Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive598

The investigation into the crime is not yet completed, no official statement has been released by any government concerning who's responsible for the assassination, but that doesn't seem to bother some wikipedia editors who seem to know exactly who the culprits are. By placing certain categories into the article, they present their personal point of view: see here and here. What we have as a result is a

A full protection of the page is probably in order. You should try filing it

talk

) 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is in need of full protection, those edits can easily be dealt with, there's a lot of active editors on the page. "Mossad" isn't a living person, so we don't need to panic too much: is it really going to damage their reputation? Fully protecting would hinder keeping the page up-to-date when the information is rapidly changing. Fences&Windows 22:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

JazzCarnival‎ has made a personal threat and a legal one. I've blocked and removed his ability to talk and email, and provided an explanation and roadmap. Is there anything else which should be done? —EncMstr (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made Tedder aware of this. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It wasn't really outing, but certainly a personal and legal issue. It's unfortuante this user has decided to use their excellent writing skills to soapbox against several users (not just myself); it's also amusing/tragic the user has decided I'm a puppetmaster who coordinated objection to many of their changes, especially this FUR template on an image. tedder (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I did receive an email from the user shortly before they posted their final rant. I didn't reply, as I usually don't reply off-wiki to things that can/should be handled on Wikipedia. I've shared it with another editor I trust. tedder (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you choose to contact law enforcement (which I would), it won't be hard for LE to track this person down between that email, CU results and the details of his/her employment on User:JazzCarnival. Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't much of a leap to match JazzCarnival to a real-life name. tedder (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Elsewhere, Sam Weller states that I have a

I am one of the editors that Sam Weller contacted on my talk page whether the User:RetroS1mone and User:Keepcalmandcarryon accounts might be connected.[7] I have edited several articles that RetroS1mone and Keepcalmandcarryon have edited. After much consideration, my opinion is they are highly likely to be connected. Accordingly, I have filed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepcalmandcarryon report. The timeline and diffs given in the sockpuppet investigation report supports Sam Weller's concerns and the likelihood the same editor contributed to the same page and to related articles with multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. I would also like to point out that the diff[8] that Keepcalmandcarryon gave when stating that Sam Weller accuses her of COI does not support the assertion. Sam Weller's edit refered to an instance where Keepcalmandcarryon accuses another editor of COI. Ward20 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The current article name is descriptive and neutral. —EncMstr (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A POV-pusher has moved this article to

• I agree that the new title is very POV-pushing. Because this is such a timely article, we can't rely on the normal move nomination process to redress the problem. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the page back. Perhaps a move protection is in order to keep the page title stable; any requested move should be discussed first. Ucucha 05:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That title is likely sufficient, until or if the media come up with something clever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring for quite some time now over whether and how a great number of articles should use the term British Isles. That article is subject to a 1RR restriction, there is a taskforce at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples, and I am not sure if this is related to and subject to the sanctions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. Many of these articles are watched by very few people, or the regular editors do not feel like getting involved with a highly contentious minor point (example: the recent edit war at FWA Footballer of the Year received no comment from editors not involved in this wide-ranging terminology dispute). It is certainly possible that wider editing restrictions may be called for regarding this dispute, but I think a restriction on Mister Flash would go a long way towards reducing British Isles terminology related disruption. I would like to propose that they be placed on a 1RR restriction and be required to gain firm consensus at the relevant talkpage or the taskforce page before making any edit regarding whether and how any article should describe this particular geographic and geopolitical region. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

As one of the editors involved in setting up the task force some intervention would be appreciated. There have been long standing edit wars over this, and consolidating all the debates in one place started to get some structure in place. However Mister Flash has an auto-revert approach on any change that does not involve the use of the BI term, regardless of the level of consensus. S/he seems to be a single purpose account. A brief review of the Task Force will show that while several editors are being even handed, their work is being disrupted by a failure to accept consensus and a consistent refusal to engage in discussion. There is a 1RR restriction already in place so I don't think that is the solution to be honest. We need something that prevents simple say-saying on every task force discussion--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles-in-question, should be covered by the Troubles Enforcement ruling of 1RR (if they are not). GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to state my case in this matter. First let me brief you on some historical aspects. From some time about early 2008

User:Crispness (possibly now editing under a "clean start" as User:Þjóðólfr) and User:Snowded. HighKing's activities have spilled out across Wikipedia and have resulted in many edit wars, confrontations and violations of policy, involving everyone concerned. His work continues. Only two days ago a further two deletions were carried out, each of which featured the usual trademark of an edit summary not adequately describing what was happening. I came across HighKing in late 2008 and found myself objecting strongly to his edits. I tend to revert his edits because, in my opinion, the vast majority of them are not justified. Rarely is the term British Isles being used incorrectly. If it ever is, then I don't object to its removal. When removals are challenged, a variety of tactics are used to try and overcome the objections. All the tactics employed amount to variations on gaming the system, with wikilawyering and policy shopping being foremost amongst them. Take the recent example of Five Peaks Challenge - the edits which have caused the reporting of this incident: HighKing first tried to claim the subject was not notable, when that failed he went for a merge, and this was followed by claims that the references (references to support an axiom, I might add) were inadequate. This latter tactic is a favourite of the anti-British Isles community; place a cite tag on an obvious fact and when no references are forthcoming, delete the term. So to my part in this: I object to the policy of British Isles removals for what I consider to be political reasons, hence my numerous reversions of the edits of HighKing and others. I would be very happy never to edit another BI-related article (specifically involving addition or removal of the term) provided a similar restriction was placed on other users involved in this dispute. In his comments on this matter, User:Snowded would have you believe that I am 100% at fault and that he, HighKing and others have no case to answer. Such an assertion could not be farther from the truth. These users are at least as culpable as me in this matter. Remember that the root cause of this entire debacle is one single, solitary user - HighKing. If he stopped systematically trying to remove British Isles from Wikipedia we would not now be having this debate. So to summarise; I will accept a community sanction not to add or remove British Isles provided that sanction is also applied to the other users whose identities I have noted here. Mister Flash (talk

) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If my suggestion is adopted, then both sides will be restricted to 1RR on the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It won't work, GD. The BI removals would continue. Mister Flash (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest? GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See above! A ban on all deletion and removals of British Isles by listed editors. Mister Flash (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Howabout a ban on all deletion/additions of British Isles for all editors on Wikipedia? I could accept that condition. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, am I missing something here, or did you refer to me as "being a single purpose, disruptive, wikihounding, edit warring, politically driven account", and then go on to admonish User:LevenBoy for saying that User:Snowded "has us believe that he's whiter than white"? Quite frankly I'm astounded, but I'll let it pass. On the subject of my user page, which you don't like, would you care to assess this one then?. Please note that I do not edit politically. I try to revert the political edits of others. Your suggestion of a site ban for me is completely over the top. I've already agreed to refrain from editing British Isles related articles if others will do the same. What more do you want? The Special Examples page is worthless. It was set up by HighKing because he was forced to do it. He objects to it, and has now stopped using it. It is flawed: it only attracts HK's supporters and those seeking to limit his edits. Other article editors are largely unaware of it. It is no substitute for the article talk pages. As User:LevenBoy states below, this problem will not go away until all concerned agree to stop removing, or indeed inserting, British Isles. You note below that this thread is not about HighKing. Would you object if I expanded it so that it was - adjust title etc and put a notice on his Talk page. Mister Flash (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Flash I don't think you get it. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Your contributions (listed below): inserting unsourced material, removing sourced material, edit warring and wikihounding are not vague conjecture (as LevenBoy's remark about Snoweded was), they are a matter of record. If I said somebody was a pov-pusher but then gave no evidence that'd be a problem. But I've examined your edits and shown the issue.
Yes I would have a problem with you adding HK to this since you've been wikihounding him. Please leave it to uninvolved editors and admins. If there is a substantive concern a WP:RFCU should be opened. Also since you've made no attempted to resolve the dispute between yourself and HK this is the wrong forum to begin

dispute resolution.
I agree the Task Force should be examined but I believe that should be left to the community. Also just out of courtesy you should reply to people in the thread that they posted--Cailil ^talk

22:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Where didn't I do that? I generally try to keep the dialogue flowing, but it's not easy here. You really should look at some of the edits in more detail before saying they are inserting unsourced material etc. On the face of it, that may be true, but as I've said elsewhere, the issue of sources and the use of British Isles is just one example of gaming the system, but it's not immediately apparent how that gaming is taking place. See Talk:FWA Footballer of the Year for a classic example of this. You'll also note that on that talk page I did request outside involvement, as I have done in many cases. I add this point just to defend myself against the current accusations. Mister Flash (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

