Resolved

 – user blocked

I notice that User:Noroton is, once again, removing the links to MichaelMoore.com. Is this official, we've declared his website an attack site? If not, I'd like to raise this as an issue of disruptive editing, since it is my understanding the issue was that MichaelMoore.com was linking directly to THF's edit page...? This really needs to be sorted out since the war on Moore continues at Wikipedia and has little to do with building an encyclopedia. --David Shankbone 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's harassing THF. Fine under WP:NPA#External links. Will ^(talk) 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't directly now, but it did. Will ^(talk) 15:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know what your statement means: that MichaelMoore.com is now banned because he pointed out that an ideological rival edits his pages, one whose identity was never concealed? If so, I think I'll open up RfC not only about the THF name issue, but also about what is an "attack site", what are the degrees, and whether this qualifies. --David Shankbone 15:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware of why it's being done (notwithstanding Noroton's personal stance on Moore), but the general consensus appears to be that this is a borderline incident and there's a strong consensus that mm.com is a) not an attack site and b) not being linked in order to attack THF. There's strong consensus that Wikipedia doesn't randomly blacklist external sites, and that's what's being done here. Noroton is fresh off a block for doing this already. Chris Cunningham 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The not-there talk page was attacking/harassing THF. Will 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What? More importantly, did you read the rationale I provided? This isn't a clear-cut case of WP:NPA#External links. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Chris Cunningham 16:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong Sceptre/Will: The Moore site was seen as "harassing" THF with the inclusion of links to edit his page. There was no "attack" and there is no definition of the word attack to support the matter-of-fact post on Moore's website. Once the "harassment" via the edit links were taken down, the issue was resolved. --David Shankbone 16:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't revealing the identity and posting a picture of an anonymous editor considered an attack? Because that's all still on the Michael Moore site even now (though not plastered across the top as before). Clearly, the point of posting THF's identity and photo is intimidation, even if the specific link to edit his talk page was taken down. ATren 16:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we close this? I think Noroton is correct substantively for the reasons ATren states, and I am personally disappointed about the uneven application of Wikipedia policy, but this block against Noroton (unlike the last one) is correct procedurally. He was told by the unblocking admin not to remove the links, and he removed the links, and he got blocked. Nothing more here for administrators to intervene. THF 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Michael can have his links back when he stops attacking wikipedians, all he needs to do is take the attack of his web page. Also DavidShankBone needs to re-read WP:AGF when it concerns why people want these attacks stopped. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably get blocked for blocked for this, but...

I believe that User:El_C is inappropriately editing on my talk page, threatening to block me if I continue disputing with Anonimu (talk · contribs). I doubt that El C is non-partisan in this matter, as his user page expresses sentiments to that normally seen of Anonimu.

The reason why I keep an eye on Anonimu and not his opponents is because it's better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't, and Anonimu had come to my attention via a friend of a friend, and I posted on ANI giving my opinion upon the 100 edits previous to that posting, and I recommended that he be blocked. Since then, he hasn't changed.

The point is that El_C is thinking too highly of the sysop bit, thinking it conveys authority, by telling me unilaterally to stop disputing or I'll be blocked, without citing a single policy or guideline as to why - in any of my disputes with Anonimu, I have stood by either multiple policies, guidelines, or a mixture of both - WP:HARASS excepts checking an editor's contributions to fix policy violation (in my most recent one with him, yesterday, NPOV, and in the most recent one regarding him, on his talk this afternoon, NPA (Nazi is a personal attack regardless of veracity)), and also prohibits intimidation and threatening of users, which I feel El_C is doing, and would prefer that if someone warned or discouraged him not to do so. Will ^(talk) 21:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a note: saying "I'll probably get blocked for this" is being rather uncivil. So is calling Anonimu the devil. Remember to Assume Good Faith--danielfolsom 22:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It was probably a poor choice of words, but "the devil you know than the devil you don't" is a common expression. android79 22:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" is a common idiom and is in no way an attack on Anonimu's character. I'll concede slightly on the "I'll probably get blocked for this...", though.

Will ^(talk) 22:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, you're correct - sorry I'm not sure why i mentioned that as I'm aware of the idiom - I guess I was reading your comment a bit too fast - my mistake.--danielfolsom 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Err, what is the dispute about, exactly? android79 22:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Which dispute? With El C, succintly, I think that El C is threatening and intimidating me without basis. Will ^(talk) 22:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To me it appears that sceptre is following Anonimu and involving himself in disputes Anonimu is involved in - and El_C believes that he is doing this to an extreme, saying it's "to the point where, one time, you even supported one of the tens of sockpuppets Bonaparte has unleashed against him" - however the bigger issue is whether El_C has the authority to tell Screptre (s)he is "out of his dispute, effective immediately." As to whether or not he is allowed to do that is not for me to decide--danielfolsom 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

About Bonaparte, yes, I did support Bonaparte's sock to get Anonimu banned, but no, I didn't know it at the time, and I provided about a dozen links showing why he should be, so it's hardly blind support of a banned user. (And by the way, I'm a he). Will ^(talk) 22:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu is currently blocked for edit-warring, so there should be no active dispute at the moment. His block log makes a convincing case that there's a serious problem, and he's prefaced his talk page with a note telling people not to bother, which isn't the most collaborative approach. That said, things have clearly reached the point where a more community-based form of dispute resolution (e.g. RfC or WP:CSN) should be considered rather than perpetuating a one-on-one dispute. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably what got El_C annoyed was me removing a thread on Anonimu's talk which called Anonimu's opponents a "hate group" and "nazi sympathisers" - both personal attacks regardless of veracity. Besides, wasn't that what Anonimu wanted, for a clean talk page? Will ^(talk) 22:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with Anonimu in the past (also blocked him before). The user is a habitual trouble user, anyone who sees his extensive block log can see this. I agree that it is unfair to threaten Will because of this, considering his clean block log the threat of a unilateral block is out of line I believe. Though I think it would be wise for you to take a breather from dealing with Anonimu for the moment.--Jersey Devil 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu is the target of the long term-harassment lead by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Secondly, he did not violate the letter of 3RR. Whether he edit-warred in general to deserve a block is a separate matter on which I have no opinion at this time. I simply request more eyes keeping an eye on various open proxies, IPs, socks and trolls who attack Anonimu all the time to present him a much more of a trouble user than he is. This week only I personally removed half a dozen of false reports on Anonimu placed on this board as well as AN by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with concocted discussions and falsified signatures. Will Sceptre revert-warred at Anonimu's page as late as today.

I leave it up to others whether to unblock Anonimu this time. It is a matter of judgment whether his still under 3RR reverts of trolls, socks and open proxies constitutes disruption. But I ask for some sympathy towards the guy who is, no angel true enough, the subject of the harassment campaign unheard since the times of Bonny and his socks ejected user:Node_ue, also a non-angel, from Wikipedia. Just my comment on this. --Irpen 22:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Scpetre is trying to get a rise out of the user; that is not acceptable and he may be blocked for harassment if it continues. Jersey Devil has already showed himself to be one-sided in this dispute (which is why Sceptre has consistently canvassed him for his involvement), so I am opting to take his obvious sympathy with a grain of salt. Either you review all users involved in the dispute fairly (that is, review the other side, to begin with), or matters are gonna become worse and further away from resolution. Thx. El_C 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had no contact whatsoever from Sceptre about this. I just happened to view it while reviewing AN/I. Please remember AGF. Needless to say, I am surprised by your conduct on this matter El C. I've usually found you to be a fair admin, but your attempts to minimize my thoughts on this matter by saying that I am "one-sided" and was "canvassed" is completely out of line. I guess that is what passes as admin-to-admin discussion these days.--Jersey Devil 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. I did not say you have initiated contact, and these are concerned that I have, in fact, disclosed to you in the past. El_C 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why I've talked to Jersey about Anonimu is because he dealt with him recently. Will ^(talk) 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I want you to stay away from Anonimu, and most definitely refrain from reporting him on AIV, as you did yesterday. El_C 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree in that AIV should only be used for pure vandalism and not on POV pushing.--Jersey Devil 22:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent POV pushing is vandalism (WP:VANDAL: "Though inappropriate, [POV pushing] is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned.") Will ^(talk) 22:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to report him for vandalism over a content dispute (in this case, whether the two-hour trial - and - followup - execution of Nicolae Ceauşescu for genocide can be termed a "kangaroo court"). But you definitely should not be following him around just to revert war; from now on, you won't. El_C 09:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If El_C has time, he would be the best person to mentor Anonimu. He is familiar with the context and has the right attitude. Mentoring Anonimu may include having to block him from time to time, proding him here and there and keep Bonny sock/meatpuppets away from him. And JD is too block-happy to deal with complex matters. Just a suggestion. --Irpen 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both the suggestion and the "block-happy" claim (which is needlessly incivil). If Anonimu were to get a mentor it should be a completely indifferent third party admin.--Jersey Devil 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

