DB's article is unlikely to help, SqueakBox 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~(ec)I wish it was that easy. // Sean William 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The desysoppings were for wheel warring. If someone simply leaves the deletion alone, there won't be a wheel war. Easy enough. Frise 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yeah, but nobody's going to just let it go. 13 AFDs have shown this. // Sean William 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screw AFDs. There's no policy that can address a situation like this. You can comb through policy and pontificate on process until you have a 2 megabyte talk page but it won't solve a damn thing. What this situation needs is for one person to go delete the bio and the rest of you to just let it go. Then every single person involved can go about his or her merry way. Frise 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should treat all the BLP people the same, and give none of them special rights that others do not have. If one has it, they all should, or none, in fairness. Just a thought for everyone. Infodmz 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if removing this article placated Brandt, & if he then went away never to threaten Wikipedia again, a dangerous precedent would be created: anyone willing to pressure enough Wikipedians will be able to suborn the content of Wikipedia. Yes, I know this is already possible, but deleting this page will only make the current situation worse -- not better. -- llywrch 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent would be created, but I don't see it as dangerous per se. It would allow WP some manuverability in negociating "dangerous" situations. So far as the bios are of semi-notable figures at best I don't see the huge draw-back to Wikipedia. As far as enforcing the deletion though, it may require Jimbo or the foundation to actually carry it out as opposed to it being up to the community.----ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think the best place to ahve a discussion about deleting his bio would be at the DB bio talk page, SqueakBox 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I used the word "precedent" in the sense that doing so would create a tangible example to the outside world how one can coerce Wikipedia to reflect one's own beliefs or opinions. Deleting the article & keeping it deleted will not make any Wikipedians -- Admins or non-Admins -- safer; if it did, then this option might be worth discussing. Deleting it will only encourage other people who don't want their biographies on Wikipedia to do the same thing. -- llywrch 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you don't try it. Here is what will happen. Admin Alice speedy deletes Brandt's bio. Editor Bob takes it to DRV, where after a five day battle and much hostility it is yet again decided that Brandt meets WP:N and the deletion was out of process. Admin Carol closes the DRV and undeletes Brandt's bio by community consensus. Now the bio stands again and we just wasted our time to sow discord amongst the community, or Admin Dave now deletes the bio again and is prompty desysopped for wheel warring. All this assumes that Alice isn't simply desysopped from the beginning for continuing the previous wheel war, in which case the bio will simply be speedy undeleted per the previous community consensus. So the results of speedy deletion are either we waste our time squabbling, or we waste our time squabbling and someone gets desysopped. An amusing circus for us cynics to watch, of course, but it will discredit the administration and alienate the community, just like the last round and probably worse this time. And in the end the bio will remain, since we inevitably come to the conclusion that Brandt does meet WP:N. Go ahead, if that's your idea of fun, but the only possible outcomes are net losses to the project. Sincerely, Eve 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what we could do? We could not delete it. The community is generating a good deal of this 'nonsense'. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)
~~Long wikien-el response from Jimbo re: this~~
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069104.html
Q1. What role does his stated/pending legal threat play in this?
~~None. I think he has absolutely no legal case at all here.~~
~~Q2. Is this being done to try to protect the untested Section 230 coverage?~~
~~No.~~
Q3. Are you willing to disclose the current "back room" status of your communications with Brandt (if any), for full disclosure, so no one is caught by surprise that may interact there? Are you willing to confirm if such exist so that people know the scale/importance of this, if it's more than just trying to be nice?
I am happy to disclose, and already did in my unblock notice and emails here. I don't consider making public statements and engaging in a public discussion to be "back room" at all. Brandt and I are talking by email about his status in Wikipedia, both as editor and as biographical subject, and I am attempting to address his various concerns in a way that is both consistent with our policies (NPOV in particular) and respectful of him as a human being.
He seems to be discussing in good faith, and I know that I am discussing in good faith. Whatever disagreements he and I, or he and others, may have, it seems fairly clear to me that he wants only to edit the talk page of his own biography (he has said so), so that he can complain there about various problems he perceives (such is his right).
He would still like the article about him to be completely deleted, but I think he also understands that complete deletion is not likely to happen. So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better.
~~I have offered to fly to San Antonio at my personal expense to meet with him and the board of his organization, an offer which he has so far declined, as is his right of course.~~
I do not approve of his past actions, but I do believe that there is a possibility for peace here. I intend to make the best of it, and I hope that everyone will support me to the best extent that they can. (One way to support me, of course, is to talk about why you think I am wrong and what you think I am doing wrong.)
~~--Jimbo~~
~~Meant to post this before; it was the post that Ryulong's block caught me on earlier. Infodmz 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Start the healing...~~
I truly hope that Brandt is sincere with his desire to rebuild the burnt bridges... but I truly think he needs to re-earn the good-faith of the Wikipedian's community. Pulling down the hivemind site is a good first step... but it is only a first step. I think that if continued healing to happen Brandt will need engage in an active campaign to request the forgiveness of those he has hurt. I really wouldn't mind a stubbing/deletion of the article that bears his name. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but he is not showing any signs of good faith. He posted on WR yesterday evening that, and this is a direct quote "I don't want to be a Wikipedia editor, I want my bio down." I would prefer to post his entire post but I am not sure that is appropriate or permitted, and obviously a link is out of the question. His post can be found fairly easily on WR.

In light of his own personal wishes which he himself expressed, I am at a loss to understand why he is being unblocked against the will of the community. Unblocking him is a meaningless gesture that is an insult to the people here he has harmed, and means nothing to Brandt himnself. The only purpose it serves is to make him happy by making the people he has harmed feel hurt and betrayed.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it helps by allowing him to comment on his bio, which isnt about to disappear. It is not against the will of the community but agaisnt the will of certain members of it, and some of those he hurt are happy to see the situation being calmed down and not made worse (as too many wikipedians appear to want, how is that going to help those of us outed?), SqueakBox 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide citations. Specifically, I'd like to know which of the people who were menaced and had their jobs threatened as a result of his actions are "happy" to see the unblocking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but even ordinary evidence would be useful here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Depends what you mean by menaced and who exactly had their jobs threatened. If you can give me some concrete details yourself I could respond but clearly there are people outed on HM who support Brandt being able to contribute to his talk page, including myself. Just because people are threatened, menaced etc does not mean they support the ban DB forever camp, so I suggest you probvide citations for your beliefs first. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. I said the opposite, which was that Brandt was happy solely because his victims were upset by his unblocking. That is speculation on my part, based on the total lack of remorse shown in his public comments. (striking out. I misunderstood. Choirboy was not responding to me). Squeakbox, Brandt did not say that he was interested in improving his biography. He wants it removed. You are reading into his remarks what he did not say.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well his choice is to see it removed but given that wont happen he would rather contribute to see it imporved. His trying to do that in the past and being prevented has created all this, eg he wanted a ref to the Carter amnesty for draft resisters, SqueakBox 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for saying that? He has given no indication that he wants it improved. If he has, please indicate where that has come out.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks aren't punishment. Blocks are preventative. If a user behaves himself on Wikipedia, what purpose does a block serve? It would be a very dangerous precedent to maintain a block just because we don't like what somebody is doing elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a forum for resolving off-wiki disputes. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to respond to the person who suggested that Brandt was interested in reconciling. He has shown absolutely zero interest in doing so. His public statements show the opposite intent. So let's not kid ourselves about that.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above Jimbo says"So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better.". For those who have followed the DB page it is clear that his being unable to comment on his bio talk page, (partly because DennyColt insisted on deleting all DB's comments and trying to get anyone who was responsive to his comments blocked) has led to this unblocking, and as someone who supports his right to contribute toh is biot alk page I support the unblocking, SqueakBox 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~That's what Jimbo wants. What DB wants is soemthing altogethere different. His objective, about which he has launched a crusade, is to DELETE HIS BIOGRAPHY. Again, from his post yesterday:~~
"If I get my bio down, then at the same time they do this, they should delete my User and User_talk pages, as I've already requested. It is far more important to establish the precedent of a successful takedown campaign by a semi-notable, than it is to establish the right to edit Wikipedia. Sane people don't want to edit Wikipedia, but many of them do want their bio taken down."
He couldn't be clearer. Whether or not he was rankled by DennyColt's action is beside the point. He is not interested in being a member of this community. What part of "Sane people don't want to edit Wikipedia" don't you understand?--Onlyjusthisonetime 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again from his post last night: "they're getting all worked up over fighting the wrong battle." Meaning, this issue we are discussing right now. It's right there in black and white. Black and green, actually. I would post a cite but it is verboten as we all know. See also the letter from him posted on his talk page.[13] His WR post is a more frank restatement of his ONE AND ONLY objective, which is deletion of his biography. Also I would point out that public letter contaisn a near-explicit legal threat.--Onlyjusthisonetime 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Makalp~~
I request Makalp (talk · contribs) be blocked for causing edit wars blatantly. Note: This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish. 1-[14], 2-[15], 3-[16], 4- [17], 5- [18] all evidence of disruption. Please see this with ignorance he redirects the page removing all content he has been here long enough he is doing this to stir up trouble. 6-[19] look if this isn't vandalism I don't know what is, he doesn't even discuss it this is blatant vandalism. This is just a few of his disruptive edits, last week he removed any mention of Kurdish in more than 50 articles he doesn't dare discuss anything instead he labels it "clean up" and removes any mentions of Kurdish. Over here he reverts an admin using "undo", 7-[20], 8- [21], over here he removes Armenian 9-[22]. On this page he insists on adding tags in which he can't even handle a debate in the talk page, he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged 10-[23], more nonsense reverts 11-[24]. Ashkani 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~This ones today, 12-[25] Ashkani 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Oppose ban - I've had some problem with this user at Choban salad but I don't think your diffs are clear-cut enough to support a ban. Sorry. The Behnam 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I rather have admins respond to this vandalism. He removes all contents from a page and redirects it with no discussion at all removes anything that says "Armenian Genocide" or "Kurdistan". Ashkani 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this user has some problems with this editing (kept removing the 'suggest merge' tag from Choban salad, for example), but this is the community noticeboard for community input. If you only want admins to decide you may need to take your request elsewhere. The Behnam 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well you obviously have ties with this user into more description third party users who are uninvolved. Ashkani 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ties? Please, AGF. I don't know why you'd think that anyway. I've only had one experience with this user and it was negative (at Choban salad). And sorry but I can't figure out what "into more description third party users who are uninvolved" means. The Behnam 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to clarify? he's mass moves of pages to Turkish names is another problem with no discussion as far as I know. Since this is not Turkish Wikipedia but English wikipedia, its very disruptive. Ashkani 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do need to clarify. I mean, dude, this is a ban for a user. It's big business. The Behnam 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just said it like 5 times, he is doing vandalism by removing "Kurdistan" and "Armenian Genocide" from articles, adding inappropriate POV tags with no discussion when people offer him discussion he ignores it and he reverts back to the tags. He reverts many times, he says "clean up" when he removes relevant info I have enough evidence presented. He has been here long enough he knows all the rules also. I said block not ban yet.... Ashkani 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I definitely support an educational block as he hasn't been acting properly. However I do still think that this may be the wrong place to ask for a block, but of course I may be mistaken. Cheers. The Behnam 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a further look into his disruptive edits I found this user possibly a sock or meatpuppet [26] notice how he uses undo with the text next to it, he reverts back to makalp. Ashkani 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out cases where he breaks rules with this supposed sockpuppet? I think you know that a sockpuppet isn't really a problem until it violates certain rules, which I couldn't find just looking at the contribs page. The Behnam 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an educational block as well, 24hrs to a week, a ban is quite a big step however. -M^ask? 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a ban is crossing the limit he was warned for edit warring though, but he continues his minor controversial edits a block is good for a short period. In response to The Behnam, when using socks it states you cannot edit the same pages, or revert in favor or hide your identity in which he has done it all, but this is not confirmed. Ashkani 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can't edit the same pages to violate 3RR. After all, someone on an alternate account for public computers isn't restricted from editing the same pages. The Behnam 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK, If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action. same thing. Ashkani 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for moving the pages to the Turkish names. That's not at all disruptive behavior, I regularly do it for particular names, whereas for common ones I move them to their English ones. Many bios out there are created without taking the diacritics into account. That's no rule-breaking.

I really doubt that User:Behnam is "tied to the user" as you said Ashkani :)

As for socks. Well, request checkuser - we cannot speculate on what or who might be sockpuppeting to what degree - also remeber that another user (User:Artaxiad) created at least ten, and possibly more, and reverted and vandalized those pages. So also understand that it is also hard for established users to keep track of this. I am actively trying to keep track of at least three users who are constantly resurrecting themselves with numerous socks.

As for edit warring. Well, you can file a 3RR report if he ever broke 3RR. I see what your issue is here, nevertheless it is much more a content one. It is not "vandalism". In any case, most of his edits are cleanup tasks and work on trivial articles, and I think that people have a right to make content edits as well. He might feel differently about certain events than other editors or you, but that's not "vandalism" - his English skills might not be top-notch, but that's not rule-breaking either :) He is an established user, not an anon just dropping by and attacking articles. I am sorry but I would also oppose a ban on general vague grounds - if there are specific issues with a) socks, request checkuser, b) 3RR - file a 3RR report. Baristarim 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Makalp
About tone and speech;
"blatantly" , "Vandalism", "stir up trouble" ;
#1-All of these are obvious personal attack and violate; WP:NPA.(Attention; to whom in concern)

Allegations;
This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish.;
[1]; about Tehcir Law; This is abot an Ottoman Law from 1915.My edit; removing {{tl:totally disputed}} tag and placing the "rebellions in the Ottoman Empire|Armenian revolt" instead of "Armenian genocide".Why; 1- an official law cannot be tagged like as before, 2- Genocide is a recent term, in 1915 there was no like a concept, aims of this law is clear in the article as replacing the Armenians of warplaces of the country.3- My edits are not original, older version of the article which reverted many times before.

[2]; about Denial of the Armenian Genocide; "Diff", here is a selfevidence, it is very easy to see which version is more neutral.

[3]; about name of Diyarbakır; There is no my Turkification here, I keep Arabish root of name, I reverted back only.

[4]; about Taksim; I deleted User:EOKA-Assasin's Rv back since user was blocked, and unblocked to only to make username change request, not edits. This was an obvious violation of rules. See here my talk page about this edits;User_talk:Makalp#Reply.

[5]; about photos; one of them belong to a living person; see my edit summary, this not a blind edit, sources&citations needed exactly.

he is doing this to stir up trouble.
[6]; about Khachkar destruction; see the history of article;edit-rv war, many bad faith redirection. I moved article to main title to cool down the editors.

Over here he reverts an admin using "undo"; an admin is a user firstly, He/She has no additional rights in edits.
[7]; about Armenians in Turkey; admin had reverted ( was more comprehensive version ) with irrelevant editsummary, I Rv back.

[8]; about Armenian Genocide]; admin added this expression For example, some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.; this is "clearly, unsourced, POV" which (more important) was added before a ref. I Rv back.

over here he removes Armenian;
[9]; about Turkish coffee; user added " known as Armenian coffee" there. Name in Armenian (which is given in the text) is different than this allegation.

he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged [17] more nonsense reverts
[10]; about Armenian Genocide; I Rv banned User:Artaxiad's sock User:Vrastic's (also banned) edits back.

[11]; about Arm.rebellions in the Ott. Emp.; there was a continuos edit-rv to clean "Tehcir Law" and add "Arm.Genocide" there, check history.

This ones today,
[12]; about Kaymaklı Monastery, in Trabzon; There was misinfo in article, directed to Cappadocia. There was a little info. I added; "founded in 1424, for the honor of Jesus by Alexios IV. " and some architectural info "Monastery originally was include; church with one pentagonal abscissa at the middle, a bell tower at northwest, one small chapel at the southeast. Fresques in church (dated to 18th century) can be seen to day.It was repaired many times in its history, lastly many buildings are destroyed in a fire at 1918.". All these info deleted by [[User:Ashkani] to add "Armenian Genocide" there.No comment!.

About User:Ashkani;
Edits(Reverts mainly);
#2-;Pontic Greek Genocide; Reverted sourced-referenced material.

#3-;same articles' history; playing with 3RR rule.

#4-;Recep T.Erdoğan; Why reverted? any reason?

#5-;Serebrenica-Bosniac; Reverted "muslims". Aren't Bosniac Muslim?

#6-;Toumen/Teoman/Tumen; Reverted Turkic stub templates.Why?

#7-;Copright of an Image; removed "Fair use", tagged as "NoRightsReserved"; Is it violating the wiki rules?

#8-; Here some suspicions about user;
sock? and related talk

another action and related talk

User account was created at 18 April 2007. Immediately jumped to edit-rv wars in specific articles, (generally Rv), suspicious transactions in WP:RFCU. etc.

#9-My time, and community's time; I am dealing with this unlogical-stupity matter since last 3 hours. Also many users-admins spare their times for this transaction. Who will compensate and how? Somebody should do, I think.

Last words and brief; here my (main) contributions to see what a percantage at top position. I am trying to be reasonable in all my edits. I have a definite agenda to develop Turkey related articles, and I have no much time to waste in such a transactions.
There is a personal attack in #1 and all in this alleges.

I required compensation agaist to all for actions,from community.

