Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John

User:Timeshift9 trying to "out" User:Prester John
User:Timeshift9 is repeatedly trying to reveal or "out" what he believes is the real world identity of User:Prester John. The latest example is here.

This transgression and his repeated personal attacks such as this and this should earn him a long wikipedia vacation. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Politely but very firmly warned. For the sake of symmetry I'll keep an occasional eye on your own behavior as well, which a quick check suggests has been somewhat less than exemplary. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PJ has had a long history of firm trolling, and going by his userpage userboxes is totally here to troll. He advocates one position, then totally contradicts with another. I will not make the observations I made above again, but in the same token I make no apologies for having done so. Timeshift 01:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

How is this above comment acceptable? on the ANI no less! This user really needs to be blocked, his incivility is quite astounding. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 02:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's acceptable to me. Your own trolling behaviors have been the subject of previous AN/I threads. I see above a lack of particular repentance, but acknowledgement that futher behaviors will result in big trouble, and an agreement to stop. ThuranX 02:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further, After commenting here and a few other edits, I went to Recent Changes to watch for vandals, and I found this: [], wherein Prester John is engaged in that same sort of problematic editing referenced about. ThuranX 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, Thuranx. Can another editor politely remind this aggressive fellow Prester John that my talkpage is my talkpage (not his), that he has no right to persistently revert his trollish comments on my talkpage, that he can engage in content debates on the article talkpage, and if he wants people to be respectful to him as an editor that he needs to start behaving respectfully (for example, see this shocking pre-emptive strike against me personally). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, just look at that history. Prester John is well into harassment territory on your page, and I've given him a serious warning. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC).
 * And now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page... Nwwaew2 (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) (public computer) 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwwaew2 (talk • contribs)
 * Some of the userboxes on his user page are downright problematic, too. Orderinchaos 16:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Prester John
Prester John has a history of being an uncivil edit-warrior. Please see his block log, in which he was recently blocked. Also, "Leftist scum". I have tried several times to add that link to User:Prester_John/slideshow, but he has reverted me. Is that slideshow page appropriate, as its only purpose is to insult other users?--71.141.106.98 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Continued Incivility...I find it unusual that someone like 'Prester John' would complain about others' incivility, when he is continually uncivil and has himself previously been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. Prester is famous for leaving snide remarks on article talk pages. However, in recent days I was appalled to see Prester John using the Talk:David_Hicks page to taunt another editor (User:Brendan.lloyd). The practice of taunting is listed as one of the more serious incivility issues, and in this case it has disrupted other editors' ability to use the talk page for legitimate purposes.


 * 'Prester John' filed this ANI report at 00:49 1-October. Prester was warned on this page (that his behaviour is being watched), by admin Raymond Arritt at 01:22. Yet only an hour and a half after that warning, at 02:50, Prester John was clearly harassing User:Brendan.lloyd on Brendan.lloyd's talk page, which continued for some time afterwards.