Inside view

I've previously been involved in this dispute but I've largely given up on it now. In fact, it's driven me away from Wikipedia to a certain degree. It seems that Cailil has not quite grasped the underlying issues concerned with HighKing and his edits. As many editors have noted, HK's edits are political in nature. He has an agenda and is using Wikipedia to promote it. It is his actions that are the ultimate source of the problems we encounter. Ask yourselves this question - If Mister Flash is site banned (a wholly disproportionate response) will the problem go away? Then ask this question - If HK is site banned (or topic banned) will the problem go away? I suggest the answer to the first question is 'No', because others would simply take up the reins. I also suggest that the answer to the second question is 'Yes'. It's very noticeable that when HK is not editing, no-one else is bothered about the SE page and there are no British Isles issues. Only when he re-starts does the problem crop up again. To me the solution to this intractable problem is simple - topic ban all concerned. Everyone involved in this has a case to answer, including Snowded who would have us believe he is whiter than white. No need for site-wide bans. Editors such as Mister Flash would simply melt away into background if a topic ban was in place. His editing is pretty much SPA so he'd move on elsewhere, and perhaps HK would as well. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to your points LevenBoy. First this thread is not about HighKing (hence my call for further investigation) but it is clear from his history that he edits other topics and is not a single purpose account. Second, please don't cast aspersions about other editors as you have about User:Snowded. Third, Mister Flash has, as can be seen by examining his contrib history used Wikipedia as a

battleground. Fourth your points would be more convincing if you could provide diffs as evidence.
Over all I do see that groups of users are bringing political disputes to pages that have nothing to do with that dispute. Which is a) getting around the Troubles RfAR ruling, b) creating ideologically driven edit-wars and c) which is not limited to Mister Flash. However this thread is about Mister Flash - and frankly it would outside the remit of this forum to go through and unpick the complex of issues that users have with the Special Examples Task Force. That would require an RfAR which you are free to file. The other option and a suggestion that might be more useful to the community would be an extension of the Troubles AE ruling to the 'British Isles naming dispute' topic (widely construed). This would allow for discretionary sanctions on anyone edit-warring, etc, relating to the term 'British Isles'. To implement such an extension a request to ArbCom would be required. But IMHO it would make a lot of sense--Cailil ^talk

15:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Extent the AE Troubles ruling over the BI naming dispute. It can easily be assumed that there's some Irish nationalism & British unionism behind the disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've said it on multiple occasions - there's absolutely no Irish nationalism from my point of view. And you can see that the work that took place on the task force and Flashes refusal on many occasions to engage meaningfully. --

HighKing (talk

) 20:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The two are completely separate issues. You might just as well extend the Troubles ruling over the Macedonian naming dispute. Mister Flash (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I've only just seen this now. I hadn't been informed of this discussion. I arrived here as I was about to make a complaint about

To clarify the purpose of the task force just now. Its sole purpose is to limit, and ideally eliminate, usage of the term British Isles throughout Wikipedia; straight up. Mister Flash (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having seen various disputes in this area, I think it may be best if the community looks at restricting one or both of the editors from adding or removing the term, period. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain who you mean by "both" (I thought this was about Mister Flash's behaviour - are we extending this?). It might be helpful if you provided some diffs showing example of the other editor's behaviour. --

HighKing (talk

) 00:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We have good and bad uses of the term SirFozzie, what we want to stop is edit wars. HighKing has (to his credit) after a long period of removing the term wherever he could find it, being prepared to use the task force page. However Mr Flash with some others (LevenBoy being another) have with the very very occasional exception simply said no to any change regardless of the evidence. At one point I suggested a protocol which in a modified form would I think work. However any attempt to be even handed just results in the sort of accusations you can see above. Mister Flash's view of the purpose of the Taskforce is not supported by any examination of the cases there. Any examination of the edit history on the task force page, or on the articles will show that we have a single purpose editor who auto-reverts, makes accusations against other editors and actively seeks to prevent consensus on contentious issues. I've been prepared to spend time on the task force, looking at each issue as have a small number of other editors with experience of the BI issue. I can see some guidelines starting to emerge. However it is a thankless task when all attempts are subject to disruption and accusations. Per the proposed protocol, enforcing use of the task force and some dispute resolution process could work with community support. --Snowded ^TALK 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

While observation does bare this Snowded, from an outside perspective it is only proper that we handle this dispute neutrally. HK and Þjóðólfr

WP:CSB for countering systemic bias, WP:WQA, WP:AN3, WP:AN, WP:RFP for policy issues and admin intervention and the ArbCom enforcement policies for the troubles rfar - which dealt with a similar (but not the same) naming dispute. We don't need a special group for this dispute.
In short we have policies for behaviour and content already. If certain volunteers can't follow the rules then we will prevent them from disrupting others who will. Simple as that--Cailil ^talk

09:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please point out where I edit warred with Flash - that's twice you've made that accusation. I believe you'll find that Flash was editting against concensus. You use 3 examples above, none of which can be regarded by any stretch as edit warring. And BTW, you must also take into account that for some of this time, BlackKite had ruled that no editor could revert a good edit especially if it involved references, which Flash continues to do on a regular basis. Many of my reverts were valid, and I made sure I didn't start an edit war. If you check the articles in question, you'll find other editors did far more reverting of Flash that I did. Sure, on occassion I have become frustrated with his behaviour, but I have never breached policy, or even warned or blocked for edit warring. Do not make the mistake of grouping me with disruptive editors. This is another example of an exaggerated and unfounded allegation, borne from the severe breaches of

HighKing (talk

) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh the Irony: Had the propper action been taken in the first place, perhaps there would have been no need to

Shoot the messenger again!! for the same misdemeanor. Þjóðólfr (talk

) 10:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid disagreeing with actions that are taken does not allow you to break WP:EDITWAR. It is clear however that you have other interests and productively edit so I recommend you just disengage from Mister Flash. The community can handle this--Cailil ^talk 11:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see diffs for the alleged "long period of removing the term wherever he (HighKing) could find it". As far as I can see, it is an unfairly-repeated exaggeration at its very best, and a real slur on a committed editor at worst. He began a bit rashly as Bardcom (a long time ago now, and I was one of those who called him up on being too 'prissy' in his reactions to some simply concerned requests, and I reverted any BI changes I disagreed with), but this repeated exaggeration of HK being a "extremist" editor is totally unfounded as far as I can see. Nobody saying it is proving it - it's just all words.

The term "British Isles" was incorrectly-used all over Wikipedia, and Bardcom/HighKing had every right to go from article to article addressing it. He has always listened to article-related criticism, and avoided uses of the term which are obviously correct. Very occasionally he copy-edits away from a 'fair' use of the term (ie when various descriptive routes can easily be taken) - but again that is simply an editing right. As HighKing (perhaps a name to start afresh with) he has stood behind every form of BI-related taksforce, when others have shunned them for various reasons.

In between there have often been people around who have insisted that the term 'British Isles' should be used widely and without censor - a situation which will never suit Wikipedia, or kind of consistent dictionary or encylcopedia.

If HighKing gets a topic ban I will take this to he top and shine a light on everyone involved. I'm tired of seeing the actual workers get the eventual heavy blows on Wikipedia. There is no sense in it at all. And I am not 'anti' the term British Isles, I'm very much a 'British' editor. Terms like British Isles are simply problematic. "British Isles" is both inherently potentially-misleading, and has different definitions on the actual islands it covers, and regarding its mixed cultural/political/geographical usage too. The only way Wikipedia is going to deal with those inherent problems is via the kind of Style and terminology Guidelines that every other serious encyclopedia adheres to in these situations.