Regards.Must.^T ^C 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly understand what your saying, what does this have to do with you? Ashkani 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear; stated by one by ,as the same order your in you allegation.Must.^T ^C 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what your trying to say. Stop commenting on me since this is on you. Ashkani 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, please, not the Armenia wars again. Does that set of articles ever do anything other than cause trouble? This is clearly not straightforward and not relevant to the community sanctions process either. Please take this elsewhere. If it gets intolerable, try ArbCom. Moreschi ^Talk 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more descriptive, this is the conduct of an individual. Ashkani 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:RFAR. You won't get a response here. I can't even read half the unintelligible cant that's being posted here, anyway, much less see how this is suited to any sort of community sanction. If it's really blatant vandalesque disruption, try WP:ANI. Moreschi ^Talk 09:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR is a big step its no where near there yet. WP:ANI is near. Ashkani 09:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Community patience ban for DavidYork71~~
DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) first block occured on the 22nd March 2007 with a 24hour block for a WP:3RR violation on Islam and slavery. The next occured for disruptive behavior by canvassing for an article to be promoted to GA, DavidYork71 was warned twice before a 24hour block was placed. To avoid this block DavidYork71 used sockpuppet User:149.135.84.72 at which time DavidYork71 24 hour block was extended to 48 hours. When DavidYork71 returned after the expiry of the block disruptive the behavoir continued. DavidYork71 was the block again on the 5th April since then the blocks have esculated to indefinate after the use of many sockpuppet Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidYork71.
What is being sort is confirmation of via consensus that DavidYork71 indefinate block by User:FayssalF stands. Also plaese note that currently a discussion is taking place at Talk:Islam and slavery#The picture DavidYork added about reinstating edits made by DavidYork71 and sockpuppets on the basis that WP:IAR over rides WP:BAN. The discussion also suggest that the indefinate block is only a temporary action. Gnan garra 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to investigate this fellow's full history yet, but his first edits aren't promising. He seems to have entered Wikipedia with the intention of injecting some kind of religious bias into the encyclopedia, changing the name God in the Jesus article to "Allah", adding "the capital of Israel" after "Jerusalem" in the Dome of the Rock article, and so on. I'm neutral on this yet. Has he really demonstrated incorrigible disruptive tendencies in a mere two months? --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful to see his block log. What's the template for full user info? Anchoress 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for {{userlinks}}. Here you go: DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have no comment on the situation at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Adding it to my list. Anchoress 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this had been discussed and resolved. In his two weeks here he built an impressive block log and sock army, and FayssalF finally blocked him indefinitely. I support that. Maybe in a year or so it can be revisited, if he asks and convinces someone he is no longer looking for a soapbox and wants to help write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered this editor editing in a strongly soapboxing fashion on Islam and slavery as well as Islam and children and heavily, heavily relying upon his own research to do so. I decided to take it upon myself to try and limit this and as I began to do so I had noticed that User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz had been making the same efforts over a fairly long amount of time. Myself and a number of other editors had repeatedly tried to reason with this editor (even editors who more or less supported his anti-Islam POV) to no avail. When others became aware of his disruptive editing they began to become involved. This editor was initially blocked for relatively short amounts of time but he proceeded to avoid his blocks with sockpuppets (which he continues to do today, see User:Badrwarrior). Then when he wasn't blocked he began a new original research push around the concepts of sodomy and yoga wherein he created an article called autosodomy and subsequently linked it to numerous yoga articles all the time claiming that "autosodomy" was a "yogic-art" while never citing any source. At this point other previously uninvolved editors became obliged to undo his disruptive edits. Given this editor's long term disruptive editing and soapboxery he most certainly merits banning for exhausting the community's patience. (→Netscott) 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question was asked above Has he really demonstrated incorrigible disruptive tendencies in a mere two months? - if you look at the amount of editing while banned, and the use of multiple sockpuppets while banned - the answer can only be yes. Satu Suro 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tendentious editing by User:Netscott~~
Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a tendentious editor who, despite consensus and many outside opinions to the contrary, has been edit warring over multiple project pages to push his opinion and remove any and all language that discourages people from superfluous polling. This started out as a simple disagreement but has turned into a disruptive mb:forest fire over many pages.

The original issue

This issue started when, over a disagreement on the page wording, Netscott decided to revoke our guideline WP:PNSD [27]. This was undone [28]; over the concurrent edit war, the page was protected.

When the protection was lifted [29], Netscott removed substantial parts of the page [30] several times [31], leading to a second protection [32].

Citing WP:BRD, he moved the page from the consensual name discussed here to his preferred version [33]. Shortly afterwards, the page was protected by his request [34]. When uninvolved admin JzG reverted the move, Netscott accused him of admin abuse [35] [36], and said that JzG should not have used WP:BRD [37]. JzG's response [38]. Outside opinion came in and disagreed with Netscott [39] [40], calling his behavior indefensible.

As soon as this protection is lifted [41], he reverts the first substantial edit to the page without citing a reason [42], and asks protection again [43]. The result of this is a semi-permanent protection that prevents page improvement.

Afterwards, Netscott suggested that deleting the guideline would be a good solution [44].

This dispute has spread to a number of other pages:

Resolving Disputes. Netscott weakened this page's wording on polling, which was disputed. If changes to policy are disputed, this should be discussed on the talk page; instead, he repeatedly reverted to his new version [45] [46]. The page was protected; outside opinion came in and disagreed with him [47] [48].

The Metawiki, where he sought to change the oft-cited page "polling is evil" to "polling can be problematic" [49]. Despite his claims to the contrary [50], he did not discuss this on the talk page [51], although one user commented briefly. This sat unnoticed for a few days; when it was noticed and undone, he started a move war [52] [53], claiming that his undiscussed changes should not be undone without discussion [54]. After the page was protected, he proceeded to move war over the talk page, giving it a different name from the actual page [55] [56]. Outside opinion was requested and disagreed with him [57] [58] [59]

Straw Polls, which Netscott has been using as a POV fork of the polling guideline [60]. He is removing facts from the page that don't support his opinion [61] [62] [63] [64] [65], and tried to give it greater credence by removing the essay tag [66] [67], and changing it to a "disputed guideline" instead [68]. The page has been protected.

Redirects. Netscott has retargeted a number of redirects to point to WP:STRAW, rather than their long-standing target [69] [70]. This has led to edit wars (1) between Netscott and Raphael, in June; (2) Netscott, Supadawg and Centrx in September; (3) Netscott, Freakofnurture and Charlottewebb in September; (4) Netscott and me in February; and (5) Netscott and me in March. Again, outside opinion was requested and disagreed with him [71] [72]. He claimed that outside opinions aren't binding [73] [74] and repeated his changes [75].

His attitude towards others has been incivil and unproductive. He has a habit of:

Referring to edits he disagrees with as "slogans" [76], "propaganda" [77], "soapboxing" [78] and "sabotage" [79], which he also does in other disputes [80].

Claiming in edit summaries to restore the original version of a page when in fact restoring his personal changes instead [81] [82].

Promising to stop edit warring [83] yet continuing to do so anyway [84] [85]. Note this response [86].

Telling people he disagrees with to stop editing a page [87] [88]

Professing to follow the Bold Revert Discuss cycle, yet stating that reverting his "bold" edits is inappropriate [89] vs [90], and [91] vs [92] [93].

As seen on WP:DR and the redirect pages, Netscott has the habit of ignoring outside opinion if it disagrees with him, and asking for another. When recently blocked for edit warring, his request to be unblocked [94] was denied by HighInBC [95], so he made a second request [96], which was denied by A Train [97]. This comment by the blocking admin is relevant [98].
In short we have here an editor who (1) tendentiously pushes an point of view, (2) rejects outside opinion that disagrees with him, and (3) tries to drive others away through incivility, and shows no inclination of stopping. This is an almost textbook example of a disruptive editor. To end this disruption, I propose that we make a topical ban, barring him from editing policy- and guideline-related pages for a number of months. >Radiant< 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is surprising that just in the last 24 hours I've actually sought to engage the mediation process relative to all of this. I would suggest that User:Radiant! look in the mirror concerning these allegations. I have been rather civil this whole time in the face of User:Radiant!'s incivility. I have done my best to work with other editors (particularly User:Radiant!) and have engaged in extensive discussions about this. The latest talk I've started here shows that there is much support for User:David Levy's idea to merge Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion into one page called Wikipedia:Polling. (→Netscott) 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I say User:Radiant! should look in the mirror I mean it. The fact that he's violated 3RR three times over these issues: 3RR vio1, 3RR vio2, 3RR vio3 is very evident of this. Somehow he has always managed to skip out on being blocked for these violations over some sort of "technicalities". (→Netscott) 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because e.g. that last report you cite is a false report, and one of the reverts isn't one. On the other hand, you have been blocked what, seven times for revert warring already. >Radiant< 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This response from User:Seraphimblade is rather telling. (→Netscott) 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civility has been cited a few times in Radiant's complaint. Many of the diffs merely show a difference of opinion and noting that expressing a difference of opinion is not necessarily uncivil, are there any specific examples of incivilty? Merbabu 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to edits he disagrees with as "slogans", "propaganda", "soapboxing" and "sabotage". Ignoring outside opinion. Telling people he disagrees with to stop editing a page. At any rate, the problem is not his incivility because frankly I've seen worse; the problem is his tendentious POV pushing. If you bring up an issue on six different pages and everywhere people disagree with you, it is becoming disruptive to keep pushing the issue. >Radiant< 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even User:Proabivouac was cognizant of User:Radiant!'s edit warring and there are others User:Kafziel comes to mind. (→Netscott) 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user sees something as propagandistic, sloganeering, soapboxing and says so, is this uncivil? Radiant, you are correct in saying that this is not such a bad case of incivilty which i suspect is exagerated. May i (civilly) suggest that we focus on what you think is the real issue. He's merely stating an opinion and simply being direct, an opinion you may not agree with. Although, i suggest perhaps there is no need for him to repeat his points in the edit summary. Merbabu 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis to institute a ban of any sorts, and the proposal strikes me as disingenuous. Please attempt resolution.--cj | talk 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further: I have not followed the issue, but flicking through the diffs and comparing them to the 'accusations' I'm suggesting the case is at least exagerated. Also, a lot of the diffs are other editors in disagreement with Netscott, rather than Netscott's edits. Having people disagree with you is hardly banning material. If so, most of our best editors would have been banned withn weeks. :) Merbabu 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try resolution as per cj. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Radiant!'s tendentiousness has actually carried over to meta where he violated 3RR there as well: rv1, rv2, rv3, rv4. All of that without first having engaged the discussion I had started about my edits there. (→Netscott) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott. I see that both of you have done wrong on it. Please try to calm down. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to this level seems like an over-reaction. Has there been mediation, or an RfC? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Complex vandalism by User:Anacapa~~
copied from WP:AN
User:Anacapa has disrupted feminism and gender studies related pages from November 2006 - Feb 2007. Signing-off with the moniker "(drop in editor)" using multiple IPs they have made spurious accusations of misconduct against "feminist" editors; pushed POV edits on gender studies pages that warp articles such as women's studies into critiques of women's studies; and multiposted an extract from a book by an antifeminist on at least 4 talk pages.
Project Gender studies,

WP:GS again,

on women's studies

and on feminism
Anacapa/(drop in editor)'s complex vandalism persisted until February 2007 when they misrepresented sources and factual information on Feminism attempting to create two criticism sections in the one article. a similar tactic was used on women's studies where the criticism section was longer the rest of the article. A few days ago I identified the same editing style and pattern, as well as 2 shared IP addresses between (drop in editor) and User:Anacapa. Since February 2007 User:Anacapa/(drop in editor) has been dormant. I am requesting a community sanction against User:Anacapa for their long term disruptive behaviour.
See also: User:Cailil/Complex_vandalism_on_feminism_and_gender_studies_related_articles
After asking User:Durova for advice I reported the situation here.--Cailil 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cailil has done an excellent job of documenting this abuse. I urge the community to support this proposal. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Are we asking for a community ban or a community topic ban on an editor that hasn't edited in two months? There's no sign that there is anything ongoing from this editor, either from a registered account or an IP Address? I'm just afraid any topic/site ban from the community would be closing the barn doors after the horses have already left. SirFozzie 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my sentence above, if it was ongoing, I would wholeheartedly agree that this is a PoV pushing account that needs a topic ban.. I'm just not sure that with at least 4 weeks since the latest post by this account (or IP), I'm not sure that I can fully get behind it. SirFozzie 04:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon my experience fighting the Joan of Arc vandal and JB196, I believe it's necessary to be flexible about our time frame of response to a really long term sneaky vandal. This isn't drive-by vandalism that goes away through benign neglect. This sort of person will change tactics or sit out a while when they sense the heat is on, then return to cause more damage. So yes, this is a worthy exception to our usual standards about account activity. Durova^Charge! 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the length of time it took me to bring this here, but in all honesty I took me weeks just to complie diffs & to prove that Anacapa was the same user as (drop in editor). I also think it is more than possible that they will return. Anacapa has taken wikibreaks before, certainly between May 2006 and October 2006 there was no activity on their account, [99] but when they came back they were just as active as before. I expect Anacapa to resurface, it would be consistent with their behaviour & pattern of edits--Cailil 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have nothing to apologize for, Cailil, this is well researched and Durova's post above that this is a special case (that community sanctions won't become a common bludgeon to be used against an editor who's since quit his activity through either inactivity or behavior modification), I support a ban. SirFozzie 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with (drop in editor) and I have to agree that this is one of the more disruptive editors within their sphere of interests. Far more interested in starting off-topic arguments and derailing discussion than in actually building an encyclopedia. Based on their previous tendency to sit and wait, I would also expect this one to return again to the same tactics, and so I support enacting this ban now. The smoking gun imho is 209.129.49.65 signing as Anacapa, but even if they couldn't be connected I would support a ban on (drop in editor). I would suggest not advertising the list of evidence from any pages this editor frequents; if possible it would be best for them not to know what their own telltale habits are (people often are unaware of their own quirks). When they come back, better to be prepared to begin reverting and blocking, than to have a ban discussion later in the midst of the damage. Good find, Cailil. — coel acan — 00:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After quickly scanning (and if I have missed it, please throw egg on me :P) I do not see what is being asked. Topic ban, siteban, what type of sanction is being requested here? Navou ^banter 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a community ban is more appropriate than a topic ban for User:Anacapa. I can only show evidence of their disruption on the gender category pages but I've seen at least anecdotal evidence of issues with their behaviour in other topics.--Cailil 14:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this user propose policing the use of "gender" and "sex" in all Wikipedia articles? If we attempt a topic ban it might have to stretch to the entire encyclopedia anyway. Natalie 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A full siteban is the only appropriate solution for a sneaky vandal who attempts to undermine the encyclopedia's integrity in via this many different complex strategies. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Tobias Conradi~~
The Community consensus was that User:Tobias Conradi would be placed on Civility Parole, and strongly cautioned that recreating of Personal Attacks would result in an indefinite block, as well as urged to seek consensus for future page moves. An Arbitration Case has been opened against User Tobias Conradi, so the community sanction is not in effect at this time. SirFozzie 02:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Tobias Conradi is placed on civility parole. 1 week block by uninvolved admin for violations: after two such blocks, the block length may escalate in accordance with administrative discretion. Recreation of personal attacks can result in a indef block. When in dispute with others, he is encouraged to remain calm and follow the usual channels of dispute resolution in order to seek an amicable resolution, rather than simply cataloging perceived wrongs. The editor is strongly urged to discuss contraversial page moves. Failure to discuss a move may result in a brief block by an uninvolved admin. The block log will state specifically that blocks placed are a result of this discussion in the block log. (This statement was after I closed the discussion, the discussion has been reopened since) Navou ^banter 12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested unblock on WP:AN/I as a result of this discussion. Navou ^banter 12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've all had enough of this user. A perusal of his block log and talk page will show you all we need to know. This user has been uncivil, and has been here for nearly a year, so it's not like he doesn't know better. It all has accumulated in the thread on AN. 18:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Too many ~s, Part Deux? :o)   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ

Agreed. Uncivil and Argumentative with apparently no chance at improving either. SirFozzie 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil and Argumentative? Why not go for a civility parole if this is case? If that's the problem there's no need to siteban outright. Lesser measures should be tried first. I could be wrong, but either way some diffs of this behaviour would be nice. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have expanded it. Constant recreation of attack materials on his userpage (see [100], that was actually the THIRD go-round on his material. I'd be willing to go for Civility Parole with a promise NOT to recreate that material for a fourth time, but I have a hard time thinking that he'll follow it. SirFozzie 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x2)If I may point out from what I have seen, this user feels unjustly persecuted by members of the admin community and other members of the community at large. Request for a community ban only furthers this feeling. I believe this needs to be reviewed either by ArbCom or at minimum uninvolved editors/administrators who take into account the fact this editor has had serious concerns that were never addressed, and an attempt to catalog what he feels as abuses of power, he has been shot down and censored. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time buying "let's try something else first" when he's got such a huge block log. Looks like all sorts of things have already been tried. Is there any evidence that he's here to work on an encyclopedia? Friday (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
evidence that Tobias Conradi is here to work on an encyclopedia? Who made more edits in the mainspace, the abusive admins or Tobias Conradi? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tobias, you're on thin ice as it is, please stop the equivalent of tap dancing on it. (Yes, I know, horrible metaphor, but eh) SirFozzie 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x5)Just to diff people up as requested - here is where people started to get annoyed on AN, then here, then this bit of clear trolling here, and here. The matter was summed up in the now archived discussion here. Time for the parting of the ways, I think.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 18:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If I may point out, in many of the diffs/links you've added show that the user in question raised a concern and was replied with remarks to 'just move on', and even some snide and uncivil comments (such as *cough*potcallingthekettleblack*cough*). No one it appears have assumed good faith on many of this users concerns and simply either poo-pooed the discussion or inflamed the situation any more with their comments. Also, this user feels as if the community is attempting to censor his concerns over alleged admin abuse. While the editor should be requested to take those requests to arbcom, 'deleting' them and removing them only provokes the situation. Tobias is not in the clear here, but there have been issues on both ends. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two options here, then.

Tobias Conradi is placed on civility parole. If is deemed be any uninivolved adminstrator to be in violation of WP:CIVIL, he may be blocked for up to a week: after two such blocks, the block length may escalate in accordance with administrative discretion. Additionally, if he recreates material in his userspace that contains personal attacks against members of the Wikipedia community - for example, stuff like this - he may be blocked indefinitely by any adminstrator without warning. When in dispute with others, he is encouraged to remain calm and follow the usual channels of dispute resolution in order to seek an amicable resolution, rather than simply cataloging perceived wrongs. He is also strongly urged to discuss potentially controversial page-moves before making them: continual violation of this final condition may result in a brief block from an uninvolved admin: adminstrators are urged to use their brains when implementing this condition. All blocks to be logged on this noticeboard.