 * I'd like the admins to consider the seriousness of taunting and harassment by User:Prester John (both on private and article talk pages), to consider the fact it has continued after an admin warning on behaviour, and also view it in light of the previous history of Prester John, Here and Here. --Lester2 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * His badgering of User:Brendan.lloyd was plainly over the top and I sincerely regret not having seen that. Checking in occasionally, I had only seen where he went around changing "Makkah" to "Mecca" and the like (which is entirely correct per MoS). I'm not going to block since the incident was a couple of days ago and blocking should be preventive rather than punitive.  Since I can't watch this guy all day long, and he's given to serious incivility and badgering, would any other admins care to keep an eye out? Raymond Arritt 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not being polite is not quite the same as being uncivil. Also being polite or being uncivil does not mean that he's wrong.  WebHamste r  01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I believe that using the term "drive-by edit" is not something that is inherently uncivil. It's actually quite a common expression and effectively describes a certain situation quite succinctly. From what I've seen from the discussion and what led up to it, I'd say his usage was contextually accurate. In this instance I don't believe his past (or future) behaviour has any relevance. He didn't call you names, he wasn't foul-mouthed. The worse that could be said was he was a little curt with you but WP:CIVIL doesn't say you have to be sickeningly sweet with everyone you talk to.  WebHamste r  02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's not any one thing but all things taken in consideration. I hadn't seen much of his behaviour until recently, but his editing at John Howard and David Hicks (a reasonable representation since wannabekate says they're his two most edited) as well as a recent discussion at Talk:Family First Party, and together with the userboxes on his talk page and his edits to Islam-related topics, suggests someone who is not likely any time soon to be able to edit within Wikipedia policies and guidelines on a consistent or meaningful basis. He frequently calls for people to be banned, desysopped (eg this) etc merely for disagreeing with him - yet stridently defends those on his side of the POV fence (witness this one) when they inevitably cop a block for their actions. This and this are also interesting reads for sheer non-AGF. Orderinchaos 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have expected that after 3 days of discussing this, everyone would at least try to be civil, but incivility continues on the Talk:Bill_Heffernan page.--Lester2 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh! I share the frustrations of Lester and others. Prester John and I recently came to an amicable accord over dissatisfaction with each other's language and edit actions. To see that he has gone to other articles and talkpages, continuing with exactly the same tone and language that he well knows, by now, is uncivil doesn't reassure me that his apology mean't anything other than to avoid collecting yet another critic of his aggressive negative behaviour. Closer scrutiny from admin users would be greatly appreciated. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: For OTRS respondants, see this ticket which relates to this discussion somewhat. Having been on the opposite side of content disputes with PJ, I'm not going to answer the ticket or take any action in this discussion, but if anyone wants to (and has access to OTRS) then that link may be of interest. Cheers,  Daniel  05:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of PJ's attitude, outing another editor is unacceptable. This ANI is starting to turn into a bit of a witchhunt. I agree with the warning given to Timeshift. Outing any editor is just unacceptable. Just because PJ may have an attitude problem and/or edit wars, doesn't mean that he can be outed. If there are geniune problems with PJ, this should be start of a new AN/I or taken to a more appropriate forum.  Shot info  06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This AN/I has moved on from the Timeshift issue - that was resolved 2 days ago when he received a warning. There is no indication that he has been "outed" - the allegations are old and have been repeated on other occasions over past months, although I'm not entirely sure from where they originated - i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not. That being said, we're on Wikipedia, and the key issue here is on-wiki behaviour which is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Orderinchaos 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the 3 days since the warning, 'Prester John' has taunted on the David Hicks talk page, harassed on Brendan's talk page, and been generally uncivil in numerous places. Now he's launched some kind of Wikipedia campaign called 'FREE MATT'. He's made a new Userbox for it here-> User:Prester_John/Userbox/Free_Matt. It seems to me to be some kind of campaign to whip up dissent in support of a comrade who was recently blocked from Wikipedia. He's sent the Userbox to numerous peoples' talk pages. Judging by the reaction on User_talk:Prester_John, some other Wikipedians have objected to being sent these campaign messages. --Lester2 12:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, an admin has decided it is his business to interfere in that. No one has complained. Arrow740 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the status of this section? ThuranX 03:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was closed. Orderinchaos then removed the "resolved tag" and ethically forgot to inform me, allowing all and sundry to have a nice little gripe about me without giving me the chance to respond. Not that there is much to respond to. Do I respond to the UserKirbytime ip sock that is upset I reverted his changes to my userpage? Do I respond to Orderinchaos who erred in not informing me of his unilateral decision to reopen this case? His misrepresentation that I called for the desyoping of Hesperian because I "disagreed" with him. (I in fact was calling for an apology for calling me a racist. There was no apology so I question his constitution for adminship). Do I address his absurd insinuation that because the "allegations" of my outing have been repeated over the past few months, that "I" somehow raised it myself? Do I address the nonsense of serial edit warmonger Lester2 who would do anything to get me blocked just so he could continue his BLP violating POV pushing slandering of current Australian politicians? Or shall I just wait to see how this hatchet job turns out? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 05:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * huh? you complain about someone not going out of their way to give you the opportunity to respond and then sarcastically outline that you are not going to respond... very odd PJ. You're editing across the board is becoming more and more counterproductive to the writing of a good encyclopaedia and the encouragement of people to contribute in good faith.  WikiTownsvillian 11:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I removed the resolved tag after most of the discussion above - merely because it seemed to no longer correctly describe the route that the discussion had taken. It was more an acknowledgement of events on the ground, as it would have been puzzling to some that an ongoing discussion had a "resolved" tag on it. Also, the "allegations" bit has been misunderstood - a claim was made about your real-world identity, and I had no wish to repeat the claim. My argument on that was only that one is only "outed" if the claim is true, and as the claim has not been established as either true nor false, it remains an allegation. (I would also argue that even if true, more info would have needed to be released to qualify.) That being said, I strongly agree with the warning - that is not the level at which we should be conducting debates on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 03:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, you have not addressed why you removed the resolved tag, and then failed to inform the party concerned. Does this sound like the actions of an ethical adminstrator? Also, what was the point of speculating where the origin of the outing allegations came from; "i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not"? Did you have any evidence at all for this random slander, or were you just "throwing it out there". I would question whether that is admin behaviour as well. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * stop trying to distract the conversation with wordplay. You sound so offended anyone could have thought that you were a model wikicitizen! Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Prester John/Evidence monitoring other editors and their IP addresses
and on the theme of PJ being a model wikicitizen, BigHaz has suggested I bring up my latest issue here:

I just came across this where the editor in question has used the edit history of my user talk page in order to identify the IP address of an editor with whom he is in dispute. This and many other links are under the seemingly devious title of "Evidence" (I refer to link 1 under the heading 1 x).

