User talk:Brandon/Archive 13

Signed comments
If you object to a signed comment I have made then please raise it with me, rather than editing it yourself. I object to my signature being attached to something I did not write. DuncanHill (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really want to leave that on ANI I have better things to do than stop you. Brandon (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reworded it, which I would have done if you had bothered to ask. Do not change my signed comments in future. DuncanHill (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reserve the right to edit how I feel fit, thanks. Brandon (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not have the right to falsify the signed posts of others. It is dishonest and disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any falsification, in the future I will just remove such comments in their entirety then. Brandon (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise disruptive. You should not be an admin if you insist on falsifying the posts of others and refuse to discuss those which you object to. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Better things, like re-reading WP:TPO, maybe? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncivil remarks in resolve templates are hardly protected talk page comments and exceptionally disruptive. The purpose of that template is to express the outcome of the thread, not inject your own personal bullshit. Brandon (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

ten
So what's up with those edit-wars over the meeting on Saturday... ? Just wondering... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who the other account editing the page are. None of them have any edits on other wikis or have any involvement with Wikipedia from what I can tell. Myself and User:Dominic have tried to organized a meetup before with little success, so this seemed like a good opportunity for one. Brandon (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Brandon, I left a note on the Phoenix talk page at ten.wiki about the location. Look forward to meeting everyone. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned user is back
Hi, Brandon. I'm writing because user ItsLassieTIe, whom you and two other admins (User:Willking1979, User:MuZemike) were involved in banning, has returned and is causing problems at Nicole Kidman and other pages. He is presently blocked for another day for edit warring and incivility.

This user is User:DeadSend4, who at the third post here concedes, “I am Jane his wife. But I'm [not] going to use that account anymore.” Jane his wife was a sock of ItsLassieTime.

Since you were involved in banning ItsLassieTime, who notoriously has used a squadron of sockpuppets, I wanted to alert you that while banned, he is back and behaving the same way under another name. I and several editors whom you'll see at Talk:Nicole Kidman would appreciate any help, information or insight you might provide. With great thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix Wiknic is ready to go
Phoenix Wiknic is ready to go (pending a few minor tweaks)--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent protections
I don't know if you are an oversight, and I really do not care, but you has been overprotecting pages about living persons per our police. Apparently, there are no recent BLP violations (e.g.), but I'd like to know why you are going from 0 to 60 in the first shot in all those. If the reason is WP:BLP Justin Bieber page must be deleted. That boy's biography has enough contentious material to sue Wikipedia, and his page still here, and there are not oversight changes. ۞  Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  04:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am both a CheckUser and part of the Volunteer Response Team that deals with BLP related emails. Most of my recent protections deal with the my duties in the latter. Unfortunately the contents of the emails I deal with are confidential and I can not share my exact reason for protecting the articles. Rest assured all the articles that I protect in this manner are the subject of ongoing review by myself and other members of the team. As for WP:BLP in general there are very real legal and moral differences between a public figure such as Justin Bieber and the majority of our BLP subjects. We have the utmost responsibility to protect the subjects of our articles from harm. Brandon (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dominic signed you up for the Wiknic in Scottsdale, Arizona
I am writing to let you know that Dominic signed you up for the Wiknic in Scottsdale, Arizona.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Posted a couple more specific questions, related tothe sock investigation, here. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS
I'm may be interested in OTRS (my concerns are primarily relation to time commitment issues) but I don't feel that I know enough about the duties, nor do you know enough about me to see if this is a good fit. If I read http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/IRC_channel correctly, it might be wise for me to be more active on the IRC help page, and the OTRS IRC channel (I was thinking at first that the OTRS channel would only be for those who were accepted, but if I read correctly, it is for those who want to help out, but is not used for the sensitive information that the OTRS volunteers see.