Or we just siteban him. I personally favour option 1: thoughts? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does he have a long block log? Yup. Is he being accused of trolling right now based on limited and misunderstood evidence? Yup. Is that probably making the situation worse? Yup. Make it a civility parole, and make it with admins who have been uninvolved with blocking him in the past - if he's able to reform, he will, and if he's not, we've shown we made more than a good faith effort to give him a proper hearing and listen to his concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with Option 1, as long as it's made utterly clear that he is exhausting the community's patience (then again, I'm pretty sure that this thread makes it clear, as well) SirFozzie 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: I just tweaked the parole conditions slightly to reflect that. This editor does seem to have a history of valuable encyclopedic work, along with the bad stuff. Methinks an editor worth trying to retain but also rein in. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 18:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone asks: yes, those conditions are maybe fairly harsh for civility parole, but this guy has a history, a lengthy block log, and has been around long enough to know better. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better. The editor should also be advised that any further accusations of admin wrong doing need to be taken to the appropriate location. If he chooses to catalog such issues, he should do so in a text file on his PC, or a blog should he choose to do so. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support option 1. I would also like it if an uninvolved admin were to drop by his talk page and discuss some of Tobias' grievances with an open mind. As he has rather a lot, I would suggest the conversation begins with just his top two or three. This might help balance things a little. --Dweller 19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The concept of dealing with concerns by sanction and deletion processes does not, and will never, work. Dialog is needed. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 19:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe someone tried that last time around. --pgk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for option (1) rather than being specifically about recreation of certain material, it should be that if he is in dispute with others he shoud follow the proper dispute resolution channels. (That would preclude merely creating his catalog of perceived misdeeds). --pgk 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added something to that effect, but without removing the bit about the junk on his userpage. We just can't have people doing that: it's massively disruptive and strikes at the basis of assuming good faith on which this project is based. Best, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can a community sanction address the issues raised about the editor here: [101]? ShivaIdol 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a condition of the civility parole be that he seek consensus for all page moves before doing them? SirFozzie 19:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like this? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer seek consensus for ALL page moves (reduces the chance that trouble could be caused when one side thinks it's "possibly controversial" and the other side disagrees). But I might be quibbling over details. SirFozzie 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his page-moves have apparently been fine and unreverted: it's only some that have caused a problem. I'm wary of to what extent we should legislate over editing habits in this manner. WP:BRD does exist, and is not a bad idea, and applies to page-moves. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem concerning WP:BRD is that unlike page edits, moves often can't be reverted without the significant hassle of going through the WP:RM process, as described at WP:MOVE. This really puts the people on the receiving end of the editor’s mass page moves at a significant disadvantage. WP:MOVE says In several cases, you should list pages that you want to have renamed / moved at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and list several cases such as if you believe the move might be controversial. Since the editor didn't do this for any of the 100 page moves cited in April, including some FA standard pages, something needs to change (and maybe be enforced) with his editing mindset. ShivaIdol 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the whole shebang here will have rubbed in the message that this editor has almost exhausted the community's patience. With luck, Tobias Conradi will act with more care in the future in all his actions on-wiki. I don't see a need for more punitive measures, which are evil anyway. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility parole sounds good, but with follow-through. It's frustrating to see a talented editor get locked into this cycle of conspiracy and recrimination, and if there's something reasonable that can be done, it's worth trying. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This archived discussion, in my view, shows sufficient justification what the current state of the proposal regarding this editor - not only the page-move mess but also plenty of casual incivility en route, but the last part has to be implemented with care, otherwise we'll get a right mess. This is enough of a slam-dunk of us to be able to keep this one away from ArbCom for now. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of rant[102] is really a disruptive influence on the project. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the community civility parole was in affect right now, that would be violation #1 of WP:CIVIL right there, at least to me. SirFozzie 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were any other contributor I'd favour option 2, as Tobias has had a LOT of chances in the past. But he does have a lot of positive contributions, regardless of how abrasive and inconsiderate some may find his actions. So I favour option 1. However I seem to remember being near this same place (one step away from a community ban) at least once before. I still favour 1 though. ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on option 1 vs. option 2, but after seeing AN and MFD recently, I'll say he's been causing enough trouble to warrant some kind of action. 69.201.182.76 21:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why Tobias Conradi is so full of venom towards Wikipedia administrators. But I'm somewhat puzzled that people are only putting him on civility parole after he has received 23 blocks, from 9 different administrators, over a 14-month period. Does anyone know any positive precedents? I.e. people who have come back (and stopped being intensely annoying) after 23 blocks? At one time (several months ago) I briefly crossed paths with him, and thought of engaging him in a Talk page conversation, but after viewing his previous Talk comments I decided I'd move to a different area. At any normal rate of block escalation, 23 blocks would be over the threshold of a permanent ban. EdJohnston 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a good process for well established editors who do good work but are also a bit of a handful. I suggest that we use it. Make a case in a new request for comments, and we'll see how it goes. If things don't improve we can go to request for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment, It looks like this editor is being given a surprising amount of lee-way because of his valued contributions to the project, but after reading the comment above, I find myself wondering if tolerating one very active editor may have cost us countless less active but equally as valued contributors along the way. You know, would we rather tolerate, through gritted teeth, one really rather unpleasant editor making 1000 edits at the expense of countless editors each making 10 edits. That perhaps is something that needs to be thought about. -- Nick^t 01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias has just been indefblocked by ZScout (per this discussion on the block log), so I guess that's that. SirFozzie 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically avoided blocking him as I thought some sort of parole or shorter block might've helped. - Mgm|^(talk) 04:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like the consensus was for option 1 (civility parole). Why was option 2 (indefinite community ban) the one implemented? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have let this run a bit longer. But I won't overturn unless consensus here at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:Tobias_Conradi seems very clear. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised at this action. It seemed unilateral. Consensus seemed to pretty firmly have been reached for option 1, before some voices with some justification began to query the rationale, but no consensus for an indef block had been reached here. Perhaps what happened is as follows: my reading of the user's talk page is that he's unrepentant and unwilling to back down at all, rendering option 1 impossible? --Dweller 11:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no consensus to overturn this, and there is still substantial disunity on the indefinite block, I think we should take this to arbitration. By myself I would accept the block as a reasonable interpretation, but if there are a substantial number of others expressing disquiet about blocking a long-time editor in this way I think it's a classic case for arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely matters can be a little simpler: overturn the indefblock and use the suggested civility parole instead? There seems to be consensus for the parole. Moreschi ^Talk 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could, alternatively, approach Zscout370 and be nice. Then we might save ourselves a bit of a hassle. --Iamunknown 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Quite possibly he knows something we don't. Moreschi ^Talk 12:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony. The matter seems to warrant arbitration. Community-permaban seems to be an unfair option for a long-time very productive editor. Does he has a current misdead warranting a temporary block? I do not think his edit on Chairboy's talk warrants blocking. There was a strange software glitch on the deletion of Tobias' User page [103] that make it look like an oversighted deletion. Indeed if the page was oversighted it would have been an abuse of oversight rights. We know that Chairboy does not have the oversight bit and the admins can look into the deleted history and see that all the revisions are there. Tobias cannot. Thus, I would discount the matter as a misunderstanding caused by a rare software bug.

If no other opinions I propose to unblock Tobias.

BTW the main grievance against him are unilateral article moves. Can we somehow adopt a community-enforced 0R on article movement on Tobias? If he moves an article and anybody find the move controversial, then he can just revert the movement, if the reversion require an admin bit any admin would help. Tobias cannot re-revert moves or would have a 24h block. It seems enforceable and solves most of the problems. If it would work the arbitration might not be needed Alex Bakharev 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already left Zscout a message. I've found him quite reasonable and willing to explain his actions in the past, so I think once he gets a chance to respond this should all get sorted out... I'd rather not see this go to arbitration if we, the community, can avoid it... the case is perhaps simple enough. I'll say that I recall proposal of a commmunity ban at least once before and it was avoided with a pretty clear "last chance" sort of thinking/rationale, IIRC (the diffs are hard to dig up given how many ANI archives there are). CBD knows more context as well. Let's not block or unblock further till it is clear what consensus is. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, so many things happening at once. An unblock request is already at ANI, Lar. --Iamunknown 12:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its time for part 2 to be archived yet. --Iamunknown 12:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, some of you are thinking why did I give him the indefinite block. The short answer is that I think we, as in Wikipedia, had enough. The long answer is the following: at the top of this statement, it says he was put on civility parole. Fine, I have no problems with that. However, it showed in statements later that he breaks the parole hours after being put on it, so this shows me that he doesn't care about what we think or saw. It doesn't bother me that the block was issued to a top editor, since it doesn't matter to me how many contributions you make, I will hold you to the same standard. And with his previous behavior, the recent MFD of his userpage and refusing to follow consensus about content on his userpages, I decided that we have better things to deal with instead of playing babysitter for him. That was my intent for the block and I would appreciate it that the block sticks until ArbCom sorts this out, assuming they take the case. If not, then let this be the final chapter in this story. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

A little under a year ago Tobias Conradi was kidding around with User:Ezhiki in e-mail and then as a joke blanked Ezhiki's user page. For this he received a vandalism block despite a long history of positive contributions, no past history of vandalism, no vandalism warnings, et cetera. He complained. Loudly. Ezhiki jumped in and said, 'no no it was just a joke'. The initial block was removed. But then new blocks were imposed to punish the incivility in his complaints about the original block... so he complained about those blocks... which led to more blocks. All the while his 'list of admin abuses' continued to grow. Somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty entries on his block log are directly derived from that page blanking and the fallout over it... and all but a few of the others are indirectly related (e.g. he was denied access to AWB because of his long block log, he complained, he got blocked, the block was found to be before he was warned - so he was unblocked, but he complained about the block so he was blocked again, et cetera). In another series he was blocked a few times for 'sockpuppetry' after two accounts showed up asking for his block to be reviewed - his talk page had been protected to prevent him from doing so himself. Checkuser later found that these were not sockpuppets, but rather friends from entirely different countries (he runs an 'international tango dancers' website of some sort) who had posted because Tobias asked them to. Somewhere along the line he called the Wikimedia foundation to complain - and according to Tobias someone there mocked, insulted, and yelled at him. He tried to complain about this on Meta and by adding it as an example of problems in articles about Wikipedia and the communication committee. More blocks. Longer 'admin abuses' list.

Tobias Conradi has reason to feel abused - because he has been. Yes, he 'leaves himself open' by getting mad and denouncing the "abusers" who blocked him by mistake/outside process, deleted his stub, blanked/deleted his user page, called him names, et cetera... he isn't friendly or forgiving in conflicts and the language barrier sometimes adds an extra level of difficulty to dialogs. He could be alot more patient and accepting of mistakes and disagreements, but then so could the admins and others who have been in conflict with him. Many people recently told me that it was improper to issue a 24 hour block to a long term user with thousands of positive contributions 'just' because they'd received over a dozen warnings about harassing another user and repeatedly calling them things like "moron".... meanwhile Tobias Conradi is just as long term a user with just as many positive contributions, who sometimes gets blocked if someone thinks he looked at them funny. The real difference? Tobias Conradi has fewer friends.

So where does this leave us? Tobias Conradi will complain harshly about what he considers unfair treatment. That's obvious from the history. Things he has perceived as unfair/abuses include those which I would call misunderstandings, legitimate disagreements, and yes many actual 'abuses'. In the world of what Wikipedia claims to be (at least when a 'popular' user is the one causing the hubub) we admins would 'be the bigger people' and accept these complaints stoically and politely work with Tobias to straighten things out. In the world of what Wikipedia actually is he will get blocked... which will lead to more complaints and more blocks. It has happened over and over again. Even here... people are talking civility parole - someone comes along and does an indefinite block instead. Think Tobias won't call that an abuse? Add it to the list? Get blocked again for complaining about it?

I'd like to see Tobias allowed to continue editing and his complaints dealt with patiently and fairly. I just don't see that actually happening. There is always going to be someone who is quick on the block trigger and the cycle just goes on and on. --CBD 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflicts>What's the rush with closing discussion that's still ongoing, reporting to ANI etc? Waiting for Zscout seems reasonable. A message to that effect could be posted at Tobias' talk page. --Dweller 12:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict again>A lot of people are suggesting he is 'productive' and 'prolific' and thus valued. Is quantity an automatic sign of quality? In fact, it is this quantity of unilateral moves that has annoyed a number of others. It is not just about admins - but us lowly normal editors. It is only worsened as he refuses to cooperate, is overly hostile and paranoid, and consistently uncivil, while telling-off other users who disagree with his edits claiming he is 'attacked' and editors are 'xenophobic' and more often than not a list of policies that his 'attackers' have violated.
No-one disagrees this guy has a major and ongoing incivilty problem - and has been blocked and mentored before for just this - look at his talk page. Thus, one would presume his contributions to the encyclopedia must be amazing to excuse his incivilty. For me, such invaluable quality doesn't jump out of the page. From my quick perusal of this talk page, his contribs are unilateral moves, and followed by a whole of disambigging to the new locations. Not a team player. Perhaps I am wrong (really) and missed what is so valuable about his contributions. Maybe there is value - but could they be pointed out? Merbabu 12:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any fundamental objections to the solution consensus [and closing summary] of the above closed discussion? Navou ^banter 12:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one accepts that the earlier blocked (now revoked) didn't actually happen then the 'solution consensus' it's a step foward to managing the issue. I would be more satisfied if Tobias' 'valuable' contributions are pointed out, ie the ones referred to above that apparently excuse such persistant incivility and disruption. But, yes solution is fine with me for now. Merbabu 12:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume good faith on both the indef, and the unblock, I know Z will do the same after s/he reads the above discussion. I don't like edits like overturn, revoke. The editor was unblocked. :P What I am looking for is substantial objections to the above solution and summary. In order for me to undo the closure, there would have to be a stronger consensus or no consensus above. If the only objections to the closure, are process objections, not the consensus for solution objections, I do not see much good in unclosing this already closed discussion. I am not averse to more discussion, but I would prefer that if there are objections, they regard to the summary and not the process. If the process is messed up, we should take it to the talk page of this project. With best regards, Navou ^banter 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, yes. Unless I'm misreading it (possible) it doesn't reflect the status quo, which is that he's currently indefblocked. Anyway, what's the hurry? --Dweller 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