This editor (PJ) himself seems to have successfully enforced a gag order on Timeshift to prevent him from revealing what is apparently a huge conflict of interest of PJ's when editing Australian political articles. My impression from previous conversations is that PJ is content removed who edits on wikipedia for purely partisan purposes and Timeshift had proof of this but has been blocked by admins from using it in discussions because PJ has chosen not to volunteer his identify on wikipedia. Yet despite being the beneficiary of this policy of anonymity, this editor is using a dossier type technique in order to formulate an attack on another editor based on underhanded research such as researching the editor's IP address.

It must be against policy to do this kind of thing, probably the same policy PJ is using against Timeshift. Don’t wikipedia editors have a right to edit in peace without being researched by editors with which you are supposedly having content based disputes? WikiTownsvillian 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't comment on what's happening here, but in an unrelated case, a page of this nature by an editor involved in a content dispute with others was successfully MfD'd as a misuse of userspace. Orderinchaos 03:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, people really need to stop speculating about PJ's alleged previous career. I have never seen PJ say that he worked in that field, all I have seen is repeated gossip and rumours. It's really, really inappropriate and it needs to stop. With regards to the "evidence" page, admittedly, I haven't looked at recent versions of it, however, myself and others have been aware of it for some months now (in fact, it was another Australian administrator who originally told me about it), but from what I have seen of it, it is very different to that MfD'd page that you (OIC) refer to. The versions I have seen of this page have simply been preps of reports he has made to the AIV, ANI and/or 3RR noticeboards, which I think the community has established is a valid use of userspace. I must admit that I myself have also used my userspace to compile evidence, such as here, for example. If PJ has strayed into using his space inappropriately, I think we should tell him and ensure that he gets back on the straight and narrow, rather than a forced deletion of a page that he uses to draft valid reports. Sarah 10:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Sarah, as I said above PJ is obviously the beneficiary of wikipedia's policies to protect identity so he hardly needs continual and ongoing warnings about it. I have looked at your drafts page and that looks much more legitimate in that you are compilating real issues with users that you are dealing with as an admin, you are objectively doing your job by scrutinising troublemakers, as an admin you are responsible for your actions in this arena; that is different to what PJ is doing in compiling a dirt file on fellow editors with whom he is in dispute with himself.  Either he has (yet again) breached policy, possibly in bad faith or he hasn't.  Would editors who are trying to edit in good faith cause this much controversy?  And while I have not seen any evidence either I have neither seen a denial by PJ, if it were not true a denial would be a pretty natural response from the accused editor of a COI. WikiTownsvillian 13:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding your comments, WT. I'm not sure who you meant when you wrote, "PJ is obviously the beneficiary of wikipedia's policies to protect identity so he hardly needs continual and ongoing warnings about it". It 'sounds' like "he" you refer to is PJ? Just to clarify, my comment above about people speculating about his former or current job was a general comment, not directed at anyone specific. I must admit that I am somewhat guilty of this myself. I'm pretty sure I have never speculated on Wikipedia, but I have been curious about it and I recall asking another admin privately where the rumour came from. So I don't blame anyone for being curious and PJ's behaviour only makes people even more curious, but we all need to forget about it and deal with PJ and his edits as though he were anyone else. While he is the beneficiary of policies about privacy, we are the beneficiaries of NPOV, RS, V, and so on. If he is writing with a particular POV, we all need to to stick together and ensure that any POV edits are removed. But at the same time, it concerns me that we have people on the other side of the seesaw (won't name any names, I'm sure sure you know who and I see some appear here pressing for blocks and investigations every time someone has a problem with PJ). They are doing the same thing as PJ but trying to slant in the opposite direction. In my opinion, the tricky thing is finding a group of editors who care more about Wikipedia than they do about partisan politics. Myself and other Australian admins have discussed this and are prepared to support people who meet this criteria, but we need to be careful to follow the policies and guidelines ourselves.
 * I understand what you're saying about PJ's evidence page but I won't say anything more or comment on the MFD until I've had a chance to go through the more recent edits to it; I can only comment on what I have seen him use it for in the past. Please don't misunderstand my position, I am not defending PJ. I have blocked him once already for disruption, as I have some of his "opposition". I'm just trying to look at things as neutral as possible because I know that the only way to deal with these guys is to stick our core policies and enforce them whenever we have strong grounds for doing so. The blocks need to stand up to close scrutiny because the more these partisan people get blocked and then unblocked, the more they think they can get away with their games. It is possible that PJ would deny if that rumour were not true, but it is also possible that he would not deny it for a variety of reasons, including enjoying the attention, thinking it gives him some kind of "expertise" in other editor's eyes and so forth. Whatever his reasons for not denying and not confirming are really not relevant and not for us to speculate about. Sarah 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sarah for your careful consideration of these issues. There are indeed a few angles to consider including due process. Your point about some editors more concerned with their own POV than they are with the quality of our encyclopedia is a fundamental issue.
 * Being very familiar with User:Prester John's editing history, I can say that allegation of his former career is likely to be so far from reality that is quiet funny. Any further explanation from me would risk me being accused of a personal attack. I’d also say that Sarah’s suggestion that he might actually be enjoying the attention and supposed kudos the allegation gives him is close to the mark - by denying and removing it whereever he's found it, makes it seem correct - I bet it's not though. If on the extremely off chance that there is some truth in it, and if he carried out his duties in much the same manner as he does on wikipedia (eg, |this pure trolling just from today) then it’s no wonder it’s a former career. --Merbabu 03:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for your very considered response and Merbabu for your humour, your points are very noted by me, I have responded directly to PJ here. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to the sneaky edit summary which I have just now noticed: . This completely assumes bad faith and is also WP:KETTLE, I have never been warned about referring to the now deleted allegation and I thought at the time that it raised legitimate concerns.  Given Merbabu's reply above I now see it is a joke and so will not be pursuing it any more but that edit summary directly goes against WP:AGF. If you're going to say something PJ then say it, no more of this sneaky nonsense.  Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Free Matt userbox MfD
I saw that via the Jehochman RFA, and nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Prester John/Userbox/Free Matt. • Lawrence Cohen  23:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a notification of this MFD here to ANI, but it was removed here by User:CO. I am re-adding it here, as it is directly relevant to the harassment of Elonka and Jehochman. the Userbox appears to be a response to this old ANI thread where this user is blocked for harassment. Two other userboxes this person made before were deleted for being inflammatory: User:Prester John/Userbox/Hate & User:Prester John/Userbox/Moman. More are located at User:Prester John/Userbox. If it's significant, this happened a long time after I posted it and he left me note about that removal. •  Lawrence Cohen  05:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Religious Hatred: Those prior Prester John userboxes that Admins deleted in May, were the cause of religious flamewars among Wikipedians. See this prior ANi for one case of a Wikipedian who tried to retaliate after being baited by Prester John. I see a disturbing pattern of religious intolerance from Prester John. Here's another ANi involving complaints about Prester John's anti-Muslim edits. Yet the anti-Muslim theme still continues with Prester John's Wikipedia activity. Just skim down Prester's edit history and you'll see that 95% of his edits involve articles about Muslims. You'll notice Prester John editing articles to cast Muslims in a poor light, or praise politicians who have taken a perceived anti-Muslim stance. Even as this current ANi has been taking place in the past few days, let me point out Prester's latest article, and the talk page will explain what's wrong with it. I ask the admins to look at whether this sort of slant is good for Wikipedia. --Lester2 13:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please back up claims of "religious hatred" with specific evidence in the form of diffs. Your post borders on incivility and trolling. Arrow740 03:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though I voted to remove the user box (and, it was intended more as a "probably not the best idea" rather than "delete now, no matter what"), the "Free Matt57" box controversy is getting a whole lot more attention than it deserves. I say we move on. If there are other issues (which you seem to be talking about) then they need to be addressed properly - not here tacked on to the ultimately pointless "Free Matt" user box issue. The whole idea of user boxes is a joke anyway, hence i keep mine to an absolute minimum - just the projects, and no politics. --Merbabu 13:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should get a lot more attention. It demonstrates that some admins think that admins' actions should not be disputed by non-admins. That is a very worrying attitude. Arrow740 03:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I blocked Matt, I suppose I should record that I don't object to the userbox and I certainly don't feel offended in any way. Its fair comment imo. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