Does this make sense?-- SPhilbrick  T  21:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Being more active on IRC is a very good idea, it helps a lot to have other OTRS volunteers on to sanity check your replies or on-wiki actions. What channel depends on what part of OTRS you want to help with. #wikimedia-otrs is a cross-project channel and mostly deals with image/text permission requests, you won't find much en.wiki talk in there. #wikipedia-en-help is more related to the general help queues. The BLP tickets, the biggest en.wiki queue are mainly discussed in either the private OTRS volunteer channel or #wikipedia-en-admins do to their private and en.wiki specific nature. If you find me on IRC (bjweeks) I would be happy to pass you a few tickets that require on-wiki action so you can see if is the kind of thing you'd like to do. Brandon (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Of course, my recent post (on IRC, about 5 minutes ago) explaining that I'm weak on FUR issues isn't a good start :) (On a serious note though, I trust it is a good thing when people know their limitations.)-- SPhilbrick  T  22:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OTRS has enough volume that even if you stick to one specific queue, you'll never run out of work. Most volunteers tend to stick to their area as well, I personally do mostly BLP where as most commons admins stick entirely to permissions. Brandon (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Block of F2West and Porfiry Petrovich deux
I agree with your move to block the two individuals for violations of BLP. I had previously filed a SPI report that came of up clean so I had not bothered to follow up. Where is the evidence of Meat pupperty? I am curious to find any evidence of such coordinated action. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not using the word in the sense of centralized action, just in the sense of multiple accounts acting in unison. I'll make sure to use more clear terms in my block summary. Brandon (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was just curious if something off-wiki had been found. Evidently not, Cheers, The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rick Ross
You semi-protected the Ross article. I don't have a problem with that as there had been quite a bit of blood shed in editing the article. However, you restored to the "last good version", undoing quite a bit of good work to the article, including my own (triggered by a post at BLPN). At the point that you protected it, I'm not sure what you (or others?) think was wrong with the article. Is there any reason why you can't undo your restoration, which would put it in the state it was in at the point of semi-protection? Thanks for looking at this.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "last good version" was before the edits of the two blocked SPAs. If you feel the current version doesn't suffer from any BLP issues, feel free to restore it. I just wanted to ensure no BLP issues remained in the article. Brandon (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm pretty sure the version just before protection was added is okay, so I'll revert your restoration. I'll take one more look before I do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I need a bit more info, please. It looks like you were going to block Porfiry Petrovich deux and FWest2, but I don't see that you actually did so. The reason it matters is because I focused on particular sections of the article. If those two users are the SPAs you're referring to, I should probably take some time to see what material they edited in the article before restoring the latest (my) version.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are indef blocked. Brandon (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being a pest, but why do I see the block only when I go to the user contribs page, but not when I go to their user or talk pages? Also, when I'm on their user pages, and I click on log, I don't see a block, but, of course, you can see it from the block log link on the contribs pages. This isn't important going forward and my editing the Ross page, but it's one of those arcane (to me) wrinkles at Wikipedia I have trouble understanding unless someone explains it to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Block templates (like indef or uw-block) are added manually to user or user talk and some times not added at all, especially for puppets. There's no bulit-in MediaWiki feature that displays block notices on user page and user talk (but they do show up when you try to edit them). The "Log" leads to a list of actions done by the user; the block log, as we usually use the word, is a list of blocks done to the user. To see the block log, you need to put User:XXX into the "Title" field at Special:Log. Compare [ log of blocks performed by me] with [ log of blocks on me]. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great explanation - hopefully, I'll even remember it. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Several Merges with redirects
I just noticed you merged and redirected several articles. Was that based on a discussion somewhere? -Kumioko (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The four articles all fell under WP:BLP1E, each solder was only notable for the same singular event, so policy directs us to cover the event and not the person. One of the articles had a merge proposal pending for over six months, so clearly discussion wasn't getting anywhere. Brandon (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok that's fine I guess. I personally usually don't enforce that particular rule much because if the person is notable than they are notable rgardless of the number of times. We have lots of articles of one hit wonders. I do think that there is info on some of the articles about the case and the determinations of the court that would be good to add to the article about the operation. Not sure if you were going to do that or not. --Kumioko (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One hit wonders aren't too big of a deal, one hit war criminals are more of a touchy subject. It's generally considered poor form to cover living subjects that are known for only overwhelming negative events. War articles aren't my forte, so I did my best at getting the layout and content of the article correct. Any improvements would be greatly appreciated. Brandon (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Shahid Malik
Hi Brandon I see you protected this BLP and mentioned violations of the BLP policy, which account is doing the violating? Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An agent of the subject, mostly, from what I can tell. The socking is the real issue. Brandon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, in what way are the so called agents of the subject violating BLP? Is it that your suggesting they are removing critical comments? Would you say the article has recently become a bit of an attack (leaning away from a NPOV position) and that could be why users and agents and socks are all coming to balance the article back up? This is my understanding of the editing there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article protection summary updated. Thanks for the input. Brandon (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I can't see the update, perhaps I need to clear my cache, can you provide a diff please, thanks for looking back. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently MW doesn't let you update the summary without changing the protection type/length. Odd. Brandon (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest - under the circumstances - indefinite is excessive anyways, creating a bit of an attack bio and then indefinitely protecting it from the people that show up to re-balance it might not be the best resolution. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