Until that guideline happens, topic-banning or unduly restricting any editors for reverting each other (eg punishing them outside of simple 3RR or Civility) would be punishing them for Wikipedia's own clear failings. The guideline will happen eventually (I'll be back on it soon myself), and until they are completed we need to stick to the Specific Examples page and 3RR. After we have those guidelines, admin will be much clearer about how to address any situations that could flare up (and these would be minimised anyway), and the future will be a lot less fractious, and actually quite-easily managed. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt do you think as an Irishman I am unaware of the misuse of the term 'British Isles'? I agree with your points re the term except that we do already have a standard here on wp - verifiability. If a source uses a term we use it. If a source uses another term we use that. It's really very simple. Secondly, I am not out to blacken HK's name, but you should be arware that in cases of revert warring blocking "both sides" is a common and oft justified result. It takes two to tango. And if outsiders see a long term pattern of problems then that needs to be addressed. I am convinced that HK should be placed on a 1RR but that's all. Others have stated that we should consider a topic ban- I agree that the community should consider that but I'm not in favour of it.
Also please note that threatening people who have come in to resolve an editwar with 'scrutiny' is not compatible with WP:CIVIL. But please feel free to bring this to ArbCom by all means. I remain convinced that the community can sort this out and I believe that theArbs would see it that way too--Cailil ^talk 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil, if you consider that the term British Isles is "misused" (in Wikipedia?) then you really should consider recusal from this debate. Yes, the term is used in error, though not often, but I have yet to see anywhere in Wikipedia where it's being misused - a word that implies abuse. Mister Flash (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

People do seem to forget the amount of unquestionably good work HK has done - the work we'd all (even if reluctantly) agree was clearly beneficial to Wikipedia. Who wants a term used incorrectly? When he first addressed BI it was misused (used incorrectly, whatever) a lot. Less so now, obviously. IMO, to go up to 3RR to include "British Isles" in places where it could be extra-ambiguous, not greatly needed, and liable to cause offence, is not clever at all. There are simply other terms we can use. I think it sould be the term for geographical/archipelago use, and a guideline should state this. I know you've put it in places - if it is in a 'political' use, I'd like that to change via a guideline. Muliti-meaning terms need to be handled properly, per other encyclopdia's like Britannica. The main thing is that the term does not get outlawed. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone would have to attempt the 1RR before I'd bother Arbcom, obviously. Are you saying you don't think the Arbs would support a BI guideline? I would have to disagree on that.

Regarding my comment on "shining a light" (hardly a real civility infringement surely?) - I didn't mean "everyone" literally. What I meant is that I won't stand back and let HighKing be punished unfairly alone (or even along with Mister Flash). I won't accept such injustice, and opening up other's edits on BI should be enough to stop things from developing. You (and those who support such punitive actions) do need to see how strongly I feel about dishing out 1RR's and topic bans - because I won't be alone on this, especially regarding an editor with a law-abiding background like HighKing's. I'd like to know how you can be so "convinced" that HK should be on 1RR? What is your justification for what is in my eyes a very very very serious act? Editors are not make of clay - you cannot just mould them into shape to solve an external problem when they haven't done anything wrong. And who says he should have a actual topic ban?! I would see that as nothing less than a human rights infringement - he has done nothing to deserve that at all. Was it actually an uninvolved person, or just someone who counter-edits him on BI? Editors are real people who invest hours of their life to Wikipedia - they have to be treated with human respect.

Do you actually have compelling diffs where HighKing has failed to be a civil and law abiding editor? How many times has he been blocked or warned for civility? This would need to be shown.

IMO, to give HighKing 1RR is simply to use an iron fist on a committed editor, to paper over a crack that will only grow. So why is it even being suggested? Imo it is ultimately down to a problem that scars Wikipedia throughout: the single-minded faith in the verifiability rule. X says Y so the resultant Z is the truth for this sentence. Once you establish the 'truth' you can take it anywhere. It is a philosophical nightmare. Single-minded faith in V is the single worst enemy of Wikipedia, and this very AN page is full of examples of it. Some people think that can simply cripple the annoying editors, and then V will win out and save the day again: in fact V is abused evey day and every where. Would you allow every permutation of meaning of "British Isles", simply because there is a "verified source" for each meaning? Perhaps two different meanings in the very same article? Why not? And what if someone just wants to use "British Isles" as a descriptive term without a source being needed? Verification is as much a curse as it is a benefit - it must always be used with caution and a starting point only. One day Policy will properly reflect that, instead of being so utterly flimsy on the matter. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt regarding the suggested 1RR do you understand

WP:EDITWAR? Secondly in regard to your discussion of sources do you understand WP:NOR and how it works with WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE)?
We do not need a new policy wikipedia about terminology whether it has to do with the use of 'British Isles' or 'French Polynesia'. We have polices and standards. Wikipedia is not here to correct the wrongs and/or the perceived wrongs of the world. We reflect reliable sources about notable subjects in a neutral manner, full stop.--Cailil ^talk

22:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are you asking if I understand core policy like Edit warring, No Point of View, No Original Research, and Undue Weight? There is 'WP' somewhere on doing that to an experienced editor: it's not considered particularly polite to frame it like that.

WP:Verify

stops at the first line for people who want to get their point in at all costs - any long-standing copy editor will tell you that. V is a bugger to challenge, despite red flag (the best part of weight). When we know that V is so challenged, why rely on it to save us after we find ourselves in a position where someone like yourself wants to force 1RR on a decent editor? Just because V should work? It's just not logical.

1RR is not in

WP:EDITWAR. Effectively it's another ambiguity, as almost all reverting/replacing could be called edit warring (and probably has at some point). The question is - do we use are heads over difficult matters and look at guidelines, or just focus solely on V, quote downwards, then punish when things go wrong? Matt Lewis (talk

) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I apologize if I came across as antagonistic towards you. But you seem to missing the core point I'm making about how casual, wholesale reverting is a problem. Edit wars, be they fast or slow, degrade our articles' histories. There is rarely one user involved in an edit war and when 'all sides' have been educated, warned, blocked, restricted etc we must take action to prevent article's histories or parts there of being rendered useless.
I disagree with you as regards the MOS, but that's my view. If you want to propose it at the MOS go ahead. I don't see a need for it, as WP:UNDUE and WP:V should cover it, but I respect your view - perhaps others will be more supportive. Also, and just FYI, 1RR is spelled out here--Cailil ^talk 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Those battles (they pop up from time to time) end up being a stage in the current process - I've seen the flurries happen (people may push 3RR, but they are seeing who if anyone comes to support, which can happen of course), and then they focus on the SE page, and then a solution is found (sometimes this is all smooth, other times its more protracted). It's the various 'words' said in between from some parties which is the most disappointing aspect imo (HK has taken things on the SE page admin would look at on article talk). But it's just the way it goes - the term is a real problem on Wikpiedia. A guideline has actually been worked on, on and off, for a long time. It has a couple of major issues to iron out (and the current version is a bit convoluted), but I'm certain that eventually something will be proposed. There is strong support both for and against having one. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions

As discussed above: it is proposed that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing or User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:HighKing is either placed on revert restriction (1RR) or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being [and] restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash.
And that User:Þjóðólfr is either placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash.
I would suggest considering his perfromance here that if Mister Flash is not site banned that he is additionally placed on civity parole--Cailil ^talk 09:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked above, and I'll ask again. This is about Flash. Are we extending it to include me and User:Þjóðólfr? You've provided no basis for calling for a topic ban or 1RR for my behaviour. It's also noteworthy that other editors involved in the Task Force have not backed up woolly allegations against me, yet you are continuing to try to push through a punishment. This doesn't reflect well on the project, or on the due diligence we'd expect from elected admins. --

HighKing (talk

) 15:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, both you and Þjóðólfr edit warred with Mister Flash. He didn't do that alone and both you and Þjóðólfr seem to have missed the point about how serious edit-warring is taken. But I am not seeking to puinish you this is a preventative measure until you can demonstrate that you understand what you were doing wrong. Also please bear in mind 3 sysops have posted here - we're all looking for further input this section gives the community a choice of sanctions and a space to voice their opinions. I've stated above that both myself and Sir Fozzie think we should examine the possibility of wider sanctions rather than just for Mister Flash and that both of us are not sure whether you should be topic banned. I personally don't think so but I do think the wider community should be consulted. Please be clear this is for the edit warring with Mister Flash that is shown above in the diffs I found. His behaviour has been duly noted--Cailil ^talk 17:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Cailil, I have been in general agreement with you so far. However HighKing has been prepared to submit to the discipline of proposing changes at the task force rather than making them directly. He has also abided by the decisions there, something which is not the case with Mister Flash. I suggest a better approach would be to enforce use of the task force, with a ban on any aware editor (in practice that is all those engaged), making any changes prior to agreement there. You could make that more specific to editors who have edit warred, ie preventing them from making the changes. --Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Snowded there is nothing to prevent you from formulating a remedy for HK along these lines for community discussion. That is all I've done above (and BTW I was asking outsiders for input as User:2over0 was). However, your suggestion seems like something the community might consider reasonable. I prefer sanctions to be cleaner - from experience that's what works. But there's always a first time--Cailil ^talk 23:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is pretty much the practice the Task Force asked editors to abide by. With minor exceptions, it worked pretty well to a point. Twas the lack of enforcement that made it difficult to continue at times. (Leaving aside the constant abuse, the editing against consensus, the lack of engagement, etc.) If the Task Force had more discussion with the idea of creating guidelines and more editors submitted examples I think this might work. I'd certainly sign up to it (on the basis that the original rules regarding civility and no stonewalling are *strictly* enforced). --