JD, please cut on the unwarranted civility talk. This bogus civility stuff is brought about every time someone is criticized. Criticism may be "unfair" but there was no incivility in my entry whatsoever. As for the fairness I never ever heard of you before this sad incident which was self-explanatory enough. And I challenge you to find a single sign of misconduct by El_C that would make him improper for dealing with this matter. I say, the best mentor should better be aware of the history of the problem and have an immaculate reputation. That's all. --Irpen 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility isn't bogus, it's policy. Will ^(talk) 23:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL is a policy. Falsely invoking it in unrelated disputes is a bogus. And gaming WP:CIVIL is responsible for more WP trouble than Willy on the Wheels with all his socks. But this is a side issue. There is no civility issues whatsoever in my entries above. Please stay on topic and refrain from "uncivil citing of WP:CIVIL" to deflect the discussion away from the topic. The issue at hand that Anonimu needs to be contained but harassment of him (including by Will Sceptre) has got to stop NOW. --Irpen 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To get back to the reporting user's opening statement, I don't know the players here or the history well enough to be able to say whether or not there is a real conflict of interest on El_C's part, but there is apparently at least a perceived COI. I think it is fine for admins to have strong political views, and to participate in discussions and articles that they are interested in. But they need to be careful to avoid using their admin tools (or threatening to) in situations that leave them open to the allegation of a COI. If a violation is beyond the pale, and the action would be unquestionably correct, that is one thing. But if there is any kind of "call" to make, and it involves a topic or users who the admin could be perceived to have a COI with, the admin should seek another uninvolved admin to take the action. I can think of a half dozen admins who generally disagree with me on political and social issues, but that I would trust to make the right call on a behavioral issue with a user. They might not do what I wanted them to do, but their involvement would certainly nudge the conflict in a more positive direction. It's a good policy to follow. It not only protects the users from possibly biased action against them, it protects the admin from COI charges, and protects the image of the project as viewed from outside. I think the suggestion of El_C mentoring is a good one. - Crockspot 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I find it very hard to take Sceptre's complaint in good faith. "Probably what got El_C annoyed was me removing a thread on Anonimu's talk ... wasn't that what Anonimu wanted, for a clean talk page?" You were helping Anonimu clean his page, Sceptre..? Please don't flaunt absurdity. I've a good mind to remove these frivolities from ANI, especially after reviewing your ruleslawyering responses to El C on your page (here it is before you removed the section in question). I too urge you to cease doing anything else that is Anonimu-related, and will consider blocking you if you persist. Since you would like to see a basis in codified policy, please review Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bishonen | talk 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC).

  Your response isn't in good faith either. What I said came off in a bad tone, and that's because I'm a bit annoyed. I was seriously removing them to save Anonimu an edit - he wasn't going to read them anyway. Besides, for the fourth time I've said this "nazi sympathiser" and "hate group" are personal attacks regardless of veracity. WP:ENC and WP:BATTLE applies, frankly, more to him than me - in every single conflict with him, I've at given policies and guidelines as my reasoning. I'll admit I don't like Anonimu, yes, but I'm not reverting every edit of his, I'm only reverting inappropriate edits by him. Will ^(talk) 23:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the thing I said about a unilateral demand sticks - Only those delegated authority (ArbCom, Foundation) should exercise it - the sysop flag allows you to block, delete, protect, and automatically rollback, not give you authority. An admin can use the tools to follow process, policies, guidelines, and a few essays - for example, a persistent POV pusher on an article will be blocked to prevent the POV, a heavily vandalised page will be semi-protected to prevent the vandalism, etc, etc. An admin can't say to a user acting in good faith that they'll punish them if they do something the admin doesn't like without good reason. Such a decision is very controversial, and should be left to the community to decide whether it's appropriate. Will ^(talk) 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's clear you have an axe to grind against this user and that your efforts have been wholly one-sided (so much so that you have not even remotely touched on this point). If you continue following him around you will be blocked for disruption. You may appeal to the Arbitration Committee or to any "paid foundation employee" once such a block expires. I have nothing further to add to that. El_C 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

El_C would you mind providing some examples of Will harassing or following Anonimu? The WP:AIV diff by itself doesn't really seem as bad as you are making out to be. (Which is why I'm asking what you know that those of us unfamiliar with this issue don't which makes you sure Will is out to get Anonimu?) Anynobody 05:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

probably this one. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know much of the details about Will =/= Anonimu but a comment by Will strikes me. "Will" do you know that threatening to edit war is considered disruption? Please explain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of an edit-war if you're upholding the three very basic Wikipedia policies. (NPOV, NOR, V) Will ^(talk) 12:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of research and noted these edits on three User talk pages;

User talk:Anonimu
Sceptre/Will reverts an edit to Anonimu's talk page, three times for reasons discussed below on El Cs talk page. I personally think El C was right to restore the removed thread because I don't support editors deleting stuff from another editors talk page, but Will didn't seem to be acting in bad faith, just repeating a mistake. El C began insisting on no uncertain terms he wanted Will gone for some reason by around 12:30.
10:40 24 August
11:52 24 August
12:21 24 August

User talk:El C
Will:explains the 10:40 edit, 11:51 24 August
Will:12:18 24 August
El C:Either way, I just don't want *you* to be involved 12:32 24 August
Will:12:37 24 August.

User talk:Will
El C:Hi. what are you trying to do? 10:47 24 August
El C:User talk:Anonimu - do not revert me 12:00 24 August
El C:12:35 24 August
El C:it is *your* presence, specifically, that is not sought 12:39 24 August

I just don't want *you* to be involved and it is *your* presence, specifically, that is not sought seems needlessly rude and almost bullyish when one factors in El Cs warning to make himself scare from Anonimu's pages or face blocking. Am I missing something, or is El C bent out of shape that someone dared to revert him? Anynobody 08:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sceptre will not be allowed to follow Anonimu around from article to article anymore. That's over with. El_C 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, the only example I saw where Anonimu had edited first was on Nicolae Ceauşescu, which other articles did he follow Anonimu to? Anynobody 08:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu was unblocked by El C earlier today ([9]) - while I concede that Anonimu didn't break 3RR, El C shouldn't have unblocked him himself, as he's hardly neutral in the dispute. Also, El C is still waving around the "mop gives me authority" flag - which it doesn't (WP:ADMIN). If El C wants authority, he should run for ArbCom next election. And I did say why I kept/keep an eye on Anonimu very early on in this thread - "better the devil you know...". Will ^(talk) 12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral enough to get things done; stop rulelawyering. But if you want to test my resolve, by all means follow him to the next article. El_C 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop using threats against other users to get your way. With regards to Sceptre, let it go for a while and cool down. Just take a wikibreak. It should also be noted that El C has involved himself in this content dispute at Talk:Nicolae Ceauşescu. [10] How could this possibly be considered a neutral party.--Jersey Devil 13:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop mischaracterizing my warnings as threats and stop empowering disruption to settle a score. Your hostility is regrettable. El_C 13:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh? I don't see how arguing on the talk page that the article should reflect scholarly consensus is in any way controversial. El_C 13:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. This thread doesn't read well for El C. El C, it certainly looks like you've hit a point where you're way to involved in this at a personal, grudge-holding emotional level to continue to be the admin monitoring this situation. Your ultimatums are ridiculous. Do what I say, or I'll block you, when dealing with a ridiculously bad editor and a good editor trying to prevent damage to the project, looks like you've got other reasons to hate Sceptre. As JD says above, take a wikibreak, and let other admins handle this. I woke up and logged on, read this, and you're not at all neutral in this matter anymore in my eyes. Can't help but note that your response to the complaint, as he predicted, is to try to block the complainant(complaintant?whatever). Finally, saying 'I just don't want YOU involved' certainly sounds unduly hostile and singling ONE editor out. Please follow JD's advice, and pass this off to another capable editor, and go cool off. ThuranX 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well about the wikibreak advice I was referring to Sceptre but you're probably right in that it should also apply to El C. This has gotten out of hand and the best thing now would be for both El C and Sceptre to try to cool down a bit and take a short wikibreak.--Jersey Devil 15:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere; certainly not on account of the superficial reading of someone as notoriously abusive as ThuranX (his ANI attacks are to known both for their lengths as for their venom). Take it to arbitration, if you like. El_C 17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