←The protection was the first step in resolving an OTRS ticket from the subject. Brandon (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the detail, what is the OTRS number please Brandon. Have you taken or are you intending to take any other steps to resolve the ticket issues? Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011062910001967 It's currently the newest ticket in the queue, so not on the top of my todo list. It seems your edits already corrected a point or two of contention from the subject, so it shouldn't be too much work to finish the rest. Brandon (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an administrator will you be having a word with the user User:Shakehandsman that has recently moved the weight of the article away from imo NPOV and whose edits have resulted in the ticket? - I have seen the user edit in such a manner previously and similar pattern of editing resulted in at least one other OTRS complaint. note - I made this comment prior to looking at the ticket. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The WITF wants you
''The World Intelligence Task Force would like to recruit you as an agent. If you accept, comment under the pending section on the project page. It is a relatively new task force and we need new members right away so if you are interested please don't be shy. At this moment in time we only have three members. If you want more information, please go to the project page.'' — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCountryGuy01 (talk • contribs)

Shahid Malik
Hi Brandon I see you protected this BLP and mentioned violations of the BLP policy, which account is doing the violating? Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An agent of the subject, mostly, from what I can tell. The socking is the real issue. Brandon (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, in what way are the so called agents of the subject violating BLP? Is it that your suggesting they are removing critical comments? Would you say the article has recently become a bit of an attack (leaning away from a NPOV position) and that could be why users and agents and socks are all coming to balance the article back up? This is my understanding of the editing there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Article protection summary updated. Thanks for the input. Brandon (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I can't see the update, perhaps I need to clear my cache, can you provide a diff please, thanks for looking back. Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently MW doesn't let you update the summary without changing the protection type/length. Odd. Brandon (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest - under the circumstances - indefinite is excessive anyways, creating a bit of an attack bio and then indefinitely protecting it from the people that show up to re-balance it might not be the best resolution. Off2riorob (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

←The protection was the first step in resolving an OTRS ticket from the subject. Brandon (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the detail, what is the OTRS number please Brandon. Have you taken or are you intending to take any other steps to resolve the ticket issues? Off2riorob (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 2011062910001967 It's currently the newest ticket in the queue, so not on the top of my todo list. It seems your edits already corrected a point or two of contention from the subject, so it shouldn't be too much work to finish the rest. Brandon (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an administrator will you be having a word with the user User:Shakehandsman that has recently moved the weight of the article away from imo NPOV and whose edits have resulted in the ticket? - I have seen the user edit in such a manner previously and similar pattern of editing resulted in at least one other OTRS complaint. note - I made this comment prior to looking at the ticket. Off2riorob (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a break from OTRS at the moment but I'm sure the quality respondent that takes the ticket will address the issue. Brandon (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brandon, thanks for protecting the Malik article, it's been extremely hard to get anyone to help with the article over the last few months and any input is much appreciated. You're clearly aware of some of the issues with the article but I'd just like to detail things fully and also put Off2Riorob's comments and behaviour into context.