HighKing (talk

) 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We musn't forget that the Specific Examples page in the taskforce was optional for HighKing and everyone involved. My understanding was that HK readily volunteered to it, as he has with all of the taskforce since it started. There is no law on Wikipedia to say people cannot edit the term "British Isles" without opening a discussion first. The real sense in the SE page was that it got debate away from the article talk pages, saving them from being locked for the duration of the debate (like at River Shannon when Tharkuncoll was involved, just before the taskforce started). I can't see how Wikipedia can actually manage forcing people to use something like the SE page though, even if it was the right approach. For me the guideline is the only solution. Until then though, we should encourage each other to stick with the SE page, and I'll try and look it more myself too. The more people who weigh in, the more effective it is. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about the task force - but is Snowded wants to put it for discussion as an alternative suggestion to mine that's fine with me--Cailil ^talk 23:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to restate what I said above - the diffs you found do *not* show me edit warring with Flash. --

HighKing (talk

) 20:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You also state above that you are not setting out to "blacken" my name. But in actual fact, that's what appears to be happening. You say it takes two to tango, but in this case you'll find that Flash edited against consensus on the Task Force and several editors reverted his persistent edit warring. Why pick me out - I wouldn't even be counted as the editor that has reverted his edits the most, or even the 2nd or 3rd most. Just because Flash has been levelling his guns at me for an extended period of time does *not* mean that you should apply sanctions to me. You should not even suggest it! Because less diligent admins and readers will just pick up and say "Oh, but there must have been something in it. No smoke without fire, etc". Please. Please. Please. Listen to the other editors that have worked on the Task Force. Or that I've "disagreed" with in the past. Look at my edit history - especially in the context of the abuse I've been the target of. And stop trying to, intentionally or not, lump my editing and behaviour alongside that of Flash. That is wrong and unfair. --

HighKing (talk

) 20:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

HK I am not out to blacken your name. And on an extend review of multiple pages (which I'll post here in about an hour) I've decided to alter my position. I've striken my suggestion that you should be topic banned. I however do believe the rest of eth community should *look* at your revert pattern and I suggest a 1RR for 6 months. An alternative would be a voluntary revert cap on your BI reverts per page (rather than per day). On review this is not much different to your actual practice. And if there's a problem with reverts out of order bring it to ANI or to my attention or another admin if I'm not around. I would be satisfied with that - as long as the community is. My view of Þjóðólfr and Mister Flash has not improved. And extended review of edit patterns shows Flash wikihounding you and Þjóðólfr following and revert warring with him. That's a serious issue--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, peace. I accept you aren't out to blacken my name on purpose, but from experience I've seen that once someone calls you a duck (and especially an admin, and most especially here), you're a duck. Thanks though for reviewing my edits. You'd be surprised how many times my behaviour is made to fit the accusations. You'll no doubt have seen that a lot of different things have been tried in the past, including 1RR. I've no problem with attempts to try to limit disruption and I've always agreed and adhered to the community processes. But also note that a sanction pointed at me will be seen as a punishment for a breach of policy or rules, and this is how other editors and admins will view it. Context is often forgotten. Singling me out in this way would beg the question as to why? Other editors who have worked with me (and not always agreed with me) on this topic are saying to you that I'm not disruptive, I engage, I remain civil, etc. This started off talking about Flash's behaviour, and he neatly tried to turn it into a content dispute, or that he was merely retaliating to provocation. This isn't true, and I believe Þjóðólfr grew frustrated and took action on occasion when he couldn't understand why Flash could edit against consensus, revert without discussion, revert while removing references, etc, and all without any sanction. I've also pointed this out in the past to admins such as BlackKite but he retired and I would guess partially because he was fed up with behaviour such as we've seen from Flash. I'll back off this discussion now, since I'm happy that you've reviewed, etc. --

HighKing (talk

) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

HK, let's cut to the quick; if you'll volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia again (unless its use is absolutely in error) I will never revert your edits, I will never add British Isles under any cicumstances and I won't engage in any activity that others might construe as wikihounding. Whilst I am the subject of this thread, your actions are instrumental in the debate, so it's only natural that they are also being highlighted. Do we have an agreement? Surely it's not a lot to ask that you don't remove British Isles? Oh yes, and I acknowledge that many of my posts directed at you have been over the top and uncalled for, and for them I apologise now. Mister Flash (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mister Flash, you're very much mistaken if you believe this is solely about you and me. Nor is it about "British Isles". This is about your behaviour within this project since you started. Now that your behaviour is put under a microscope and editors and admins are discussing serious sanctions, you offer a belated apology to me (under duress). I'd like to accept the apology, but I've no reason to believe it is genuine or made in good faith. I'm sure others wouldn't be foolish enough to either. BTW, it doesn't help by starting with calling for me to "volunteer not to junk British Isles from Wikipedia" and trying to associate your behaviour with mine or trying to make you that somehow I have caused you to behave in this way. I do not bait you, or wikihound you. Your proposal is also transparent since your stated aim is to prevent any editor from discussing any article in any way which might result in the article being rewritten and the term "British Isles" being removed. Thankfully it seems you caught the attention of an admin who decided enough was enough. --

HighKing (talk

) 22:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen disengage from one another please--Cailil^talk 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, and why now? I thought they are supposed to talk? I don't get all this, but I'm very concerned about it. I'm really worried about big heavy power moves on the horizon as I've invested a lot of time in BI. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Stage one of

dispute resolution: stay cool and disengage (that doesn't mean don't talk ever again - just the equivalent of "break it up"). This page isn't for personalized statements--Cailil ^talk

01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "heavy power moves". I've stated clear what I'm suggesting. Community sanctions - that's it. I believe that will solve the problem without the need for anything more. drop me a talk page line if you're worried about something specific--Cailil ^talk 01:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just worried that a big ruling of some kind will come and essentially make the guideline harder to achieve. The taskforce and SE page were needed and positive ideas, but the guideline is the only thing a this stage that is actually a 'positive' thing (in itself), and the only thing I can envisage working.Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither I and nor another admin would have such power. AFAIK even ArbCom could only propose a MFD for the page - so I don't think that's likely to happen--Cailil ^talk 16:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I did try for an agreement, so carry on; topic ban, site ban, whatever. It makes no difference. This will not end here. The British Isles removals will no doubt carry on, and with a renewed vigor, since it seems they are being endorsed. I predict a never ending dispute, after all, it's been going on for at least two years already. The opportunity is here, now, to put an end to it, but the deletionists are reserving their right to continue unrestricted; the opportunity appears to be fading away. Mister Flash (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for silly deals. You should be careful here that speaking for others doesn't make you look like you run more than one account. When the taskforce started Mister Flash wasn't around, remember. And framing two years in terms of being "therefore never ending" looks iffy too. What about before then? HighKing actually advocates a guideline, so things would surely end with that for him. 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Place British Isles usage under the 1RR limit. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a good idea to misrepresent other editors Mister Flash - that's the 2nd time you've misrepresented me in 24 hours. For the record nobody is endorsing any content issue. This is about behaviour; edit-warring specifically. And as I've said feel free to others open an RfAr. But the community should be able to handle this--Cailil ^talk 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting you or any other editor. Stroll on! Is my phraseology so difficult to understand? It's the process that is currently ensuing that I'm commenting on, not you. Mister Flash (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Shouldn't someone tell Þjóðólfr seeing as there's discussions about banning him? It's more than a little concerning that this ANI, originally set up to discuss Mister Flash's behaviour, has been expanded beyond the original scope, and that the editors being discussed haven't been officially notified. --

He was advised if you check his talk page, but has deleted it along with other material --Snowded ^TALK 13:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For outside input sanctions re: Mister Flash

As above it is suggest that that Mister Flash is either topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed) and restricted from all contact and communication with User:HighKing and User:Þjóðólfr, or site banned.
That User:Þjóðólfr is placed on revert restriction (1RR) and/or topic banned from the British Isles naming topic dispute (widely construed). Either sanction would come with him being restricted from all contact and communication with User:Mister Flash. If User:HighKing is willing to voluntarily cap his reverts I would be satisfied with that. But please refer above for other suggestions.
Note to users related to or involved with the dispute please post in the above section entitled 'sanctions'--Cailil ^talk 00:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC) For evidence see:

Thank you for compiling this, Cailil. I think that the interaction bans are definitely in order. Additionally, I think I could get behind the proposed topic ban for Mister Flash and a 1RR revert restriction for Þjóðólfr in this topic area (so far as I am aware there is no need to restrict their behaviour elsewhere in the project). If disruption continues in other areas, sanctions may be extended. I see a smattering of worrisome edits from HighKing (e.g. [61], [62]), but nothing in the last few months that rises to the level of

disruption; I think that a friendly informal warning to tread carefully in articles related to nationalism will suffice. - 2/0 (cont.

