Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have lengthened Malcom's block to indefinite for ongoing personal attacks whilst already blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Posted here for input and review. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good block. Attacking large numbers of volunteer editors who sacrifice their time to maintaining Wikipedia should never be tolerated and if someone continues to do so even while being blocked for exactly those reasons, they should be shown the door. I'd even suggest disabling talk page editing for this editor because it's unlikely to become better... Regards SoWhy 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. He's basically trolling to get blocked and then claimed victimhood. I think the month-long game at Talk:Self-hating_Jew#Any_constructive_suggestions.3F shows he isn't here to edit the encyclopedia, but just to argue for the sake of arguing. He'll be elsewhere complaining about the users here and his "mistreatment" soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• • It is the previous section Talk:Self-hating_Jew#The problem with Finlay where he totally misrepresents Mick Finlay's record of published writings and calls that academic an apologist for Islam that got to me. I was on the verge of posting in another place something asking what Malcolm brings to Wikipedia apart from niggling comments that waste other editor's time. So that's a Support block from me. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Long overdue. Has a knack for juvenile condescension against users of different POVs...don't have diffs handy, but he got a kick out of addressing me as Tark for some reason. Plus he has been calling other editors antisemitic for quite awhile now, and was even tossed off an ArbCom case because of it. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support Pretty nasty ongoing commentary, and obvious from his last few months of article space edits that he's only here to push what appears to be a pretty fringey POV, which is never helpful. Has been pretty much on a rampage of nastiness since people on the same political wavelength as himself were topic-banned from the Palestinian-Israeli topics in the recent RFAR. rootology/equality 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Based on discovered additional blocks and apparent socking from his days as User:Kwork, see below. rootology/equality 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have been following this at a distance and I think indef is now merited. --John (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, I don't know him except one encounter at Talk:Porcelain/Archives/2013#Lead image. Before reading this, I'd have suggested that his profound knowledge of fine art is too valuable, so just allow him to write such subjects only. However, the "Empty skulls" comment is way beyond any acceptable range of incivility, so I support.....Caspian blue 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Though not necessarily for the precise reason stated in his block log. I think his general abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground is a more accurate summary of his problems.--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. Malcom isn't willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies so this was inevitable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support It might have been less inflammatory to have requested another previously uninvolved admin review and act as appropriate - but I am certain the end result would have been the same/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom's way was to strongly attack admins trying to deal with him, then claim they were "involved" and "harassing" or "out to get" him. Hence Malcom said I was involved, but I never was. I always hoped he'd settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why having yet another admin do the review and likely block does not feed into that culture of being accused of having prior bias - but ultimately, it was a good block for the right reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If every admin a user encounters is then "involved", sooner or later that user would run out of admins. Better that we just be shut of the user well before that point. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Better that we actually apply a little common sense to "involved" - warning and attempting to guide an editor, or having edited the same page in the past six months or whatever arbitrary time period, is not "involved" unless one is excessively rules-minded (read, anal retentive wikilawyer.) I for one am getting a little tired of seeing worthy admins instructed to fetch someone who has never dealt with an editor, explain the situation, provide background and difs -- or else ask them to block on the first admins' judgment alone. If the first case, what a waste of time and effort! and if the second, then why the heck get another admin at all? To satisfy those with no common sense? because it is clear in the second case we are relying on the first admin's judgment, just as we would have been had they simply blocked. Enough of this "involved" crap. Don't worry about it unless there is an actual editing dispute or conflict between the two. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That too. :) Well said recap of the broad point. My point was rather narrower... that if it seems there is a real danger of running out of uninvolved admins, it's probably well past the time we should be shut of that particular user. ++Lar: t/c 21:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• No objections, I generally support incivility blocks. It's somewhat amusing that he's blocked for displaying poor social skills by ranting about the supposed poor social skills of others.  Sandstein  19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's amused with us. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good block. And by all means, let his amusement continue, indefinitely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think one should be able to blow off some steam on their talk page, and while his comment on 'empty skulls' was over the line it doesn't warrant an indef block in my opinion. Nableezy (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Support based on his continued justifying of behavior on his talk page Nableezy (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• We have granted his wish for a block, as it were, and I think both the wiki and Malcolm will be better off. Support ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. The user in my experience does treat WP as a battleground, and has a substantial block history [17]. But none of those blocks were for longer than 72 hours, and occasional flashes of reasonableness meant I hadn't, despite my experience with him, quite given up on hope of productive interaction. Now that he's accepted it, I guess it's moot, but I'd have suggested a longer "think about why and how you're doing this" block (maybe 2-4 weeks) first, rather than jumping to indefinite. Maybe I'm just a softie, but I'm wary of indefinite blocks, especially of users engaged on very political topics. Rd232 ^talk 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The admins involved have a long history of blocking/warning Malcolm and have taken a disturbing obsession with the user. The initial problem with Nableezy was one of controversy and typical I/P trick and probably did not warrant such an extreme response. The vast majority of his blocks have been the result of opposing editors in militant-topics reporting him. Outside of that, he has been a very productive editor and seems to be quite knowledgeable on a lot of topics. I doubt Malcolm truly wants to be blocked indefinitely, it seems he just does not want to have his final edits revolving around another fruitless appeal. As R2 suggested, I believe a more fitting "punishment" (if blood is all that is desired here) would be a 2-4 week block. I don't see any precedent where a user is given an indef block like this and for admins to endorse such a punishment is suspect. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support never had any interaction with this user, but one look at the block log is enough to know that this fellow is incapable of turning over a new leaf. Maybe in a year or so.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support At the top of Malcolm's Talk page he all but states that he is unwilling to edit in a collaborative manner. "I'm going to do what I think is right, whatever the consequences." That may be an admirable attitude for a Greek philosopher, but it doesn't bode well for an editor in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Malcolm and I have disagreed in the recent past (see Talk:Self-hating Jew for details), so feel free to discount my comments if you think I'm too close to the situation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Given track record. --Folantin (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Malcolm is one of the few users left who has a good eye for the weaknesses of certain policies. That should be encouraged, not punished. It is furhermore sad to see that, in his corner of WP too, so many users do not understand the concept of consensus. Malcolm does. Finally, it is not possible to collaborate with those that will not give you the light of day. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the I/P topics and civility seem to be what does the user in, would there be any consideration if you are opposed to an indef block, for a topic restriction in regards to I/P or a civility probation? rootology/equality 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering the hostilities have mostly taken place at Malcolm's userpage, and that not-so-nice comments came from both ends, I believe the civility restriction is hardly a fitting punishment. Topic restriction is basically an indef-block for Malcolm so that is even worse. I really don't see why there is such a strong interest in nailing this guy. I'm looking through his edits and there isn't anything particularly unique aside from typical user-page fights. If you bait an editor long enough and treat them like a criminal, of course they are going to get angry. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I understanding you correctly, that you think all these blocks including those for edit warring a POV are his being 'baited'? Please back up with diffs where he was "baited". This is a guy who was so lacking in AGF and civility that he was actually barred from even editing RFAR by injunction. rootology/equality 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Under the allegation that the blocks were mostly done by the same-set of admins and some of the blocks were reversed, yeah, I can't say with all honesty that the punishment fits the crime. And yes, Malcolm was baited relentlessly by editors and admins alike. I/Per articles aren't particularly notable for its attraction to good-faith. Do you dispute this? Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In order we have blocks by all these people: Scarian, Scarian, Elonka, Scarian, Gwen Gale, Smashville, Gwen Gale, Sandstein, Tznkai, Connolley, Rootology, Rlevse, Gwen Gale. That is a lot of different admins, but then we see he was also User:Kwork, who was blocked an additional three times[18] by Jayjg, Jossi, and Jpgordon. That is a total of 12 different admins having blocked him. Again, please provide evidence of admins baiting this guy with diffs. Deleted contribs for Kwork here, which show the exact same MO as his turn under the Malcolm handle. In fact, I see that Kwork is indeffed still, so I don't know how we all missed that Malcolm was even editing--he should have been blocked once it was realized he was Kwork. Again, please provide diffs of all these different admins, even Jayjg and Jpgordon, harassing and baiting him. rootology/equality 20:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcom was blocked 6 June 2008 by Scarian for abusing multiple accounts (which is to say, for evading the Kwork block). I had tagged Kwork's user page and he emailed me, claiming he didn't know sockpuppetry wasn't allowed and after a number of emails, I helped him with the aftermath of RTV for Kwork and Malcolm Schosha (deleting his MS user page history among other things). Then Jpgordon unblocked him on 25 July 2008 and he came back from RTV. This is why (and when) I started watching his account. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing my suggestion of a topic ban/civ paroles etc. based on his history across two usernames, that I just noticed. rootology/equality 20:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Geez you really took the time to investigate, eh? I don't know much about Malcolm's previous handle so I rather not comment on it. The degree of action, proportional to the blocks listed, has been extremely generalized and overblown. I'll enumerate and simplify the blocks (though I don't really want to) to prevent confusion:

• Since the sock-violation was in good faith, we shouldn't count those.

• Between June 2008 to May 2009 (we can round it off to a year), 19 blocking-related actions occurred.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were administered by Gwen Gale.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 2 were administered by rootogoloy.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 5 were reversed. 1 block by Rootology was self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:DGG for being "excessive," 1 block by User:Smashville self-reverted, 1 block by Gwen Gale was reversed by admin User:MZMcBride for being "improper," and the last was for sock-proving.

• Out of those 19 blocks, 4 were for personal attacks (one being reversed), 6 were for edit warring (mostly baiting situations), and the rest a mixture of disruption/arbitration concerns.

Out of approximately 5,114 over a span of almost 1.5 years, Malcolm received 15 unreserved blocks. That's 1 block for every 340 edits. But these blocks aren't exactly eye-popping. Edit warring is standard, and blocks are almost solely dependent on who reports who first. Personal attacks etc.. aren't defendable but again words can be miscontrued and Malcolm has laid pretty clear rationales in the past which had led to blocks being reversed. That in itself is a strong reminder of the strong partiality that has occurred throughout this whole ordeal.

Again, can you provide a single diff or evidence that he was "baited"? Especially, how is one "baited" into Edit Warring on article content? rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, I'd also like to know how Malcolm was baited. It seems to me that he has done more than his share of baiting around here. In one instance, he described the actions of editors with whom he disagreed as "gang raping" an article; in other situations, he referred to ArbCom members as schmucks and to other editors as antisemites and anti-Zionists. Name-calling may be acceptable on the playground, but it has no place here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Read through his talk page. Either Malcolm is nothing less than an angry troll or people really just want to stonewall him out of wikipedia. Malcolm takes the concept of honesty a bit too high, though his remarks tend to come with clear and obvious rationales. He doesn't call everyone he disagrees with as antisemites/anti-Zionists. It's safe to assume many subscribe to that level of thought, however. Do you endorse the belief that all responses to Malcolm have been done in good faith and without prejudice? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What I believe about his justifications or personal views on topics and policies, or external politics are irrelevant. Can you provide a single diff or edit to back up your claims? It should be easy. rootology/equality 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems Root has taken the liberty of finalizing the issue and declaring Malcolm a "banned" user per direction of the talk page and ANI. I consider this a bit premature. I don't think it is very fair of us to not give Malcolm a voice. I'm sure he has a lot to say. :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was reversed by me as well I believe and some days ago. rootology/equality 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right I did not check the date. Apologies. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345: "Edit warring is standard" ??? um, no. ++Lar: t/c 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard violation in those kinds of articles. Thanks for taking what I wrote out of clear and obvious context. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The context is clear enough, you seem to be saying that Malcolm spent a significant portion of his time at the kind of articles for which "edit warring is standard" and ... he edit warred. After a certain number of warnings, which he had received, and then some, enough is enough. There is no "kind of article" for which edit warring is acceptable. We have arbcom case after arbcom case that makes that point, including the one that Malcolm was disinvited from participating further in. You appear to have several edit war blocks in your own record. I suggest that you need to internalise that you yourself should not edit war. End of story. That would be the best use of your time, I think. This block is sound. ++Lar: t/c 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's standard conduct. And the standard response is blocks and topic bans. So, anything out of the ordinary here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good God... 1 block for every 340 edits is appalling. "Baiting" presumes that a person is generally policy-abiding, but in a moment of weakness was driven into an uncharacteristic fit of blockable behavior. You can't be "baited" into 15 blocks - at that point, it's your responses to everyday editing stresses that are inappropriate. This isn't "baiting" - it's someone who has a long-term problem contributing here, and doesn't seem to be improving. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, by that 1 in 340 metric, anyone with less than 29 blocks per 10,000 edits is ahead of the curve. I'd be sitting at about 32 blocks now, and I think someone like Charles Matthews or Rich Farmbrough would be around 260-270 lifetime blocks by now. rootology/equality 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Still, do you dispute the partiality that has occurred? Does sheer # of reversed blocks and dependence on the same admins to make those blocks not bother you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is much more to the background of those blocks than that: There were many unblock declines following most (nearly all) of those "reversed" blocks, some of which lasted for most of their set length before they were undone, without consulting the blocking admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is not addressing the concerns that have been raised or answering the questions they have been asked. I think we're done here. Consensus for an indef block seems pretty clear to me. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have. Please don't shove this under the rug. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rootology asked you for a diff to back up your claim, several times. You went off on tangents. Those tangents have been refuted. But more importantly, this is all after the fact, because the thread above this shows a clear consensus... lots of supports, one weak oppose... and you. It may not be unanimous, but it's a consensus all right. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In a sea of hostility and bad faith I'm expected to point out the obvious? Ok. There are several sets of baiting that have been confirmed by several users, most notably User:IronDuke, but this is the most recent and easiest for me to find because I am a very lazy person:

Self-hating Jew...this should turn out well. Malcolm attempts to explain why mick finlay bite is POV and does not belong in the lead. That in itself isn't really important. The editors seem to take great offense at Malcolm accusing Finlay of being an islamic apologist. This is then followed by a round of typical noticeboard-threats, one by Peter Cohen (who can be found above) This thread contains a violation of WP:BLP and promises to file a complaint. According to Cohen's history, he has yet to do any noticeboard filing, aside from a friendly confirmation of his support for the lifetime Malcolm ban. :D

Prior to this, User:untwirl considered Malcolm's 1-sentence removal violated consensus policy. Malcolm responds, pointing out the obvious that You confuse majority with consensus. There was never any effort by the majority to compromise with other editors.

Then user Malik Shabazz throws the disruptive accusation and threatens to file an ANI complaint.

Malcolm responds: ake it to the appropriate noticeboard, and we can discuss it further there.