Firstly, in the above text Rob makes an accusation about my editing yet admits he did not read the ticket in question prior to making the accusation. This is therefore undeniably a breach of WP:AGF (something he has repeatedly subjected me to in the past though in fairness at least apologising for some of them). For the record, some of the largest chunks of material he's removed from the article such as the racial quotes in fact have absolutely nothing to do with me. One of the many, many socks could have removed them by now and it's about the only piece of the article they haven't disputed. I'm more than happy to have the material removed and was simply trying to avoid any disputes with the socks by leaving it in.

I've spent countless hours single handedly exposing a network of socks who's abuse of Wikipedia has been going on for at least a year and a half. I have tried multiple times to get assistance from others yet aside from the occasional contributions by [User:Keith D]] and the administration of the SPI's there has been very little help in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.

For my troubles I've been subject to a sustained attack and harassment from User:Truesayer and his socks. This has included all manner of hugely serious slurs and trying to make life as difficult for me on Wikipedaia as possible. Truesayer/socks made numerous false allegations including those of racism, sexism, lying, and even suggesting that I hate Jews! (this last attack bizarrely occurring after I actually highlighted some notable anti-semitism by a Lib Dem MP). The campaign against me by the socks included wikihounding, and canvassing as many people they can find on Wikipedia that I may have had some sort of dispute with in the past. This involved trawling back through my editing history to such an extent that some of the users messaged were other banned unrelated sockpuppets I'd also exposed. For further information on Truesayer's conduct see the relevant ANI section

Off2RioRob states he has the Malik article on his watchlist but despite this he has taken absolutely no interest in any of the countless number of problematic edits by the socks going back to at least January 2010. I've also managed to prove that Off2RioRob watches my talk page and in contrast to his usual unhealthy fascination with my contributions he didn't so much as explain any Wikipedia rules or issue and advice to any of the socks after they abused me on my talk page and not even after they then went to the trouble of messaging him personally to try continue the harassment further. Since the start of this very discussion a further obvious sock has messaged Off2RioRob and he hasn't bothered to report this nor even remind them of any rules or given them any sort of discouragement from continuing their campaign.

Despite their disgusting conduct towards me I've attempted to deal with any legitimate concerns of the socks. Though quite frankly when they go around deleting the subject's middle name and repeatedly making so many extraordinary and repeated breaches of NPOV and coat-racking then its hard to keep track of things. It has taken a great deal of work to stop the vandalism of the article and it's hard to know when the socks are being sincere and when they are just looking to cause further mischief.

The only person who needs messaging from an admin in relation to this affair (aside from the socks) is Off2RioRob himself. He's only made a handful of edits to the article yet already his edit summary relating to the libel claim is so in breach of NPOV rules in its bias towards Malik that it possibly needs striking from the page history (I'm not providing a diff of this due to hugely problematic nature of the edit). Rob referred to the content he removed as "the libel" when in fact the case was never proved and libel was never agreed or admitted to by anyone - it's a huge slur on the defendants, right up there with some of the actions of the socks. Similarly his false and negative description of the Daily Mail newspaper in the edit summary appears to be a case of deliberately adding false information as the paper is quite clearly not a red top, nevermind the "worst" one. Rob was very recently been informed that paper is "emphatically not a 'red-top'" and obviously the article for red-top would tell him this also, therefore making such an edit appear to be deliberate breach of NPOV, with Rob knowingly adding the false information. I think my mistake of not sufficiently sourcing the location of one of Mr Malik's houses pales into insignificance compared to Rob's edits and I can assure everyone it wasn't intentional.

I've given Rob the benefit of the doubt in relation to his repeated failures to AGF towards me over the last few months and I think that's was the correct call. However, to state that my editing is the cause of the ticket (before reading it) and implying I've created an "attack bio" which somehow caused the socking is ridiculous and enough is enough. The extensive sockpuppetry by Truesayer began long before I so much as read the Malik article and the very worst behavior and offensive posting occurred when the article looked very different to as it is now at a time when the socks had successfully removed a great deal of information. It's quite clear that the socking only ever stops once a complete whitewash of the article has occurred. Unsurprisingly the first editors who attempted to deal with the problems caused by the socking have since left Wikipedia though they still deserve a huge amount of praise for their efforts.