) 10:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

HighKing has undertaken to cap his revertions and user:Þjóðólfr has been blocked for ban evasion sockpuppetry and harassment, unrelated to this topic--Cailil ^talk 03:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Eh? What? To what are you referring? I don't recall undertaking anything since I don't believe I have any need to at this point. --

HighKing (talk

) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Must have read you wrong. What I said above I will reiterate - if you volunteer to limit your reverts to 1 per page in relation to the BI topic (basically the same as Snowded's don't revert a revert) I'm happy. This is basically what you're doing anyway but if it's stated clearly I see no need for sanctions of any kind--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll follow whatever guidelines are put in place for any other editor working around "British Isles", including 1RR or variants of same. --

HighKing (talk

) 22:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ideally some admin involvement on the working group would help. I'm happy to maintain the pages and draw in admin support if needed, but also happy if someone else takes it on. --Snowded ^TALK 12:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be against forcing passers-by to work under 1RR just because they edit around the term 'British isles' once or twice. It runs contrary to

WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, WP:AGF and is iffy as regards WP:CREEP. Also the Troubles RfAr enforcement can only be extended by ArbCom and if you want that you need to suggest it to them--Cailil ^talk

04:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the rule has been put in place already by BlackKite and enforced for a period, it helped stop the edit wars. Also note that I said "once informed" which is only going to happen if the change is controversial, in which case it needs to go to the working group anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've more scars than you. Based on what appears to work, and what doesn't, I'd modify the proposal as follows:

• Mister Flash site banned until such time as he agrees to adhere to the basic WP policies that all editors are expected to accept.
• "Rules of Participation" are published. The rules will be clearly laid out and unambiguous, and be restricted to civility and processes of collaboration and how to reach consensus, as well as a statement outlining the objective of the creation of usage guidelines. Rules are likely to contain the following:

1. No addition or deletion of the term British Isles to articles without consensus of the Task Force
2. Strong enforcement of civility. Breaches result in an escalating series of blocks. Breaches are likely to include any comments relating to an editor, and not relating to the content or article at hand.
3. Editors must argee to the rules in order to participate. Activity by a notified editor who does not sign up to the rules may result in a progressive series of sanctions.

--

HighKing (talk

) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always strongly opposed the Do not revert a revert restriction ( Diffs later if my word is not good enough) In such an enviroment a reverse of this edit would result in a block. Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• HK even I think this is too complex a solution. It's really unworkable and contrary to WP:BOLD and WP:BRD to force uninvolved users to work in a 1RR arrangement. Secondly there's a huge
  control the BI topic. Sanctions and article parole remedies need to be clean and clear. That way they run into the least conflict with WP:IAR and WP:AGF for those uninvolved. Snowded's solution of strict enforcement of WP:CIVIL at the task force is much more workable--Cailil ^talk
  04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really that complex - the most complex element is the 1RR. The other rules are a heightened civility policy enforcement since the task force has been plagued by a small number of editors who refuse to address content issues and simple comment on editors instead. This has to stop. And the final "rule" is to prevent editors refusing to work within the Task Force and decide to run solo. I'm happy to drop that restriction. There's very little between Snowded and my proposals. As Snowded stated, the "no revert of a revert" restriction appears to prevent many of the types of edit wars we've seen. It was only after Black Kite retired that we say a return to this behaviour due to a lack of enforcement (and some admins disagree with it).

Passers-by haven't been a problem in the past. One of the main benefits of using 1RR and essentially slowing everything down, means that editors get a chance to consider the change and to reflect what edits should be made, if any. Disagreements can be played out at the Task Force rather than at the article itself. If a passer-by innocently makes a change that someone disagrees with, it's not a big deal to point them to the discussion on the Task Force. The 1RR is to prevent article disruption until a consensus emerges. Simple.

Your point about

HighKing (talk

) 16:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

First, if you want, as Matt does, to propose a chnage to the WP:MOS - you need to do it there. Second whether you realize it or not the Task Force has been used as a site for

dispute resolution. Users uninvolved in a dispute don't need to behave as if they are/were. Third, users outside of this dispute would tend to say that the movement away from from AGF etc is not a failing of the policies. The reason this needs community input is becuase you are *all* too close to it. Finally if you want/need a complex solution you should go through ArbCom who will take the time to weigh the long term effects and policy implications etc with the history of behaviour of those involved--Cailil ^talk

17:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, movement away from AGF isn't a failing of policies, it's a failure of enforcement of policies. We would never have required a task force at all if policies were enforced. Especially AGF and CIVIL, plus BRD, etc. Also, it's not just Matt and me that are talking about creating guidelines, but also Snowded above (perhaps you missed that). Are you suggesting we need to address guidelines in a different way? --

HighKing (talk

) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't create guidelines here HK. If you want to change or add to the MOS you need to work on it there. Like everything else guidelines are developed by consensus--Cailil ^talk 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's what the Task Force was set up to do! I'm confused. You appear to be saying that the Task Force can't achieve guidelines, and that it's merely a place for dispute resolution. Have I got that right? --

HighKing (talk

) 12:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No you can discuss a guideline there but that's only with other involved users. To get such a guideline into the MOS you would need to bring the discussion there or to the village pump--Cailil ^talk

Hold on please

Resolved

 – In an incident unrelated to the BI topic, User:Þjóðólfr has been blocked indefinitely for harassment and sockpuppetry--Cailil ^talk 03:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) is one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors is uncontested: at 100k+ edits she currently ranks at about 65 in the all time list. She is not an admin (one wonders what might come out of the woodwork if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia were turned blue), but she is known by many for her involvement in Wikipedia:Featured article review.

I had rather promised myself that I wouldn't edit until at least March, having been driven into semi-retirement [63] by SandyGeorgia's campaign of harassment involving misrepresentation, manipulation, serial accusations of bad faith (User:Rd232/Notes) and even, increasingly just before I declared semi-retirement, insinuations of advocacy-based COI editing (eg at the top of this User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela_BLP_problem page about me). I've managed to avoid editing for a week now, but I have on occasion logged in to check my watchlist, and have observed Sandy's behaviour with increasing dismay, and ultimately feel forced to do something.

Background: Sandy is an editor with links of some kind to Venezuela, and a point of view that strongly supports the Venezuelan opposition. This is fine, but hand in hand with that has gone an attempt to smear sources that comment on Venezuela in terms she disagrees with, by insinuating connections with the Venezuelan government. For these purposes, Sandy applies standards of sourcing which she would not accept in any other context. I could broaden this point, but it's taken my 1.5 hrs to write this, and will limit myself to the CEPR/Weisbrot issues.

Issue 1:

• on 23 Jan the
  biography of living person Mark Weisbrot looked like this
  . It included, as the second-to-last sentence, sourced to the New York Times, that "He is a broad supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez' economic policies."
• after an enormous flurry of edits by Sandy, by 25 Jan it looked like this. At this point "He has been described as an adviser to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and supporter of his policies." was the last sentence in the lead. The sources supporting "adviser to Chavez" are i) a minor Spanish source which described Weisbrot as the "intellectual architect" of the Bank of the South and ii) infoshop.org, "An Anarchist At the World Social Forum". One of these sources does not support the claim made, so the definitive statement he is an adviser to Chavez (not "some sources say" or "X claims that" - authorial claim of fact) rests on a single source. Is it a trivial claim, and a really good source? No, it is a massively significant claim, and an incredibly poor source: yet stated as fact.
• the second part of the new 25 Jan sentence is "who is described as supporting Chavez's policies". This is now sourced to two footnotes. One is the original NYT source. the other footnote is a composite of a number of sources (SYNTH alert!). Let's look at these sources. The first is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly
  WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side. What other source delights await to support the claim? Some statements of Weisbrot's perhaps? A paper or two? No, in fact we have a remark in The NewStandard (a minor now-defunct online news service); a Miami Herald op-ed (I thought op-eds were frowned upon as sources for controversial statements in BLPs... cough), a Washington Post blog entry, and a magazine and website published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center
  . Fantastic sources for contentious BLP material.
• attempts to discuss these issues in detail, using
  WP:BLPN (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive79#Mark_Weisbrot
  ) and other dispute resolution, were shut down aggressively by SandyGeorgia - possibly because she knew her work would not stand close scrutiny.

• Sandy's 24/5 Jan flurry of edits also resulted in a transparently
  WP:SYNTHy attempt to smear Weisbrot by linking him with the Venezuela Information Office
  , relying on a poor source of debatable relevance (National Review, making merely the vague and unsourced claim that VIO "coordinates a media response team" that includes "representatives from the Center for Economic Policy and Research") and a Center for Public Integrity report which mentions neither CEPR nor Weisbrot. But the Center for Public Integrity did feel the need to publish a response from a number of people, including Weisbrot, in response to the various allegations of people being associated with VIO. Unbelievably, Sandy summarises this as the letter "saying that their [Center for Public Integrity's] statements about the VIO were "highly misleading"." The letter is not about the VIO, it is about the people smeared by supposed connections to VIO - and Sandy seeks to use this to smear Weisbrot and CEPR, neither of whom are mentioned in the original piece!
  • The text was eventually removed from
    WP:BLPN; the same text currently remains at Center for Economic and Policy Research
    .