This goes on for about 30 paragraphs. Over 1 sentence that clearly was out of place and did not deserve a spot in the lead. Even considering the islamic apologist comment (which is arguably accurate depending on one's perspective, and there are many in this article), editors immediately threatened to sue and you can clearly see Malcolm's mood switch from thereon. We call that baiting, and it worked quite well. Malcolm seems to expose himself way too much in these kinds of situations so the outcome is not a surprise . People want blood and they'll probably get it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your analysis shows the same flaws in reasoning and misrepresentation of the truth as Malcolm's postings did, albeit in more temperate language. Examples of errors in the post to which I am responding include claiming that I did not post to any board when I did straight after saying I would, misrepresenting the initial tone of response to Malcolm by captioning the three moderately worded responses to Malcolm that you link above as "great offense at", ignoring that Malcolm had less than a month earlier consented to the version of the lead following my revision to a previous version meaning that the version as I left it represented prior consensus and not the imposition of majority rule and therefore WP:BRD should apply. And the "Islamic apologist" slur is not "arguably accurate" but a misrepresentation of the truth as argued by several editors in the thread and by me in the linked post to the BLP board. It also shows that Malcolm was resorting to personal attacks in describing those with whom he disagreed prior to what you claim was us all ganging up and bullying him (and with the added problem that Finlay wasn't there to respond to slurs on his character).--Peter cohen (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I apologize for saying you did not post at the BLP noticeboard. That was an honest error, I couldn't find the edit in your history but it was rather late at night so again I apologize. But posting at the BLP noticeboard in a non-BLP article over a user's reasonable and fair POV that was hardly the main component of his position is far from sincere and constitutes baiting. Malcolm in no way resembled the troll-like behaviors he is accused of subscribing to in this AN/I. You and several others immediately jumped the gun from the get-go and starting throwing the most damaging and threatening noticeboards on wikipedia. That's called baiting. Malcom consented to this version: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. This was promptly changed to the POV version by untwirl without a *gasp* actionable consensus: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. Former versions: The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by some Neo-Zionist partisans against Jewish critics of Israeli policy. That sentence did not belong in the lead and you took Malcolm's arguably accurate assessment of Finaly to the noticeboard in an attempt to reduce the validity of his proposal. That isn't just baiting, that's downright malice. Just because everyone with the exception of Malcolm harbored similar POVs does not mean the vote tallied towards consensus. Malcolm was assessing your actions in a tactless and uncivil way, but so what. You guys baited him to hell and then essentially cried bloody murder when he bit back. Pardon the bluntness, but all of you should have stepped outside and gone in to timeout. But no, you rallied together and stonewalled Malcolm out of the article which simply gave him more ammunition. Look, I gave a fairly strong example of baiting which was requested and your "analysis" was far from persuasive. If Malcolm is given a temporary stay of editing I'm sure he would be happy to include other baiting-situations because he is far more experienced than I am. At this point I strongly encourage dissolving this show trial or admins should start dealing bans to several users here because many are guilty of the same violations Malcolm is accused of washing himself in. Though that doesn't seem to matter when a "consensus" has your back. :D

It seems Malcolm has been watching the discussion. He explicitly refers to Peter Cohen's history and previous actions with Root and Lars. For the sake of fairness, here it is. I hope I'm not violating any rules here:

I made a series of edits on the arbcom noticeboard, pointing out that the arbcom decision removing of some Jayjg's administrative privileges was irrational because he had never misused those privileges. That got Rootology and Lar pissed off, and Rootology blocked me and then reversed his when block when he cooled down a little and realized it was a bad block. After some further argument with Lar and Rootology, Rlevse showed up and blocked me with this.. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i agree with tarc below. wikifan misrepresents the order of events. malcolm said this, "Although there is plenty in the article, including the lead, that I am unhappy about, with Peter cohen's change to the lead I could live with the article as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)" and here is what the page looked like at 19:53 [19]. "right-wing" is there at that time. this is a red herring. untwirl(talk) 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you know what a red-herring is. And no, I didn't misrepresent anything aside from falsely accusing Peter of not honoring his dubious and blatantly uncivil BLP threat. If you want to talk fallacies we can do that. For everyone else, please refer back to the above post and ignore the derail attempts. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

you are right, i was just being kind when i called it a red herring. it was actually a blatant falsehood, as anyone who looks at the history can see for themselves. untwirl(talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to read WP:BLP again. The policy applies to any page on Wikipedia and not just article pages about living individuals. Falsely calling someone an apologist for Islam is libellous on whichever page it is, and breaks WP:BLP when not reliably sourced. And my announcing that I was going straight to a board is not a threat but a notice or warning of action so that anyone in the thread, including Malcolm, can be aware that I am posting to the board. And doing so about a libel is certainly not dubious and is way less uncivil than the initial libel was in the first place. Yes, the boards can be abused; but using them to bring matters to fellow editors' attention is not normally regarded as uncivil.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Finlay is a Islamic apologist! Zomg are you going to report me for slander now? There is nothing inherently sinister about apologist. Malcolm offers a rather poetic rationale: Concerning Peter cohen's strange accusation that my calling Finlay an apologist for British Muslims is a BLP violation, he aparently does not understand that the word apologist means no more than "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something." The term is not an insult, and the article Finlay wrote in defense of British Muslims fits that definition. I did not say there was anything wrong with his defense of the Muslim community, just that his views needed to be balanced with other sources in the Self-hating Jew article. You took Malcolm's assessment of Finlay and claimed it was libelous, posted it on a friggin noticeboard and even when it is clear you acted out of policy the righteousness still continues. Lars wanted an example, I gave one. He has yet to respond. Peter, feel free to comment on everything else I wrote, or not. I don't really care anymore. :D Editors have invested far too much time in nailing this guy so I doubt even Jesus could save him. Tragic indeed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(Lar, singular... some are glad there are not more of me about). I wanted an example of Malcolm being baited, which is what Root asked you for, twice. I don't see where you provided one. As for the time invested... it's more like there has been a lot of time wasted by this user and it's time to make the investment to put it to a stop. You continue to waste time here as well, because even while you continue this, there have been further endorsements of the indef block. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You asked for examples, I gave them to you. Then I responded to every bogus rationalization and ripped a part Peter Cohen's "analysis." I'm willing to assume you made your decision before the AN/I was already filed. Don't ask for evidence and then deny it exists. I am not disputing people don't want Malcolm gone. I'm sure I could find 20 users who want Nableezy gone. Should we ban him? Of course not. I probably could get a hundred signatures to ban x admin as well, so what. As they say, follow the herd. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• It is simple, really. Malcolm is unable to abide by consensus, and falls back on personal attacks and edit warring to address it. In the few direct interactions I have had with him, that is all it ever was...there is a content dispute on an article, ensuing talk page discussion reaches a general consensus, invariably with a single holdout; Malcolm. He'll skate to the brink of 3RR, lie low for a week or so, come back and do it all again while doing a large WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when others point to the past consensus. One only gets so many chances, y'know. It is more than clear that this user is unable to edit collaboratively. As for the Arbcom antics, that isn't the first time he's pulled the antisemite card on other editors. I am surprised he wasn't blocked then and there. Tarc (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Wikifan12345 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no rule that forces people to agree with a consensus opinion, nor is consensus defined by having only one user opposing. Pointing to past consensus does not fly in the face of new arguments or sources, or when there is disagreement over the existence of a consensus. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who you're directing that at. As you well know, consensus as the term is used here at WP is rather a wacky thing. But one can have consensus without everyone being in agreement. The normal meaning is that people agree to go along even if they don't agree with the thing being gone along with. The WP meaning (IMHO) is that MOST people agree to go along (there can be some dissent) even if they don't agree with the thing being gone along with. In this case, this particular discussion, we have (WP) consensus. Wikifan12345 is not raising anything new, and not convincing any folk to change their mind. One has to wonder as the motivation for this. This is a simple, routine case. ++Lar: t/c 01:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed Lars. By virtue of not changing one's mind does influence the meaning of what has been said. Your assuming everyone here is neutral, objective, and impartial, when in reality almost all of them have had to deal with Malcolm and the others are simply joining in. I actually posted explicit examples as to how crazy this witch-hunt is and cannot fathom why it is tolerated on an encyclopedia. I can see why Malcolm get's so angry. Banning unpopular users is not simple and routine, especially in an area of WP that is hardly known for its etiquette and good faith. Birds of the feather flock together, man. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

