User talk:AFFS1

ADVOCATE FOR FREE SPEECH N°1


 * The purpose of the Advocats for free speech is to defend FREE SPEECH and PLURALISM.
 * We defend victims of wrongfull censorship and vandalism on Wikipedia
 * We inform users when wrongful methods are encountered on Wikipedia
 * and help in fighting illecit behavior.

= The Case User:Bully-Buster-007 versus User:Requestion. =

Disputed items

 * ciber-harrasement, ciber-bullying newcomers
 * WP:Etiquette
 * consensus, editing procedures
 * qualification "spam" and " link-spam "
 * viruses on wikipedia

parties in the dispute

 * User:Bully-Buster-007 for a think tank in Brussels (Belgium)
 * User:Requestion, User:BozMo, User:Femco, User:A. B. for a group of self-declared spamfighters

As to the facts:
" Work and Wealth for All " ( WWFA - h-ttp://workforall.ne-t) is a leading an well respected think-tank in Brussels (Belgium) involving economists, engeneers, econometrists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They are engaged in a number of socio-economic studies in close collaboration with " Free Institute for Economic Research (FIFER) " and the "Free Association of Civilisation Studies (FACS). Their research into the causes of European growth differentials have resulted in scientific publications as well as a great number of essays for a wider public covering subjects such as The Irish economic miracle, The Scandinavian Social Model, Tax burden, Tax structure, Big Government, Inflation, VAT, the Sustainabibity of the European Welfare State, monetary questions etc. Their web-site also provides easy access to worldwide data sources and to masterpieces of economic literature and is purely informative. All their services are free, and free of commercial advertising. For reference see their latest publication "The path to sustainable growth - Lessons from 20 years of growth differentials in Europe.

Their publications and essays were published or reported by well established publishers such as the Brussels Journal, or TCS Dayly. Many were translated and commented worldwide. It is believed that their work inspired a number of political parties all over Europe as well as the Belgian government to have a budget freeze or a shift of the tax burden from income on consumption implemented in their programs. No obvious traces of spamming by WWFA were found on the internet. The WWFA staff operate from a number of different IP's in Belgium and during the course of the debate created a WP account under the name User:Bully-Buster-007.

WWFA staff have been contributing to Wikipedia ever since 2005, providing both (parts of) articles as well as links to essays and books under a range of socio-economic titles covered by their research. End April 2007 User:Requestion who is member of a group of self declared spam fighters started blanking the WWFA contributions on Wikipedia as well as the links relating to the workforall publications and essays without gaining consent for the blankings.

In the debate that followed, the WWFA staff claimed the actions of the Spam Squad were illegitimate because:
 * 1. the Spam Squad had no authority to for massive blankings and fail to provide adequate justification for their spam project
 * 2. the Spam Squad's editing procedures were incompatible with WP:etiquette and WP:concensus
 * 3 the Spam Squad's authoritarian methods were incompatible with the rules of WP concensus and their arrogant intimidation was incompatible with WP:etiquette
 * 4. the Spam Squad's blankings of well established WP content without without gaining consent constituted qualified vandalism according to WP etiquette
 * 5: the Spam Squad's blankings of content on talk pages without consent of opponents disturbed the debate and constituted qualified vandalism according to WP etiquette
 * 6. The spam squad was involved in criminal behaviour such as spreading viruses over Wikipedia

1. The dispute about the qualification Spam
Early may The WWFA staff complained about the spam squad's vandalism to their contributions, and filed a request to Requestion to stop his indiscriminate blankings and to stop calling their contributions spam as these false accusations harmed their worldwide reputation. Early in the debate that followed the WWFA staff agreed that the contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that in a number of cases the external links could be disputed. They excused, and proposed on 6 occasions to reach consensus as to the question where the contributions were relevant and where they were not. All over the debate User: Requestion refused the fundamental debate over the quality and relevance of the WWFA contributions and dismissed the WWFA suggestions to reach a reasonable agreement. Having run out of arguments User:Requesion refused to continue the debate so that the quality of the WWFA contributions remained undisputed. User:Requestion never provided any other justification for giving the WWFA contributions the qualification "Spam" other than the mere number of their contributions. Requestion's refusal to continue the debate constitutes a qualified refusal to reach consensus, and is incompatible WP etiquette

2. The dispute about the authoritarian methods of the spam squad
In the course of the debate the WWFA staff progressively realised the devastation the spam fighters inflicted with their indiscriminate blankings
 * to quality and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia
 * to the pluralism of wikipedia
 * to the reputation of a wide range of bona fide contributors
 * to the number and diversity of contributors by chasing away contributers with little time to dispute and by scaring away newcomers.

WWFA staff also realised the spam fighters' arrogance caused widespread grief and that their autoritarian methods obviously were uncompatible with WP etiquette. WWFA staff strongly condemned the spam squad's intimidation which included automated warnings, irrelevant warnings, threats, boycots, qualified intimidation, blocking, attacks on the privacy of other users by disclosure of contributors identity with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents, and last but not least silencing opponents through illecit blocking and their self confessed strategy of wearing out opponents with irelevant arguments.