• these edits come to the attention of User:Scalabrineformvp on 9 Feb; it subsequently becomes clear that he is associated with CEPR. He edit wars unsuccessfully to try to remove the problematic content. Of course the flip side of Scalabrine editwarring to remove contentious, badly sourced BLP material is that others were edit warring to reinsert it. Scalabrine was blocked on 11 Feb for supposed socking to skirt 3RR. The blocking admin appears not to have noticed that the first edit of the supposed sock (User:Constitutional1787) is 24 hours after the last Scalabrine edit. Constitutional1787 violated 3RR and was indef-blocked as a supposed sock, in addition to Scalabrine being blocked temporarily for socking. No-one seems to have noticed that the subsequent SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp concluded Constitutional was NOT a sock!
  • SandyGeorgia's evidence at the SPI on 10 Feb declares that "Constitutional1787 is a new accounts, just created, that continued blanking the article when Scalabrine reached three reverts." This despite the fact that Scalabrine's last edit was 21.15 on 9 feb; Constitutional's first at 21.53 on 10 Feb [64]
• Scalabrine is blocked 31 hours at 02.51 on 11 Feb.

Issue 4: OTRS ticket

• At 17.13 on 11 Feb an OTRS ticket is announced at Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Important_OTRS_ticket_related_to_this_article. It does not take a genius - now that we know Scalabrine is CEPR-connected - to see how Scalabrine's unjustified block led to this, in an attempt to deal with the problematic content.
• SandyGeorgia's response to this probably speaks for itself [65] in terms of the transparent attempt to further smear Weisbrot.
• Scalabrine makes no further article edits; he comments on the talk page, explaining somewhat the OTRS issues - without, it must be said, clarifying the COI.
• On 12 Feb user:Kriswarner turns up, editing the related article Center for Economic and Policy Research, attempting to remove the problematic content. He doesn't declare COI other, but he is using his real name (there is a Kris Warner at CEPR). His edits do not overlap with Scalabrine's, who last edited that article in November.
• On 14 Feb User:markweisbrot turns up, making some comments at Talk:Dean Baker (Dean Baker being the other co-director of CEPR). Neither Kriswarner nor Scalabrine ever edited this article.
• Sandy re-opens the SPI on 12 Feb, adding Kriswarner and then Markweisbrot. Checkuser concludes (apparently) that they're editing from the same location, and as a result they're both blocked as socks. The fact that two of these are real names (one obviously so) of people from an organisation with an open OTRS ticket does not seem to have factored into the equation. Additionally, Scalabrine, the supposed sockmaster, is idef-ed for socking. (None of these 3 accounts, incidentally, received the relevant user talk block notices.)
• An unblock request from Scalabrine clarifying the IP issue and declaring "We are not interested in editing the site but it seems unfair and counter-productive to exclude us from at least providing information in the discussion, with our name and affiliation openly stated." is declined, on the basis that "you have enlisted to assist in both swaying WP:CONSENSUS, and emphasize WP:OWNership over an article. The only possible way that you would likely achieve an unblock, considering the above, is to never edit related articles again." This makes no sense to me in terms of the edit pattern noted above (accounts NOT supporting each other), as well as the clear recognition that discussion should be preferred to editing. The other "socks" remain blocked despite the new information.

Result

1. highly problematic, badly sourced BLP-related content remains, with an open OTRS ticket
2. An account cleared of being a sock remains indeffed as a sock
3. 2 accounts using real names of individuals remain indeffed as socks
4. supposed sockmaster remains blocked
5. the organisation/individuals who submitted the OTRS ticket cannot fully explain their concerns onwiki (and OTRS team does not seem to have done anything at all based on the ticket itself)

The COI issues remain, of course. But I submit that this smear campaign of SandyGeorgia's has gone far enough in how it is impacting on actual living persons; and that in addition SandyGeorgia's campaign of bullying and harassment has gone far enough. See for example her addition of a number of editors to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp; and her continuing personal attacks on me (even in my absence in the last week; cf Talk:Mark Weisbrot). !Ya basta! Rd232 ^talk 09:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Additional parts of Sandy's smear campaign, which I forgot to note:

1. Re-inserting long-deleted content at Venezuela Information Office, listing personnel associated with it.[66] The primary reason for doing so is to link VIO with CEPR. The content was long-deleted because organisation articles do not normally record past employees unless there is some particular significance or notability. There was a talk page discussion about this in March 2009, which sort of ran into the ground in a "no consensus" situation, with an RFC proposed but never done, and the content staying out until Sandy reinserted it without discussion on 9 Feb 2010.
2. Giving undue, unsourced prominence to the role of Weisbrot in
   Just Foreign Policy, with this 10 Feb edit [67]. He was the founding President, yes, previously mentioned well down the article. Sandy promoted that to "founded in January 2007 by economist Mark Weisbrot...", in the lead sentence. The source relied on is the same source previously used; and it is currently a dead link, so Sandy made this substantive change without even looking at the source relied on. Archive.org gives us this, which gives a letter from the Board of Directors with Weisbrot 1 of 13 signatories, and no mention of Weisbrot's role beyond what was previously said "founding President". Rd232 ^talk
   13:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this one, reading through it. Do you have a specific remedy in mind? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, mainly (1) fixing the problems created (further discussion may of course lead to changes, but BLP caution should be applied, and contentious content removed until there is a consensus that is reasonably sourced and given appropriate weight). Also (2) unblocking the inappropriately blocked accounts, subject to warnings of how to behave appropriately when there are

WP:COI concerns, so that they can elaborate onwiki what their OTRS concerns were/are. However, in view the concertedness of Sandy's activities, and the vociferousness with which she has defended these BLP violations through edit warring and bullying, I think something more is required. At this point I know not what that might be. Perhaps simply (3) lots more people being aware of her intentions and behaviour would be a start. Inevitably, she will want people to put more eyes on my edits too - I'm fine with that. I've said all along in the recent Venezuela-related disputes that "more eyes are needed". Rd232 ^talk

13:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused also. I just reviewed two of the articles, but I got confused as they have some of the most excruciatingly constructed sentences I've ever had the privilege of reading! However, that's a content issue. I also read this diff, but I'll be honest and this just seems to be Sandy's considered opinion. Without specific examples of the issue at that point, I'm not sure what could have been expected of Sandy? I'm not familiar with the conflict and have only reviewed the examples you've given, but I can't really see a smear campaign from Sandy, though it is evident that she doesn't like Weisbrot, but that's not actually a crime.

The only actionable thing I can see here is that two editors were blocked as socks when it's quite possible that they were from the same organization. But I'm afraid here too there is an issue, because if they are who their usernames and location suggests, there is a clear conflict of interest for them to be editing this article.

I am uncertain what is required of admins here... I can't see an ongoing edit war and I don't see any gross incivility or disruption. This looks like a content dispute. -

talk

13:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1) I've made the blocked "socks" issue perfectly clear. Unblocking should be subject to warnings about appropriate COI behaviour. Is the fact that there is an open OTRS ticket compeletely irrelevant? Do we have a policy of blocking people trying to explain why there are serious problems with articles about them and their organisations, without a history of actual problems being shown? Try and look at it from their point of view, and imagine it's you and your organisation being accused of being linked to a government that your home country considers a virtual enemy. Rd232 ^talk 13:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well... have the accounts been confirmed to operate as individual people via that OTRS ticket, and is Markweisbrot really Mark Weisbrot? How can we be certain - is there some independent evidence or does the OTRS ticket confirm his identity? If so then I think we probably should unblock that account, but make sure that they are aware that they should restrict their commentary to commenting only on the article text and they should not edit the article. That's probably not an issue if they are who they say they are as this diff is the only edit to their page they've made, and that's to the talk page where they make it clear they've not edited the article.