your "explicit examples" were shown to be false. at this point you are just trolling this noticeboard and making thinly veiled personal attacks yourself ("Birds of the feather flock together, man"). i would suggest you quit while you're ahead. untwirl(talk) 17:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not the WP meaning of consensus at all, also I would appreciate it if you would not cast doubts on people's motivation. And while the case may be clear (it is clear to me, but with a different conclusion), banning is not routine. Or maybe it has become routine during my absence? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Catherine Crier is under constant attack from a persistent vandal. He has a number of sleeper socks and understands the autoconfirmed limit. I've requested oversight of the most recent problematic revisions, and as you can see from the article history, previous, identical revisions have already been oversighted.

One may note from the article that the subject is in the middle of a lawsuit regarding Wikipedia. It is imperitive that more people with buttons watch this article, as the last grossly inapropriate revision lasted for 3 hours and 7 minutes whilst I slept. While Rootology (WHO IS ILL AND SHOULD GO TO BED! SO STOP READING THIS) is quite helpful on the article, some European eyes, especially would be nice. I've already done the legwork on the Abuse Filter and Oversight, so this is just a call for eyes with buttons. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• The article has been put on full protection, and while that's undesirable, I think it's justified for the moment. With any luck the vandal will get bored and go and do something else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC).
  • I see nothing in the article about a lawsuit connected with wikipedia. Either way, an abuse filter would be the way to go, especially if the vandalism is libelous, as I take to be the situation given that the vandal's edits were hidden. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Edit. Edit. Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec) That's because it's not worth mentioning in the article, Bugs. Support full protection for now as semi-protection isn't doing the job. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
      • That's fine, except none of the "ahem" diffs say anything about a wikipedia lawsuit either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahem! Did you not see the edit summary in Uncle G's first diff? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have indefinitely protected the page. Rootology had already done this, but I protected it myself again because as an Oversight based action, the page must not, under any circumstances, be unprotected without my explicit permission. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a fairly unambiguous threat against User:Digwuren here. I urged him to remove it; he has edited since then and not done so. I think he should be blocked, and I move for an immediate and permanent community ban. He's been given enough chances. //roux   09:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User notified. //roux   09:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be fair, it doesn't look like an actual threat, more like "MY DADZ A POLICEMAN AND HE'L GET U" — extremely childish, but not a genuine menace (though I'm not familiar with the case, and might have misunderstood it). Therefore, I think that a permanent ban is a bit of an overreaction, and "horrifying" a bit of an exagguration. However, allowing such abuse, absurd as it is, shouldn't happen, so I suggest a block of a week, to be added to any block that might come separately out of the discussion in which the thread was made. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See further comment below. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This may provide some needed background to this apparently intractable problem. //roux   09:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, horse of a different colour. Permaban seems much more palatable now, sorry for the ignorance... ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I really did not read the statement as a threat, but (as he himself said) as a friendly piece of advice. I don't know what he was talking about, but perhaps he meant this "agency." At least give him a change to explain himself before jumping into conclusions. Offliner (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given Krohn's past on Wikipedia, I read it more like "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it, know what I mean?" than actual friendly advice. //roux   10:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"You may get yourself into trouble because of agency X, you should be careful" is taken for "Nice place you got here, shame if anything happened to it" – with the threat of a permanent ban for the user? (What?) PasswordUsername (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The absurdity of thinking that someone would intitiate a threat against another user at ANI is beyond me. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the actual edit, it doesn't read like a threat. Petri Krohn is not threatening to take or initiate or cause any action. Warning editors of possible real-world consequences that could follow independently, from the warned editor's actions, isn't a threat. It's wasn't "my Dad's a policeman," which would be a threat to tell Dad. Whether or not it was advisable to say would depend on many factors, but PK's post is primarily a recounting of his history with Digwuren, and to sanction such reports would be chilling. And to propose it here disruptive. That post, to AN, would probably have been seen by many administrators, and if it called for immediate action, surely they would have noticed it. Complaining here is spreading discussion. --Abd (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no request to User talk:Petri Krohn to remove the comment. The request cited above is to AN. AN is very difficult to follow and I often remove it from my watchlist even when I've posted there. No presumption can be made that an editor has read it. Some of the editors commenting here seem highly involved in disputes with PK, that should be considered as well. --Abd (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No request? How about my diff posted above? //roux   18:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret", plus telling that a Russian Agency will take care of him. Not a threat? Of course he did not tell: "you will be killed for making too much noise" as was said by another user in my case [20], but this is very close.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a threat, yes, but not coming from Petri Krohn, if he is correct. If he's not correct, then, of course, blow it off. I see no sign that Petri Krohn himself is threatening. Now, if it could be shown that he's connected with this "agency," then, of course, he should be out of here in a flash. But that's not the story here, at least not yet. More below. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have offend someone. I did not intend to threaten anyone. I have removed my offending comment.