edit point

 * I think the following quote is problematic. It is from User:Prester John.

The Great Seal of the United States. Note how the Eagle holds an olive branch and 13 arrows. This symbolises how the USA will give a choice between War or Peace. YOU do get to pick, but always remember, that whichever way you choose, it is going to be done OUR way
 * Of course I am not going to contradict the statement with examples from history and current events... Not because I can't but because that isn't the point of userpages or this page...
 * -- Cat chi? 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to try to attack someone, you'll have to explain yourself a little better. How is it problematic, exactly? Arrow740 07:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is problematic about it?  Yahel  Guhan  04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't an attack. For it to be an attack there needs to be war. I am merely exercising "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community" from User page. How does that statement helps us write better articles? How is it in line with User page? Isn't it provocative? -- Cat chi? 09:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for an answer. -- Cat chi? 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We're waiting for you to clarify what the problem with it is. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think I can be clear. See below quote: -- Cat chi? 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at John Howard
I wish User:Prester John would stop conducting edit wars as his first option, and use the talk pages instead. Right now he is edit waring on the John Howard article. Currently up to 3 reverts: (All edits involve either adding glowing praise about the economics of John Howard, or removing criticism of John Howard economics)
 * Previous version of article
 * 06:26, 9 October 2007 added text: "As a result of prudent financial management"
 * 14:20, 9 October 2007 added text: "The strength of the Australian economy"
 * 00:58, 10 October 2007 subtracted text" "The Hawke/Keating government had inherited part of this debt" (from John Howard)