I'd like to note that I went through the entirety of Sandy's comments on

talk

13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well she is fairly subtle about it; it's not so much hysterical swearing as a grinding, constant background hum of bad faith accusations. Things like "NYT and USA Today are good, unless the tendentious editors scream. " (from Talk:Mark Weisbrot). I can find lots more examples if I'm willing to put in hours I don't have, but I'm far more interested in somebody waking up and smelling the malicious editing coffee. Nobody of 100k+ edits can do everything outlined above in good faith. Combine that with the harassment campaign noted (perhaps insufficiently explained; notes were for myself) at User:Rd232/Notes, and you have an editor who is willing and able to bully other editors into submission in the service of her goal of perpetuating a real-world political crusade to discredit anyone who comments on Venezuela and does not meet with her approval. That discrediting crusade, as the SPI shows, covers Wikipedia editors she disagrees with as well. Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some fairly clear statements from her recently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SG is not operating in a vacuum; having followed this, I notice lots of other regular editors involved, and quite a few seem supportive of SG's position. Therefore I don't see this an SG issue, but a normal and proper Wikipedia process to find the proper balance point in a contentious political issue. I don't see room for admin intervention at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Others may have supported her, but it is her who is operating a campaign seeking to smear individuals whose views and activities she approves of by virtue of linking them to a foreign government. She has done so based on bad sources, misrepresenting sources, and using synthesis, and edit warred to support that. She is too experienced to have done all this - elaborated above - in error. These edits are, to be blunt, malicious. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd, calling a fellow editor (or their edits) "malicious" requires a very good proof. Can you provide a diff to such behavior? None of the material you provide above comes close to it, IMO. Crum375 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Between her campaign harassing me (User:Rd232/Notes) and her misleading edits noted above (an editor of her experience could not make this many mistakes in good faith), I consider it proven. If you know her not from Adam - or know her only from other topics, where she may be angelic for all I know, this may be hard to accept. Take another look in detail at what I laid out above, and ask yourself if a 100k+ editor can get all that wrong in good faith. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I do care a lot about proper sourcing and BLP, and that's my focus. Her contributions to the project add an extra burden of proof for any allegations of malfeasance. In the your set of diffs, I find your characterization of USA Today as a "poor source" troubling. Crum375 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

What I said right up this thread was "The first [source] is USA Today, claiming (without explanation or detail) that Weisbrot "has supported Chavez's policies." Possibly WP:BLP demands better than a vague passing remark in a short news piece to stamp someone as a supporter of someone the US more or less considers an enemy, but let's leave that to one side." Rd232 ^talk 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in here: I think the issue that needs to be rectified is the "sock" drawer rather than the editing by SG. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC).

• Did you all check the Checkuser request here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scalabrineformvp. Shes accusing me, Rd232, Off2Riorob and further down, JRSP and John Z of being socks of each other and CEPR.net editors. Shes got absolutely no evidence. I haven't even edited any of the articles, just talk pages. Off2Rio arrived to investigate the OTRS complain and she accuses him of "sundenly" appearing. Do you know what we all have in common? At some point one or the other disagreed with Sandy about something related to the Venezuela issue and sundenly we're all Socks. Shes claiming to be cleaning up Venezuela related articles, and I'm the first to admit they haven't always been examples of NPOV, but shes adding POV material of her own. And if you try to point it out, you get added to the Sock list. Its ridiculous. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Outside eyes at Talk:Mark Weisbrot would be welcome. I share some of Rd232's concerns about sourcing, and have explained there; see Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Comments and sections following.
• Basically, Weisbrot seems to be a well-respected US economist and columnist. He regularly contributes to the New York Times, and is widely quoted as an expert, on a whole range of topics and countries.
• About a quarter of all google news articles mentioning Weisbrot's name also mention Venzuela in one way or another (see: Talk:Mark_Weisbrot#Additional_sources). So Venezuela is evidently a major part of his work, while not representing the majority of his work, and he has been described as broadly sympathetic to Chavez and Venezuela in the New York Times.
• The matter of potential concern is that there has been a clear effort to make his BLP mainly about his views on Chavez. This would be okay if his views had somehow caused widespread controversy, and his reputation had suffered as a result. But I have so far failed to find, and have not been shown, any sources to indicate that there is any controversy surrounding Weisbrot's views on Chavez. As far as I can tell, he is just a well-respected liberal commentator whose comments are sought by a wide range of top class sources (e.g. BBC). I gather the OTRS complaint makes broadly the same point. Some of the sources used about the Venezuela issue are distinctly not top drawer:
  discoverthenetworks.org, and Front Page Magazine
  .
• On the blocks: I do not think it is a good idea to block editors from the subject's research organisation from contributing, at least to the talk page. Clearly, COIs have to be acknowledged, and there should be no need for socking, but it is very poor public relations for Wikipedia to have questionable BLPs and then block BLP subjects (or their representatives) when they come to complain about our work. Given all the recent discussions about BLPs an OTRS complaint should be greeted with a clear presumption in favour of the BLP subject and meticulous scrutiny and article rebuilding afterwards. --JN466 13:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute which requires no administrative action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a mere content dispute. More evidence of Sandy's continuation of her malicious smear campaign: reinsertion of disputed BLP-related content, without discussion never mind consensus: [68] [69] A nice example of her serial evasiveness of difficult questions pops up too: adds COI tag [70] which is ludicrous since no editing of the article by any COI accounts has taken place;[71] on this questioning of relevance of the tag, says merely "I'm not the author of Wiki's COI tag; feel free to fix it yourself if you think it's poorly worded."[72]. This is not good faith debate. Rd232 ^talk 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting Checkuser procedures against everyone that disagrees with her and getting the subject of a BLP blocked cannot be considered to fall within the realm of content disputes. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the SPI clerks will handle it eventually. No need for this big drama on ANI. Oh, and if anyone feels that any blocks I made in relation to this incident were unwarranted or unnecessary, feel free to overturn them without asking. NW (Talk) 15:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• COI is
  PoV flogging. Gwen Gale (talk
  ) 15:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The block of Markweisbrot

I think we probably need to look into the block of Mark Weisbrot. It's bad form to have blocked him if we can confirm he is who he says he is. Is his account identity confirmed? I think we had better start from here. -

I think the sock drawer needs to be identified and unraveled before we can go much further. It's difficult to take any of these complaints at face value until we know who is socking. Blocking of the CEPR people aside, we're still staring at a series of accounts and IP addresses that all have startlingly similar patterns of editing. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how much you bothered to actually inform yourself of the situation. The "series of IPs" are one and the same user: Me, as I've said more than once on the checkuser page. The others are long established users. There is no sock drawer. Sandy is just trying to discredit people who disagree with her, thats the whole point of that Checkuser charade. I wanted that RFCU thrown out on principle since she didn't provide any evidence whatsoever, but now I actually want to see it go throu. And when the result comes, and it confirms that none of us are socks of each other, then what exaclty will happen to Sandy? I can answer that myself: Absolutely nothing. She used RFCU for her owns purpuses, to discredit opposition, which is exactly the opposite of what RFCU is intended for, but nothing will come of it. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another inconsistent understanding of Wiki; what would you like to see happen to me for requesting a checkuser with ample evidence? We have, if not sockpuppetry, evidence of coordinated editing and meatpuppetry, with striking similarities between the editors, and some editors suddenly disappearing while others appear. Asking for a Checkuser is not a crime; it's business. If I'm wrong, you're happy, you're all exonerated, and we can all go about editing. Being checkusered is not a big deal if you're innocent; I've welcomed the times it has happened to me. Of course, I'll go about editing under the onslaught of personal attacks, failures to AGF, and misrepresentations of my edits to which I've been subjected by multiple editors now, but I'm tough :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of anything, you saying it dosnt make it so. There is no coordination, no shared Ips, no nothing. I don't know Rd232 and never had contact with him other than to inform him that you included him in your little RFCU charede (wich you dindt have the decency to do yourself), the same goes for all the other users. All we ever had in common was that we disagreed with you, and a couple of days later we're all lumped toguether in your baseless accusations. As I've repeatedly told you before, if you enjoy being falselu accused thats "your" problem. You expect me to AGF after you started a bad faith RFCU against me? wow! just wow! 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I know they are "you", what is your point, exactly? CheckUser is for discovering abusive use of multiple accounts and IP addresses to avoid scrutiny or create the appearance of support, and there is plenty of evidence of that. All one has to do is compare a list of your contributions against that of any of the other named editors. An editor might be warned for using RFCU spuriously, but the rare times I've seen Sandy use it, there has been cause. If the CheckUsers decide there is not sufficient evidence to investigate, it will be closed. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My point, exactly, is that this is a spurrious, bad faithed request. There is absolutely no evidence of anything. All I have in common with the other users is that at some point I disagreed with SandyGeorgia. Thats it. She didnt start taht RFCU to get to the bottom of anything, she did it to discredit, tire, and wear down anybody who disagreed with her on any Chavez related articles. And that is not what RFCU is for. But of course arguing with you is not gona be of much use, shes obviously your friend and you came here with your mind made up. 187.47.124.216 (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232 continues misrepresenting in his campaign against me, frequently accompanied by personal attacks and failure to AGF;[73] TLDR. On the Weisbrot issue, I don't believe the block was heavy handed, as we have long term COI, sock and meatpuppetry going on there, and we need to get to the bottom of it. It wasn't just a sudden thing; those articles have all been created by CEPR symathizers, employees, socks, or whatever they are, and now they are being aided by pro-Chavez admins in censoring the articles. It would be good to have Weisbrot's input into his article (for example, no one has written anything about him and other Latin American countries, and I'm not familiar with his work there), but given the long-term abuse already documented, he could provide that feedback on any one of the sock talk pages, even if blocked. It remains unclear why so many pro-Chavez editors are suddenly so invested in covering Weisbrot's connections to Chavez; is there a law being broken or something that is going over my head? I can't understand why this molehill has become such a mountain, and why it is so important to remove his well-sourced connections to Chavez from the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh this is good. His campaign agaisnt you??? He had stopped editing, untill you dragged him into the RFCU mess (and you really expect AGF after that? its not an unlimited credit card), along with me and others. 189.65.44.182 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well. Besides sorting the Weisbrot block and sock drawer, getting to the bottom of the serious whitewashing across all Venezuela/Chavez articles should be another big priority here. We have essentially no Venezuelan articles that aren't POV, looking like Chavez propaganda, and ownership on all those articles. I'm the only editor attempting to neutralize them, and one person can't do it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is exactly the problem, User SandyGeorgia has a very strong anti Chavez POV and is on a campaign to have any article associated with Chavez reflect her POV, any editor that is at any other position is a sock, or has a coi or some other wiki lawyering. The whole sock drawer story is all part of her campaign that look at all these socks and all these articles are pro Chavez and it all adds weight to her campaign that she needs to neutralize all these articles so they reflect her very strong anti chavez pov, I am afraid that in user SandyGeorgia's case this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 16:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Right, well, more unsubstantiated attacks and bad faith assumptions from an admin; seems to be my lot :) By all means, let's look at my editing in relation to y'all :) It's most troubling that we have so many admins who don't actually seem to have read or understood