El C's approach to the problem should be commended. Will should be advised to stop following Anonimu and endlessly complaining about his activities on this page and elsewhere. I suggest archiving this meaningless thread that distracts folks from more urgent issues. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, me leaving the project for any length of time would make many people happy, but in light of the scope of the work I do, it probably would not be in the interest of the project. But if JD, whose administrative conduct I'm calling into question in this case, wishes to perpetuate this thread, well, that's his prerogative. Granted, it does slow me down elsewhere, somewhat. El_C 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that this went far way from our DR procedures i must say that since Anonimu is unblocked even if he was edit warring, Will was not blocked even if he was following Anonimu and edit warring and El C would not take any wikibreak even if he threatens sometimes more than necessary, nor anyone else would take a break, i recommend that this issue would or SHOULD follow the DR policy. Just a friendly note. The 3 of you are well aware of the policies so there's no admin advice to offer you here, except the DR process, or any admin intervention would be needed unless some admin would make of this incident a big headline at the ANI. Archiving... -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a neutral comment on WP:AN and EL-C reverted it. Why is he so threatened by such a benign comment. It concerned TJSpyke where it was proposed to unban him and force multiple confessions from him. I said that the user should make promises to behave but that forced confessions shouldn't be required.

What is the fuss about this.

Like the original poster of this thread, who said that they expect to be blocked, I think I will be blocked unfairly just for making an innocent statement which no man with logical beliefs should feel challenged. This is why I came to Canada, so that I could speak my mind unlike in some countries. SanjayPatelofCanada 05:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: if El_C and other admin read this, say ok, and move on without the desire to retaliate and inflict pain, this will show that they are men of good character. El_C, you can redeem yourself by doing just that. SanjayPatelofCanada 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit seemed like vandalism/provocation, was reverted once by myself, twice by another admin; he's the one who blocked you, not me. El_C 08:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Per the section "proposal" below. Discussion has become counter-productive of what was to be discussed here. The issue was SlimVirgin using an alternate account, the solution is undetermined and can never be by this thread, and the fact nothing needs immediate administrator attention. Regards, — Moe ε 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Thatcher has acted on my "inclination" [19] and re-opened the discussion, let me give the following preamble. As Thatcher notes below the Arbitration Committee is discussing the issues involved here, and as El_C points out below out the ArbCom mailing list is available to any editor who wants to make their views known to the Committee more privately. We welcome and encourage any thoughts any editor might have on these issue. But we should all understand that the issues involved here are not solely for the ArbCom to decide. In most respects, it is ultimately the community which has the responsibility of deciding how things work around here. And that deciding is generally best done on-Wiki. To that end discussions like this can be helpful, however we need to conduct any discussions with great care. SlimVirgin and Jayjg are long-time well respected editors who have made many valuable contributions to our encyclopedia. They deserve to be treated with generous assumptions of good faith and respect.

For completeness sake I've restored the following two comments which were dleted by Thatcher when he re-opened the discussion:

Folks, the Arbitration Committee's mailing list is that-a-way. Those who wish for drama and public spectacle, there are plenty of off-wiki venues. El_C 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's chill out for a bit. ArbCom knows about both allegations (sockpuppets and misuse of oversight). This is not going to be solved immediately, and failure to solve it immediately and publicly does not automatically mean there will be a coverup. Assuming that we don't actually want to run SlimVirgin or Jayjg off the project, let's take a break on this and let the people we elected to be responsible for this sort of thing talk about it for a while. Hopefully they will make a public statement; in the meantime, archive pretty please? Thatcher131 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul August ☎ 06:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll present this news briefly, without much editorializing. I'll leave it up to others to figure out what this all means, and what our response should be to this abuse of our trust. Well-known administrator SlimVirgin has been caught red-handed. She used a sockpuppet by the name of Sweet Blue Water to sway discussion on a 9/11 article (no conspiracy theories please). I have blocked the sock indefinitely, per standard practice for abusive sockpuppets. I have not blocked SlimVirgin because this incident took place awhile ago. There are some things we do not know, such as: is SlimVirgin still using sockpuppets? If so, what should we do about it? More generally, as a community, how we should we respond to these actions taken by one of our own administrators? --Cyde Weys 00:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This user hasnt made any edits. Do we know Slim is using/has used socks? cos its news to me and these are serious accusations without even a diff to back them up re a highly respected admin. I suggest you give us some solid evidence or withdraw your complaint, SqueakBox 00:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because Mr. Weys made a typo. He meant just "Sweet Blue Water" -- [21]. MessedRocker (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox, read the attached page. It's obviously written by a person with an axe to grind.. but the evidence is compelling.--Gmaxwell 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that is Sweet Blue Water (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I await (a) the check user and (b) the evidence. To be honest if this were true its a case for arbcom at the least, we cant dse Slim blocked on the basis of an AM/I report, SqueakBox 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Cyde, It's a good think that you didn't block Sarah: the edits were two years ago. If it's all true but there isn't any evidence of more recent misdeeds, then so what? We've all made bad judgment calls.

What is a little more disappointing is the overuse/misuse of oversight. I pointed out that the early uses of oversight by Jay were questionable which resulted in Brion temporally removing his permission until it was investigated. I think arbcom eventually decided the oversights were okay, and in any case he was given the permission back... Seeing the edits there I can see how they could be argued to be personally identifiable, which is something I couldn't figure out when I first complained about the possible overuse of oversight because I was unaware of the IP and the other account. But still it seems that the ultimate decision to allow Jay to aggressively oversight Sarah's edits was an error. Ultimately it did nothing to improve her privacy, it may have hidden some abusive actions, and it has called our honesty into question. --Gmaxwell 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I was going to remove this thread thinking it was just a random editor with a grudge. Seeing as it's Cyde, I relented. I think good faith should be applied and it should be remembered that Shaw is a big ISP. That, and that was two years ago, so I think we should assume that she's not doing it now (but she may and probably has in the past) Will ^(talk) 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I didn't make any bad judgment calls that were nearly as egregious as abusing sockpuppets. I don't think there is a "statute of limitations" on abusive sockpuppetry. I think it speaks directly to one's character. Now maybe if I see an apology to the community my stance might be softened a little bit. --Cyde Weys 00:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of fucked up to say, Cyde. Wikipedia is neutral, and shouldn't really care if someone is sorry or not, only that they are not doing it anymore. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that they haven't done it anymore. How do we know that she wasn't socking the last three years? -Nodekeeper 14:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(looking through the edits) The claim that there was 3RR on the Tsunami edits is incorrect; there were two very different edits, and only two of them; even if it's same account or sockpuppetry it wasn't abusive. (Still looking at the rest). Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not working off the old oversight-free dataset, but Judd Bagley didn't provide specifics on what got oversighted in there. Georgewilliamherbert 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There were two votes, one from each account (plus misc comments from SV) on the Featured Article Candidates discussion. That would be a violation of WP:SOCK if the two accounts are in fact the same person. (still reviewing the other 3) Georgewilliamherbert 01:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The (non-oversighted) edits by both accounts to September 11, 2001 attacks were essentially just copyedit cleanups; the one edit by Sweet Blue Water was a vandal revert of a claim that a US fighter jet shot down TWA Flight 93. That claim was added by an IP and then taken out by SBW immediately. None of the edits appear to be content/controversial for several days on either side, and the combination of them is still just maintenance work. Nothing wrong here. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page edit is commenting to that IP about it. Nothing wrong there. Georgewilliamherbert 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

...and the SBW edit to British English is related to but not identical to any edits SV was making prior to SBW editing. Definitely no 3RR; time spread out over roughly a week. No sign of abuse with this, either.