He's been unblocked, which I think is fair enough. I've left a gently worded message on his talk page urging him to listen to what has been said here. Hopefully, he will do so, and we can all move on. Moreschi ^Talk 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this case go to arbitration as suggested by Tony Sidaway. It’s a totally fallacious argument to suggest that this editor’s gross and consistent incivility and disruption over a long period of time can be excused and overlooked for any reason. It’s unfortunate there are a number of admins who are prepared to turn a blind eye to his behavior. Sweeping these problems under this carpet again and again has been proven not to work with this editor. ShivaIdol 13:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do what? Get him banned? How is that productive? If the community won't, I doubt the arbitrators will. The civility parole will mean these problems are not swept under the carpet: we should give it a chance to work. Moreschi ^Talk 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer ShivaIdol to CBD's wise and compassionate words above. I hate it when we lose committed editors. The Project would clearly benefit most from a happier and purely constructive Tobias remaining here. That might be achievable, if handled wisely. --Dweller 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest CBD is cheif among the apologists, willing to back this user regardless of how he behaves. Tobias will continue to game the system, and whenever he runs into trouble with his abusive and disruptive ways, run to his favorite cover excuse claiming that he is being persecuted by rouge admins. It’s a lame defence which apparently induces sympathy in some. ShivaIdol 13:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to shout "Hang him, Hang him" before this, which is pretty much his last chance, is given time to work? We can afford to let this go for now and busy ourselves elsewhere. He's on civility parole: he violates that, he goes. We can all go and write some articles. Moreschi ^Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, by the way. That's a pretty serious accusation to make against any editor without evidence: please refrain. Moreschi ^Talk 13:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to shout "Hang him, Hang him". Yes. By any reasonable application of policies he should be permanently blocked. Is there anyone else with a block log this long? The editor is a dead weight, consuming massive amounts of time in response to his disruptions. His behavior reeks of attention seeking, and the disruption will continue so he can receive the attention he craves. ShivaIdol 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to edorse referral to arbitration. This is a complex case. CBD portrays this as snowballing from some bad blocks. I briefly reviewed one of Tobias' alleged admin abuses (a contested speedy deletion of something he wrote) and found his complaint to be entirely without merit. However, this is not to say that some of his complaints might not be valid, especially if CBD is right about the blocks. An arbitration case could reach a number of different findings, perhaps recognizing officially that some of Tobias' blocks were inappropriate or at least unwise (which might go a long way toward easing an apparent grudge), while also including findings that his subsequent behavior was disruptive. Also, as long as there is significant disagreement on whether to ban or parole Tobias, ArbCom is a more appropriate venue than this page. This board lacks the ability to investigate and deliberate on complex issues and often (without implying criticism of any one person) seems to function like VfB (votes for banning). Thatcher131 14:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be clarified. Was the close premature, and I should strike out my comments at the very top of this discussion, or do I leave them. I do not want to send a confusing message to the subject of this discussion. Best, Navou ^banter 16:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters. Strike out your comments if you think they give a misleading message. Leave them in if you think they're relevant. --Tony Sidaway 17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a note in parenthesis to place the comments into context. They were out of context without the close template just below them. I will not object to any other uninvolved editor striking out the comments upon the eventual closure of this proposal in order to make room for a new summary. Best, Navou ^banter 17:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
~~Subtle vandalism by User:JJonathan and his sockpuppets...~~
I only became involved in this case recently, so I can only speak of what I've witnessed but this does appear to be a severe long-term problem. JJonathan was originally blocked for these edits and was found to be evading his block with various sockpuppets (see his user page). However, the problem seems to go much deeper than that. Given his habit of identifying himself personally on the talk page of each new account, I searched Google for other 'missed' socks, discovering the older indef-blocked account, User:Js2Jo in the process. This may or may not have been his original account. So, all this may have actually been going on unnoticed for six months or more.
Anyhow, JJonathan's main shtick seems to be the addition of false/uncited information to articles about pop music and pop singers, for example date changing, adding false information, adding numerous uncited 'vocal range' templates to articles and creating hoax articles (see the history of the now-deleted Tatyana Ali's second studio album article, its associated AFD and the Tatyana Ali article itself).
I've been pretty successful at getting his socks blocked and reverting any damage over the past couple of weeks but every time one account is blocked, he just creates another - and another, and another. He is also very subtle with his edits - he'll sandwich the vandalism between style, dab and spelling fixes. As I say, this may have been going on for a very long time, so chances are that there are lots of error-filled articles still out there.
So, in a nutshell - User:JJonathan is already indef-blocked. Is there anything further that can be done? Thanks for taking the time to read my rambling. --Kurt Shaped Box 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agreed. This guy has used an amazingly annoying amount of sockpuppets. He doesn't seem to have any intention of stopping. IrishGuy ^talk 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I hate to say it, but I think the user is banned under the old style definition "No Admin would consider unblocking him.", so there's not much more you can do. Having dealt with someone somewhat similar in long term vandalization of articles, the two things to remember is WP:RBI, and if you can figure out his ISP, send an abuse report to his ISP. SirFozzie 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. If you want to turn that into a formal community ban, then OK, 'cause this guy is a colossal pain in the arse, but there's not much this can help bar getting the socks probably blocked a bit quicker. Possibly contact the checkusers and get them to block his IP for a bit? Huge congrats to Kurt Shaped Box on doing a great job keeping on top of this sock attack, by the way. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Looking at the names, hmmm... Is there any correlation in behavior to another "JJ" sockuser, banned Jerry Jones aka "JJstroker" et al (confirmed, suspected)? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have encountered JJonathan and socks previously over a two-month period, in which he consistently deleted legitimate talk page discussion on Talk:Kylie Minogue, apparently to push through his own edit whilst ignoring the consensus reached on talk. See my report on AN/I here: [104] and [105]. Also, to answer the question posed by User:Ben above: no I'd say the edit behaviour of that user is very different from that of JJonathan's. The latter's M.O. seems to be: editing pages of and about teen pop idols and pop stars/starlets, a complete lack of talk page discussion, hardly any edit comments, and, in the few comments he did make, a generally poor, almost childish use of grammar. Note also that JJonathan claimed to be autistic in a few of his user page edits,[106] which might explain his behaviour a bit. In his defense, I must add that his main user account JJonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely as a reaction to him creating socks following a temporary block (if you get my drift—see block log). This seems to be somewhat circular reasoning: a user creates socks because his main account is temp blocked, and then the main account gets perma blocked because the user is creating socks. I don't know if that's general admin practice, so I'm just pointing it out for your information. --Plek 22:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he was already indef-blocked several months previously. See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Js2Jo - I just pointed this out when I discovered it. JJonathan was not actually his first account. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Community ban~~
Let's just get this done right now, unambiguously, and move on. Support ban, this user has done virtually nothing (as far as I know) but introduce subtle misinformation, probably the worst kind of vandalism in my opinion. Grand master ka 05:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BAN it is not permited to only have a handfull of editors or admin's (specially those that are not armslenght) take such action. --CyclePat 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assides from that. Is it worth while to go through his user contributions and revert them all? --CyclePat 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily required (revert-on-sight applies only after the user is banned), but in this particular case with the subtle misinformation, it would probably be very well worth going through and reverting his old edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be a big job. I'll sit down tomorrow and take a look through for anything that's been missed. I've reverted the majority of his recent edits already... --Kurt Shaped Box 23:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse ban, per one of the largest sockdrawers I've ever seen. Blueboy96 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Mr oompapa~~
I request this user to be banned due to the recent events today, and in the past month. This user first started off spamming hundreds and hundreds of users with wiki-email avadible (including me). With news of a supposed "conspiracy" about Wikipedia. Which caused mild disruption, please note he was not blocked. Nothing happened for at least a month until a vandal account appeared called User:Mr oompapa which the following day, (the day I wrote this report) created about 30 sockpuppets using open proxies and then used a month old sleeper account User:The bedtime story man. To remove the WP:RFCU case so the ip range would not be blocked. This user was then blocked as a sock, and watching carefuly. I can see he put an unblock request up saying he was innocent until the admin declined the block as "Obvious abusive sockpuppet" or something to the kind. Suddenly. Mr oompapa's accounts returned, and rapidly attacked his talk page with obscence abuse including His real name. Which it is unknown where the user in particular got this from, and it continued and continued until the page was protected. Now the user has stopped, despite this report on WP:ANI [107]. However due to WP:OVERSIGHT being used and the recovering from page move vandalism, (In which the page was moved to an insulting comment on his real name) Diffs cannot be provided. This is the userpage [108] and he said he was fearing his contributions to Wikipedia were at risk to this. However, I do not See for any reason why this particular user should be banned. Retiono Virginian 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you mean why he SHOULDN'T be banned, but again, he is already indefblocked (and after the report at ANI, I don't think there's ANY admin who'd be willing to unblock, meaning he's already old-style banned) , you have a Checkuser open to get the range that he's using to be blocked, the only thing that perhaps could be done is to ask the WP:ABUSE Folks to send his ISP a note. There isn't much else that can be done. SirFozzie 21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~We can add the banned tag at least, and after all this. We can go for an abuse report if it continues. Retiono Virginian 21:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Sounds fine by me. No one in their right mind, let alone any admin, would ever unblock this chap...their are a few crazy admins, but we can ignore them :) Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was targeted by this vandal. I support a community ban on the person due to the abuse against myself and against other editors. --Yamla 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a formal ban is necessary in this case. He doesn't make any edits to articles, so it's just a way to employ WP:RBI.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speaking of abuse reports, WP:ABUSE is severely backlogged, with stuff from the days of Cplot still going unattended. MER-C 10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Unblocking of Daniel Brandt~~
~~Copy of a public letter sent to Jimbo Wales by Daniel Brandt April 11, 2007~~
19:25, 18 April 2007 Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) unblocked Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs) (Courtesy unblock, he asked nicely, we are talking about a productive way forward in the future, it has been more than a year)
Jimbo Wales has been negotiating with a Mr Daniel Brandt (talk · contribs), a banned former editor who has some ongoing issues with his article Daniel Brandt and formerly maintained a "hivemind" website. Mr Brandt has withdrawn his site and seems to be interested in honest good faith discussion--which may involve some complaints against Wikipedia.
I'm asking administrators and all other editors to take this opportunity to help to resolve Mr Brandt's ongoing complaints with his article.
Please do not use this discussion to "vote" to endorse or oppose the unblock--unless he's actively disrupting Wikipedia there is no pressing reason to change his status. --Tony Sidaway 20:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, much of Brandt's abusive posting about Wikipedians, which includes actionable libel, is on the Wikipedia Review site, and so far as I know it's still there. As for his article, he wants to see it deleted, not improved, and people have voted against that 13 times. It's hard to see how the situation can be resolved without the Foundation overriding the previous decisions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that Mr. Brandt has gone from legal threat mode to negotiation in such a short period of time. But hey, if it works, who am I to complain. // Sean William 20:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like giving people second opportunities. What we would lose? We can restore a previous version, block him again, protect the article... I guess Mr. Brandt finally realized about this. If he is willing to change, maintain good discussions and accept consensus, I see nothing wrong. Of course, I have never been involved (I don't know nor care whether my name appears in Wikipedia Review or anywhere else), but I know others who are touchy and have their issues. I hope they find this thread and give an opinion. Personally, if he agrees to our rules, he should be in. Break them again, and he will be gone again. -- ReyBrujo 20:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the second I read this, I couldn't help thinking "Good grief, how many times do we have to deal with Daniel Brandt." But, that's just a first reaction. That said, I don't think we should be making this decision, until we get a proposal from Jimmy Wales. I see no point in doing anything that might or might now compromise Jimmy's ability to negotiate. Philippe 21:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think Jimbo's point is that, as a community, it's we who should be negotiating with Daniel Brandt. --Tony Sidaway 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I can't see it working. He has asked that his bio be removed, which I see as a reasonable request for all the reasons already explained. See my arguments during the 13th Afd. There's nowhere near a consensus for this to happen, however, and I can't see one ever developing, so leadership from the Foundation is needed, not more community discussion. But that's a completely separate issue from the material he's posted about Wikipedians. It's still online, so I'm having difficulty grasping how he's suddenly seen as acting in good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negotiation takes two. If Daniel Brandt isn't going to negotiate that he may not achieve any improvement. If he does decide to help Wikipedia to improve the article, then we will all gain. --Tony Sidaway 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well he removed the HiveMind page which was outing many of us. That is a huge step forward in itself, SqueakBox 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~He did that because he thinks it will harm his putative legal case, not because he wants to negotiate. Grace Note 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Still a huge improvement though, SqueakBox 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
The proof will be in the pudding. This is not the same as unblocking someone like the notorious Willy on Wheels who actively damages as many pages as possible, so we're not risking actual damage to the wiki. In addition, this user will be watched as few others are, so any infringement, any attempt to revert to his former hectoring and harassment, will be spotted well-nigh instantly and jumped on from a great height (and all to the good—he would thoroughly deserve sanction for such blatant stupidity). At least this way we can assume the moral high ground: this should be interesting. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we're sending a clear message that Wikipedians can say whatever they want off-wiki about other Wikipedians, can make any kind of personal attack, no matter how serious, can libel them and stalk them, and it's okay. They may carry on editing regardless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding, based on an old entry in AN/I relating to a blog threat against me, is that policy dictates that off-wiki activities are not the concern of wikipedia. What has changed? SqueakBox 18:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this is insanity redefined, but that's fairly irrelevant. I suppose if Brandt behaves himself, all well and good: if doesn't, I guess we kick him out for good. I've got a deletion nomination for his bio written up somewhere: to celebrate, shall I see if I can turn that draft into something real at AfD? Moreschi ^Talk 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, the guy who runs website you mentioned is claiming that you've never sent him a takedown notice. With this apparent thaw, it might be interpreted as an invitation to send him one. --Tony Sidaway 21:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent a take-down request a few months ago to three of the adminstrators of the website, one of whom (Selina) is still an admin, I believe. They responded by posting my e-mail on the site and ridiculing me. I have no idea who is in charge of it now, and they don't publish their contact details, so even if I knew of a user name, there's no e-mail address. In any event, it's obvious that the material is libelous. It has now been copied all over the Internet because of them, and Brandt still links on Wikipedia Watch to one of the websites that copied it, a LaRouche supporter's site by the looks of it. Brandt has also posted the same material about me on other message boards, asking people to send him photographs of me. He hasn't removed any of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how these particular webistes work. Would it be in his power to remove something that he had posted, if he wished to do so? ElinorD (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he can remove anything that he himself has posted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, the guy who seems to run the site these days postured the other day about "accountability" and the willingness to remove offensive material, but as you note, he does not give any contact details. I think that unblocking Brandt while the defamatory content he has posted to Wikipedia Review, not to mention his continued attempts to out editors and speculate about their private and personal business, was another terrible misreading and misstep by the editor concerned. Grace Note 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an email. It's not completely in the open - you have to click on register and read through the stuff. They require an ISP address, and that if you cannot provide one, you can contact them at a certain Gmail address (in this specific case, it's for people who want to register with freemail ccounts, though it's general contact). hbdragon88 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now I think of it, just a couple of days ago, Brandt was enthusiastically detailing "My legal strategy" when it comes to suing Wikipedia, all for the edification of the Wikipedia Reviewers. And we unblock this guy? Or is there cause and effect? Brandt's editing style is basically "You do what the hell I tell you, or I sue you". That's blatantly apparent even from these latest emails. I still don't get this unblock, but I don't suppose that matters. Moreschi ^Talk 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it works, it works. --Tony Sidaway 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing, all right. Brand has made it clear that he doesn't want to edit Wikipedia. He wants his bio taken down. And yet we unblock him, despite his legal threats, harassment and stalking, but we leave the bio up, despite his reasonable request that it be deleted. It's all very through the looking glass. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not in a position to delete the article, and Brandt has recently made some positive moves. Negotiation has to start somewhere. --Tony Sidaway 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing positive in it. He has not taken down his outing page as a positive gesture but as part of his "legal strategy". I share Slim's view that the article should be deleted, not because Brandt has blackmailed Wikipedia, but because it is the decent thing to do in any case like this. But "negotiate" with him? You have to be kidding. He is not a militant group that you might wish to integrate in your society. Grace Note 01:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you and Slim Virgin that the article should be deleted, and for the exact reason you give. This is not possible at present. Negotiation is how we resolve problems on Wikipedia, it's part of our policy. If it will help, you can consider this to be part of Wikimedia's legal strategy: to remove all bars to Brandt's ability to discuss his problems, and acceptable remedies, with the community of the English Wikipedia, which created the article. --Tony Sidaway 13:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather unblock WoW. Willy, at least, only targets our content. Brandt targets the contributors. --Carnildo 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grr...I wish we had kept his article deleted..he's less notable than a lot of people who have no article...far less in fact. It's probably in the best interests of the Foundation from a legal standpoint to let him back in. I can't tell you from an ethical standpoint how much I am opposed to any second chances for him though.--MONGO 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More notable people not having articles is irrelevant. There are, IMO, tens of thousands of mostly people located in the Third World who deserve articles and dont have them but that doesnt mean that according to our current policies Brandt fails notability. There are arguably many less notable people who do have articles here. I think given he has an article here it is ethically correct that he is able to contribute to it and its talk page, SqueakBox 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr Wales is in contact with Mr Brandt could we get a statement as to what Mr Brandt thinks has changed in either his or our thinking that would allow him to productively edit here. In my opinion if there has been no changes there is little reason to give him another final chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.110 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I do like about Daniel Brandt is the ability and willingness he demonstrated in identifying plagiarized articles some months back. Has he stated whether he intends to continue that project in his new role as a "welcome editor"? —freak(talk) 22:13, Apr. 18, 2007 (UTC)
Let's see... Brandt needs to apologize to all the editors whose personal information he revealed, show evidence of willingness to contribute constructively, away from his own article, actively discourage the harrassment of editors and shut down his own site if it is necessary to prevent further harrassment. Is he's unblocked without meeting ALL of these requirements, it's hard for me to see why anyone would want to continue with an orgainzation where the worst malcontents are rewarded, after doing things that have real-life consequences. I'll copy and paste this statement as many times as I need to when this issue comes up, because it seems as though no-one is getting the message. Grand master ka 22:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't think it can be put any better than Grandmasterka just did. Count me as one who has gotten the message. IronDuke 22:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Someone just sent me the following. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If you don't mind, Sarah (since Brandt has pretty much given outing you his best shot) would you care to report that (an unnamed Wikipedia admin) would like to express his total opposition to the idea of unblocking Brandt, but refrains from doing so because s/he really doesn't want Brandt digging through his/her past edits trying to unmask her/him?
"This isn't a discussion that anyone who values their privacy can participate in. Maybe I should just register a throw-away sock."