Having concluded the both methods and justification of the spam fighters were incompatibble with the 5 pilars of WP and with WP policy to reach consencus in a debate, a WWFA staff member created a special purpose account under the name Bully-Buster-007, with the declared intention of fighting intimidation on Wikipedia. Bully-Buster-007 then issued several extensively motivated harrasment warnings to User:Requestion, User:BozMo and User:A. B. The justification for the harassment warnings was never disputed by the spam squad, but symply disregarded, referred to as phony warnings and erased without consent. The erasal by the spam squad of these appropriate warnings constitutes a qualified case of vandalism as to WP:Etiquette.

3. The dispute about the appropriateness of external links
WWFA staff also disputed the authority of the spam squad and the justification for their spam project. WWFA argued that external links were perfectly legitimate in numerous cases the spam squad had esased also from other contributors. They argued that according to a universal juridic principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam squad should not be interpreting a general WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summerised in an article. Having understood the common sense of this universal principle, the Spam squad did no longer dispute these arguments.

4. The dispute about the reversal of editing procedures by the spam squad
WWFA staff also disputed the editing procedures of the spam squad. WWFA agreed that the spam squad was fully entitled to require consensus for totally new, unverified and untested additions, but they argued that this consensus requirement obviously was a reversal of WP procedures in the case of restoration of vandalism to well established information about which consencus allready had existed. They argued that such information was already read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP users, and that the Spam Squad should not have erased such information without first gaining consensus in the first place. Having understood the common sense behind this basic principle of WP editing procedures the Spam squad did no longer dispute these arguments, but failed to undo their wrongful vandalism.

5. The spam squad's vandalism on talk pages and cover-up operations
As the dispute devellopped, the spam squad progressively started to erase legitimate Bully-Buster's warnings as well as legitimate comments on talk pages in an coordinated attempt to cover-up their earlier wrongful blankings. Such illicit blanking on talk pages without consent of the opponent constitutes a qualified case of vandalism according to WP procedures.

6. The virus in the sandbox
On mai 11th 2007 a junior WWFA employee was reading a discussion about the present case on "meta" between user:Requestion and another unidentified individual. This discussion ended with the unidentified individual suggestion "want some help? ; ) ". Being a curious character the junior employee followed the link to the unidentified individual's special purpose account in the in the WP Sandbox which provided an external link to an institution of which she later only remembered the name contained "technologies". This link lead her to an obscene image which she described as a parrot sitting on a p. After a few tones of Beethoven's 5th symphony, the victims screen went black, her Pentium2 processor overheated and started a fire which was confined to her and the neighbouring office thanks to the Sprinkler installation. After the victim was released from hospital for her shock and first degree burnings, the incident was reported to the local Belgian Computer Crime Unit (CCU). The investigation is still in progress but faces seriuos obstruction as the most obvious traces on Wikipedia to the source of the virus seem to have been erased.

As to the further devellopment of the dispute.
The spam fighters seing their illegitimate operations challenged by the bullying campeign of user:Bully-Buster-007, progressively engaged in wrongful behavior and on mai 7 th 2007 invited User:BozMo ( who is involved in the spam project himself ), to give a user:Bully-Buster-007 a one week block and workforall contributions got blacklisted. A colleague of the silenced user:Bully-Buster-007 invited user:BozMo to undo the blocking as it was argued to be illegitimate because user:BozMo did not provide adequate justification for the blocking and because user:BozMo being a spam fighter himself was not entitled to the blocking as according to WP conflict procedures User:BozMo could not be judge and party in the same dispute. After this comment, the Bully-Buster-007's colleague got blocked as well, and User:Bully-buster-007 's one week blocking was made indefinate.

The multiple suggestions to reach concensus being dismissed by the spam squad, and the spam squad progressively using unapproprioate methods, the bully busters have decided to apply for mediation and/or arbitration, apply for protection of their contributions, request reversal of the blacklisting, protection of user:Bully-Buster-007, and banning of the irresponsable spam squad membes. If Wikipedia is what it says it is, this application must be heared. Users are requested to support this request and comment on talk page of User:Requestion.

Level 1 harrasment warning
This is a first degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels

Your qualified refusal to reach Wikipedia:Consensus in the dispute after numerous propositions of your opponant to come to a reasonable settlement is incompatible with Wikipedia:5_Pillars and Wikipedia:Etiquette. You fail to provide adequate evidence for the qualifications "spam" in your accusations of at User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#workforall.net. Spreading unmotivated or disputable accusations can be considered as spam itself and can seriously harm the interests, reputation and privacy of other users. Deliberate attempts to harm the interests, reputation or privacy of other users is both a criminal offence and is incompatible with Wikipedia:5_Pillars and Wikipedia:Etiquette. In order to interrupt the escalating and ongoing damage allready inflicted to your opponent, You are kindly requested to remove the inappropriate and disputed comments and accusations within 24 hours there and on the all locations You or your conspirors might have illecitely posted them, as well as to revert all blankings for which you failed gain Wikipedia:Consensus. In order to keep the discussion together you are kindy invited to participate in the discussion at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach Wikipedia:Consensus there. Please do keep to Wikipedia:Etiquette there as well.