• Comment - Only 1 of these Sweet Blue Water edits appears to actually meet our WP:SOCK abusive sockpuppetry definition, or any other reasonable definition of abuse. The vote is, if SBW == SV, a violation. The others don't meet any of the SOCK criteria for abuse. Georgewilliamherbert 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As to the accuracy of the allegation, I'm not going to determine whether I believe this based on the evidence from some website I've never heard of. I'm going to do it based on things right here on the wiki, like a familiar quotation. I think I've seen it before. Picaroon (t) 00:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That sort of activity is only "abuse" if the peons do it... if a powerful clique member like Slim does it, it's perfectly fine, and the use of oversight by her friends to cover it up is also perfectly fine... but anybody who exposes it and tries to tell anybody is engaging in personal attacks and running an Attack Site. That's the way things work around here. *Dan T.* 00:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(MEC)I'm concerned by the sockpuppetry, but that was years ago, and in the absence of new problems we generally forgive such mistakes after such a long time. (Not that we shouldn't look closely for new evidence.) I am a bit concerned now by an odd pattern I noticed in discussion at WT:NOP, where SlimVirgin vehemently asserted as fact that there were indeed people who were operating more than one admin account, but declined to elaborate or provide evidence even upon being asked repeatedly how she possibly could be so sure. However, I was also very concerned to notice that she had not been notified of this discussion, and have corrected that. I certainly believe she has every right to tell her side of the story here. However, aside from that, I am very concerned to see that type of use of oversight. Almost all of us have accidentally edited while logged out at some point or another in a way which makes clear who it was. I would bet you that if the vast majority of editors in that situation requested oversight of that mistake they would be declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Could we CheckUser SlimVirgin, or would that be fishing? (Come up with an answer independent of the fact that this is SlimVirgin.) MessedRocker (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the alleged sockpuppetry was two years ago, what would be the point? Is there any legitimate reason to punish someone for something from so long ago? --B 00:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of the CheckUser would be to see if she is still doing it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are legitimate uses of socks, and if I took as much sustained abuse as she did, I would use them too for certain classes of edits. - Crockspot 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Including double voting? Please, lets not make the mistake of treating this as no big deal. This is a very serious charge and it is meticulously documented. It needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug. ATren 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that this is coming from an off-wiki blog, and as GWH has already found one untruthful spin, and this is going on three years ago, I am not all agog. - Crockspot 00:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

an objective look at the details given above paints a pretty clear picture - but the age of the edits, and a dollop of common sense might just mean that this doesn't matter that much. I think the damage of the drama of this discussion is greater than any benefit to wikipedia - i think we're in danger of being indulgent to hand wave. If Slim used a sock a couple of years ago, it doesn't matter much to me.... Purples 00:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more evidence, as if any were needed, of the perniciousness of the idiotic pseudo-policy about linking to so-called "attack sites" that a Clique Member is trying frantically to get rid of the above link with significant evidence in this case. *Dan T.* 00:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Lay off it Dan. There is no need for the histrionics here. No one supports a genuine abuse of oversight... even for a card carrying cabalist like Sarah. She does deserve our defense against trolls who are out to harm her, but defense doesn't extend to misleading the public or lying. We'll get it all sorted out. There is no need for a witch hunt on any side of this. The evidence presented clearly shows a privacy interest in using oversight against the evidence connecting the accounts, because her IP was disclosed. It appears that the end result, however, wasn't good.--Gmaxwell 01:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, an edit war. The link should not be posted on this page. It attacks at least two individuals. If you really want to read it, get it out of the history. - Crockspot 01:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, that link is necessary for the discussion: Remember that WP:BADSITES IS NOT POLICY. Viridae^Talk 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA#External links is a core policy. - Crockspot 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thios isnt a personal attack, as is QUITE clear, so that policy doesn't apply. Viridae^Talk 01:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The blog was an attack on two individuals. I see there is a different link, which may not be an attack. - Crockspot 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not however being used to attack someone, it was being used as evidence in a discussion, how are you missing the distinction? How about I put it a bit more clearly for you: This thread =/= personal attack. Questionable link == needed for the non personal attack thread. Use of link =/= personal attack. NPA =/= applicable. Comprende? Viridae^Talk 01:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The evidence was presented in the form of a personal attack, with commentary that has been proven to be less than accurate. You'll notice that the blog is not linked above any more. I have no problem with raw evidence. - Crockspot 01:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was presented in the same way the current link is presenting it, + commentary. And who cares? It was the evidence that it was beind used for? Cyde did not start this thread to try and attack anyone, he was using the link as evidence. Any way it is pointless arguing about this any further, the original link is removed, but the evidence stays the same. I am glad you are "allowing" allowing this one, because the consensus was quite clearly not in your favour (that it was a personal attack) and you had way blown 3rr. Viridae^Talk 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

How is evidence of sockpuppetry a "personal attack"? *Dan T.* 01:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The new link is probably fine. The first blog link was a personal attack on SV and JJG. - Crockspot 01:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It had a few paragraphs of criticism along with the evidence... so is criticism a "personal attack" now? *Dan T.* 01:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who initially forked the contested POV "attack sites" content from BADSITES over to WP:NPA: [22], I must say I do regret being the one responsible for extending that controversy beyond its reasonable life. Seems if we had left it at BADSITES, it may have been killed entirely. One of my lasting "gifts" to WP, I suppose. It seemed like a good idea at the time. When I did it I thought it would be seen as clearly inconsistent with the other, more rationally worded material already on NPA, and an attempt would be made to either kill it or move it into compliance with the rest of the policy. No such luck. Oh well. My apologies to all who've fussed over or suffered over this, and to others I hope they enjoy their sense of empowerment.—AL ^FOCUS! 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The contributions of Sweet Blue Water (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows that the user has very few edits and does not engage in edit-warring (which is the main purpose of creating sockpuppets). In fact, most of the edits are to the user's own page. So, I think this is an overally very minor case letting aside that it is from two years ago. This was all said assuming that Sweet Blue Water is SlimVirgin. --Aminz 01:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but from what I see, the evidence is shaky at best. It says on there that the edit was made by a dynamic IP. Even though it was on the same ranges SlimVirgin used, we have no proof it was her on there. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment was based on the assumption that they are the same person and mentioned that even then, it seems minor. --Aminz 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nwwaew - he says he knows only the first four numbers of Slim's IP - and yet he would obviously assume any ip with those first four numbers would be Slim - and that IP is the only tool used to draw Slim to Sweet Blue ... I think the case isn't certain enough to do anything - and is too far in the past to do a checkuser.--danielfolsom 01:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just the ip - common editing - editing the same articles, and use of the same poem in their respective userpages. (look up a bit).Viridae^Talk 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But again, have we got proof it was the same person editing? For all we know, it could be an impersonator setting up SlimVirgin. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Most proof in sockpuppet cases is circumstantial - as is this. A checkuser probobly would have come back as Plausible - or whatever language they use, given we know they edit from the same IP range. Viridae^Talk 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case the evidence isn't the author of the document 'knowing' the IP.. the evidence is the content of the now oversighted edits. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But the biggest question is: who cares? SlimVirgin has been a great editor for a while - and I don't think anyone in their right mind is about to propose doing a checkuser and blocking him/her for something (s)he did in his/her (i hate how there's not a non-gender specific third person singular pronoun) first year.--danielfolsom 01:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the involvement of oversight is a major concern it appears that oversight was unintentionally used in a manner which covered up some less than perfect activities. --Gmaxwell 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If that off-site post is correct, how did the history of those deleted edits make their way off Wikipedia and onto that Web site? I thought only an admin had the tools to do that. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 01:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

They found an old database dump from prior to the edits being oversighted, (and actually much prior to that, since they were deleted months before being oversighted). --Gmaxwell —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC).