Folks, speaking as an observer, I suspect this is about legal maneuvering by both sides. That puts it on a level way, way, past "discussion". Save your breath. It doesn't matter. The only thing that can happen is that what you write appears in someone's legal brief, and that's probably not a good thing. -- Seth Finkelstein 23:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A welcome move. A thaw is good for both sides. He can help improve the encyclopedia through the aforementioned plagiarism hunts, and help out with any inaccuracies on his own bio by bringing them up on the talkpage. I supported the overturn just a few days ago, and it's wonderful to see Jimbo opening things up for him. This has become about so much mutual hate for each other, a detente will be well recieved. -M^ask? 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I didn't read the first comment very well... If he's withdrawn his site then that (apparently) takes care of two of my four conditions. I still think an apology is in order. Grand master ka 01:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment tonight, but I didn't want to go to bed and leave SlimVirgin with no support. The unnamed admin in the e-mail she posts made a valid point. People may be afraid to voice their opposition to this unblock, for fear of having their early contributions trawled through in the hope of finding some clue to their identity and publishing it.
I have just a few points to make. The first is that we should all remain calm. There was a lot of bad feeling last year, after Brandt outed one of the very nicest administrators we ever had, and Linuxbeak, with incredibly poor timing (regardless of other issues), decided to unblock two permabanned users who had given Brandt a platform in which to invade this administrator's privacy, and had done nothing to prevent further publicizing of her identity, although they had the power to do so.
The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle, which is extremely relevant to this new situation. A lot of ill will was generated because Linuxbeak unblocked people who had played a significant part in harassing and/or enabling the harassment of respected Wikipedians (not that you should have to be "respected" in order to have the right not to be harassed). Tempers were running high. Some users thought of leaving. There was a strong feeling that to invite those two banned users back into the community was disrespectful to their victims, and sent a message that it was okay to torment other users. There was also the point that Linuxbeak did not himself have the right to "forgive" these two for what they had done to Slim and Kate and me. The victims of privacy violations and abuse had not even been notified prior to the unblock; they discovered it from reading the admin noticeboards.
Jimbo, of course, has more authority than Linuxbeak, and is, I suppose, free to unblock someone regardless of what the community thinks. This decision, nevertheless, seems unlikely to promote a harmonious environment. I am not referring to what Brandt may or may not do as an unblocked editor. I am referring to the lack of consideration and respect for the feelings of people who have contributed enormously to Wikipedia, and whose privacy has been violated by Brandt, sometimes with risk of serious real life consequences.
I am not a trade uniony type of person, and I have always respected the right of those in authority to make decisions. But there are times when someone has the right to impose a particular decision, but still should not do so. I have never paid a huge amount of attention to external sites with malicious and salacious gossip about Wikipedians. I do know, however, that what Brandt has posted on other sites about at least one administrator would indicate that he should not be unblocked until he has tried to undo some of that harm, but that if he's going to be unblocked anyway, the administrator in question should be consulted, or at the VERY least, notified, beforehand. I get the impression that that did not happen. Yet this is a man who openly acknowledged that he was contacting former boyfriends (or what he believed to be former boyfriends) of this administrator — from twenty years back — in order to find more information about her. What a slap in the face to his main victims, to unblock him without any discussion with them!
I don't consider myself to be one of Brandt's main victims, although he did post my real name, photo, and workplace on his website without my consent. However, I do know about being seriously stalked in real life as a result of my identity becoming known. I know what it is to receive dozens of gloating, taunting, threatening, blackmailing e-mails, with graphic references to parts of my body, to sexual acts, to his plans to come to Ireland and show up at my workplace, with threats against my parents, with maps of the part of the city I work in and my work building highlighted and the words "Now that we have you surrounded we start slowly tightening the ring. Very slowly and firmly. Very slowly . . ." I know what it is to see my mother's health deteriorating, and to see her becoming afraid of answering the phone in her own house. I know what it's like to have my superior receiving dozens of weird, creepy e-mails about me, including one that said "Is Ann calling in sick today? She has plenty of time to be on Wikipedia." I know what it is to have the office girls and the porters threatened and harassed by telephone, because of a stalker's obsession with me.
Now this started before my details appeared on Brandt's page — in fact, I suspect that he got my details from my stalker. But the fact remains that people have very valid reasons for wanting to keep their identities secret, not because they were doing anything wrong, but because there are a lot of creepy people "out there". Brandt has made it his business in the last few years to track down the identities of administrators who were trying to remain anonymous, and then to publicize their full names and photos, thereby taking from them the only thing that could protect them from what happened to me. And now he's unblocked because he "asked nicely"? Has he shown any realization of or regret for the harm he has caused? Why not just delete his article, since he "asked nicely"? Surely, since that's what he wants, rather than the ability to edit Wikipedia, it would have made him happy, and it would have avoided undermining people whose privacy was violated, and who are seemingly expected now to edit side by side with the person responsible. (It should have been deleted anyway, since he's not notable enough for us to need to keep it, against his wishes.) Musical L inguist 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find the unblocking of a man who has personally contributed to constant harassment, invasion of privacy, defamation, and public personal attacks of Wikipedia editors, nothing short of scandalous. In fact, if a person who arguably is the worst ever harasser and offender in the history of Wikipedia, with a Web site dedicated to harassment and attacks of our editors, is unblocked and given a free pass to edit here, alongside his (surviving) victims, there is really no reason to block anyone else, as the others' abuses pale in comparison to his. I consider this situation appalling and hard to fathom - it's as if the private lives of the dedicated Wikipedians, who tirelessly give of themselves for the good and ideals of the project, only to be attacked, harassed and victimized constantly by a vile and shameless individual, don't amount to much when some legal threats are made. I agree that deleting his article would be a small price to pay. Crum375 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO we should judge him for what he does on site and not what he does off site, just as we do with everyone else. What about the idea that off-site activities cant be used to block a wikipedia editor, SqueakBox 02:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has attacked and harassed our editors, and tried his best to destroy the project, it doesn't matter if he did it from the moon or from his bedroom - the point is what are his actions and their consequences, not the technicalities of the specific websites he attacks and harasses from. Crum375 02:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note here, but I was an editor who was harassed, repeatedly, off-wiki. I voluntarily gave my information to Brandt to prove that not everyone is as crazy as he is. I got phone calls at all hours of the day and night. Someone even found out when I was flying down to Virginia to visit my parents and started yelling and screaming obscene things at me while I was trying to make my connection at Sea-Tac. I published what Brandt has said and done to me himself, but never any of the other things, for reasons of not encouraging it and hoping if I dont make a big deal about it it would go away (it did after 2 months). I know where the editors who feel betrayed come from. But to be completely honest, hate is good for no one, and if this can stop future editors from going through the same thing, lets do it. If this can convince Brandt that he's been a bit of an ass, I am fully willing to forgive him, and so should everyone else. -M^ask? 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The damage that he's already done to the project is immeasurable. He has not demonstrated any remorse. He has continuously, up until days ago, threatened us with destructive lawsuits. He is to this minute supporting a vile website, full of hate, harassment and attacks of our editors. That someone like that can be summarily 'forgiven' and allowed to work alongside his victims, defies logic. Crum375 03:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a huge difference between on-wikipedia and off-wikipedia activities, SqueakBox 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think any difference is artificial. In reality, an attack is an attack and harassment is harassment. When an editor's life is affected, the exact URL of the site that perpetrated the attacks is a mere technicality. Crum375 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be as responsive as possible to any suggestions User:Daniel Brandt makes regarding the article Daniel Brandt. Fred Bauder 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. The Behnam 02:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we shouldnt negotiate with terrorists but as we arent doing so your comment is confusing, SqueakBox 02:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we're still having this discussion. The die has been cast. // Sean William 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not a 'terrorist' but I find them similar. A terrorist seeks to uses attacks and accompanying psychological warfare (like fear) to achieve goals. This Brandt has stalked information about people and scared them away from the project. There are probably people who would also oppose unblocking him but are afraid he will attack them next. I don't see why we should negotiate with this character. We need to be in the right here, and not compromise out of fear. And what a silly criminal he is... claims to fight a war for privacy and does this by violating that very principle. The Behnam 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty simple - someone who drives one of our best admins away from the project after threatening to get them fired has no place in this project. Taking down the Hivemind page - something he can easily undo if he doesn't get his way - doesn't make up for actions like this. Is there an apology for his attempt to get Katefan fired? Is there an apology for the things he has said about SlimVirgin at WR? Has he made some sort of guarantee that he won't engage in these actions ever again in the future? Without some sort of a guarantee, his unblock is an affront to the community. Is he going to pay substantial damages to the people he has or may have hurt? Throwaway account 111 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Aye. And there shouldn't be any need for people to post in this way. The Behnam 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
This is wrong. A smack in the face for people like SlimVirgin and Musical Linguist. And what does the Community get out of it- nothing.... So now we have to resort to using spas if we want to say how we feel without our lives being unpicked by Brandt. At best he's just a bully, at worse he's a vengeful stalker. Either way we shouldn't be doing business with him. Jimbo's lack of sensitivity in handling the matter unilaterally without community input is staggering. Funny, it used to be the trolls who used spas... Can't quite believe it 03:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. Someone who just recently had their community ban upheld, and drove away multiple good editors by harassment, gets unblocked? I feel sorry for everyone who tries to disagree with him without making sure they are untraceable... -Amarkov moo! 03:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. DON'T STRESS OVER IT! Really. I'm not a lawyer, but here's my analysis (which again, has no insider information, and I could be talking through my beard, so take it for what it's worth). This is what's called "going through the motions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen, something along these lines: Brandt makes some edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support claim that Brandt is an unreasonable unclean-hands vexatious litigant. After this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many legal friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ... I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in a collusive fashion, but rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic playoff over it. So sit back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do have inside information and both "sides" are sincere, Daniel Brandt about the intrusive nature of the article, and Jimbo regarding considering any way we can improve the article. We may fail, but out efforts are sincere. Fred Bauder 12:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that. A user who was just community banned was unblocked. The precedent that you may circumvent community bans by harassing people IN REAL LIFE and then promising to stop is terrible. -Amarkov moo! 03:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally oppose any unblock of this user ever. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose this. Crum's arguments above handle it well, as well as the frequent sock puppetry and other nonsense that has gone on in the Daniel Brandt article. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really appreciate the way the unblocking occurred. One should consult with the contributers of the project. This user is not wanted here. I will not continue to contribute to the project if the user continues to remain unblocked. I use this SPA to safeguard my privacy in this discussion. Disposableusername 03:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in this affair directly. However, I'd like to point out that rehabilitating permablocked users hasn't been very successful in the past: many users who were permablocked and then unblocked later became banned again. Examples include Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Mike Garcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Encyclopedist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Flameviper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In addition, Wikipedia is not therapy, so I wouldn't be surprised if he is reblocked later on. TML 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear to me what unbanning would accomplish and as far as I can tell the current version of the article is one of the best sourced bibliography articles we have and is clearly NPOV. If Brandt wants to be a productive editor and isn't going to be simply spending his time agitating for the deletion of his article that's one thing. I have, however, seen no evidence that that is the case at this point in time. Indeed, the only public comment from Brandt on the taking down of hivemind that I've seen was a comment on Wikipedia Review that he took it down to better his postion if he ended up suing Wikipedia. This doesn't bode well. Of course, Brandt is welcome as always to communicate any policy based concerns he has to OTRS or other channels. JoshuaZ 04:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks do realize that he has already been unblocked, right? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. At least, I do. -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure. Some of the comments seem to indicate the opposite. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, Ben Hallert of Springfield, OR, strongly oppose this unblocking. He leads a group of people who have terrorized editors and admins at their houses, stalked them at their work, and (as noted above) even in airports while traveling. He is an unrepetant ~~slimy~~; person, and the community has clearly indicated that unblocking him is absolutely unacceptable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Let me redact slimey, I didn't realize I had made a personal attack. The actions of this user are so far beyond the pale that I let emotion tinge my edit. To clarify, I feel that his actions are slimy, but I apologize for the poor choice of words in my original edit. This is a bad unblock. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~This unblock without community discussion is tacky. If it an order from Jimbo, then so be it, but I am not impressed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I wonder if the unblocking is an unrevertable WP:OFFICE action? Suppose User:Daniel Brandt will continue his litigations against the project, can he be blocked per WP:NLT. Suppose he out some wikipedian's identity can he be blocked per WP:STALK. Suppose he links to an attack site, can he be blocked per WP:NPA? Alex Bakharev 04:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a crystal ball and please let us NOT assume he is going to do bad things before he does anything at all. And obviously he'll be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Having said the which if he were to be reblocked one would hope it would be in a process that had gone through mediation and Rfc to Rfa. And lets AGF and hope for the best, SqueakBox 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to assume anything. We know he blatantly violated WP:NLT and WP:HAR. Am I right that all the previous violations are forgotten, but he is has the same responsibility to obey these policies as any other user since his unblocking? Alex Bakharev 06:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why has Jim used the block log to communicate this to us, no statement on AN or CN (here). I'm just not happy with it at all. It feels like a slap in the face for this editor to return. Disposableusername 04:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds. --WikiGnosis 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: User:Chairboy, has notified me on my Talk page that my comment might be construed as a legal threat. I want to assure everyone that it is not a legal threat. It is a philosophical analysis of a curious situation, and nothing more. I intended it to get people thinking about what they say and how they react to real-world threats upon their security. Is anyone thinking? --WikiGnosis 05:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we unblock Willy on Wheels while we're at it? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Heh, I'm sure Willy could be a massive help assisting all those newbies who don't know how to page-move properly. Great idea.~~
Y'know, the more I think about this, the more it's got me confused. It's quite clear that pretty much nobody actually wants Brandt unblocked, and that Jimbo overrode community consensus to do so. That's fine by me, but then why hasn't Jimbo actually jumped into the pool rather than just poking his toes over the edge, and deleted Brandt's bio? I mean, having IAR'd community consensus once, which is fine, why not go the whole way? Brandt wants his bio gone, Jimbo doesn't delete it but unblocks Brandt and retains the bio...so Brandt might as well not have been unblocked if no one is compromising over the issue of his bio. So what, exactly, was the point of unblocking Daniel Brandt? Moreschi ^Talk 09:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No point. In fact I read somewhere he wrote he never intended to be an editor here, and I can't imagine him changing his mind. Since it would be a COI to edit his own article, I'm not sure how anyone is benefitted by this unblocking. Majorly (hot!) 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Jimbo may not have "IAR'd community consensus" but simply been unaware of it. Although a community consensus to ban was declared, that declaration was deleted with the edit summary "Daniel Brandt's ban is outside of the scope of WP:CN", the latter being the version archived, so from surface appearances that consensus declaration never occurred; it went down the Memory Hole. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if Jimbo did check the WP:BANNED entry, he might have done so after the mention of (and link to) the community consensus was deleted, and before it was restored. He can't be blamed for not knowing about it when it had been wiped from the record. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 13:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Break 1~~
Guys, guys, guys! Mr. Brandt has agreed to negotiate with Jimmy Wales. You know what evidence I have that he is at least partially serious? Hivemind is gone. He may have done some very dislikable things in the past, but if we put our act together, we could at last achieve peace. None of this "he's a terrorist" business -- the last thing we need is a defamation lawsuit on our hands because some people are reacting wildly to this. I say it's high time we forgive and forget and try to put this in the past. Yes, I was listed on "the Hivemind", but now that's a thing of the past. Let's throw out the bad memories and let the good begin. Be polite for once! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hivemind page is only a small part of Mr. Brandt's campaign of harassment and attack against WP's editors. His main site is still up as I type this, and AFAICT it still contains all the attacks, vile accusations and allegations, defamations and libel as before. That someone who is still attacking and harassing our editors is unblocked and allowed to edit alongside his victims is simply appalling. That any WP editor would be in support of such unblocking, when the perpetrator has never apologized and is still continuing these attacks and harassments by maintaining his site up as we speak, is hard for me to comprehend. Crum375 13:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This all legal positioning. Brandt says he took down his attack pages to enhance his legal case. He says he wishes to sue the foundation. The foundation says it is covered by a law that makes the editors responsible and not the foundation. The arbcom descion to keep him blocked is tainted because of foundation board member Jimbo involvement. Jimbo has just untainted the block. It is up to the community to demonstrate that his block is community based and not Jimbo or foundation or arbcom based. 4.250.132.113 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC) (User:WAS 4.250)[reply]
~~The community already did, but that consensus declaration was deleted; see above the "Break 1" line. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 13:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I oppose unblocking him, because of what he has done and enabled, and what I reasonably expect he will keep on doing. This is completely backwards. Why not delete his article and leave him banned? It seems like a lot of this discussion could have been avoided if Jimbo had sent a few emails to people like SlimVirgin. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an OFFICE action? Should be disclosed/confirmed by a foundation employee or Jimbo. Infodmz 13:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if this is imposed on us by higher authority this should be made crystal clear, if this is not imposed on us, then the block should be re-instated, indef. As it is, it is unclear if Jimbo is acting with his veto authority or just making a decision that is actionable to the community. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a me-too. As an admin, I don't dare get near Brandt with a ten-foot pole unless I know where the OFFICE stands on this. As well, Brandt was still taking shots at SlimVirgin on Wikipedia Review as recently as yesterday. (He was offering her Hobson's choice: either put up with the abuse on WR and elsewhere, or provide them with confirmation of her identity.) Just how much of an asshole do you have to be to stay banned around here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems that I'm not allowed to link to WR even in these narrow circumstances, anyone who wishes to fact-check my statement call pull up Daniel Brandt's post on the matter, #28619. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I've asked for clarification on whether this is an OFFICE action or not at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Formal_request_for_clarification. It might get lost in the static, but I hope we can get a response. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~A note, I received a response when I asked Anthere, available here. It was not an office action. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~

The bottom line is that Jimbo is boss and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it. What he says, goes, no matter how morally repugnant any of the rest of us find it. He's under tremendous pressure of lawsuits and wants to make the problems go away. I won't mention the obvious consequences of such an approach but it does not bode well for the integrity of Wikipedia. Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's Jimbo's way or the highway. Make your choice. (My first sockpuppet edit -- I feel so unclean...) Iamnotmyself 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is the boss, yes, but that doesn't abrogate us of our responsibility to the project. If the user in question is not under the shield of a WP:OFFICE decision, then a community discussion can proceed under the assumption that a re-block is possible if that is the consensus. If not, then we're served notice that it's not going to change, without regard to the community consensus, and we know ahead of time that the exercise is just spitting into the wind. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, Jimbo is the boss, but he is also an editor, and not every action he takes is as the boss. What we need is clarification. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually no, Jimbo is not the boss - as he has said himself, whatever powers he has, he has because the community allows him to have them. An OFFICE action is different - that's done on behalf of the Foundation. Quite frankly, the only "boss" here, legally, is Anthere, in her position as chair of the Foundation. The Foundation is a non-profit - it isn't owned by anyone. If Jimbo were to assert authority as "boss", it would put the status of the Foundation as a non-profit at risk. Unnamed admin 15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can not belive Jimbo would do something like this without even saying that he did. Brandt isn't Willy on Wheels who made easily repairable damages. How many users have been driven away from the project as a result of Brandt's actions? How many excellent users were/are too afraid to run for adminship for fear of having their personal information posted on the web? How many users have been harassed off-wiki by Brandt and others who got information from his "hivemind" site? According to WP:POLICY, Key policy number 3: Respect other contributors Brandt has not followed that policy and is possibly the worst violator of it. I commend those here who edit under their real usernames. I do not trust Brandt, there is nothing stopping him from restoring the Hivemind pages and similar actions to Hivemind are still going on on the Wikipedia Watch forums. The fact that he does not plan to contribute and the number of contributors using throwaway accounts (including myself) in fear of having their personal details posted on the internet for people who hate WP to see should be testament to why unblocking Brandt can only be detrimental to the project. It is my opinion that Brandt should be subject to a permanent community ban for his actions on his site and his repeated legal threats. I hope Jimbo reads all these comments and reconsiders his actions. Account342353 23:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note my absolute opposition to this decision and my absolute support of Slim, Musical Linguist, Durova, Kate and others who have been victims of very real stalking and harassment. Sarah 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~About the unblock~~
This is the text of an email I have sent to the English Wikipedia public mailing list, wikien-l. As with all other communications, this accurately represents my personal opinion and is not intended to be taken as expressing anything else.
On 4/19/07, Info Control <infodmz@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> It's really more a question of what is Jimbo's authority in this matter

> relative to the decisions of other admins.
~~Well, Jimbo was able to do this because he has been able to give good reasons, and a lot of editors trust his judgement enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.~~
~~To say that I'm not a fan of Daniel Brandt would be an understatement. However as long as he isn't disrupting Wikipedia there is no reason to re-assert the block.~~
A purported "community ban" has been asserted by some editors, but community bans only operate insofar as no administrator is prepared to unblock, after contemplating the matter, the banned editor. Jimbo has been in discussion with Daniel Brandt and several other administrators have co-operated on the technical side of unblocking Brandt, which turned out to be quite difficult, so no community ban applies at this time.
~~--Tony Sidaway 17:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Previous community endorsement of banning~~
Wasn't that just last week? For full disclosure, who deleted that? What was the link to that? Infodmz 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. This was the previous conversation. I can't tell from the history who deleted it. It was closed with the comment:
"clear consensus to affirm existing indefblock as a community ban--Random832 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
~~But then User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson did this:~~
"While the community's opinion is always important, this issue is outside the scope of the CN - the issue has just been rejected by Arbcom, and no admin has ever unblocked. Keeping this open will cause more harm than good. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
~~To which replied Random,~~
"This is _exactly_ the scope of the CN - to discuss community bans. Brandt is now community-banned. It is unclear whether he was before, or if instead admins were afraid to unblock him because they believed he was. Now we know what the consensus is. --Random832 00:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
For some reason the archive only shows Jeffrey's comments and appears edited or doctored (for whatever reason). Does the community endorsement from 72 hours ago have authority over Jimbo?
~~Also, can someone please check to see who deleted? Infodmz 15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)~~ Found it, was "disqualified" by a new admin. Can one admin override the consensus of a dozen or more others? Infodmz 15:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community bans are a lot less firm that some participants in this discussion seem to think. Any administrator can unblock an editor for good reason--it is up to the administrator to demonstrate that he has good reason. --Tony Sidaway 17:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Was this an OFFICE action?~~
~~Making a section for Jimbo and/or foundation employees to respond. Infodmz 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I asked both Jwales and Anthere for clarification on this matter, and received a response here. It was not an OFFICE action, and of course care should be given to avoid doing anything hasty. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Jimbo authority~~
If it's not OFFICE, can admin consensus overrule?
I thought as admin Jimbo had no more or less authority than any of you. Looks like that needs finally to be clarified: outside of OFFICE, does he get any defined extra power/authority? Infodmz 15:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo does have special authority, see m:Foundation issues. What is not clear if he is using that special authority to override the community consensus or not. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His special authority only exists because the community gives him that authority. He can be overruled by the community, just like any other editor. He cannot overrule the community. Only Anthere or the Board can. Unnamed admin 15:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the devil is everyone creating socks just to talk about this? Who's afraid of Daniel Brandt? Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? The hivemind sites are gone, people. Get a spine. Moreschi ^Talk 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of Daniel Brandt's history, which speaks for itself. I commend the editors who have had the guts to post on this subject under their main IDs. I do not, because I don't want to be subjected to off-Wiki abuse, "outing" or harassment, either by Daniel Brandt if this peace pact does not succeed or his friends on Wikipedia review. I have not been subjected to "outing" by his site and I don't want to be.

I am appalled that Jimbo would take this action and I urge him to reconsider. This is an affront to every member of this community. At the very least, Brandt should remove his defamatory posts from WR. This action is damaging to the project and to the community. I am sure others would post were it not for the record I mentioned.