Yes, 3 reverts fits within the general 3RR rule, but in Prester John's case, it breaks the spirit of previous blocks, and previous administrator warnings against edit waring: Since then, Prester John has shown complete disregard for the previous Admin advice, and has been continuously reverting without discussing. In the current edit war over John Howard and the economy, there is an active community discussion about that very subject here -> Talk:John_Howard. Despite Prester John's revert war, unfortunately he has refused to join the community discussion on the subject he is reverting.-- Lester  02:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 05:47, 13 August 2007 Prester John was blocked for an edit war on the same John Howard article. (Block Log)
 * 04:59, 16 September 2007, Prester John was blocked again for conducting an edit war on the David Hicks article. Link: Previous ANi report
 * 02:38, 17 September 2007, Admin User:Eagle_101 issued Prester John this stern warning -> Talk:David_Hicks, and told Prester John that "Being disruptive is being blockable, please discuss rather then revert."
 * Does anyone see this dude making any sense? He constantly makes these long winded false accusations on this notice board about general editing procedures. Sure check out the diffs he is talking about. See the use of edit summaries. See how the discussion on the talk page he refers to is about a totally different issue. Check his recent edits and decide if he is stalking me or not. See if he didn't already post this a couple of paragraphs above. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering previous Admin warnings to Prester John to avoid edit wars (not just 3RR) it's surprising that Prester John considers this a false accusation that he is involved in an edit war. The (above) diffs all relate to reverts Prester John has been engaged in, and all are on the subject of John Howard's economics. This revert war has been going on since September (diff).


 * So that's at least 2 weeks of reverting others edits on that subject, while an active discussion was also ongoing for 2 weeks without Prester John's participation. This is completely disruptive editing, because the editors that have been involved in that discussion feel their time is wasted when Prester John romps in and reverts the content without bothering with the discussion page, despite being warned against this behaviour previously.


 * It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war, as those who are engaged in discussion won't feel they need to join the edit war as the only means to counter Prester John. As Prester John pointed out, I mentioned this before, yes, but unfortunately the reverts just continue, and the diffs at the top of this section are only those from the last 24 hours.


 * I ask administrators to look at the previous ANi against Prester John for edit waring (linked above, 16 September). Read the comments from the other admins who warned Prester for edit waring on 'John Howard', 'David Hicks' and 'List of notable converts to Islam' articles. In the previous report, Administrators commented with despair that warnings and blocks were not enough to discourage Prester John from edit waring.-- Lester  03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the particlar edit was OR with no cite and was reverted by myself and at least one other editor, other than PJ. I note that two other editors also reworded it to it's present state only to have Aussieboy revert it (twice).  I think PJ isn't at fault with this particular example as he is doing what we should do here at Wikipedia.  If there is an editor at fault, it is the one including uncited OR.   Shot info  04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very gallant of User:Shot info to show support for Prester John's side of the edit war, however, it should be noted that Shot info's first edit to the John_Howard section was in the past few hours-- Lester  05:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not supporting PJ, just pointing out the facts rather than your take on it. And????????  So what if my first edit to this section was in the last few hours.  That would just be similar to your edit history in John Howard, would it not?  I note that you seem to be defending the recent addition of OR material with no cite, and using PJs removal of it as some sort of action against PJ.  This is most odd, telling an editor not to do what we are supposed to do.   Shot info  06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not defending any side in this. But what we have is an edit war going on, and it renders the discussion page completely useless when other editors engage in a revert war without discussing. Regarding the issue of references, if you read my ongoing entries in the discussion page, you'd see that I considered none of the references added by either side to be satisfactory. So for either side to use references as an excuse to edit war is unsatisfactory. Follow Wiki rules about deleting content and stop edit waring! -- Lester  06:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's important that the administrators stop Prester John's edit war" versus "I'm not defending any side in this.". Uh-huh.  So what is the purpose of this AN/I again...?  If you are serious about the "edit war" you will stop the edit warrior.  Who I note you have made mention on this discussion on his talk page...without asking him to stop his warring.  So could you explain to the viewers here, why you are bringing PJ's edits to light, while condoning AussieBoy's?  Surely you're not trying to make a mockery out of this noticeboard?   Shot info  06:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I did ask Prester John to refrain from edit waring on the John Howard article in September (here's the diff) but he deleted my message and called me a troll, so I don't think he responds to warnings. This is why it requires admin help to shut the war down. Now we have new people being drawn into the edit war, some of whom haven't been known to engage in that before, so possibly some warnings may be appropriate for new-comers who revert without discussing. In Prester's case, apart from the numerous previous ANi's, blocks and warnings about edit wars, the community Talk page on Howard Economics was started in September specifically to discuss what he was reverting back then, and still is reverting.-- Lester  09:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