As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Petri, it has always been true, and remains true, that if you exercise your rights to free speech, in a way that offends someone with power, you can be harassed, prosecuted, murdered. Wikipedia hasn't changed the world in this respect. In fact, sometimes you can offend someone with apparently no power, and the end is the same. Basically, human beings have power and sometimes use it, make them angry enough. Some of us will do anything given sufficient provocation, and there are a few who will be provoked simply by their own imaginations. The world is a dangerous place, still. Welcome to it, it's also quite a nice place and usually safe if you don't go around pissing people off. Unfortunately, some of us find it necessary to speak up, on occasion. I'd probably be high on a list if certain people or organizations were to gain more power, or if I were considered more of a danger, and one of my old friends is seriously dead, for exactly the crime of speaking what he believed, there is an article here about him, you could probably figure it out from my edit history. He lived in Tucson, Arizona. Safe place? Not if you become well-known for something that some really don't want to hear. {He was wrong, by the way, but that doesn't make a difference here, he's still dead.) --Abd (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any activity at Joseph Stalin which seems related to this. If the "Russian Agency" was getting involved in Wikipedia, we'd probably see some efforts to rehabilitate Stalin's image. So far, no. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my statement in the original thread. What I have now said explicitly is that activity similar to what we have seen on Wikipedia may become a criminal offense in Russia, and by extension in Estonia. I was too vague originally. I took efforts to avoid linking anyone to criminal activity, especially as this activity is not criminalized in the United States. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Please note that whatever I wrote on ANI was not addressed to Digwuren but to administrators in general and User:Offliner in particular. I have presested my {{WikiThanks}} to Digwuren here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you also implied that Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, hence your original "friendly warning" when you said: "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret. Things said on Wikipedia do have effects in the real world. If I am not totally mistaken, Digwuren's edits on Wikipedia may have had a small role to play in the creation of the Agency" The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee that you felt compelled to give him this additional "friendly thankyou" on his talk page? --Martintg (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Permban, I am not sure, but a few month may be helpful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support a permaban. Krohn was already banned for a year for this kind of anti-estonian polemic. Krohn's remarks read as a threat that this Russian agency would be notified of Digwuren's identity should it ever be revealed, implying that Krohn would report Digwuren to the agency if he continued participating in editing Wikipedia. This is intimidatory. Wikipedia doesn't need editors with extremist agendas threatening people for the sole reason of belonging to a particular ethnic group. There should be zero tolerance for this kind of intimidation. --Martintg (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What you are in fact reading from my comment, is that I would be willing to provide evidence to law enforcement agencies investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses. This is not what I am saying. Even if I did, I do not think this could be considered a threat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support permaban or very long block. Petri Krohn 's warnings are directed only to people who disagree with him, especially user:Digwuren. Someone who says that dire things will happen to people who dare to disagree with him is not giving "friendly advice"; he is using intimidation to attempt to give himself an advantage. This is an utterly unacceptable debating tactic on Wikipedia. Abd's argument that no-one has actually proved that Petri Kohn is "connected with this ‘agency’ " is utterly irrelevant; we don't have a rule that people get a free pass on making threats until someone proves that they are able to carry them out.