~~Lastly I think it is deeply wrong that a member of the arbitration committee offered "cookies" to this person on his user page.~~--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder only reacted to the cookies by posting: "Cookies, for Daniel Brandt!". The cookies were posted by User:Academy Leader].[109] Crum375 16:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Fred Bauder indicated he was sympathetic to Brandt, in the fairness of full disclosure. Bauder also posted several times on the WR attack site. Infodmz 15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Jesus, this is nuts. They're all tumbling out of the sock drawer. This just can't be real. Is someone having a laugh? Seriously, people, I'm no fan of Daniel Brandt and the maniac obsessives at Wikipedia Review, but what are they going to do? Eat you? No one's even saying anything particularly nasty. Real accounts, please. For the sake of sanity. Moreschi ^Talk 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brandt tried to get Katefan FIRED. He called her employer. He called her publisher. Ending up on the Hivemind would be a risk for me. No one with anything to lose can participate in this discussion. Unnamed admin 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, sockpuppeting paranoia Brandt can't do anything now that he didn't before except editing. Paranoid of being on hivemind? Blocking/unblocking makes no difference regards his ability to get information. So let's knock off the sockpuppeting paranoia. -- drini ^[meta:]_[commons:] 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Presumably, the person did not see the need to comment before, when he was banned. —Centrx→talk • 16:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Last I checked, I'm nobody's sockpuppet. Just wanted to post a prediction that Brandt's article will soon be gone and salted. The unblocking makes no sense otherwise, as Moreschi noted. There are too many WP insiders who want the article deleted - Tony Sidaway, Fred Bauder, probably Jimbo himself. Just checked the WikiEN-l archives, and other insiders like Moeller and Gerard are also endorsing the unblock, which will soon lead to the article's deletion. This reminds me of the Danny RfA. My prediction on that one was also correct, if I say so myself. Casey Abell 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I agree with Seth Finkelstein that something has been arranged (not explicitly) in advance. But I disagree that what's been arranged is more conflict. What has been agreed, tacitly, is the deletion of Daniel Brandt. Casey Abell 17:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you might think that, but as a matter of record Jimbo has stated publicly that he thinks the article should not be deleted because he considers Brandt to be "notable". He repeated this opinion last night in a discussion on IRC shortly before I started this discussion. I and one or two others stated the opposite view, which he acknowledges but does not agree with. Some prominent Wikipedians (who like myself are not in contact with Daniel Brandt) think the article should be deleted. Some equally prominent Wikipedians, including Jimmy Wales who has actually been in contact with Daniel Brandt, disagree. I don't think anything has been agreed in advance. --Tony Sidaway 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Have no idea what Jimbo said on IRC because I'm not privy to the conversations. But this is what he said on-wiki on February 23, when referring the Daniel Brandt wheel war to ArbCom:~~
"I am referring this case directly to the ArbCom to look at possible remedies for all parties involved up to and including desysopping, blocking, etc. I have absolutely no opinion on the actual content question (should we have an article about him? I don't care) but this log is a disgrace."[110]
Sorry to be cynical, but I think the ball is rolling towards deletion and salting. We'll see soon enough. Casey Abell 17:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That will be absolutely pathetic if it occurs. I do hope you're wrong on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fix is not in. Wikilegally, this is what happened:
Daniel Brandt filed an arbitration case regarding his ban. Whether it was a community ban was one of the questions posed. Opinion was divided, but the case was rejected. However, one of the matters which the arbitration committee may consider is a community ban. Appeal of an arbitration decision is to Jimbo. Daniel Brandt appealed to Jimbo with the result we see. The arbitration committee can overturn a community ban, so can Jimbo.
Offenses of the party and community opinion are taken into account, but do not control. Fred Bauder 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be absolutely clear, then—is Jimbo acting with the authority of the Board of the Foundation behind him, and should this unblocking be considered a WP:OFFICE action that is not to be reversed by any administrator without permission from the WP:OFFICE? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no OFFICE or Board involvement. Fred Bauder 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Drini - Brandt goes after after people who commented on him. Hivemind of full of people like that. Everyone here will end up on that page once he is reblocked. Brandt went after Katefan, tried to get her fired. That isn't paranoia, that's a fact. I don't want him calling my boss. I don't want him posting details of my private life, posting my home address. So I don't comment on Brandt. But I totally oppose his unblock. Let him pay compensation to his victims, then maybe he can be unblocked. Unnamed admin 17:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are good and sound reasons for anyone, editor or administrator, to avoid commenting on this issue using our usual IDs, as noted. It is not paranoia. It should be observed that Brandt has not taken down the Hivemind site. He has simply placed "John Does" where the names of his victims used to be. He can and probably will fill in the blanks at some future date. I do not trust him. Jimbo may have the raw power to carry out this action but that does not make it right. This project is built on volunteer labor, and this is an insult to those of us who volunteer our time.--Onlyjusthisonetime 18:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the two pages, hivemind.html and hive2.html, are no longer on the website. Trying to go to them gives a 404 error. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally question how a person who creates a website to attack Wikipedia can be expected to become a valued contributor. His biography though should remain. If Daniel Brandt feels that it is invading his privacy, perhaps he should have thought about not becoming an activist and putting the spotlight on himself. The same goes true for the owner or RipOffReport, or any other site that attacks other individuals and organizations, however for some reason expects the world to just leave them under a rock to their own devices. Undisclosed Editor 18:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Could the community just override Jimbo if they decided to? Infodmz 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't know if by policy if anyone can override Jimbo... but I think that if Daniel Brandt remains unblocked and his bio is deleted and salted, I can see a possible mass exodus from Wikipedia. Undisclosed Editor 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. I think that if the status of the WP:OFFICE action is not clarified, only Wiki-cidal admins would consider any action against him, no matter how egregious the action. SirFozzie 18:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that the DB bio is to deleted. Community consensus is that his bio should remain and as such surely DB has a right to contribute to it's talk page. Those who tried so hard to stop him contributing to his bio talk page were, IMO, wrong, and if they had we probably wouldnt be here today. I would oppose any alleged consensus based on SPI's, SqueakBox 18:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of those who spoke with Jimbo last night, I'll clarify. This is my understanding of the current state of affairs.
Daniel Brandt recently wrote an open letter to Jimbo mentioning some positive steps he was taking. He gave a very well-reasoned summary of the sourcing problems of his article, and enumerated some potential defamation that had been published on Wikipedia as a result of poor research and failure to heed his corrections. He stated clearly that while he wanted the article deleted, he should at least be allowed to make comments on the talk page about matters like this. Apparently he has removed material of his own purporting to identify Wikipedia editors, on the Hivemind site.

Jimbo in due course responded by conceding the request to edit the talk page, which involves lifting the ban.

This is not an office action. Apparently the Foundation declines to get involved in this matter.

This is a well respected administrator on Wikipedia, the founder as it turns out, making a reasoned step towards resolving a long-running and very damaging dispute over Wikipedia content that has had real world consequences for several people including Daniel Brandt himself.

A community ban is a block that no administrator will lift. There is no community ban on Daniel Brandt at the moment.

If Daniel Brandt were to perform a blockable action on Wikipedia, and once blocked no administrator would unblock, then a community ban would again pertain.

Thus the community could again decide to ban Daniel Brandt.

--Tony Sidaway 18:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it comes down to what's best for us all: someone on the inside of the tent pissing out, or someone on the outside pissing in. Whilst I don't like it one bit, Jimmy has made the right choice by having Brandt in the tent voiding his bladder on to the grass.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Serious concerns about the Foundation's handling of volunteer safety issues~~
“Beware of him that is slow to anger: He is angry for something, and will not be pleased for nothing.” – Benjamin Franklin
When I received a private e-mail a few days ago from a good editor who had decided not to try for adminship because of the harassment I've experienced, I considered sending it to Cary Bass. Then as I thought about things more I decided my real beef is with Jimbo himself. Last month he unblocked Gregory Kohs, who is perhaps better known here by his username MyWikiBiz. I had notified the Foundation immediately when Mr. Kohs began calling my statements libel and followed up promptly to every query the Foundation sent on the matter. This included correspondence with Jimbo. I made every effort to cooperate with the Foundation on this matter. Mr. Kohs continued his campaign against me unabated on one of Wikipedia's better-known attack sites, yet Jimbo unblocked him without so much as sending me a courtesy message regarding that decision. Not surprisingly, Mr. Kohs soon sought me out and made not-very-subtle hints about his desire to take me to court until another administrator prevented him from editing. Mr. Kohs continues his campaign against me offsite.
During the same span of time another user posted a threat to hack my computer. I strongly suspect I know the name of the individual who posted that and, if my suspicion is correct, this is someone who has sufficient technical education to make a serious attempt at carrying out such a threat. Yet my checkuser request went unfulfilled for two weeks despite my appeal to the Foundation (specifically Cary Bass) to expedite it. As I expressed to Cary, my commitment to personal safety comes before my commitment to Wikipedia and I expect the Foundation to respect those priorities. Clearly, they have not done so.
More recently I blocked an editor for a year who had threatened suicide and got a community ban for yet another editor: a self-confessed psychiatric patient who had developed a sexual fixation on me. A few days ago I received a different legal threat - not the hint of a threat but an actual direct threat - and Cary Bass's reply was that I shouldn't worry because the Foundation had taken care of it.
Well frankly, I do worry. To date I have seen no promise that the Foundation would provide my legal defense if someone actually does file a Wikipedia-related lawsuit against me. I doubt even more that they would render any assistance if my computer were hacked or if harassment escalated beyond that level.
I would have written this directly to the Foundation board of directors, but in light of Daniel Brandt's unblocking I'll post here for open discussion: although Mr. Brandt has not targeted me specifically, he has targeted enough other administrators that I think unilateral Jimbo Wales or Office action on this type of matter is highly inappropriate and abusive of the goodwill of the site's most diligent and productive volunteers. We have a need to know about these things, a right to be involved in the process, and if our legitimate safety concerns continue to be ignored three things will happen:
Good editors will decline to run for administratorship.

Good administrators will quit the project.

Wikipedia will run into serious problems.
~~I consider it imperative that the Foundation change its recent practices regarding these matters. Durova^Charge! 18:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have to agree with you completely Durvora. The problems on this site, in respect to increasing levels of harrassment both on-wiki and off-wiki for admins and editors alike is staggering. This is the only site where I have had to actually reconsider having 'public-but-personal' information availble through. I don't think any editor or admin must simply be Editor ? or Admin ?, a faceless account void of all human atributes, but at the same time, people are risking more and more by being anything other than a faceless account. I'm not sure what the overall fix is... whether it be we re-examine this notion of being 'an encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit' and become something that requires divulging a bit more personal information to the foundation to edit, or what. Either way, these are concerns that ought not be taken lightly. Hence the reason why I'm not disclosing my usual ID here today. Undisclosed Editor 18:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The solution that would satisfy me is very simple: handle these issues on a need-to-know basis. If the Foundation considers unbanning a user who has threatened or harassed specific Wikipedians, bring those Wikipedians into the loop before restoring the editing privileges. If an editor requests a checkuser and communicates the need for urgency because of a personal threat, prioritize that checkuser request and keep the editor informed if anything gets in the way of a prompt result. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, agreed completely. The last couple of months there have been many incidents that show cracks in the "Foundation" of Wikipedia, if you'll excuse the pun. Danny's resignation (and the subsequent RfA). CheckUser going down for a while (and while I do understand why it wasn't announced, due to WP:BEANS reasoning, at least admit that there's at least a delay in handling them!), and now this whole thing. I think action needs to be taken to fill in the cracks before they widen and start to threaten the project. For a project that prizes openness, there sure as heck hasn't been a lot lately. SirFozzie 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec; in reply to "User:ForPrivacyConcerns")...and leaving people to start endlessly speculating who you are, rather than actually taking in your point. Sigh.

Nevertheless, I avoid giving personal information as a rule and obscure certain facts (ie, lie). I was never a target for Mr Brandt despite SNOWing one of his sock-driven AfDs and am gnome-y enough as an admin to be ignored by the psychopaths, sociopaths and general oddballs who post to WReview. But I get enough death threats (it averages at the moment 1 in 600 CSD-I3 deleted images generates a threat) to leave it to only the real nutters-with-patience to actually try to find me. A reason I'd never edit at Citizendum or whatever it's called - signing my own death warrant, albeit without Mr Brandt to (no offence) countersign.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated above, the whole reason for me not using my usual ID is due to the possibility of harrassment on this particular issue. I've worked with the American Red Cross Disaster Relief for years, and have had people give me face-to-face death threats, pull weapons, even had shots fired in our general area while responding to a situation. The difference between that situation and Wikipedia when it comes to wearing a name badge that has my name and face? I have support. I have an organization behind me that will work to protect me if someone gets ticked off that we didn't give them more money. In all instances where weapons were involved, the ARC knew ahead of time that it was a dangerous area of town and demanded the Police be there. The suspects were dealt with immediately. Here, we have a user who has in the past harrassed editors, and we're considering a "Good Faith" olive branch action to bring him in. That would be like the ARC asking the gun-toting maniac to come over and speak with us, as long as he's a good little boy.Undisclosed Editor 19:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Professional organizations offer support to people who are attacked on their behalf. It's the lack of professionalism here that's causing the problems, and I don't see any way round that, because the Foundation doesn't have the resources to protect people. On the other hand, it could try to avoid making matters worse ... SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Isnt that what the foundation are trying to do by unblocking DB? I do feel safer myself because the HM page is now a 404, SqueakBox 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Brandt isnt anonymous and neither has he issued any death threats. Some anonymous editors who have made death threats have been forgiven or ignored. To claim DB is someone who makes death threats has no justification, SqueakBox 19:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall where anyone has stated that Daniel Brandt has made death threats. Undisclosed Editor 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm not claiming that anyone has but I am clarifying the matter, SqueakBox 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's being read into my statement, then I apologise but suggest my statement is re-read. I never said such a thing and never will.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundation isn't responsible for the actions of editors. If a Wikipedia editor finds himself in legal trouble because of something he has done, he would be very foolish to expect the Foundation to fund his defense. The solution here is to take responsibility for your own actions and stop sheltering behind third parties. --Tony Sidaway 19:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the implication here is that beyond moral/policy type support "on" Wikipedia, all admins are on their own, and the WMF does not/can't support them if things go south, because the WMF won't do anything to risk their claimed Sec. 230 immunity? Infodmz 19:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Durova is correct above, but I do not expect any changes from recent practice. Like someone said, as long as the situation is manageable (in the Foundation's eyes) it will be neglected. Basically, no one is going to treat the volunteers with any more consideration than he must to keep the project going. It is not the first time this has happened, so the reaction must have been expected. How hard would it have been to have emailed some of the victims of harassment to get their support, or at least explain what was intended? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it is likely that any ediTOr in legal trouble for actions made here would get a huge amount of media coverage, assuming they werent just engaging in death threats or something obvious, and the sheer public exposure of wikipedia as well as laws in the countries in which we all live all protect the law abiding wikipedian. The Foundation doesnt need to, SqueakBox 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)(an outed HM editor)[reply]
Do we have an internet-vs-real world issue here? Despite 10 years or so hanging around various forms of superhighway at various speeds, it strikes me that most people behave online in a way they would never consider doing in real life (save for the total loonbaskets, but you can never successfully base any policy on trying to cover the extreme).
People would like to think of Wikipedia/WMF safely wrapping them in protective bubbles because online isn't real. This is why we have so much trouble getting people to understand that accusing X person of being a kiddyfiddler in X's article, or uploading a copyright image or article are Bad Things to do. It isn't real, it's online! It's a giant text adventure! It's Second Life with words!
People think the interweb isn't real, so make death threats or facilitate them by publishing enough details to allow for them to be carried out. The door swings both ways. I don't see how we can convince people that Wikipedia is real life, because the two are utterly divorced. This isn't Wikipedia's fault, it's an artifact of internet connection. People will expect to be protected; people will expect the right to make threats; they don't see this as mutually exclusive and it isn't, per se.
But now I'm drifting so far off topic as to make this somewhat rambling, so I'll stop.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 19:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still irked by the sockpuppets here. Has Daniel Brandt ever actually hurt anyone? Anyone ever lost money directly because of Daniel Brandt? Anyone die? No, I thought not. What are you scared of? Is it the nutcase delusionals at Wikipedia Review? Since when have they ever done anything but disappear up their own arses all day long? This puppet show is a complete farce, and quite frankly, I'm starting to think we're being trolled. Either that, or some people here are demeaning the rest of us by their folly. Stop it.
The silly hyperbole around this is just stupid. Brandt is back. I don't like it, but he is. By God-King fiat, no less. He wants his bio gone. Is that a bad idea? Probably not. He's done some bad things in the past. Are we big enough to show some clememcy about that? Yes. So, I can finish off my deletion nomination for his bio and we can all return to editing the encyclopedia, right? Moreschi ^Talk 20:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he has actually hurt people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anything so bad we can't afford to forget? It is the virtue of the great to pardon offenses: so many of the leaders of men of the past have been renowned for their clemency, Caesar not least. Why did he win the Civil War? Because those who he defeated he forgave, and in the end the world welcomed him as a merciful master. There were no proscription lists in the Forum. Let us do the same here. Moreschi ^Talk 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Because those who he defeated he forgave" -- Vercingetorix could attest to such "clemency". -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that he continues to do it. He hasn't stopped, and hasn't removed the posts. It would be odd to forgive and forget something that is very much ongoing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, dragged back by the sense and reason above. Yes, Moreschi, right. Spot on.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting choice of historical example. How did things turn out for Julius Caesar, anyway? Ah yes, he was stabbed to death by the recipients of some of his more memorable acts of clemency. Food for thought. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only after he'd been running the world for a couple of years, so not a bad innnings. Moreschi ^Talk 21:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "forgiving the lion for eating your children" and "inviting the lion into your living room because the big kitty purrs for the moment." Mr. Brandt has chosen his path. Any inconveniences that come along with that, including finding people who simply are not willing to "forgive and forget" his past disgressions, he must accept. Undisclosed Editor 21:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, if someone says they are going to kill him or herself, he or she is in danger, not us. Aside from that, unless Daniel Brandt has taken down the personal information page, why was he unblocked? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it very clear what I object to here: I don't like to see the Foundation respond to my direct appeals with the equivalent of Don't worry; we don't take that problem seriously and then make decisions as if no potential for danger existed - without consulting me - when it is my safety that is ultimately at stake. Jimbo and the Foundation can't have it both ways: when they take actions that affect volunteer safety, they should either involve the editors who are directly affected in the decision-making process or assume responsibility for the consequences to those volunteers (assuming the volunteers informed the Foundation promptly and followed its advice). Since I started this thread another good editor has written me privately to disavow candidacy for administratorship because of this issue. I accept trolling because it comes with the territory but I do not accept the Foundation's cavalier attitude toward the safety of its most dedicated volunteers. The current situation is untenable. ~~Durova^Charge! 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]
~~Striking through. I've received a message from a board member which, I hope, is an indicator of positive things to come. Durova^Charge! 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Will the WMF protect admins acting as their agents to enforce policies?~~
Or are admins on their own legally? Perhaps a WMF agent should answer this... rather than random people guessing based on what ifs and maybes. Would admins acting as agents of WP be covered in any way? If not, why? Maybe its time this was defined for the safety, protection, and knowledge of any admins. Infodmz 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Responses by non-WMF agents~~
~~Post responses here if you aren't a WMF agent speaking for them, thanks. Infodmz 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Nothing to say, given we've gotten to this level of RfC-style, er, style, but people avidly watching and replying to this long thread might be interested in something I've just discovered. Some idiot just put an entire encyclopedia online and let anyone edit it! I'm going to give it a try instead of chatting here.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ 20:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Another admin who wants to remain anonymous (User:X) asked me to post the following. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
"Someone can register the distaste of another unnamed admin. User:X is in no position to post regarding it, as he was stupid enough to sign up with his own name. I've watched Brandt disruptions at points, such as when Katefan left, but have never said anything. There's much that's frustrating, not least that the blowback from these lunatics always hits female editors hardest."
I recommend editors protect themselves by ignoring Wikipedia:No open proxies. Use TOR and Privoxy. You'll be autoblocked sometimes, but... oh well. Also, I recommend that User:X use his or her right to vanish to change his or her username. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of forbidding open proxies if we encourage them to be used for self-protection? We can't see a user's IP address anyway, so why does it matter? // Sean William 00:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't recommending it... I am recommending it. Not that I would mind if we did recommend it and made it allowable to use an open proxy with an account. In the case of legal threats, Wikipedia might receive a subpoena from a government. If checkuser returns nothing but a bunch of TOR exit nodes, you are basically safe from needing to hire a lawyer. It's also a good protection against forgetting to log in, which would result in people seeing your IP address, if you wanted to take credit for your edit. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notice~~