  WP:NPOV. Anyway, based on something Rd232 just posted, I think I see now what this is about. The concern seems to be whether Weisbrot or CEPR or someone is actually acting as an agent for a foreign government, and that might be the urgency behind removing well sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk

  ) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  That precise concern was discussed at Talk:Mark Weisbrot as long ago as 27 Jan, when I said " You must understand that VIO (Venezuela Information Office) is a registered agent of the Venezuelan government, and that associating Weisbrot with them directly serves to discredit him. The source doesn't permit any actual conclusion to be drawn on the nature of the relationship between VIO and CEPR - it could easily be merely information exchange; or it could be a financial relationship. The reader is left to read between the lines, and when Weisbrot's signing of a single letter is thrown in (WP:UNDUE much? as John Z notes), it's either intending to insinuate or unintentionally leaving dangerous ambiguity that Weisbrot is a paid agent, indirectly, of the Venezuelan government." Sandy replied to this serious BLP concern with "Those are interesting conclusions; from what planet did they come? There's nothing like that in the very neutral text. I have a hard time imagining how you came up with that scenario." The discussion then trailed off, largely - I think - because Sandy then accepted the removal of that text from Mark Weisbrot, seemingly because of accepting the validity of these concerns. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, well now I see where you were heading with all of this; perhaps if you weren't so sarcastic and attacking in all of your posts, that message would have come through sooner. At any rate, Wiki is not censored, and we report what reliable sources say. If that leads some to conclude that Weisbrot is acting as an agent of a foreign government, I don't think Wiki can be responsible for what very reliable sources say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  There is nothing attacking or dismissive in the quoted post making this important point; yet you dismissed it without substantive response. Your dismissive response here, implicitly claiming sarcasm as a reason for not getting the point, is typical of the way in which you constantly misrepresent and evade. Rd232 ^talk 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification note: Off2riorob is not an admin. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• User SandyGeorgia has such a strong anti Chavez POV and has herself declared that she is on some kind of campaign to neutralize a whole bunch of articles to reflect her POV that it would be better if she did not edit articles related to him.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 16:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sir, your jabs are contributing precisely nothing to this conversation. It should be our goal to neutralize articles that display a POV; that does not mean we're trying to insert our own POV. But I suspect you know that and are just trying to stir up trouble. Please disengage from this thread if you have nothing of value to add. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• They are not jabs, they are the exact issues as I have found them to be true, my comments are constructive, User SandyGeorgia has conveyed these opinions and I am stating nothing that is not correct and as I have been involved at more than one location with this User, I will add my comments as I see them, you may not like them but they are indisputable and totally correct.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 16:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Eliminating the only Spanish-speaking editor apparently on Wiki and knowledgeable of Venezuelan history and politics from Chavez/Venezuela articles would be quite a coup for the pillars upon which Wiki is based, such as
  WP:BITE that has contributed to the whitewashing of every Chavez/Venezuela and now CEPR-related article on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There it is again, your very strongly held negative POV that is verging on a conspiracy theory regarding chavez and CEPR, and more wiki lawyering, claims that something needs to be done about all these articles to save the world from this whitewashing of wikipedia articles. Sorry SandyGeorgia but IMO you should take a step back from editing articles related to Chavez, at least for a while.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• There's something to be said about the corp group of editors who agree with you, and the number of uninvolved editors who don't :) But it would be quite a
  WP:NPOV coup if y'all could eliminate little ole me from Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR articles. Rio/Rob, the gentleman doth protest too much. SandyGeorgia (Talk
  ) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• The gentleman doth protest to much, what rubbish, more of youR obsessive conspiracy theories.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And there she goes playing the martyr - another favourite Sandy tactic. Anybody actually bothering to use Wikidashboard will see that on rather a lot of Venezuela articles, it is actually Sandy who leads in number of edits. eg Hugo Chavez Also instructive is looking at users' top 20 edited pages: Sandy v me. I have 2 Ve pages in the top 20 (3 if you count RSN which is there because of one single enormous Venezuela-related hooha) - both talk pages. Combined Ve edits in the top 20: 263 (=1.7% of total). Sandy has both Chavez and Talk:Chavez in top 20, totalling 1800 edits (also 1.7% of total). Since Sandy inter alia claims that I don't create content, last 100 articles I created. Rd232 ^talk 17:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack; and please read

WP:TEND contributed to two editors only POVing every Venezuela/Chavez article on Wiki in the several years I stopped following them, and now we see same on CEPR/Weisbrot, where CEPR.net and Venezuelanalysis.com are frequently used to present one-sided articles. And now it's more than one Spanish-speaking editor can clean up; yes, my edits on these articles have been high since I observed what was happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very good at making unsupported claims. You do it a lot. I must avoid the temptation to respond every time; but it does mean the constant unsupported claims accumulate. Like the claim that CEPR is "frequently" used for anything other than the CEPR articles. Or the claim you've made several times that there is any connection between CEPR and Venezuelanalysis other than you hating both of them. Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Famously inefficient or not, the substantive point about the proportion of Venezuela edits remains: both of us 1.7% going by the top 20 edited pages, which sadly is all wikidashboard provides (anyone know a better tool?). Ooh, found a better tool, which with a bit of Excel calculation gives me Rd232 14% venezuela-related edits (in top 100); SandyGeorgia 21%. This permits some conclusions about relative involvement and

WP:OWNership. Rd232 ^talk

19:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See continuation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPI_followup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Separate admin question

RegentsPark, thanks for pointing out that Off2riorob is not an admin; that mitigates part of my question. His persistent misrepresentations of my editing notwithstanding, Rd232's involvement here is a concern. Several of the editors participating here have evidenced a lack of understanding of

My question is-- and since I'm not an admin, I make an assumption-- is it not time to formally establish that Rd232 and John Z should not use admin tools on any Chavez/Venezuela/CEPR-related articles? User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles

I need to check out of my hotel soon, and don't know when I'll be able to resurface; hopefully I won't find more attacks on me when I do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is one of User SandyGeorgia's modus operandi wikilayering and accusations of being attacked, there are no attacks here, just people that have issues with your stated editing objectives.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering your (mis)understanding of several Wiki policies, I'm relieved to know you're not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, actually the fact that you weren't aware or were unable to discover this simple point says more about you than it does me.
      Off2riorob (talk
      ) 17:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I wasn't interested enough :) Or too busy chasing my tail across all of the policy violations across numerous articles ... But while we're on the subject, could you explain why you-- a prolific contributor at
        WP:BLPN, didn't engage when Mark Weisbrot was raised at that noticeboard-- and chose to do so much later, after it was all settled? SandyGeorgia (Talk
        ) 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Do you see some conspiracy in this deviousness? Everyone is a Chavez spy out to whitewash all the articles related to him and you are the wikipedia Saviour that is going to save the world from this conspiracy, hello?
          Off2riorob (talk
          ) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)