Until I get an apology from Off2Riorob and for these repeated breaches of AGF he can consider himself once again completely unwelcome on my talk page. I'm already subject to so much harassment and intimidation from sockpuppets on Wikipedia as punishment for me exposing their activities and I certainly don't appreciate any further maltreatment from experienced editors on top of this.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Pipim
The comments about the source, while "colorful" and perhaps even disrespectful, were carefully written to pass WP:REFACTOR and not violate WP:NPA. The blog at one time was cited in the article, so the comments are relevant. I object to your refactoring of comments directly related to a source once used in the article. I am not married to "Persist in adding it and you will be blocked" so that could go. However that is the logical result of repeatedly adding unsuitable sources to an article. In any event I see no justification under WP:REFACTOR for your action. – Lionel (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not willing to wikilawyer with you about this. Childish and as you said, disrespectful comments about anything have no place on Wikipedia, even more so a personal blog that is a reflection of its author. Brandon (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you object to restoring with the "Persist in..." removed and edited to be more polite? – Lionel (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to discussing the source nor the claims it is unreliable. Please just use more professional language. Brandon (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. And thanks. For everything. – Lionel (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I also noticed the huge mess the pair of articles is having. I hope the blocks/protection helps. Brandon (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Brandon could I ask you to reconsider lowering the protection of this article? I don't think it is fair to unfairly treat unregistered editors in this way. And in this case it appears to me that the unregistered editors have more clue than some of the registered ones. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Restored. Upon further review the article seems like more of a disaster than it first appeared. I still think at least a few of the IPs are acting in bad faith. Preferably the entire current group of editors currently involved in the article should disengage. Brandon (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Martin. It is precisely because the idea that "the unregistered editors have more clue than some of the registered ones" that makes some of us suspicious. Some of the IP's are engaging in the exact same behaviors as a few of the same users I had trouble with. They use the same terminology, style, and everything. I'm not here to accuse anyone but I just don't like the idea that this could happen and there's nothing we do can about it. I plan to stay on the talk page of the article continuing to suggest sources and stuff. I believe I provided quite a few sources to hopefully strengthen the article. In the meantime I wish we could get the IP thing cleared up. It's more than simply a case of "bias against unregistered editors". Rather it's an attempt to make sure no one is "gaming the system", if they are. Thanks for understanding and for being fair and objective Brandon.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since there seems to be a potential connection with these events, please could you say who the sockmaster of is? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know why this new report I filed says "closed" ?
 * 50.72.159.224 has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of Bello and blocked. This IP is the main instigator of the disruption at the Pipim article. Now that the IP has been exposed I request that the protection on Pipim be modified to semi-protection. – Lionel (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the outcome of the SPI case I have unprotected the article entirely due to Martin's concerns. I will be watching it to see if semi-protection is warranted. Brandon (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Koranteng-Pipim
I hate to keep coming here with this SDA stuff, and I appreciate your patience, but there is an IP vandalizing the article by blanking a section and edit warring. I fear in the immediate future some of these articles may experience a backlash from meats due to Bello's banning. In fact Bello is actively socking in violation of the ban. I'm requesting semi-prot on this article. – Lionel (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Brandon, unregistered users are human, as this particular unregistered user has just reminded me. But, the Pipim article is controversial at the best of times. There is a mechanism which limits edits to registered editors, isn't there? Isn't that what semi-protection is all about. I don't have much time invested in the Pipim article, but when whole blocks of rather decent information are just deleted without discussion, it seems unfair to the person who worked on the information. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the above comments. Semi-protection would be best, at least until the IP's or socks or whatever they are stop coming.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like another admin beat me to it. If you need anything else for these articles feel free to ask. I don't always check SPI but I'm willing to run CU checks when needed. Brandon (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to Shakehandsman
Dear Brandon & off2riorrob

I have just read the above by shakehandsman (SHM) and I’m truly shocked by what I have read because so much of it appears to be deliberate untruths and manipulation. I will point out some of the more obvious untruths based on undisputable evidence on Wikipedia itself.