~~Main page: WP:AN#Several blocks~~
~~—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Moved it here instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have blocked the following editors, as they are single purpose account that are effectively being used to troll the discussion concerning the unblocking of Daniel Brandt at the tread on the Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard.
Can't quite believe it (talk · contribs · block log)

Disposableusername (talk · contribs · block log)

Iamnotmyself (talk · contribs · block log)

Throwaway account 111 (talk · contribs · block log)

Onlyjusthisonetime (talk · contribs · block log)

ForPrivacyConcerns (talk · contribs · block log)

Infodmz (talk · contribs · block log)
While I understand why these accounts were made, if administrators want to discuss things, they should do so under their actual account name, and give Mr. Brandt the benefit of the doubt.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding. Horrible, horrible move Ryulong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But consistent. Who benefits? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, that block delayed the posting of Jimbo's reply below. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific aspect WP:SOCK these accounts violated? Is 'trolling' the right word? I don't mean to sound like a troublemaker or anything here, but based on the threats and intimidation that some contributors have suffered in their personal and professional lives as a result of publicly disagreeing with the person in question, I can understand why some folks would choose anonymity. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is incredibly sad. I'm a nobody here. I realize that...but I disagree 100% with these blocks. --Onorem 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're no more of a nobody than any of the rest of us, Onorem. Or no less of a somebody. Or whatever. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a poor idea, as WP:SOCK#Keeping_heated_issues_in_one_small_area clearly seems to apply in this situation. I can entirely understand why anyone on either side of the discussion in question would want to use a sockpuppet to contribute in this case. JavaTenor 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the use of sockpuppets in the CN discussion, but WP:SOCK does state: "It may be legitimate to do this [use sockpuppets] from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life or to avoid harassment)..." This appears to be a case where editors wish to avoid harassment. I can see encouraging people to use their primary accounts, perhaps giving less weight to comments from sock accounts - but blocks seem overboard when they seem to be covered under WP:SOCK. MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this block to be in extremely poor judgment, and clearly contrary to WP:SOCK. While I think that using one's real account is important in these discussions, given the history of harassment and attacks by Brandt on our editors I can certainly understand those who prefer to protect their real account. I have not seen evidence of these new accounts 'trolling' - what I saw are rational and reasonable comments and discussion. One can't avoid seeing a sad irony here - concerned editors, worried about being attacked by Brandt are blocked contrary to policy, while the attacker, whose attacks and harassing posts aimed at our editors are continuing as we speak on his website, is free to edit alongside his victims. In any case, I believe that immediate unblocking is called for. Crum375 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~These need to be overturned. A.) infodmz is a legit account, not a SPA, and B.) clearly within policy. This is not just a Bad Thing but Bad and Wrong. -M^ask? 23:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I normally have no time for sockpuppets accounts, but this is an obvious exception. We can't ask people to risk being hounded in real life because they have a criticism, and yet we want to know what people think. It is, indeed, an irony that the person engaging in the harassment is unblocked, while people objecting are blocked. I hope Ryulong will undo the blocks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This whole affair is sending a very bad message to people who have received creepy phonecalls, whose employers have been contacted, whose families have been threatened. The use of sockpuppets is not forbidden where people's personal security is concerned, and where there's no question of doubling up on voting or reverting. Musical L inguist 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. wp:sock says, "Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia." It seems like that applies in this case if in any. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong needs to overturn his own blocks in this case, or have them reversed for him. Bad decision. Not even following policy here SirFozzie 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left him a message. Crum375 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard was nice enough to unblock me. I presume someone will get the rest so that other users don't have to expose who they are by asking for unblocks/autoblock cleanup. :) Infodmz 23:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Ryulong refuses to overturn his block, I'll do it myself. // Sean William 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I'll be waiting to see Daniel Brandt discussion sockpuppet wheel war opened up via direct referral from Jimbo. hbdragon88 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. It's only a wheel war if it's reversed multiple times. // Sean William 00:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So DB is getting unblocked despite his vile attempts at outing users? -- Well, we are no democracy and we don't have a legal system in place but Wikipedia should provide equal rights for all users. So the question remains: what happens with users who only linked to attack sites once or twice? Are they instantly sysop-ed now? —Alde Baer 00:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went as far as unblocking all the accounts not unblocked already per discussion here Alex Bakharev 00:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think that's a good idea, the blocks were poorly conceived. AGF should at least work both ways. RxS 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Due to the impact of Ryulongs actions, I felt obligated to open an RfC on Admin Conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong (April 2007). Do with this notice whatever you see fit: ignore it, or contribute. That is all. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 01:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I have agreed to postpone an RfC, and have begun the process of discussing this with Ryulong. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 02:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, reconsider asap. An RfC is not warranted or justified at all. I see you're calling for Ryulong to be desysopped over it, this is an absolute over-reaction. I think you should allow us to delete the page. Sarah 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Ryulong made a mistake. A rather big one in this case, agreed, but I'm pretty sure it was not a malicious mistake. Before ANY RfC action should take place, we should get Ryulong's viewpoint. If he acknowledges that he made a mistake, I'm cool with that. SirFozzie 02:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I endorse the reversal of these blocks and agree that there was no valid basis for them. Newyorkbrad 01:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've also posted on outside view on the RfC, but if there is consensus that it's unnecessary I have no problem with deleting it. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I should say for the record, that I unblocked User:Disposableusername and I removed the autoblock that another user was caught in. I also fully support Alex's unblocking of the other accounts. Sarah 02:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also endorese the reversals- I've only just caught up with this news re:Brandt as this isn't a board I look at regularly. I am particularly unimpressed that Ryulong appears to have blocked with autoblocks enabled, thereby presenting those who posted here with socks with an uncomfortable dilemma. WjBscribe 02:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reversals were a good call, but Ryulong meant well. There was plenty of discussion here about it, and an RfC might do more harm than good at this point. It's probably better to let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete his bio~~
Someone just go delete his bio already. You want nothing to do with him and he wants nothing to do with you. Just swallow your pride and go do it. You won't be "negotiating with a terrorist" or "giving in to his threats" or whatever BS cliche reasons some people come up with. Someone just go delete the damn thing and the rest of you back that brave soul up. End this nonsense. Frise 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~As I recall, Jimbo desyopped people who did that the last time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I thought they were de-sysopped for wheel warring though I think an out of process deletion of DB's article is unlikely to help, SqueakBox 23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~(ec)I wish it was that easy. // Sean William 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The desysoppings were for wheel warring. If someone simply leaves the deletion alone, there won't be a wheel war. Easy enough. Frise 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yeah, but nobody's going to just let it go. 13 AFDs have shown this. // Sean William 23:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Screw AFDs. There's no policy that can address a situation like this. You can comb through policy and pontificate on process until you have a 2 megabyte talk page but it won't solve a damn thing. What this situation needs is for one person to go delete the bio and the rest of you to just let it go. Then every single person involved can go about his or her merry way. Frise 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should treat all the BLP people the same, and give none of them special rights that others do not have. If one has it, they all should, or none, in fairness. Just a thought for everyone. Infodmz 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if removing this article placated Brandt, & if he then went away never to threaten Wikipedia again, a dangerous precedent would be created: anyone willing to pressure enough Wikipedians will be able to suborn the content of Wikipedia. Yes, I know this is already possible, but deleting this page will only make the current situation worse -- not better. -- llywrch 04:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent would be created, but I don't see it as dangerous per se. It would allow WP some manuverability in negociating "dangerous" situations. So far as the bios are of semi-notable figures at best I don't see the huge draw-back to Wikipedia. As far as enforcing the deletion though, it may require Jimbo or the foundation to actually carry it out as opposed to it being up to the community.----ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think the best place to ahve a discussion about deleting his bio would be at the DB bio talk page, SqueakBox 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
I used the word "precedent" in the sense that doing so would create a tangible example to the outside world how one can coerce Wikipedia to reflect one's own beliefs or opinions. Deleting the article & keeping it deleted will not make any Wikipedians -- Admins or non-Admins -- safer; if it did, then this option might be worth discussing. Deleting it will only encourage other people who don't want their biographies on Wikipedia to do the same thing. -- llywrch 16:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you don't try it. Here is what will happen. Admin Alice speedy deletes Brandt's bio. Editor Bob takes it to DRV, where after a five day battle and much hostility it is yet again decided that Brandt meets WP:N and the deletion was out of process. Admin Carol closes the DRV and undeletes Brandt's bio by community consensus. Now the bio stands again and we just wasted our time to sow discord amongst the community, or Admin Dave now deletes the bio again and is prompty desysopped for wheel warring. All this assumes that Alice isn't simply desysopped from the beginning for continuing the previous wheel war, in which case the bio will simply be speedy undeleted per the previous community consensus. So the results of speedy deletion are either we waste our time squabbling, or we waste our time squabbling and someone gets desysopped. An amusing circus for us cynics to watch, of course, but it will discredit the administration and alienate the community, just like the last round and probably worse this time. And in the end the bio will remain, since we inevitably come to the conclusion that Brandt does meet WP:N. Go ahead, if that's your idea of fun, but the only possible outcomes are net losses to the project. Sincerely, Eve 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what we could do? We could not delete it. The community is generating a good deal of this 'nonsense'. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk)
~~Long wikien-el response from Jimbo re: this~~
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069104.html
Q1. What role does his stated/pending legal threat play in this?
~~None. I think he has absolutely no legal case at all here.~~
~~Q2. Is this being done to try to protect the untested Section 230 coverage?~~
~~No.~~
Q3. Are you willing to disclose the current "back room" status of your communications with Brandt (if any), for full disclosure, so no one is caught by surprise that may interact there? Are you willing to confirm if such exist so that people know the scale/importance of this, if it's more than just trying to be nice?
I am happy to disclose, and already did in my unblock notice and emails here. I don't consider making public statements and engaging in a public discussion to be "back room" at all. Brandt and I are talking by email about his status in Wikipedia, both as editor and as biographical subject, and I am attempting to address his various concerns in a way that is both consistent with our policies (NPOV in particular) and respectful of him as a human being.
He seems to be discussing in good faith, and I know that I am discussing in good faith. Whatever disagreements he and I, or he and others, may have, it seems fairly clear to me that he wants only to edit the talk page of his own biography (he has said so), so that he can complain there about various problems he perceives (such is his right).
He would still like the article about him to be completely deleted, but I think he also understands that complete deletion is not likely to happen. So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better.
~~I have offered to fly to San Antonio at my personal expense to meet with him and the board of his organization, an offer which he has so far declined, as is his right of course.~~
I do not approve of his past actions, but I do believe that there is a possibility for peace here. I intend to make the best of it, and I hope that everyone will support me to the best extent that they can. (One way to support me, of course, is to talk about why you think I am wrong and what you think I am doing wrong.)
~~--Jimbo~~
~~Meant to post this before; it was the post that Ryulong's block caught me on earlier. Infodmz 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Start the healing...~~
I truly hope that Brandt is sincere with his desire to rebuild the burnt bridges... but I truly think he needs to re-earn the good-faith of the Wikipedian's community. Pulling down the hivemind site is a good first step... but it is only a first step. I think that if continued healing to happen Brandt will need engage in an active campaign to request the forgiveness of those he has hurt. I really wouldn't mind a stubbing/deletion of the article that bears his name. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but he is not showing any signs of good faith. He posted on WR yesterday evening that, and this is a direct quote "I don't want to be a Wikipedia editor, I want my bio down." I would prefer to post his entire post but I am not sure that is appropriate or permitted, and obviously a link is out of the question. His post can be found fairly easily on WR.

In light of his own personal wishes which he himself expressed, I am at a loss to understand why he is being unblocked against the will of the community. Unblocking him is a meaningless gesture that is an insult to the people here he has harmed, and means nothing to Brandt himnself. The only purpose it serves is to make him happy by making the people he has harmed feel hurt and betrayed.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it helps by allowing him to comment on his bio, which isnt about to disappear. It is not against the will of the community but agaisnt the will of certain members of it, and some of those he hurt are happy to see the situation being calmed down and not made worse (as too many wikipedians appear to want, how is that going to help those of us outed?), SqueakBox 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide citations. Specifically, I'd like to know which of the people who were menaced and had their jobs threatened as a result of his actions are "happy" to see the unblocking. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but even ordinary evidence would be useful here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Depends what you mean by menaced and who exactly had their jobs threatened. If you can give me some concrete details yourself I could respond but clearly there are people outed on HM who support Brandt being able to contribute to his talk page, including myself. Just because people are threatened, menaced etc does not mean they support the ban DB forever camp, so I suggest you probvide citations for your beliefs first. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC) SqueakBox 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. I said the opposite, which was that Brandt was happy solely because his victims were upset by his unblocking. That is speculation on my part, based on the total lack of remorse shown in his public comments. (striking out. I misunderstood. Choirboy was not responding to me). Squeakbox, Brandt did not say that he was interested in improving his biography. He wants it removed. You are reading into his remarks what he did not say.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well his choice is to see it removed but given that wont happen he would rather contribute to see it imporved. His trying to do that in the past and being prevented has created all this, eg he wanted a ref to the Carter amnesty for draft resisters, SqueakBox 15:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your basis for saying that? He has given no indication that he wants it improved. If he has, please indicate where that has come out.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks aren't punishment. Blocks are preventative. If a user behaves himself on Wikipedia, what purpose does a block serve? It would be a very dangerous precedent to maintain a block just because we don't like what somebody is doing elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a forum for resolving off-wiki disputes. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to respond to the person who suggested that Brandt was interested in reconciling. He has shown absolutely zero interest in doing so. His public statements show the opposite intent. So let's not kid ourselves about that.--Onlyjusthisonetime 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above Jimbo says"So now I am talking to him about specific steps we might take (he and I but also all of us) to make the article better.". For those who have followed the DB page it is clear that his being unable to comment on his bio talk page, (partly because DennyColt insisted on deleting all DB's comments and trying to get anyone who was responsive to his comments blocked) has led to this unblocking, and as someone who supports his right to contribute toh is biot alk page I support the unblocking, SqueakBox 15:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~That's what Jimbo wants. What DB wants is soemthing altogethere different. His objective, about which he has launched a crusade, is to DELETE HIS BIOGRAPHY. Again, from his post yesterday:~~
"If I get my bio down, then at the same time they do this, they should delete my User and User_talk pages, as I've already requested. It is far more important to establish the precedent of a successful takedown campaign by a semi-notable, than it is to establish the right to edit Wikipedia. Sane people don't want to edit Wikipedia, but many of them do want their bio taken down."
He couldn't be clearer. Whether or not he was rankled by DennyColt's action is beside the point. He is not interested in being a member of this community. What part of "Sane people don't want to edit Wikipedia" don't you understand?--Onlyjusthisonetime 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again from his post last night: "they're getting all worked up over fighting the wrong battle." Meaning, this issue we are discussing right now. It's right there in black and white. Black and green, actually. I would post a cite but it is verboten as we all know. See also the letter from him posted on his talk page.[111] His WR post is a more frank restatement of his ONE AND ONLY objective, which is deletion of his biography. Also I would point out that public letter contaisn a near-explicit legal threat.--Onlyjusthisonetime 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~User:Makalp~~
I request Makalp (talk · contribs) be blocked for causing edit wars blatantly. Note: This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish. 1-[112], 2-[113], 3-[114], 4- [115], 5- [116] all evidence of disruption. Please see this with ignorance he redirects the page removing all content he has been here long enough he is doing this to stir up trouble. 6-[117] look if this isn't vandalism I don't know what is, he doesn't even discuss it this is blatant vandalism. This is just a few of his disruptive edits, last week he removed any mention of Kurdish in more than 50 articles he doesn't dare discuss anything instead he labels it "clean up" and removes any mentions of Kurdish. Over here he reverts an admin using "undo", 7-[118], 8- [119], over here he removes Armenian 9-[120]. On this page he insists on adding tags in which he can't even handle a debate in the talk page, he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged 10-[121], more nonsense reverts 11-[122]. Ashkani 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~This ones today, 12-[123] Ashkani 21:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]~~
Oppose ban - I've had some problem with this user at Choban salad but I don't think your diffs are clear-cut enough to support a ban. Sorry. The Behnam 01:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I rather have admins respond to this vandalism. He removes all contents from a page and redirects it with no discussion at all removes anything that says "Armenian Genocide" or "Kurdistan". Ashkani 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this user has some problems with this editing (kept removing the 'suggest merge' tag from Choban salad, for example), but this is the community noticeboard for community input. If you only want admins to decide you may need to take your request elsewhere. The Behnam 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well you obviously have ties with this user into more description third party users who are uninvolved. Ashkani 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ties? Please, AGF. I don't know why you'd think that anyway. I've only had one experience with this user and it was negative (at Choban salad). And sorry but I can't figure out what "into more description third party users who are uninvolved" means. The Behnam 01:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to clarify? he's mass moves of pages to Turkish names is another problem with no discussion as far as I know. Since this is not Turkish Wikipedia but English wikipedia, its very disruptive. Ashkani 01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do need to clarify. I mean, dude, this is a ban for a user. It's big business. The Behnam 01:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just said it like 5 times, he is doing vandalism by removing "Kurdistan" and "Armenian Genocide" from articles, adding inappropriate POV tags with no discussion when people offer him discussion he ignores it and he reverts back to the tags. He reverts many times, he says "clean up" when he removes relevant info I have enough evidence presented. He has been here long enough he knows all the rules also. I said block not ban yet.... Ashkani 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well I definitely support an educational block as he hasn't been acting properly. However I do still think that this may be the wrong place to ask for a block, but of course I may be mistaken. Cheers. The Behnam 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah a further look into his disruptive edits I found this user possibly a sock or meatpuppet [124] notice how he uses undo with the text next to it, he reverts back to makalp. Ashkani 01:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out cases where he breaks rules with this supposed sockpuppet? I think you know that a sockpuppet isn't really a problem until it violates certain rules, which I couldn't find just looking at the contribs page. The Behnam 01:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an educational block as well, 24hrs to a week, a ban is quite a big step however. -M^ask? 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a ban is crossing the limit he was warned for edit warring though, but he continues his minor controversial edits a block is good for a short period. In response to The Behnam, when using socks it states you cannot edit the same pages, or revert in favor or hide your identity in which he has done it all, but this is not confirmed. Ashkani 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can't edit the same pages to violate 3RR. After all, someone on an alternate account for public computers isn't restricted from editing the same pages. The Behnam 04:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK, If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action. same thing. Ashkani 05:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for moving the pages to the Turkish names. That's not at all disruptive behavior, I regularly do it for particular names, whereas for common ones I move them to their English ones. Many bios out there are created without taking the diacritics into account. That's no rule-breaking.