Petri has made two "clarifications". They are oddly different from each other, and neither of them is very clear. One is that “As for the "Russian Agency", the story is true – and it will have profound effects on Wikipedia. It remains to be seen what those are. Looks like the time of free speech is over.” The other clarification possibly means that, when Russian law extends to Estonia, Estonians who have disagreed with him are likely to face criminal prosecution. So, possibly this second clarification is "only" a legal threat. Whatever these statements may mean (and I expect there will be more clarifications to these clarifications), in both of them the threatening tone comes through loud and clear. Also, that the threat has now been repeated, and in more than one version, proves that it was not a fluke. Petri Krohn has already served a 1 year block for misbehavior related to his disagreements with Estonian editors; apparently it was not enough. Cardamon (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support permaban. This user's list of misdeeds is enormous. He is known for advocating inflammatory 'points of view' that he apparently is fighting for in real life, too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor should it be battlefield. Petri Krohn's hint that his 'opponent' Digwuren might get Russian secret service's attention in real life был последней каплей for me. --Miacek (t) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose permaban > 6 months? I've actually just had quite a civil chat with this user on their talkpage, and they don't seem to be the complete crank that they come over to be here. I think that they deserve a long cooling-off period, and then another chance, so I'm suggesting 6 months. Sorry to keep chopping and changing my opinion on this subject, but I hope this will be my final word! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Except that what Krohn regards as Digwuren's POV on Estonian history corresponds to the view of eminent historians such as David J. Smith (who is a Reader in Baltic Studies at the Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow, and Editor of the Journal of Baltic Studies). This is what Smith writes in his book "Estonia: Independence and European integration". Krohn on the other hand is an apparent member of SAFKA (This has been previously reported to the COI), an activist group that believes the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states is a myth. The activities of the SAFKA have been investigated by the Estonian security police who have discovered some members have links with certain elements within Russia and this has widely reported in the Estonian press. Hence Krohn's "friendly warning" to Digwuren had a chilling effect that was certainly intimidatory. --Martintg (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban - Digwuren and Petri Krohn were both banned for a year, in part for clashing with each other. Since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so. Implying that the Russian government is going to go after you if you don't change your ways is bound to have a chilling effect, especially on someone from tiny next-door Estonia. We don't want that kind of editing environment, and so I propose Petri Krohn should be excluded from the project. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to admins – As said before, I find it ridiculous that a particular number of editors who have written above, largely the same group of user who always seek to justify Digwuren's latest pattern of behavior by slinging mud at his opponents, is now seeking to make the claim that Petri Krohn's warning to Digwuren about the latest development on a contested historical issue from the perspective of the Russian government's commission, which he has already amply clarified, is taken for a threat when he posted it on ANI – publicly and under his own name!
Laughable is the assertion of the editor above, claiming that "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so." As Offliner has clearly demonstrated here (I strongly recommend reading this thread in full detail – Offliner's post, among other things, features a whole compendium of personal attacks and crass incivility against a number of users, including myself), Digwuren has not shown good faith – rather, the bulk of his edits have been constituted by disrupting and making personal attacks against other editors, including against myself. (This new diversion from Digwuren's behavior – a transformation of the issue into an attack on Petri Krohn for supposed "threats" is interesting of itself.) Digwuren is now proceeding to stalk my edits: compare the good work done by Digwuren as far as these unmistakable instances – plainly obvious from the most recent histories of articles such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Moreover, as Digwuren himself wrote on May 11, the day on which within 24 hours of encountering me he laughably accused me of being a sockpuppet of Anonimu or Jacob Peters (he never actually made up his mind as to which editor I was)

"Today, PasswordUsername asking Petri Krohn for help regarding the Neo-Stalinism categories. It is unlikely to help him -- Mr. Krohn has been behaving rather well in the recent months -- but since this is his very first edit on Krohn's talkpage, and they do not seem to have had previous contacts regarding Stalinism -- neo or otherwise -- it raises a question of why he'd pick Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors." 7.

My explanation for "picking Petri Krohn out of the thousands of editors," of course, is explained fully at the same link provided. What is funny is that even Digwuren himelf (in fact, a SPA, unlike Petri Krohn) has publicly acknowledged the good nature of Petri's contributions (again, oddly enough, this being in the context of an obscene attack against myself), but, having now given a history of his rather difficult co-existence with Digwuren's belligerent editing patterns, Petri is accused of some great malice by Digwuren's loyal crew. Frankly, I interpret this as nothing but the bad-faith insults of a lynch-mob threatening to conduct "punishment" against a user whose productive, if not exactly quite passive, editing history stands in sharp juxtaposition against their own. Between Digwuren and Petri Krohn, I can say in all good conscience that if anybody deserves to be permabanned, it is not Petri Krohn – although given the administrators' reluctance to intervene in the dispute against Digwuren by taking measures more stringent than simply asking both Offliner and Digwuren to "walk away and behave," I strongly suggest that the accusations here simply be dismissed as equally frivolous. (And what has been said about Petri is much more frivolous than the substantial cases made against Digwuren many a time in the past.) I encourage all administrators to examine this issue seriously – claims against Petri Krohn are partisan and blatant character assasssinations which should be observed and analyzed just for what they are. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Krohn has just issued another "friendly warning" on Digwuren's talk page, implying that this commission will take particular interest in Digwuren and ominously talks of Digwuren in the past tense [21]. --Martintg (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That isn't a "friendly warning" in quotation marks – what Petri says is clearly a commendation for the article he himself had wanted to start and the tense is the grammatical feature of language known as the "future perfect" – but thank you for noting it. I should also note that Petri Krohn opposes the commission, if you're still fond of equivocally speaking of the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Simply not true. SAFKA endorses the law and hails it as "a victory for Safka". The connection between SAFKA members and one of the committee members Alexander Dyukov is well known. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren has apparently been singled out for special attention by this committee, or so Krohn claims. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how does Krohn know that Digwuren's activities figure so prominently in the formation of this committee? --Martintg (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you obviously haven't bothered to read what Petri Krohn has written here at ANI/Incidents, at the main administrators' noticeboard, or on other pages. Whatever organization he may or may not happen to be part of, the opinions he holds as an individual are his own personal thoughts – and he has clearly written online that he, too, "find[s] the law threatening." (See here.) I think you should stop throwing in people's real-life identities in these disputes – regardless of one's ideology, opinions, occupation, or activities in real life, the benchmark for judging the conduct of online contributors is simply their online conduct. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Your initial claim was "Petri Krohn opposes the commission", this is a long way from "find[s] the law threatening". Evidently he was hoping Digwuren would find this law threatening too, enough to intimidate him from further contribution to Wikipedia. However this law has absolutely no jurisdiction anywhere outside Russia, except perhaps to those Russian citizens living abroad who may contribute to Wikipedia. Yet this "friendly warning" was not offered to any of these Russian editors, only to Digwuren. --Martintg (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
          • The commission is "the law" being referred to here – I think you're attacking the imprecise semantics, yet doing injustice to the concrete meaning (the proposition) being brought up here. (Perhaps the best way of gleaning this is to consult the informal fallacy trivial objections.) The application of the law is coordinated in conjunction with the work done by the Historical Truth Commission – and Petri's already clarified that his concern related to the law's not being limited in scope to Russia's territory. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I even misquoted Petri Krohn's remarks – rather than speaking of "the law," he specifically made clear:

"P.S. I now see that User:Digwuren had already started an article on the newly created Russian Historical Truth Commission. The associated Law on countermeasures against the rehabilitation of Nazism, Nazi criminals and their associates in former republics of the Soviet Union threatens imprisoned for up to five years. I too find this threatening. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)" (1)

Whatever else was said by Petri Krohn, it was all in the same vein: nowhere does he endorse the commission (you might want to try asking his own opinion of the commission or gleaning it from what he's written about it before you jump to conclusions). Here's to hoping that this has now clarified everything up for you, Martintg. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the specifics here, because they may come before the Arbitration Committee, but I strongly urge everyone interested in this situation to carefully review and abide by the principles outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This hardly should come before the ArbCom because this user was already banned by ArbCom, and a consensus about his behavior was reached at AE noticeboard [22]. Telling another user "If he continues his edits, he should make sure his true identity remains secret" and reminding about an "Agency" was clearly an attempt of intimidation, as noted by DGG at another board [23]. Biophys (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What I get from the ArbCom case NewYorkBrad refers to are principles in that case concerning harassment and threats, which states: "The making of express or implied threats against another editor is a form of harassment and is prohibited. In particular, any suggestion of seeking to disrupt or harm an editor's off-Wikipedia life (including his or her employment) in retaliation for his or her editing on Wikipedia is unacceptable.", which links to Wikipedia:Harassment#Threats, stating "Legal threats are a special case of threat, with their own settled policy. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely.". --Martintg (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of legal threat but of legal risk. The relevant section is Raising good-faith concerns:

The text goes on to say: However, the sender should be sure that the communication serves a legitimate purpose and should take great care to ensure that it will not be perceived as threatening by the recipient. If I had felt a need to send communication to Digwuren, I am sure I would have taken great care to ensure that it would not have been perceived as threatening. However my communication at WP:AN mainly served the legitimate purpose of informing the administrators and User Offliner. On the issue of Russian law enforcement we have been in friendly communication. In fact we have collaborated on the article, without a hint of conflict. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

However the tone of your original message was one of frustration: that if the admins weren't willing to deal with Digwuren, this committee certainly will, hence your advice that he had better keep is identity secret. There are many editors involved in editing articles about the former Soviet Union, yet Digwuren was apparently singled out for special attention by this committee, so you have claimed a number of times. The question remains who singled Digwuren out and how do you know that Digwuren's activities have figured so prominently in the formation of this committee, which you also claim? --Martintg (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support permaban From the evidence presented it is clear that this user has exhausted the community's patience. He has been banned before and still has not changed his ways. It is high time to eliminate his disruption from the editorial process. I also support removal of Arbcom review. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not support permaban I haven't read any of the nonsense contained herein, but one thing that I did not take what Petri Krohn's comments as was a threat. The truth is, Digwuren is an Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned (it's ok for User:Moreschi to characterise others as this, so this is fair too eh Moreschi?), There was no threat, and other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs (as is usual), and this is yet more grandstanding by said editors. The new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target; not for assassination, or other such tripe, but for targetting by these laws against people who try to rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics, and right here on Wikipedia. As Petri mentioned, Digwuren best not make his real life identity known, otherwise the web brigades (note its presence in conspiracy theory category) could make his life difficult, and he could be refused entry into Russia, etc, etc. Oh and User:Biruitorul, Digwuren's conduct has been anything but good since his return; his calling other editors pigs (without a single apology), characterising others as neo-Nazis (without a single apology), stalking, tedious editing, disruption of AfDs, etc and generally being a right pain in the ass, is not what one should characterise as good conduct. How about letting the wikidrama subside, stop f'ing around in trying to off content opponents, and everyone gets back to editing? --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

At first I was thinking that the whole Petri's comment was simply an attempt to discredit his long-time content opponent, but what puts it to a different light is "he should make sure his true identity remains secret" - however, Petri Krohn knows the real-life identity of Digwuren and has known it for years. This in effect means "beware, I know who you are and if you don't back down, then...", an obvious attempt to intimidate/threaten, so I am forced to agree that an extended ban is needed. Threats like that have no place in Wikipedia, ever.

Now, as for Russavia's comment above, I think it is worthy a ban of his own. This is pure hate speech, "Estonian nationalist; the worst of the worst not yet permabanned", "other editors are generally acting like teenage girls, and pack dogs", "new laws being introduced in Russia will make people like Digwuren a target", "generally being a right pain in the ass", "rewrite history as is seen every day in the Baltics". I hope that no editor will ever get away with a comments like this anywhere in Wikipedia, especially in Administrator's noticeboard. -- Sander Säde 07:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's an interesting diff. Petri tells that Diguwren's name was "listed in the whois data" and that Diguwuren was a former student of the University of Tartu. This is frightening: "keep your name secret to avoid problems with an Agency" and "I know your name". Could be also qualified as WP:Outing? Biophys (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)