See how difficult this is Shot? He can't even recognise the point you are making. He is so blinded by hatred for me he can't see anything else. He doesn't even see Aussieboys constant additions. He just can't see multiple editors removing Aussieboys unreferenced original research. He just sees me editing and feels the need to file a bogus complaint somewhere, or write the same complaint again and again and again with slightly different wording. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 00:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

How on earth do simple facts (whether well-referenced or not) become "original research"? The reference I gave establishes that the Australian Government debt in 1996 was way under half the OECD average. There is no "original research" there. It is also true that the Hawke/Keating Government "inherited" debt from the previous government. I am happy to provide a reference for this. AussieBoy 01:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are happy to provide the reference, then why have you not done show when your edit was removed because it was uncited and looks a lot like WP:SYN (but without a cite, who can be sure, and per WP:BLP it was deleted). This was pointed out to you but rather than add the source, you just readded your your original edit with the oddball summary "adding balance" (para.).  Feel free to improve the article by citing contentious information in a biography, otherwise unfortunately policy tells us to remove your edits.   Shot info  04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated in the discussion page, the issue claimed by each side that the other's references are no good is not a valid reason to enter the revert war. Reverts should only be used in cases of obvious vandalism. Modification and discussion are what should be used.-- Lester  04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

REVERT WAR ESCALATES: Please, Administrators, do whatever it takes to shut down this revert war. Others are now joining in. The thing just escalates if it is not stopped. See John Howard revision history, and the Talk:John_Howard discussion about the economics content that is being reverted. Everyone stays within their "allocated" 3 reverts, but that's not a good way for Wikipedia to operate.-- Lester  04:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be better if the reverters on all "sides" stopped reverting, took a deep breath, and took a more concillatory approach. Pages should not have to be locked down. --Merbabu 05:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anybody would think that with Lester's additions of contentious material into a BLP, he is intentionally fanning the edit war flames, just to create a nice long stream of reverts to come here and complain. Of course, if he discussed the merits of his proposed edits first, sought consensus, discussed the appropriateness of RS' (you know, what we do here at Wikipedia) then his edits wouldn't need to be reverted.  Curiously he knows this, which is why he warns other editors not to remove his poorly sourced contentious material as “the admins are watching”.   Shot info  05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All information I have added comes from major Australian broadsheet newspapers, and many other editors on the discussion page have agreed that the sources are reliable. As stated before, both sides accuse each other of having poor references, so the revert war continues. How will it stop? I agree with User:Merbabu (above) that all reverting by all sides should stop.-- Lester  10:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It will stop when you learn to discuss edits that you know are going to be contentious on the talk page and gain consensus before making them. Looking at your contribution history, you repeatedly make a controversial edit and complain when it is reverted. While I can understand that this process is stimulating and enjoyable for you, I'm finding it tedious to continually have to check over your contributions and root out POV additions to political articles. --Pete 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If people were sincere about respecting others' efforts, they would move the content to the talk page for discussion, rather than just deleting others' contributions and hovering over the article with the revert button. Discuss before reverting, otherwise it gets other contributors upset. Skyring (Pete) and Prester John not only reverted my cited information, but they also reverted numerous others who tried to contribute to the John Howard Economics section. The article's history page reveals all.-- Lester  22:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You miss the point. Let me say it again. You make edits you know are controversial. You don't discuss them first. You then edit war and complain here when they are reverted with an edit summary saying "Please discuss."


 * Looking at your contributions, it isn't easy to find an edit of yours that doesn't turn out to be hotly contested. It would be far less disruptive if you put up your intended edit for discussion first, get input from others and then find a consensus. Like, take your own advice, you know? --Pete 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The substance of this AnI is not a content debate. Wikipedia editing policy is to be bold. Lester does actively participate in talkpage discussion. Prester John inconsistently does, and on this occasion hardly did at all, except belatedly. What this is about, is the conduct of an editor who has the uncanny knack of skirting under the radar where other editors are punished for doing the same thing. Where is the consistency? I was blocked at the same time as Prester John previously for supposed disruptive editing on David Hicks, when I made two minor reverts on that article 5 days apart, in stark contrast to Prester John's massive, non-consensual, unexplained reverts, yet I was given the same 24hr block and was told by Eagle101 (at topic "Block for Disruption of David Hicks" on my usertalk) to discuss first, revert second. Why shouldn't the same standard be applied equally, including to Prester John? Why shouldn't continued infractions by editors who have been well and truly forewarned be treated just like others who have been disciplined for the same or lesser cause? --Brendan [ contribs ] 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Children Overboard Affair
Prester John is again inexplicably deleting references (again followed by belated and inconsequential participation in the talkpage discussion) on Children Overboard Affair. The references deleted were for facts that he had previously insisted should be referenced. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars at Migratory history of Australia
This time it's User:Prester John Vs User:Paki.tv. See the edit history here. Both users revert each others' work 3 times a day, then do it again the next day. Completely disruptive on-going behavior from these editors. Proof Prester John hasn't heeded prior warnings about edit waring.-- Lester  12:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) User:Prester John deletes the same content every time, beginning with "The country has a reputation ..."-- Lester  14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 02:10, 13 October 2007
 * 03:48, 12 October 2007
 * 03:06, 12 October 2007
 * 01:37, 12 October 2007