I really doubt that User:Behnam is "tied to the user" as you said Ashkani :)

As for socks. Well, request checkuser - we cannot speculate on what or who might be sockpuppeting to what degree - also remeber that another user (User:Artaxiad) created at least ten, and possibly more, and reverted and vandalized those pages. So also understand that it is also hard for established users to keep track of this. I am actively trying to keep track of at least three users who are constantly resurrecting themselves with numerous socks.

As for edit warring. Well, you can file a 3RR report if he ever broke 3RR. I see what your issue is here, nevertheless it is much more a content one. It is not "vandalism". In any case, most of his edits are cleanup tasks and work on trivial articles, and I think that people have a right to make content edits as well. He might feel differently about certain events than other editors or you, but that's not "vandalism" - his English skills might not be top-notch, but that's not rule-breaking either :) He is an established user, not an anon just dropping by and attacking articles. I am sorry but I would also oppose a ban on general vague grounds - if there are specific issues with a) socks, request checkuser, b) 3RR - file a 3RR report. Baristarim 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Makalp
About tone and speech;
"blatantly" , "Vandalism", "stir up trouble" ;
#1-All of these are obvious personal attack and violate; WP:NPA.(Attention; to whom in concern)

Allegations;
This is not a dispute this is Vandalism. He is removing any text that says "Armenian Genocide" and many other things like Kurdish.;
[1]; about Tehcir Law; This is abot an Ottoman Law from 1915.My edit; removing {{tl:totally disputed}} tag and placing the "rebellions in the Ottoman Empire|Armenian revolt" instead of "Armenian genocide".Why; 1- an official law cannot be tagged like as before, 2- Genocide is a recent term, in 1915 there was no like a concept, aims of this law is clear in the article as replacing the Armenians of warplaces of the country.3- My edits are not original, older version of the article which reverted many times before.

[2]; about Denial of the Armenian Genocide; "Diff", here is a selfevidence, it is very easy to see which version is more neutral.

[3]; about name of Diyarbakır; There is no my Turkification here, I keep Arabish root of name, I reverted back only.

[4]; about Taksim; I deleted User:EOKA-Assasin's Rv back since user was blocked, and unblocked to only to make username change request, not edits. This was an obvious violation of rules. See here my talk page about this edits;User_talk:Makalp#Reply.

[5]; about photos; one of them belong to a living person; see my edit summary, this not a blind edit, sources&citations needed exactly.

he is doing this to stir up trouble.
[6]; about Khachkar destruction; see the history of article;edit-rv war, many bad faith redirection. I moved article to main title to cool down the editors.

Over here he reverts an admin using "undo"; an admin is a user firstly, He/She has no additional rights in edits.
[7]; about Armenians in Turkey; admin had reverted ( was more comprehensive version ) with irrelevant editsummary, I Rv back.

[8]; about Armenian Genocide]; admin added this expression For example, some Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.; this is "clearly, unsourced, POV" which (more important) was added before a ref. I Rv back.

over here he removes Armenian;
[9]; about Turkish coffee; user added " known as Armenian coffee" there. Name in Armenian (which is given in the text) is different than this allegation.

he simply adds it to notify users seeing the page that this content is fake or alleged [17] more nonsense reverts
[10]; about Armenian Genocide; I Rv banned User:Artaxiad's sock User:Vrastic's (also banned) edits back.

[11]; about Arm.rebellions in the Ott. Emp.; there was a continuos edit-rv to clean "Tehcir Law" and add "Arm.Genocide" there, check history.

This ones today,
[12]; about Kaymaklı Monastery, in Trabzon; There was misinfo in article, directed to Cappadocia. There was a little info. I added; "founded in 1424, for the honor of Jesus by Alexios IV. " and some architectural info "Monastery originally was include; church with one pentagonal abscissa at the middle, a bell tower at northwest, one small chapel at the southeast. Fresques in church (dated to 18th century) can be seen to day.It was repaired many times in its history, lastly many buildings are destroyed in a fire at 1918.". All these info deleted by [[User:Ashkani] to add "Armenian Genocide" there.No comment!.

About User:Ashkani;
Edits(Reverts mainly);
#2-;Pontic Greek Genocide; Reverted sourced-referenced material.

#3-;same articles' history; playing with 3RR rule.

#4-;Recep T.Erdoğan; Why reverted? any reason?

#5-;Serebrenica-Bosniac; Reverted "muslims". Aren't Bosniac Muslim?

#6-;Toumen/Teoman/Tumen; Reverted Turkic stub templates.Why?

#7-;Copright of an Image; removed "Fair use", tagged as "NoRightsReserved"; Is it violating the wiki rules?

#8-; Here some suspicions about user;
sock? and related talk

another action and related talk

User account was created at 18 April 2007. Immediately jumped to edit-rv wars in specific articles, (generally Rv), suspicious transactions in WP:RFCU. etc.

#9-My time, and community's time; I am dealing with this unlogical-stupity matter since last 3 hours. Also many users-admins spare their times for this transaction. Who will compensate and how? Somebody should do, I think.

Last words and brief; here my (main) contributions to see what a percantage at top position. I am trying to be reasonable in all my edits. I have a definite agenda to develop Turkey related articles, and I have no much time to waste in such a transactions.
There is a personal attack in #1 and all in this alleges.

I required compensation agaist to all for actions,from community.

Regards.Must.^T ^C 20:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can hardly understand what your saying, what does this have to do with you? Ashkani 21:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear; stated by one by ,as the same order your in you allegation.Must.^T ^C 08:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what your trying to say. Stop commenting on me since this is on you. Ashkani 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, please, not the Armenia wars again. Does that set of articles ever do anything other than cause trouble? This is clearly not straightforward and not relevant to the community sanctions process either. Please take this elsewhere. If it gets intolerable, try ArbCom. Moreschi ^Talk 09:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more descriptive, this is the conduct of an individual. Ashkani 09:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:RFAR. You won't get a response here. I can't even read half the unintelligible cant that's being posted here, anyway, much less see how this is suited to any sort of community sanction. If it's really blatant vandalesque disruption, try WP:ANI. Moreschi ^Talk 09:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR is a big step its no where near there yet. WP:ANI is near. Ashkani 09:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Community patience ban for DavidYork71~~
DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) first block occured on the 22nd March 2007 with a 24hour block for a WP:3RR violation on Islam and slavery. The next occured for disruptive behavior by canvassing for an article to be promoted to GA, DavidYork71 was warned twice before a 24hour block was placed. To avoid this block DavidYork71 used sockpuppet User:149.135.84.72 at which time DavidYork71 24 hour block was extended to 48 hours. When DavidYork71 returned after the expiry of the block disruptive the behavoir continued. DavidYork71 was the block again on the 5th April since then the blocks have esculated to indefinate after the use of many sockpuppet Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidYork71.
What is being sort is confirmation of via consensus that DavidYork71 indefinate block by User:FayssalF stands. Also plaese note that currently a discussion is taking place at Talk:Islam and slavery#The picture DavidYork added about reinstating edits made by DavidYork71 and sockpuppets on the basis that WP:IAR over rides WP:BAN. The discussion also suggest that the indefinate block is only a temporary action. Gnan garra 11:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to investigate this fellow's full history yet, but his first edits aren't promising. He seems to have entered Wikipedia with the intention of injecting some kind of religious bias into the encyclopedia, changing the name God in the Jesus article to "Allah", adding "the capital of Israel" after "Jerusalem" in the Dome of the Rock article, and so on. I'm neutral on this yet. Has he really demonstrated incorrigible disruptive tendencies in a mere two months? --Tony Sidaway 13:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be useful to see his block log. What's the template for full user info? Anchoress 14:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for {{userlinks}}. Here you go: DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have no comment on the situation at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Adding it to my list. Anchoress 14:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this had been discussed and resolved. In his two weeks here he built an impressive block log and sock army, and FayssalF finally blocked him indefinitely. I support that. Maybe in a year or so it can be revisited, if he asks and convinces someone he is no longer looking for a soapbox and wants to help write an encyclopedia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I first encountered this editor editing in a strongly soapboxing fashion on Islam and slavery as well as Islam and children and heavily, heavily relying upon his own research to do so. I decided to take it upon myself to try and limit this and as I began to do so I had noticed that User:Itaqallah and User:Aminz had been making the same efforts over a fairly long amount of time. Myself and a number of other editors had repeatedly tried to reason with this editor (even editors who more or less supported his anti-Islam POV) to no avail. When others became aware of his disruptive editing they began to become involved. This editor was initially blocked for relatively short amounts of time but he proceeded to avoid his blocks with sockpuppets (which he continues to do today, see User:Badrwarrior). Then when he wasn't blocked he began a new original research push around the concepts of sodomy and yoga wherein he created an article called autosodomy and subsequently linked it to numerous yoga articles all the time claiming that "autosodomy" was a "yogic-art" while never citing any source. At this point other previously uninvolved editors became obliged to undo his disruptive edits. Given this editor's long term disruptive editing and soapboxery he most certainly merits banning for exhausting the community's patience. (→Netscott) 14:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question was asked above Has he really demonstrated incorrigible disruptive tendencies in a mere two months? - if you look at the amount of editing while banned, and the use of multiple sockpuppets while banned - the answer can only be yes. Satu Suro 14:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tendentious editing by User:Netscott~~
Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a tendentious editor who, despite consensus and many outside opinions to the contrary, has been edit warring over multiple project pages to push his opinion and remove any and all language that discourages people from superfluous polling. This started out as a simple disagreement but has turned into a disruptive mb:forest fire over many pages.

The original issue

This issue started when, over a disagreement on the page wording, Netscott decided to revoke our guideline WP:PNSD [125]. This was undone [126]; over the concurrent edit war, the page was protected.

When the protection was lifted [127], Netscott removed substantial parts of the page [128] several times [129], leading to a second protection [130].

Citing WP:BRD, he moved the page from the consensual name discussed here to his preferred version [131]. Shortly afterwards, the page was protected by his request [132]. When uninvolved admin JzG reverted the move, Netscott accused him of admin abuse [133] [134], and said that JzG should not have used WP:BRD [135]. JzG's response [136]. Outside opinion came in and disagreed with Netscott [137] [138], calling his behavior indefensible.

As soon as this protection is lifted [139], he reverts the first substantial edit to the page without citing a reason [140], and asks protection again [141]. The result of this is a semi-permanent protection that prevents page improvement.

Afterwards, Netscott suggested that deleting the guideline would be a good solution [142].

This dispute has spread to a number of other pages:

Resolving Disputes. Netscott weakened this page's wording on polling, which was disputed. If changes to policy are disputed, this should be discussed on the talk page; instead, he repeatedly reverted to his new version [143] [144]. The page was protected; outside opinion came in and disagreed with him [145] [146].

The Metawiki, where he sought to change the oft-cited page "polling is evil" to "polling can be problematic" [147]. Despite his claims to the contrary [148], he did not discuss this on the talk page [149], although one user commented briefly. This sat unnoticed for a few days; when it was noticed and undone, he started a move war [150] [151], claiming that his undiscussed changes should not be undone without discussion [152]. After the page was protected, he proceeded to move war over the talk page, giving it a different name from the actual page [153] [154]. Outside opinion was requested and disagreed with him [155] [156] [157]

Straw Polls, which Netscott has been using as a POV fork of the polling guideline [158]. He is removing facts from the page that don't support his opinion [159] [160] [161] [162] [163], and tried to give it greater credence by removing the essay tag [164] [165], and changing it to a "disputed guideline" instead [166]. The page has been protected.

Redirects. Netscott has retargeted a number of redirects to point to WP:STRAW, rather than their long-standing target [167] [168]. This has led to edit wars (1) between Netscott and Raphael, in June; (2) Netscott, Supadawg and Centrx in September; (3) Netscott, Freakofnurture and Charlottewebb in September; (4) Netscott and me in February; and (5) Netscott and me in March. Again, outside opinion was requested and disagreed with him [169] [170]. He claimed that outside opinions aren't binding [171] [172] and repeated his changes [173].

His attitude towards others has been incivil and unproductive. He has a habit of:

Referring to edits he disagrees with as "slogans" [174], "propaganda" [175], "soapboxing" [176] and "sabotage" [177], which he also does in other disputes [178].

Claiming in edit summaries to restore the original version of a page when in fact restoring his personal changes instead [179] [180].

Promising to stop edit warring [181] yet continuing to do so anyway [182] [183]. Note this response [184].

Telling people he disagrees with to stop editing a page [185] [186]

Professing to follow the Bold Revert Discuss cycle, yet stating that reverting his "bold" edits is inappropriate [187] vs [188], and [189] vs [190] [191].

As seen on WP:DR and the redirect pages, Netscott has the habit of ignoring outside opinion if it disagrees with him, and asking for another. When recently blocked for edit warring, his request to be unblocked [192] was denied by HighInBC [193], so he made a second request [194], which was denied by A Train [195]. This comment by the blocking admin is relevant [196].
In short we have here an editor who (1) tendentiously pushes an point of view, (2) rejects outside opinion that disagrees with him, and (3) tries to drive others away through incivility, and shows no inclination of stopping. This is an almost textbook example of a disruptive editor. To end this disruption, I propose that we make a topical ban, barring him from editing policy- and guideline-related pages for a number of months. >Radiant< 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is surprising that just in the last 24 hours I've actually sought to engage the mediation process relative to all of this. I would suggest that User:Radiant! look in the mirror concerning these allegations. I have been rather civil this whole time in the face of User:Radiant!'s incivility. I have done my best to work with other editors (particularly User:Radiant!) and have engaged in extensive discussions about this. The latest talk I've started here shows that there is much support for User:David Levy's idea to merge Wikipedia:Straw polls and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion into one page called Wikipedia:Polling. (→Netscott) 16:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I say User:Radiant! should look in the mirror I mean it. The fact that he's violated 3RR three times over these issues: 3RR vio1, 3RR vio2, 3RR vio3 is very evident of this. Somehow he has always managed to skip out on being blocked for these violations over some sort of "technicalities". (→Netscott) 16:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be because e.g. that last report you cite is a false report, and one of the reverts isn't one. On the other hand, you have been blocked what, seven times for revert warring already. >Radiant< 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This response from User:Seraphimblade is rather telling. (→Netscott) 16:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Civility has been cited a few times in Radiant's complaint. Many of the diffs merely show a difference of opinion and noting that expressing a difference of opinion is not necessarily uncivil, are there any specific examples of incivilty? Merbabu 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to edits he disagrees with as "slogans", "propaganda", "soapboxing" and "sabotage". Ignoring outside opinion. Telling people he disagrees with to stop editing a page. At any rate, the problem is not his incivility because frankly I've seen worse; the problem is his tendentious POV pushing. If you bring up an issue on six different pages and everywhere people disagree with you, it is becoming disruptive to keep pushing the issue. >Radiant< 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even User:Proabivouac was cognizant of User:Radiant!'s edit warring and there are others User:Kafziel comes to mind. (→Netscott) 16:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a user sees something as propagandistic, sloganeering, soapboxing and says so, is this uncivil? Radiant, you are correct in saying that this is not such a bad case of incivilty which i suspect is exagerated. May i (civilly) suggest that we focus on what you think is the real issue. He's merely stating an opinion and simply being direct, an opinion you may not agree with. Although, i suggest perhaps there is no need for him to repeat his points in the edit summary. Merbabu 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any basis to institute a ban of any sorts, and the proposal strikes me as disingenuous. Please attempt resolution.--cj | talk 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further: I have not followed the issue, but flicking through the diffs and comparing them to the 'accusations' I'm suggesting the case is at least exagerated. Also, a lot of the diffs are other editors in disagreement with Netscott, rather than Netscott's edits. Having people disagree with you is hardly banning material. If so, most of our best editors would have been banned withn weeks. :) Merbabu 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try resolution as per cj. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Radiant!'s tendentiousness has actually carried over to meta where he violated 3RR there as well: rv1, rv2, rv3, rv4. All of that without first having engaged the discussion I had started about my edits there. (→Netscott) 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netscott. I see that both of you have done wrong on it. Please try to calm down. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to this level seems like an over-reaction. Has there been mediation, or an RfC? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 742: / Line 742: @@
 ::He couldn't be clearer. Whether or not he was rankled by DennyColt's action is beside the point. He is not interested in being a member of this community. What part of "Sane people don't want to edit Wikipedia" don't you understand?--[[User:Onlyjusthisonetime|Onlyjusthisonetime]] 16:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-::Again from his post last night: "they're getting all worked up over fighting the wrong battle." Meaning, this issue we are discussing right now. It's right there in black and white. Black and green, actually. I would post a cite but it is verboten as we all know.--[[User:Onlyjusthisonetime|Onlyjusthisonetime]] 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
+::Again from his post last night: "they're getting all worked up over fighting the wrong battle." Meaning, this issue we are discussing right now. It's right there in black and white. Black and green, actually. I would post a cite but it is verboten as we all know. See also the letter from him posted on his talk page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&diff=123902739&oldid=123900358] His WR post is a more frank restatement of his ONE AND ONLY objective, which is deletion of his biography. Also I would point out that public letter contaisn a near-explicit legal threat.--[[User:Onlyjusthisonetime|Onlyjusthisonetime]] 16:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 == [[User:Makalp]] ==