Level 1 Harrasment warning
This is a first degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels. Your comments on User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Welcome.2C are unappropriate. You failed to provide evidence about the qualification "spam" in the debate on User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction. Your accusations of spam obviously are unfounded. Spreading unmotivated or disputable accusations can be considered as spam itself and can seriously harm the interests, reputation and privacy of other users. Deliberate attempts to harm the interests, reputation or privacy of other users is both a criminal offence and is incompatible with Wikipedia:5_Pillars and Wikipedia:Etiquette. In order to interrupt the ongoing damage You are kindly requested to remove unappropriate and disputed comments within 24hours. In order to keep the discussion together you are kindy invited to participate in discussion at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach Wikipedia:Consensus there. Please do keep to Wikipedia:Etiquette there as well. Bully-Buster-007

Level 1 harrasment warning
This is a first degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels. Your self confessed strategy of "wearing out opponents" on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Requestion (Requestion 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)) is incompatible with WP conflict management and constitutes a refusal to work toward agreement in a dispute. This is incompatible with Wikipedia:Etiquette and is considered as a qualified case of cyber-bullying. You are kindly requested to work toward an agreement at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach Wikipedia:Consensus there. Please do keep to Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Level 1 harrasment warning
This is a first degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels. Your reference to pigs when referring to your opponents on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Requestion is incompatible as to Wikipedia:Etiquette. You are kindly requested to appologise to your opponent.

Level 1 Harrasment warning
This is a first degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels. You have recently erased comments and/or warnings on the talkpage of User:Requestion. This blanking without consent of the opponent disturbs the discussion and constitutes qualified vandalism as to Wiki:Etiquette. This blanking seems to be part of large scale a cover-up operation and/or coordinated efforts of a gang to erase traces of earlier wrongful activities. Kindly be informed that participation in a gang performing unlawful activities may involve your unlimited solidary responsability (as opposed to proportionate liability).

Bully-Buster-007 protest against User:Requestion's methods

 * this is a copy of the comments formulated on User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction


 * Believe me, Rwl10267, this has nothing to do anymore with the quality of Wikipedia. What once began as a legitimate struggle against guenine spam ( irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defined it, and which we all despise has since long degenerated. First in linkspam fundamentalism banning any external link (however relevant it may be), then in censorship of content they dislike, and since a couple of months in a war for power between the bullies and bona fide contributors who soon give up their struggle for survival before the ruthless vandalism of the bullies.
 * Look at the long history of mass destructions here Special:Contributions/Requestion. See how it gradually escalated and degenerated, and how every case of vandalism give them more confidence to vandalise others. See how it escalated till they found they could challenge phd's from the worlds finest universities as they did here Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet. In the end those guys believe they are god, as one victim put it.
 * When even links to a PhD of the Cambridge University like this http: // ffconsultancy.com/free/thesis.html. is considered as spam, I wonder what will be left to link. When Requestion will have finished his censorship vocation we end up with a wikipediette a in pocket format; Handy I agree, but not very informative.
 * The techniques these guys use: mass-destruction of constructive contributions, unappropriate warnings, intimidation, threats with banning, boycots and blacklisting constitute guenine terror and have all the characteristics of cyber-bullying such as wonderfully described here: (search Bullying.) Read what motivates the sick minds of bullies here (search: Bullying # Characteristics_of_bullies ) . Read how they attribute each other rewards for ferocity here User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
 * Dont expect reasonabilty from them by being friendly. Dont expect reasonable arguments. Each time you ask these guys for detailed justification, they fail to produce concrete evidence. Dont believe their escalating warnings. Dont believe their threats with blocking and blacklisting. Ignore all their automatically generated messages. Dont believe their false accusations of improper behaviour on the slightest technical error you make. Dont lose time reading pages and pages of irrelevant instructions their vague automatically generated instructions direct you to.
 * External links are indeed a perfectly integrating part of WP. WP instructions cannot be clearer as under WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
 * The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relevant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. User:87.64.93.128|87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont expect reasonabilty from them by being friendly. Dont expect reasonable arguments. Each time you ask these guys for detailed justification, they fail to produce concrete evidence. Dont believe their escalating warnings. Dont believe their threats with blocking and blacklisting. Ignore all their automatically generated messages. Dont believe their false accusations of improper behaviour on the slightest technical error you make. Dont lose time reading pages and pages of irrelevant instructions their vague automatically generated instructions direct you to.
 * External links are indeed a perfectly integrating part of WP. WP instructions cannot be clearer as under WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
 * The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relevant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. User:87.64.93.128|87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * External links are indeed a perfectly integrating part of WP. WP instructions cannot be clearer as under WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
 * The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relevant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. User:87.64.93.128|87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relevant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. User:87.64.93.128|87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)