1.	BOGUS CLAIM 1 - SHM writes to Brandon 4th July (WEBLINK 1): '“ Truesayer/socks made numerous false allegations including those of racism, sexism, lying, and even suggesting that I hate Jews! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shahid_Malik#shakehandsman_objectivity.3F (this last attack bizarrely occurring after I actually highlighted some notable anti-semitism by a Lib Dem MP)”'

NOT TRUE - The alleged attack occurred prior to SHM highlighting what he terms ‘notable anti-Semitism by a Lib Dem MP’. Indeed the reason why he highlighted the ‘Lib-Dem MP’ was precisely because of the alleged attack – to disguise a perception that he may have issues in relation to Jews.

EVIDENCE - Of course a very simple Wikipedia check shows that this is a blatant untruth which presumably he thought he would get away with because nobody would bother checking. The alleged attack/slur against him was in fact made by Truesayer on 23rd February where Truesayer wrote (WEBLINK 2):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahid_Malik&diff=prev&oldid=415447661

Revision as of 03:48, 23 February 2011 (view source) Truesayer (talk | contribs)

“(It seems pretty fair since changes - I'm surprised at shakerhandmans obsession with minority Labour MPs (Women, Jews and Muslims). If he is so concerned about bias perhaps he can correct the 600 plus other MPs to show consistency across the board!)”

The edit SHM refers to (“highlighting anti-Semitism by notable Lib-Dem”t) was of Jenny Tongue which took place over 24 hours after he claims he had been accused of being anti-Semitic and not before as he falsely claims. The WEBLINK 3 below from Wikipedia is clear evidence as it shows the date and time of the revision made by SHM as 06:01 on 24th February 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antisemitic_canard&diff=prev&oldid=415645313

Revision as of 06:01, 24 February 2011 (edit) (undo) Shakehandsman (talk | contribs)

'''“In the United Kingdom politician Jenny Tonge was sacked from her role as health spokeswoman a result of an interview in which she gave credence to the organ harvesting claims by suggesting an independent inquiry should be established. ”'

This is further proven by Truesayer’s response at WEBLINK 4 below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shahid_Malik&diff=prev&oldid=415795326

'''“Incidentally I have just checked his last 500 contributions and following my criticism yesterday for the first time he edited two Lib/Dem MPs - 2 out of 500 edits to Lib/Dems and none to the Tories....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truesayer (talk • contribs) 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)“'

2.	BOGUS CLAIM 2 - SHM writes to Brandon 4th July:

“The extensive sockpuppetry by Truesayer began long before I so much as read the Malik article....”''

NOT TRUE – Allegations on the ‘Shahid Malik’ BLP only commenced following an edit by SHM.

EVIDENCE – I have looked through the history of the BLP (shahid malik) back to 16th December 2004 when it was first created and there were no allegations of sockpuppetry (SP) till February 2011. On 16th February SHM first edited the BLP and placed an npov tag. This resulted in it being removed and replaced many times by SHM. This caused SHM to commence a malicious edit of the BLP and led to the first ever accusation of SP on 23rd February 2011. Hence, between 16th December 2004 and 25th February 2011 there had never been any accusations of SP – if indeed there has been SP then it was a response to the malicious editing of SHM as allegedly stated by Rob according to SHM’s complaint. SHM has made 126 edits to this BLP since February 2011.

3.	BOGUS CLAIM 3 - SHM writes to Brandon 4th July:

'''“there has been very little help in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia.”

“Off2RioRob… hasn't bothered to report this nor even remind them of any rules or given them any sort of discouragement from continuing their campaign.”'

UNTRUE – (a) His constant and persistent disregard for BLP rules – this despite being warned on several occasions about his violations – is clear evidence that he is quick to complain about others while happy to break the very same rules himself. (b) His attempts to circumvent the rules in order to break the rules without getting caught is further testament to the lack of the integrity he says he seeks as well a blatant disregard for the rules he demands others observe.