(ec)Not deleted, oversighted. Its from a database dump from before the oversighting and compared to a dump post oversighting. Viridae^Talk 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. Many (all?) of the oversighted edits in question were deleted months before we had oversight. Once we got oversight they were deleted. As a result they were not in the last dump right before oversight. If you'd like a copy to look for yourself I can give you that. They used an even older dump from before the edits were deleted. I don't have a copy of that. --Gmaxwell 01:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but who did the deleting? Wer know who he oversighting was done by, who did the deleting? Viridae^Talk 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on this bit of precedent, I would have assumed Musical Linguist did the deleting, but in the case of the IP edits in question, it doesn't appear to have been her. --Jim Larry 02:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't look for the IPs. I looked for the Slimv edits ages ago right when they were oversighted because I was trying to figure out if the oversight tool was being overused. I'll see if I have the IP edits. --Gmaxwell 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Slim wasn't even an admin in 2004. All this is insignificant ancient history. I really don't think we should desysop someone for something done before they were a sysop.Rlevse 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As with many scandals, the attempts to cover it up are of greater concern than the original act itself. *Dan T.* 02:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If there have been attempts to cover this up, especially with oversight privileges, then this should probably go to the ArbCom for further review. --Coredesat 02:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rlevse, This happened the year before Slim became an admin. I think if there is anything to look at here, the focus should be on issues relating to use of oversight, not whether or not someone used a sock two years ago. Sarah 02:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of what I've read in this section is highly hypocritical. – Chacor 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Cyde didn't e-mail me to ask me about this before posting publicly. I won't give a detailed response here, partly for reasons of privacy and partly because I'm not willing to make WordBomb's day for him. I'm happy to give a full explanation to every Wikipedian I know and trust who e-mails me asking for one. And please do e-mail if you want to know more; I definitely won't take it as an accusation. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if this sounds harsh, SV.. but private explanations to people you know and trust aren't really conducive to fixing this issue, which is what we all want. Anything that smacks of secrecy and hiding just fuels the people attacking you. All of us probably aren't looking for long explanations or anything similar, just the answer to. "Did you use the account mentioned above", and "Have you used any account other then your main one to edit Wikipedia in any way". Thank you for considering my request. SirFozzie 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In SV's defense, she in a situation that very few other Wikipedian's are in (or can even fully appreciate) and thus I think we should permit her the courtesy of offering her account in privacy, at least in the first instance. She knows, and I'm sure trusts, a great number of Wikipedians, not all of whom are in the oft alleged cabal. Rockpocket 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that, Rockpocket, but I really think it doesn't help the situation that we're in for it to be hidden from the public eye. A quote from Louis Brandeis comes to mind. The best way to prevent the situation is to stop it from the get-go, in my eye. *shrugs* figured I'd at least make the request. SirFozzie 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SirFozzie, all I can do is e-mail you the explanation. You may or may not find it sufficient, but I think you will. I'm still looking at the diffs myself, but I'll send something to you this evening. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Given this happened years ago and the passing of more recent events such as the recent DB attempt at outing I endorse that she has no case to answer here and remains one of our best admins (being controversial adds to that IMHO), SqueakBox 02:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As it stands it looks like the accusations that oversight has been used to hide abusive behavior may have some degree of merit. Although Sarah's actions are old enough to be uninteresting, as Dan pointed out above, the possible appearance of coverup is very interesting and important and should be fully resolved. We can do the most to hurt the trolls by making sure we're so far above board that there is nothing sane to criticize us for. --Gmaxwell 02:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Review, on WP:ANI. It's difficult to envision this place sinking any lower, but expect the unexpected. El_C 02:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything that anyone would like to accomplish here? If not, I suggest marking it resolved/closed. Even if the "allegations" are true, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest taking any kind of punitive preventative action against SV based on something so old. So if there's nothing here other than drama ... --B 02:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We need to resolve if oversight was actually used to hide embarrassing edits. If so we need to resolve if this was an intentional abuse, or accidental careless. We need to determine the Arbitration committee has violated our trust by endorsing these actions, tacitly or explicitly. ... and in order to get there I think we need to know the truth about the suspected sock. If it's true, we can forgive, and move on to the important issues... before they manage to end up in the press. --Gmaxwell 02:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if oversight was used incorrectly, that's a serious abuse ... but since very few people have access to those records, there is nothing that can be decided here. 99% of us have no ability to investigate it. --B 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the allegations are true, then it will be, at least to me, a severe breach of trust that Wikipedia places in its admins, and I would be in the forefront of any folks calling for action to be taken. Not to mention that the hurried closure/archiving would do more to convince folks that there IS fire to this smoke then anything. SirFozzie 02:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What action would you recommend? And why does everyone keep saying admins - do all admins have oversight abilities?--danielfolsom 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's like checkuser, only a few can do it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok - so it's not some admin conspiracy - everyone turn down your cabal sirens. Even if the edits were not honestly erased (which is a possibility) - it looks like an isolated event from two years ago. I just don't see this going anywhere.--danielfolsom 02:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues. The only thing that anyone outside of a very small number of users with oversight privileges can make any kind of speculation/determination about is whether SlimVirgin engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. That's a separate issue from whether or not someone improperly oversighted her edits. In the case of the former, nobody is seriously contemplating punishing her so there's nothing to discuss. In the case of the latter - unquestionably a very serious issue that should be dealt with decisively, we have no ability to make a determination and need to rely on those who have access to the logs to tell us what the determination is ... so again, there is nothing to discuss here. --B 02:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Except it's already been before Arbcom and it appears that they failed us. When oversight was first introduced the logs were public. I noticed Jayjg's mass over-sighting of seemingly harmless edits like spelling corrections with an summary of "pi". I brought the issue up with Brion, who thought it looked odd so he temporally removed oversight from Jayjg. [23]. Arbcom looked at the issue, and apparently decided that it was all okay. Jay's access was restored, the revisions stayed oversighted, and he continued mass over-sighting old edits like these. I trusted then. Having seen the evidence I think it would be unwise to extend the same trust again. --Gmaxwell 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Best not to assume malice, I suspect; nobody but the obsessive had the time or inclination to pore through things and find these apparent connections. I can't speak for other arbitrators, but I did examine (some of) these oversights and saw nothing that indicated sockpuppetry. I found the concern for secrecy possibly excessive but justified in terms of the abuse SlimVirgin was on the receiving end of. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I make no comments about the reliability of the allegations, but want to state strongly that Cyde's handling of this has been extremely inappropriate and irresponsible. Although I have forgotten the names of the two accounts, I saw a few months ago that some administrator was caught sockpuppeting through some user check, and that the ArbCom several times asked him to email them. When he refused to provide any explanation in private, he was desysopped, and I think the ArbCom gave an explanation to the community. But he was first afforded the chance to explain himself privately to the Committee. Similarly, I believe there was some case last year where some administrator unprotected a page and then edited it with a sockpuppet, and as far as I know (though I'm not aware of the full details), he was given ample opportunity to discuss the matter privately with the committee before the community was made aware of the matter. I am sure there have been other, similar cases; I am not aware of any case where an administrator has been discovered to be using sockpuppets, and has been immediately blocked, and the offence publicised, with no effort to deal with the matter privately first.

If Cyde had credible evidence of serious wrongdoing from SlimVirgin from two years back, he should have brought the matter privately to the attention of Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee. (It will not be surprising if they were already aware of it, and if they were already discussing the matter privately with SlimVirgin.) Or he should at least have emailed her to ask for an explanation, taking it privately to the ArbCom if she failed to provide an explanation that he found reasonable.

The fact that the evidence comes from one whose credibility is dubious, that it was a dynamic IP, that people can share IPs, and that the account had stopped editing over around two years ago, were all indications that there was no urgency in blocking. And since other administrators who have been found guilty of wrongdoing were afforded the dignity of a chance to explain themselves privately to ArbCom before being publicly humiliated, on what grounds did Cyde decide that SlimVirgin was deserving of less sensitivity and discretion?