Edit wars at Pacific Solution
User:Prester John Vs various other editors. Once again, Prester John waits until a few minutes past the 24-hour mark before making his 4th revert.

Same content being deleted every time, referring to "Penal transportation".-- Lester  13:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 02:11, 13 October 2007
 * 20:49, 12 October 2007
 * 02:39, 12 October 2007
 * 01:41, 12 October 2007


 * Seriously, Lester, take it to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR or Administrator intervention against vandalism. You'll get a faster result for vandalism claims.  Someone wants to add a link to penal transportation, they need to justify it, not the other way around.  Wait, why do you even care?  You're not even involved in that article.  You keep this up and someone's liable to block you for wasting everyone's time and stalking him.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a footnote, the above 2 items both deal with policy of the government of Australian Prime Minister John Howard. They are both of interest to, and watched by those who edit articles on Australian politics. 2 days after my list of diffs (above) on Pacific Solution, the article was locked (and is till locked) due to more edit waring.-- Lester  21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Australian federal election, 2007
I'm rather concerned about recent activity on this page. Several changes have been made and warred which are either blatant POV, or could be seen to be censoring criticism. Essentially this seems to be a Prester John vs the world situation - even respected admins and project regulars are having to revert his changes which he refuses to discuss in a civil manner at the talk page. Orderinchaos 05:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah Orderinchaos, you're back. Strange how you just "disappeared" when asked to explain your non-admin like actions above. Let me ask again. Orderinchaos, you have not addressed why you removed the resolved tag, and then failed to inform the party concerned. Does this sound like the actions of an ethical adminstrator? Also, what was the point of speculating where the origin of the outing allegations came from; "i.e. whether PJ raised it himself somewhere or not"? Did you have any evidence at all for this random slander, or were you just "throwing it out there". I would question whether that is admin behaviour as well. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 06:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your persistent questions as to why I removed a resolved tag from a clearly unresolved debate (to the point of cutting and pasting your own question here) ignores the fact that even an IP address can add or remove resolved (or done, or ok, or whatever people prefer) tags without impediment - Wikipedia bureaucrats and others ignore them and they are merely intended to be helpful to editors. I had asked, and will ask again, those who provided me information privately on the other matter to comment on here with evidence. These matters are not, in any case, relevant to your behaviour on a number of high-profile articles, which you really should be making more of an effort to address. I think also you misunderstand the role of admins on Wikipedia - admins are normal users with normal editing rights, who happen to have a few extra tools. Only the use of these tools is an admin function, and I have not used them in any way connected with yourself. Orderinchaos 12:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's the plan?
This thread has been ongoing for sometime now. Is anyone going to propose a remedy to the constant edit disruption in Austrailian issues? What would you like administrators to do? --Rocksanddirt 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The numerous warnings Prester John has received need acting upon. Otherwise this user will continue to disregard further warnings. His last block on David Hicks via Eagle101 was 24hrs for fairly hefty disruption. He was duly warned that reverts would be considered disruptive but, as described above, resumed doing so. I also find it concerning that he appears to be wikistalking certain editors including myself, with this user subpage User:Prester John/Evidence (one of the links on which is a diff of a signed and an unsigned edit by me, revealing the IP address from which I performed the edit). Escalating block (minimum 72hrs). --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am an administrator but for the purpose of this exercise I'm an editor, as I think I'm in a better position to edit the article (Australian federal election, 2007) than to neutrally administer policy on it, and I'm quite willing to keep both the left and right from overindulgence on it. I do think, though, that there is such a thing as too many warnings, and he has been warned for disruption on a range of articles over an extended period of time and has been blocked on a couple of those occasions for 24 hours. At present the disruption has ceased, but if it were to resume I would be advocating a 48 hour block, with escalation thereafter if evidence of persistence emerges beyond its conclusion. Orderinchaos 13:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The translation of "Disruptive editing" above is as follows. "PJ won't let me rewrite history to suit my far left agenda, he won't let me insert irrelevant opinion page gossip into BLP's, he changes my wording to what my dubious reference actually says. He doesn't get blocked as much as I do because he meatpuppets with other editors to tag team". . I know it is tedious but please check the article histories of these articles. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 18:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been called names by both the left and right in this place, suggesting I'm radically the opposite. My only "agenda", unfortunately, is protecting Wikipedia from blatant abuse by anyone who thinks it is a soapbox which should not contain anything contrary to their point of view. The only reason we've clashed at all is because of persistent censorship of any opinion critical of Howard or the Liberal Party, insertion of dubious qualifiers to mute such opinion, or addition of material which basically meets the definition of electioncruft. In other articles I've challenged editors similarly focused on the Labor Party, in particular the "achievements" of state premiers (which sadly do not extend to ending war and curing cancer), and I'm a well known opponent of "Greenscruft" where any candidate or branch suddenly deserves an entire page and anything they say (no matter the fact that mainstream media ignores them) somehow merits Wikipedia coverage. Thankfully, all of this stuff does tend to get dealt with. Orderinchaos 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, I think a 1RR rule for Prester John may result in less edit waring, and more discussion on discussion pages.-- Lester  21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure 1RR would result in less edit warring but I would not support a 1RR for PJ unless all parties to the edit warring, yourself included, were subject to similar restrictions. Sarah 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I disagree with your comment about edit waring, and will take it up on your talk page.-- Lester  13:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure you do but I'm afraid that's neither here nor there for me. Many admins and editors have observed that you are an edit warrior frequently edit warring with PJ and as such it would be inappropriate to give you "free rein" to "out-revert" PJ on any article you like on any topic you like by giving you 3RR and PJ 1RR. Sorry but that's just not going to happen. Sarah 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this personally. On some articles I have seen edit warring and other problematic editing from others, including two or three who have posted here. Any proposed solution would need to address this. Mind you, PJ is perfectly capable of continuing on his own without any of the others being present, as is the case at Australian federal election, 2007. Orderinchaos 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I will admit I push the boundaries of 3RR by regularly claiming "3 free reverts per 24 hours". I will resolve to eradicate these actions and to replace those edits with extra talkpage activity. I am well aware of the volume of editors who follow my every move. The other issues on this "e-stoning" amount to pages that have been unanimously been voted to keep and slanderous comments by banned users. One by an ip still remains. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 15:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great news, Prester. Please use the talk page more as you suggest. Working with the community is far more important than sticking the letter of wiki law (the rules are only put there to stop people who don't want to work together). I'm sure you do this in real life, thus i wonder why getting along is so hard for everyone on on wiki? lol.
 * You do some good work on wikipedia (I've told you this before a few times), but it seems you have infuriated a few people in places. Good to see you going out on a limb and owning up. I wonder whether some others on your recent aussie pages can learn too!?! Cheers and happy editing. --Merbabu 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick read of WP:3RR would reveal such an interpretation of 3RR is flawed to start with, so I'm glad to hear of any efforts you are making to modify your behaviour in this regard. Essentially you should be going to the talk page first with any controversial changes on high profile articles. I think you'd find if you did this, the uncommitted centre (for want of a better descriptor) would be more likely to support controversial changes especially when you are combatting clear cases of POV/OR and undue weight, which would make your work (and our lives as admins) easier, while allowing changes which shouldn't really be made to be rejected by the community. Orderinchaos 21:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation of the above: "Everyone is picking on me, but I'm always in the Right. Even though I say I push the boundaries, it's really not my responsibility, because others are to blame. I reserve the right to use snide hostile Edit Summaries and, on the infrequent occasion that I make them (usually *well after* a series of reverts), similar talkpage comment. Good faith to me is a slogan for weak-kneed 'lefties', namely anyone with a different view from me, and I simply won't tolerate that. It's my barrow or the highway. I do have a good old laugh to myself though when other editors get sanctioned for lesser things when I manage at times to get off lightly or even altogether, like when I troll the user pages of others or make undiscussed tendentious edits. Frankly, I believe talkpages are for leftist wusses and their collaborators". . I know it is tedious but please check the contribution history of this user. It would be nice if this user were to change his ways as he says he will but, on past performance, even when he has said he would go back to square one and act decently, it doesn't take long before the same tactics rear up again. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, Prester John's above promise to discuss and not edit war was worthless. This article history not only shows Prester warring and not discussing on talk page. There is nothing to say we can't use that source. Policy is that English is preferred, but other languages are fine in lieu of no English reference. On 18th October, I explained my position on talk, and why i thought Prester's position was incorrect but PJ has continued to ignore it. --Merbabu 07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit waring has restarted on yet another article. has just been locked as a result of Prester John edit waring with everyone else, despite the promises and undertakings made above to stop. Unfortunately, it took an article block to stop it. A quick glance at the history plainly shows who is edit waring and who is not. Lester  20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)