EVIDENCE (a) – Below are the four most recent examples of SHM’s blatant disregard for BLP rules – these represent very serious violations indeed: 22:18, 24 June 2011 N.Kirklees (talk | contribs) (37,838 bytes) (Wiki rules state BLP must be neutral & verifiable. Your only source is tenuous at best – it states that Malik’s loss “was hardly unexpected given his vulnerable majority”. Every other article on the web points to boundary changes being the re)

12:14, 16 May 2011 94.170.152.170 (talk) (35,050 bytes) (you cannot have the sued paper as a source - how could that ever be viewed as neutral!! We are dealing with BLP defamation case and hence should keep it limited to agreed statement mainly to be safe.)

10:56, 16 May 2011 89.194.77.229 (talk) (36,043 bytes) (extraordinary reference inserted for his number of siblings by same editor involved in warring - clearly ignoring BLP)

10:50, 16 May 2011 89.194.77.229 (talk) (36,371 bytes) (previous version not conform to BLP standards (defamatory) revert to clean version in January by 'BrownHairedGirl' prior to the warfare by two or more editors) In all of the above 4 cases SHM caused the advice to be given or completely ignored advice and/or BLP rules. HE OFTEN RELIED ON A PARTICLULAR ADMINISTRATOR TO SEMI-PROTECT, WHICH ALLOWED HIM TO EDIT WITHOUT INTERUPTION. ACCORDING TO ONE EDITOR – '''“The last time this was suspended from 28th April to 14th May, 41 edits were made by the person that requested the protection (shakehandsman). The net impact of the edits was clearly biased as can be seen from the history.”'''

EVIDENCE (b) – SHM attempts to engage another editor in his warring to avoid and accusation that he may be abusing the rules.

Revision as of 01:00, 28 April 2011 (edit) (undo) Shakehandsman (talk | contribs) (→Shahid Malik)

'''“Looks like they're back again. Can you deal with this please as I don't want to have any 3RR issues. Thanks.”

As pointed out by others, this is a blatant attempt by SHM to circumvent what he believes would be rules violation and in doing so to use other contributors as sockpuppets to avoid falling foul of Wikipedia rules. Fortunately, the editor who he used had respect for Wikipedia and its integrity and did not collude with SHM in his attempt to attack the BLP site.

4.	BOGUS CLAIM 4 - SHM writes to Brandon 4th July:

'''“Rob referred to the content he removed as "the libel" when in fact the case was never proved and libel was never agreed or admitted to by anyone - it's a huge slur on the defendants, right up there with some of the actions of the socks.” ' NOT TRUE – The defendants put up 4 defences and the judge ruled in Malik’s favour on 3 of them dismissing the newspapers defences. On the 4th a jury was unable to reach a majority verdict. The defendants in an agreed statement withdrew all of the false and defamatory criticism of Malik and bent over backwards in their statement to state that Malik had nothing to do with the behaviour that had been alleged and reported. Malik also got various assurances from them as stated, including them never repeating such allegations again.

EVIDENCE - The WEBLINK 5 below clearly points out the view of the judge etc

http://www.dewsburyreporter.co.uk/news/local/libel_judge_rejects_top_cop_s_claims_mp_lied_in_court_1_1347417

“ As such the claim by Mr Hallas and The Press was rejected and the judge stated he would not be referring Mr Malik for perjury. In a stinging ruling Mr Justice Eady said Mr Hallas’ claim at being sick due to Mr Malik’s comments seemed surprising given Mr Hallas was a senior and long-serving officer and especially since Mr Hallas himself told the jury in November that he was not the sort of person to succumb to bullying or pressure.'''

'''In November Lord Justice Eady ruled in favour of Mr Malik giving him victory on three of the four defences that the newspaper had put forward against Mr Malik’s defamation claim, with the jury being unable to arrive at a majority verdict on the fourth defence. “ ''

5.	BOGUS CLAIM 5 - SHM writes to Brandon 4th July:

Finally, by using the hysterical and completely paranoid tone that SHM has adopted for the message he left on 4th July (at Brandon’s talk page) he appears to be attempting to demonstrate how he is the victim and he states:

'''“For my troubles I've been subject to a sustained attack and harassment from User:Truesayer and his socks. This has included all manner of hugely serious slurs and trying to make life as difficult for me on Wikipedaia as possible.” 'Italic text'' He continues further in his note:

“Despite their disgusting conduct towards me……..” ''Italic

NOT TRUE – This image does not appear to be honest as elsewhere he claims to revel in being “attacked”.