Even if we didn't have a precedent of allowing established and respected editors suspected of some wrongdoing a chance to explain themselves privately before taking action, a little bit of humility would have told Cyde that he should wait and discuss it privately with someone more senior. Blocking immediately, without checking to see if this dynamic IP could possibly have been used by someone else, and then dramatically announcing here that she had been "caught red handed", as well as linking to a site that specialises in violating the privacy of our editors (and harvesting their IPs in an effort to trace their locations), and edit warring to keep that link, showed an appalling irresponsibility, immaturity, and insensitivity. And that applies regardless of whether SlimVirgin is innocent or guilty. This thread should never have been started. Similar cases have always been dealt with discreetly, with the ArbCom making an announcement only at the end of their investigations, if they found it appropriate to make one at all. ElinorD (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea the Sarah was blocked? She wasn't. It would be foolish to block her now, and that seems to be the consensus here.

At this point it appears that my error in trusting the judgment of Arbcom to review the initial mass over-sighting of Jay was an error. Virtually every time I've worked with arbcom to quietly resolve an issue their response has been ultimately disappointing. --Gmaxwell 02:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Translation: Let the clique "resolve" the issue by secret back-room discussions ending in shoving the whole thing under the rug. It's only non-clique-connected peons that get publicly humiliated for their real or imagined offenses. *Dan T.* 02:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While I STRONGLY disagree with the words above, I do agree with the spirit of what dtobias's is aaying. This is something that needs to be out in the open, for the good of Wikipedia (and before you ask, "How would you feel if YOU were under the same microscope".. I am already listed on HiveMind, with all my personal info posted, which I'm not exactly happy about, but figure there's not much I can do about it.. (I do find it funny they have a wrong picture for me, however). SirFozzie 03:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I was on Brandt's (old) Hivemind page too, and on one of Jeff Merkey's attack pages at one point. I responded by laughing at those guys, not by trying to suppress all mention of them. *Dan T.* 03:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Archive I think it would be best if perceived oversight misuse was is brought before Arb. The sockpuppet issue, however, is stale. Any action on that now, would be punitive. I would suggest appropriately placing the archive templates here. Regards, Navou ^banter 02:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose. In my mind the only real risk here is that this material somewhat validates the star-chamber accusations about the use of oversight. We can't solve justified accusations of secrecy and coverups by resolving matters in secret. --Gmaxwell 03:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I was referring to this block. An account that hasn't edited for about two years does not need to be blocked so urgently that there's no time for private discussion with the suspect or the ArbCom. The evidence for the sockpuppetry seems to be that a dynamic IP which Slim is believed (okay, I'll say "known") to have used on a small number of occasions made an answer to a question which had been asked of Sweet Blue Water. It's certainly not conclusive. And the indelible block log mentions Slim, and accuses her of abuse. ElinorD (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Elinor here. The blocking of an account that was inactive for 2 years under relatively shady evidence was done a bit haphazardly. — Moe ε 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why El insists on closing a live discussion and points editors off Wikipedia (the ArbCom mailing list) to talk about an on-Wiki problem. RxS 03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is there that can be accomplished? Even if we presuppose that Jayjg's oversights were abusive and that Arbcom is engaging in a conspiracy to ignore them, what would we be able to do here, other than sound off our righteous indignation? I have nothing but respect for Gmaxwell, but I don't see what there is that we have the power to do here. --B 03:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the issue involves Oversight, there is nothing us regular admins can practically do about it. If there is to be any investigation into misuse of oversight, it needs to be done on a higher level, either ArbCom or the Foundation directly. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(EC) Well, any change starts with sounding off righteous indignation. Right now, I don't even know if there's cause for that. I'll ask SV for what she has to say, as I do like to hear both sides of the story, and her case is an exceptional one. If it's obvious from what she says that things aren't what they seem, and no wrong has been done, I'll shut my mouth. But really, what does anyone do on ANI but express indignation, righteous or otherwise? That's how things get brought to light and hashed out. But let's say at some point an Arbitrator, or even several of them, were involved in deliberate wrongdoing. Well, there are higher authorities than the ArbCom, and getting them involved would start with widespread expression of righteous indignation. We don't need any back-room crap going on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe nothing, but I'm not crazy about a single editor closing a section when it's live and there's an objection. If more editors feel the same way then close away. Closing such a high profile section should be a little more consensual, that's all. RxS 04:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should have been closed but the closing note was needlessly hostile [24] as was the response on SirFozzie's talk page following the short revert war on here over the close. [25]--Jersey Devil 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

ElinorD was guilty of the understatement of the year when she said that the credibility of the source of this allegation is "in doubt." For the record, SlimVirgin was targeted by the Director of Communications of an Internet company that doesn't like the way its article is being handled, and blames Slim.

This person has gotten a lot of publicity, and recently had the charming distinction of harassing a teenager that he didn't like. He did that right here on Wikipedia. The teenager operates an AOL blog that criticized his company.

Earlier he targeted a mortgage banker who said tewwible blue-meaan things about his boss man! That was publicized in the NY Post. He has also bestowed all kinds of marvelous publicity on his company in the New York Times and Bloomberg. The latter devoted an entire article to his "slimy strategy."

Just so you know. I mean, I don't want to spoil the fun, but if you are going to spread excrement you might as well know where it came from. Anyone who cares can email me for links to some of the publicity this professional p.r. man has bestowed upon his company. Oh and I almost forgot to mention that he was hired by his company to run a wiki in competition with Wikipedia.--Mantanmoreland 04:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(response to ElinorD's initial observations)Have you discussed with Cyde whether he has attempted to bring this matter to the attention any other person/body prior to posting here? If it is mentioned somewhere earlier/later I may well have missed it. I realise that he did not contact Slim Virgin, by her response, but with the implications that oversight has been previously applied in this or related matters it might be considered an excuse (if slightly paranoid). Otherwise, it is just an oversight (sic) which shouldn't detract from the content. Finally, I find the comment

"...little bit of humility would have told Cyde that he should wait and discuss it privately with someone more senior..."

a little perplexing. Cyde has been editing since 2003; who is more senior that isn't part of ArbCom, the Foundation, or Jimbo himself? This leads me back to my original point - where is there any evidence that Cyde has not already used more "private" channels regarding this matter? LessHeard vanU 08:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By request of Paul August, who believes that civil discussion is beneficial, I have reverted my previous close of this topic. In the spirit of civil discourse, I offer the following comments:

1. A two year old instance of sock puppetry on one topic over a span of a day or two is no big deal.
2. SlimVirgin truly is the target of viscious stalkers, one of whom may have been responsible for this little piece of detective work. It is right and good to take reasonable steps to protect editors and admins' privacy.
3. Oversighting Slim's accidental use of her IP address had the additional effect of oversighting evidence of minor sockpuppetry, making it look like a coverup when there probably wasn't one. Sadly, this case proves that even oversight is not perfect privacy protection, and when an editor accidentally gives away their IP, recalling that error is like trying to stuff the smoke back into a lit match.
4. Overly aggressive use of oversight by Jayjg was brought up privately as an issue when oversight was first instituted, but the concerns were apparently dismissed. This should be looked into again.
5. Oversight is a powerful tool with no documented oversight of its use. Checkuser has a log so that other checkusers can see if someone is running abusive checks, and checkuser has an ombudsman directly answerable to the Foundation. Oversight has neither, because who would object to hiding information? But some people do object to hiding information, so it is important to have some mechanism for Oversighters to check each other's work (either a log or the ability to see oversighted edits), and a mechanism to deal with possible abuse, and to document these mechanisms (although by it's nature it can't be transparent).

I hope for some public and reasonably (given the concerns above) transparent resolution to this situation. Not immediately, surely, but soonish. Thatcher131 05:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the preamble I've added to the beginning of this discussion. Paul August ☎ 06:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to ensure oversight isn't abused (not that it has been)? If so, then it needs to be implemented, now.--MONGO 05:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, I concur...we are discussing edits made long before Slim became an admin even and they were very few, so this seems to be little more than a smear campaign overall.--MONGO 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone unaware of this, there is a log—visible only to those with the oversight permission, obviously—that contains a record of all oversight actions and provides access to the content of all oversighted revisions. Kirill 05:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then if there are ways for those granted oversight ability to check each other, then that seems to be adequate. I did only think that developers had this ability, so thanks for the clarification.--MONGO 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: to MONGO, the oversight policy says stewards can remove the flag for abuse, but the stewards don't have oversight, so how would they know? Or Arbcom can remove the flag.

Re: to Kirill, unless we non-oversighters spot something at just the right time, we have no idea oversight was ever used. Do you routinely check each other? Is oversight ever used in situations where the oversighter should not delete due to some kind of involvement? Thatcher131 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, stewards can give themselves any flag they need. Kirill 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher, one point needs to be made crystal clear. Re your point two ("may have been responsible") this piece of so-called detective work was the product of one of the most vicious stalkers ever to hit Wikipedia. There is no doubt about it, as it is admitted proudly, and his work is (lately) signed with his name. This is not some Internet hijinks but a real-world smear campaign. Wikipedia is just one of many venues for his professional p.r. work. --Mantanmoreland 05:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Important but not grounds to wish the whole thing away. If the village bully tells you your fly is open and you feel a draft in your boxers, better check your zipper anyway. The basic facts are confirmed by User:Gmaxwell who was concerned months ago about possible overly aggressive use of oversight. Frankly, this shit was going to hit the fan sooner or later. If, for example, SlimVirgin had admitted what the trolls have alleged all along, all but the trolls would have seen how minor and pointless it really was. Or, SlimVirgin could have abandoned the account in 2004 when she realized she had exposed her IP. Instead there has been a 3 year campaign to hide something which, due to google caches and data dumps, could never really be hidden, giving the appearance of a coverup that was much bigger than the underlying alleged conflict of interest ever should have been. I don't begrudge Slim's decision to try and keep her good name and protect her privacy, but like I said above, it was like trying to stuff the smoke back into a match. Thatcher131 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand that your concern is that, about the only people who use oversight and watch it are basically the arbitrators and a few former ones...but that is more than 20 people. So is this a concern that these folks also need to be watched and if the stewarts and developers can't or won't, then who will?--MONGO 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this is totally ridiculous. The word "witchhunt" comes to mind. For whatever reason, SlimVirgin is a major target on Wikipedia. She always has been. This was 2 years ago. If she was still using socks, I'd see the arguments here, but there is no evidence that she is. The thing is. People make mistakes. As long as she isn't using them now, I just don't see the issue here. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me say that I have made more than one sockpuppeteer furious at me, and I have left enough clues that a determined person could figure out who I am. The first phone call or email I get, I'm retired, poof, adios. My respect in the community (if I have any), my admin status, my clean block log--none of that is worth one minute of grief in real life. SlimVirgin felt differently, which is not wrong, but was the more challenging route, and despite the best efforts of many people, seems to have failed. Thatcher131 05:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Sorry, edit conflict.) Re your original reply to me, your information and analysis is based on what? Is it based on the operator of a professional smear campaign that has a record and history of providing selective evidence aimed at "proving" that the target of his boss's rage is guilty? Or is it based upon your own independent evaluation of the evidence, after obtaining an explanation from SlimVirgin?

This goes back to ElinorD's comment, which I amplified, the credibility and motives of the professional p.r. man who is behind these allegations. I'll give you an example of the crap this guy produces. He has been attacking me right and left too. His latest thing is that I "work for company X," based upon an IP edit in the middle of some church article I was editing. What he doesn't say is that all the other edits by this same IP involve articles on Polish princes and whatnot that I have never edited. See the edit history here[26], and check out the contribs of this IP [27]. The links I have just provided are the sole basis of an entire "expose'" on his company-financed website.

That is typical of his methods, and knowing this I am struck by the air of unreality of this discussion. If you want to take any action, do it on the basis of everything but what this sleazeball puts on his company-financed website. That is why it was unfortunate that this AN/I was commenced. AN/Is should not be commenced upon such a foundation. --Mantanmoreland 05:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The messenger may be foul but the message is apparently accurate. I can not speak for User:Gmaxwell but I can summarize what he told me and what he wrote above. He also has a dump of Wikipedia from before oversight and it too shows the same deleted and oversighted edits as the blogger reported. Gmaxwell's dump is different in that he can not see the content of the edits, but he confirmed that the times and users/IPs are as claimed. Gmaxwell also complained to the lead developer Brion Vibber about Jayjg's use of oversight; Brion removed Jayjg's access for two days [28] during which it was apparently discussed by ArbCom and then restored. Thatcher131 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

In any case, the Committee is aware of the concerns raised here, and is looking into them. Anyone not satisfied with letting us do that can complain up the ladder; otherwise, please don't rip each others' heads off debating the issue. Kirill 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I heartily agree that this AN/I should never have been commenced. But here it is, commenced, and underway for several thousand words. Thatcher, how can you know if what you say is "accurate" without input from the affected editors? In the example that I cited concerning myself, a superficial examination of the edits would say, oh golly Mantanmoreland forgot to sign in and came in as an IP, case closed. But then you look at this IP and you realize that is absurd. Can't you fathom the possibility that something similar is happening here, given the "foul" as you put it nature of the source? This is separate and apart from the moral issue of Wikipedia publicly rending its garments in service of a corporate smear campaign underway in various media.--Mantanmoreland 06:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oversight has logs that are viewable by other oversighters, and that i guess is supposed to be a check/balance against abusive use. However it took a non-oversighter (GWH) comparing pre and post database dumps to uncover the very agressive use of the tool. Perhaps, the logs need to be made availible to a wider range of people: (ie admins). I'm not sure what they show now, but I am suggesting something like: Aaction performed by, date and time, on what page and that is all. This would make large scale use of a tool which is supposed to have very limited uses far easier to discover. I am not suggesting that *anyone* be able to see the contents of the oversighted edits, I am simply suggesting that more eyes on the bare bones logs would give people the ability to raise questions/check for abuse more easily should it be necessary. Viridae^Talk 06:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This would also have the negative effect of drawing additional attention to the edits. Oversight was instituted because one or more admins were apparently distributing deleted content to outside groups, so a log viewable to all admins would almost certainly compromise the usefulness of oversight as a tool. Kirill 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Drawing what attention? No one is suggesting admins should be able to see the actual oversighted edits (after all, if they could, oversight would have no more effect than selective revision deletion), but only that something was oversighted. Just like when a page is deleted, a regular editor can't see what was there, but by checking the deletion log, they know something was there, that it was deleted, who deleted it, and a general summary as to why. In this case, the regular editor sees nothing, and the admin sees only "1 revision oversighted by Someonewithoversight: Contained personal info (phone number)." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how a more public log would aid in the leaking of information. Since the edits are already hidden from all non-oversights and developers, the knowledge that information was removed from a certain page can't be that compromising, can it? I can't think of anything I'm missing in how data on when who removed revision(s) from where - and why they did it - could have negative effects in the hands of admins. Picaroon (t) 06:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The location of the edit may itself be information that needs to be restricted, for various reasons (some more obvious than others); and if that's removed, we'd just be left with "Oversighter X removed a revision at Time", which doesn't seem particularly useful.