EVIDENCE - On 28th April SHM states on his talk page:

“BTW you do realise that I regard attacks on Wikipedia editors by sockpupetteers as a huge compliment, even more so when it's by a serial sockpupetteer……...”'''

The above statement contradicts the tone that he has adopted for his message to Brandon. He is obviously conveniently calling something a “compliment” to one set of people and then complaining that the very same thing is “disgusting” to another set of people. In short he will say or do anything and will manipulate at will to get his own way. It’s truly shocking that he has been so successful in fooling so many people for so long. 94.170.152.170 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well yet another anonymous Orange IP who happens to make exactly the same claims as all the other accounts and who's sole interest is Shahid Malik. The fact is that your disgusting "Jew hating" attack on me occurred on the 25th of February, not the 23rd.. Also such smears were made in relation to my edits to MP Denis MacShane, who is actually Roman Catholic anyway, so were not only the malicious claims unfounded, they were even made in relation to someone who isn't' even Jewish and your statements about his religion have had to be struck from the page history. I'm fully entitled to edit whatever pages I wish, but TBH I'm not sure why this sock is seeking to draw attention to the fact he's made such awful accusations, it's not me who's broken such a huge selection of Wikipedia rules and continues to break some of the most basically rules with every single post here. As for sockpuppetry you are confusing allegations and facts, yes we uncover your antics until February, but it has been proven to go back to a time well before I first read the article. There is a minor error in relation to the dates while you've been adding inappropriate content to the article for 18 months, technically I suppose your socking actually goes back a year for certain, or possibly 14 months as there are other suspicious accounts, perhaps you can tell us exactly when you started? Anyway I'm happy to clarify that your repeated major breaches of such fundamental rules occurred slightly later than I suggested and only 8 months before I edited the article, though of course by making these posts you're extending the length of your offences anyway.

For the record I've edited numerous articles about the expenses scandal, there were of course more Labour MPs jailed for this than from all the other parties combined, so it's inevitable that members of the worst offending party should feature more regularly in my editing than elsewhere. Similarly I often write about gender equality issues, and the only party using All Women shortlists is the Labour Party, therefore there's nothing to add on these issues to articles relating to any Tories or Lib Dems. I do indeed regard such malicious attacks on Wikipedia editors as an inadvertent compliment on their editing, most of the best editors here exposing rule breaking suffer insults and personal attacks as a result but I'd much rather it didn't happen at all as it's extremely unpleasant experience, time consuming and hugely detrimental to the community as a whole so you can stop now. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for 3 months, ✅ to be a sock. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

JoAnne Kloppenburg
Just wondering why you placed this restriction? There hadn't been any vandalism or blp policy violations for quite some time - more than a month on the vandalism, and longer than that on the blp violations. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nick Cohen
Not sure if it needed indefinite protection, there's not much IP activity ad the main culprit is autoconfirmed anyway. Maybe set protection to expire in 2 weeks? That's what I'd have done. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Archived prematurely?
Brandon - You didn't answer my question about the semi-protect you put on an article, and I am repeating it here just in case the auto archive of 48 hours was done before you had a chance to answer. Thanks. KeptSouth (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

JoAnne Kloppenburg
Just wondering why you placed this restriction? There hadn't been any vandalism or blp policy violations for quite some time - more than a month on the vandalism, and longer than that on the blp violations. Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding Nassim Haramein's deleted page
Hi Brandon, please apologise if this is the wrong place, but I just found this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nassim_Haramein_(2nd_nomination) and wondered why no changes regarding renomination have taken place in the past three years. Can you perhaps elaborate? I personally have no way of ascertaining the exact details of his scientific research, but when he talks about the biological being the connecting link between the infinitely large and the infinitely small, this makes perfect sense to me. What I have gained from his videos is in accordance with what I have learnt in spiritual books. I hope his page will be renominated by someone "in charge", because at least to me he is doing groundbraking work in connecting the material and the spiritual level.

Just my 0.02,

Helmar (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)