(AFAIK, there was some talk about reimplementing MediaWiki's deletion scheme to allow more fine-grained control over what was visible, and to whom, which could make this all a moot point; but I'm not sure whether that's still in the works.) Kirill 06:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to say that I agree with the substance of what is being said by DanT and SirFozzie. From what I have seen, SlimVirgin has frequently permablocked editors on evidence less compelling than that which is being presented against her -- often, I might add, editors with whom she has been involved in content disputes. I would like to submit the following modest proposal: that SlimVirgin, as a consequence of this episode, be asked not to ban others, in the future, for offenses that she herself has committed. There should be no double standards here. --MaplePorter 06:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No way, that's just lame. It makes no difference what she did in the past if she's not doing it anymore, and it should not prevent her from being a good admin now. -- Ned Scott 06:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And don't use this as an opportunity to get back at someone with which you've had a content dispute. nadav (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(response to comment by Viridae) Perhaps oversight review could be requested much in the same way that Checkuser is; operated by a few, but results available against specific valid requests? Perhaps this could be discussed at a more appropriate venue? LessHeard vanU 09:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I learned of this by email. Others have said the same, but for what it's worth I will echo their comments: an alternate account used for a couple of dozen edits over two years ago, why on earth are we even discussing this? "Swaying" a discussion? Bullshit. There were so many other people involved that it made no difference. Slim says it was an honest mistake, I accept that at face value because (a) we have no reason not to and (b) it doesn't matter anyway because it made no difference at the time. At this point we can go one of two ways: give Slim our unqualified support, or allow yet another long-standing and highly valued member of the community be hounded off by grudge-bearers on a mission. Ask yourself this: what is the present impact of this supposed problem? What is the likelihood of SV abusing this account today? We are allowed to use alternate accounts, as long as we don't use them abusively. One tiny and mistake (which is no different in character to my accidentally voting twice with one account on a AfD years ago) is so trivial that I am astonished anybody has bothered to give it the slightest consideration. Has Mr. Sense entirely left the building, people? Don't you recognise this for what it is, part of a vicious campaign by a frustrated abuser of the project? Haven't you all noticed that SV is being attacked viciously and without scruple by a few individuals who have been prevented from using Wikipedia to pursue their personal agenda? How often does this have to happen before we either stop giving aid and succour to the trolls, or run out of admins willing to take on the hard cases? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, Guy (and please stay), for once again being the voice of reason in a sea of unrelenting hyperbole and discreditable malice. El_C 09:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• The more I look at it the more pathetic it looks, frankly. The source of the problem, a posting on a blog run by a well-known and self-admitted troll, shows that there was an early use of Oversight back in the days when it was fairly new, and the past history of attacks against SV is such that any steps taken to help her improve her privacy are probably OK. But there is evidence here of evil intent and an ongoing problem - and in both cases the problem is not SV, it's Judd Bagley, Patrick Byrne and their use of an existing campaign against SV to further their Holy Crusade against naked short selling as an excuse for the execrable performance of their company. I am profoundly disappointed (though not surprised) that anybody has greeted this malicious piece of shit-stirring by Bagley with anything other than the "so what?" which is all it deserves. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There's clearly a huge, complex backstory to all of this, extending across many Web sites and into the "real world"... but it's ridiculous how this extended big mess (where everybody from corporate CEOs to journalists to who knows what other occupations the people involved have, are acting like junior-high-school kids) is driving policy decisions here on Wikipedia. The whole "attack site link" thing, which I've been fighting so hard against, seems to be one of the things that has come out of this mess; overuse of oversight is another. Promoting an air of secrecy and hierarchy on a site that's supposed to be free and open is another. It seems that perhaps Kelly Martin, and some commentators on the wiki-en-l list, were right that Wikipedia would be better off without certain people and the shitstorms that surround them, regardless of whose fault the whole mess is (and I think there's plenty of fault to spread all around). *Dan T.* 11:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dan, your crusade to allow links to Wikipedia Review has no real relevance here, links to antisocialmedia are clearly inappropriate for blindingly obvious reasons. You would do yourself a favour, I think, if you did not use this as an excuse to push your own campaign. Frankly I think it's rather tasteless. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be an awful lot that's "blindingly obvious" to those within the clique that is far from obvious to everybody else. *Dan T.* 15:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it being discussed now, instead of 2 years ago when the account was active? I suggest it was because it was not known that an alternative account existed (er, is it now recognised it was an alternative account of SV or is this hypothetical?) at the time. Certainly SV has not AFAIK commented she has edited from it, hence the current situation. The other reason is that accusations of sockpuppetry (with as much controversial editing patterns as this one) often forms part of the debates that editors often associated with SV take part in. If a valuable contributor such as SV is claimed as having an undisclosed alternative account in the past, then it may be considered as undermining some of the suggestions of tainted bias leveled against those who have been claimed as sockpuppets/masters when engaging in debates with her and her supporters. Further, any administrative action taken by or on behalf of SV as regards operating alternative accounts may be claimed to be hypocritical in the light of these accusations, unless the matter is resolved openly. Whatever the motives of some people in bringing up these claims it has now got to the stage where the community needs to appraise the issue and declare a result. The worst thing for SV, in my opinion, is to let the matter remain ambiguous and a source of potential harassment. LessHeard vanU 12:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that if it had been discussed back then, the result would have been "huh? so what?" or maybe a (very mild) rebuke. It was not that big a deal back then, and it's now utterly irrelevant, because this was not a sockpuppet. This was an alternate account. If you want to see sockpuppets look at the history of users like User:Jason Gastrich or User:JB196. A sockpuppet is an alternate account used abusively - there is no suggestion that this account was used abusively. The sole evidence of any problem is voting twice on the 9/11 FAC, which made precisely no difference to the outcome and was, we are told, an honest mistake. Wikipedia then was different to Wikipedia now; the very high profile of Wikipedia today means that obsessives absolutely must get their point across on Wikipedia, and it is these people that the sockpuppetry policy is designed to control. Is SlimVirgin using an alternate account to pretend to greater support for her position than actually exists? No. Did she do so then? Seems unlikely. Are you now going to say that my work against Gastrich and Barber is undermined because I have used other accounts in the past? Or are we going to look at the facts here and recognise that the problem is a frustrated abuser of the project, aiming to stir up shit, and succeeding rather well? Guy (Help!) 13:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• You will note that I have been using the term alternate account - but I recognise that it has lead to accusations of sockpuppetry . That is the first area of concern, is there a legitimate complaint? Whether there was sustained sockpuppetry is not relevant, just if there was any. It subsequently appears that it was a mistake. It is then a pity that it wasn't admitted to all that time ago - on an afd where it didn't make any difference - when it was first realised. A lot of drama could have been avoided. Regarding area of concern that does this invalidate your own actions against serial sockpuppets/masters? Nope, serial sockpuppets/masters is a different thing entirely - checkuser and WP:DUCK are very reliable tools. However, the comment "you seem to be echoing the sentiments/comments/edits of User:PossibleUndeclaredAlternativeAccount" has been seen in various discussions between opposing parties in myriad disputes - the inference that there is only one opinion voicing opposition and is thus trying to influence the outcome by stacking the argument. So when there is a mistake in using a previously (and, ahem, subsequently for some time) undeclared alternative account it beholds the main account holder, and their supporters, to realise that this may have been the situation in other circumstances. Lastly, the concern over the source. This is patent misdirection - are Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin really nice men simply because one blood thirsty dictator declared the other to be embarking on a campaign to silence internal critics by state sanctioned murder and incarcaration to be one? The truth is that both men evilly suppressed opposition - therefore the personal standing of the source is irrelevant. What is important is the truth, and the open examination of claims to see if there is any to them. As I said earlier, SV is better served by having this clarified and commented upon than by WP:DENYing based on specious argument - and leaving the allegations to continue to fester.
• I should note that I am open minded toward SV and any supposed improper conduct that there may be. I am concerned with Wikipedia, and its reputation. That is why I prefer to have these things openly debated. LessHeard vanU 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Any "open debate" as you put it should include a full recitation of the pedigree of the person who is making that allegation, including his motives, his tactics and his intent. The last element has not been sufficiently discussed in this AN/I, so let's have a full an open debate about it. His intent is not to improve Wikipedia, but to undermine it. How? By getting people like you, especially you because you are an administrator, to do what he wants.

The reputation of Wikipedia is definitely at stake here. The person who originated this allegation against Wikipedia represents the interests of a corporation that is seeking to compete against Wikipedia through its own Wiki, and which also has personal animus against SlimVirgin. Wikipedia has come under a lot of criticism for allowing corporations to influence content, and here we have a corporation seeking to influence actions concerning administrators. That definitely puts Wikipedia's reputation in jeopardy. So let's continue this open debate and discuss this aspect.--Mantanmoreland 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Start a new subject and I will see if there is anything useful I can contribute, and if I can learn anything of the particular individuals who appear to be the source of this matter. This section, which seems to have run its course for the time being, is about SV. Let us try to keep these discussions, and the matter developing below, separate. LessHeard vanU 15:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland's comments sound very much like personal attacks against the critic in question, which is highly hypocritical coming from somebody who is so insistent on rigid enforcement of the "no personal attacks" policy. *Dan T.* 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The "critic" in question being permabanned User:WordBomb, the p.r. man/cyberstalker I just mentioned? I just want to be sure I understand your point.--Mantanmoreland 16:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody being permabanned makes no exception regarding personal attacks against them; see WP:NPA: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user." *Dan T.* 16:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)