SlimVirgin deleted the following user page on 7 January 2007,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ter&action=edit

calling it an "attack page" although it's content was similar to a couple of editor tracking pages that SV was keeping in her own userspace.

The contents of the page are below. Since the page has a lot of illustrations and links, it's probably best if viewed in a wiki. I suggest copying the text, posting in a wiki editing window, then hitting the preview button to view it. To make a long story short, the page documents Zordrac's attempt to show that the blocks of Poetlister and others for sockpuppeting are problematic. The page content begins below:


'''Poetlister'''

This page is designed to document the ban of [[User:Poetlister]] as a suspected sock puppet of [[User:RachelBrown]]. It documents how there was no collusion, how they did not edit the same articles, and how they were not acting as sock puppets. In the absence of CheckUser evidence, theories as to why they were accused of being sock puppets are speculative, although it is noted that they were best friends who visited each other regularly. Caught up in this were the bans of [[User:Londoneye]], [[User:Taxwoman]] and [[User:Newport]], whose relationship with [[User:RachelBrown]] is less notable. This page offers a neutral point of view on the topic, as someone who did not know any of the users prior to this incident. It is purely based on independent research in to the topic. It has also uncovered detailed reasons for why the ban might have been done unfairly, pointing towards the 2 persons who Poetlister was in dispute with, who were in fact the people that asked for the ban, and also went to pains to cover up their own wrongdoings. The photographs on the right demonstrate the ridiculousness of suggestions that they might all be the same person, as do their user pages. And this page documents the entire ridiculousness of the claims that there could be any legitimacy to this action.

[[Image:RachelBrown.jpg|thumb|[[User:RachelBrown]]]]
[[Image:Poetlister.JPG|thumb|[[User:Poetlister]]]]
[[Image:Londoneye.jpg|thumb|[[User:Londoneye]]]]
[[Image:Taxwoman.jpg|thumb|[[User:Taxwoman]]]]
[[Image:Taxwoman2.jpg|thumb|Taxwoman2]]
[[Image:Taxwoman3.jpg|thumb|Taxwoman + 3 friends (possibly some of the other affected users)]]
[[Image:Taxwoman4.jpg|thumb|Taxwoman4]]
[[Image:Taxwoman5.jpg|thumb|Taxwoman5]]
[[Image:Taxwoman6.jpg|thumb|Taxwoman6]]
[[Image:Taxwoman7.jpg|thumb|Taxwoman7]]

'''Acknowledgements''': The primary author of this page is [[User:Zordrac]] and all views expressed within are the personal views of [[User:Zordrac]] unless stated otherwise. The only other direct contributor to this page is [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]], whose major contribution was the [[#Anonymous IP editor]] section as well as some bolding, formatting and minor corrections, and some of the views contained within may be her personal views. In researching this page, advice was sought from the following persons: [[User:Grace Note]], [[User:Arniep]], [[User:Poetlister]], [[User:Dan100]], [[User:Thuresson]], [[User:Flcelloguy]], [[User:SlimVirgin]], [[User:Antidote]], [[User:Mindspillage]], [[User:Kelly Martin]], [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]], [[User:Nlu]], [[User:Charles Matthews]], [[User:David Gerard]] and others.

== Timeline ==
This is the timeline of events related to this block. Note that it is not comprehensive and is the opinion of the author ([[User:Zordrac]]) as to what is most relevant.
(per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...User:Poetlister and elsewhere)
* 15 April 2005 - [[User:RachelBrown]] made her first edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Penny_Serenade&diff=prev&oldid=15581500]
* 12 July 2005 - [[User:Poetlister]] made her first edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Poetlister&diff=prev&oldid=18603398]
* 10 August 2005 - [[User:Taxwoman]] made her first edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Taxwoman&diff=prev&oldid=20642592]
* 28 September 2005 - [[User:Londoneye]] made her first edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Londoneye&diff=prev&oldid=24226531]
* 17 November 2005 - 27 November 2005 - [[User:RachelBrown]], [[User:Poetlister]], [[User:Londoneye]] and [[User:Taxwoman]] engaged in actions described as "collusion", for the first time ever editing the same articles, namely voting in the same AFDs. (see: [[#Collusion]])
* 18 November 2005 - 30 November 2005 - [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] demonstrated bad editing practise on [[List of Jewish jurists]], including violations of [[WP:OWN]], [[WP:CIVIL]] and [[WP:POINT]] which formed the centre of this dispute (see: [[#Lulu Bad Editing timeline]])
* 18 November 2005 - "Lisa" ([[User:81.153.41.72]])'s first edit. This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=prev&oldid=28680180] states her name as Lisa, Rachel Brown's flatmate and this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society&diff=prev&oldid=28677853] apologises to Rachel Brown, whilst her first edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society&diff=prev&oldid=28605346] was identical to Rachel Brown's last edit here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society&diff=28675931&oldid=28672668].
* 05:54, 19 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] creates [[List of African American jurists]] as POV-fork of [[List of Jewish jurists]] so as to make a [[WP:POINT]], and then makes a totally unsourced list [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_American_jurists&oldid=28693199], which he never sources [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_African_American_jurists&diff=32527746&oldid=32526548]
* 16:35, 21 November 2005 [[User:Nlu]] enacted a Request for Mediation on behalf of [[User:RachelBrown]] against [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] due to his bad editing practises on [[List of Jewish jurists]]. (see: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists]])
* 03:37, 3 December 2005 [[User:Newport]]'s first edit, correcting an article type of something that none of the other 4 affected users were involved in. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Seldon&diff=prev&oldid=29931579] (note: she made the edit 19 hours before RachelBrown quit, even though Newport is the one who is most likely to be a sock puppet.
* 04:13, 3 December 2005 [[User:Newport]]'s 9th edit, all 9 happening within an hour of each other, the 9 edits prior to [[User:RachelBrown]] quitting. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblia_Hebraica_Quinta&diff=prev&oldid=29934936]
* 22:29, 3 December 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]]'s "last edit", when she quit Wikipedia for good, citing harassment from [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] in relation to the [[List of Jewish jurists]] as the reason.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RachelBrown&diff=prev&oldid=30011948]
* 02:01, 4 December 2005 [[User:Newport]]'s 10th edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblia_Hebraica_Quinta&diff=prev&oldid=30023757], 4 hours after RachelBrown's last, demonstrating a total lack of collusion. Also was on an article that RachelBrown had never edited. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblia_Hebraica_Quinta&action=history]
* 05:11, 4 December 2005 [[User:Newport]]'s first chat with anyone involved in the dispute, with [[User:SlimVirgin]], where she spoke in a totally different way to Rachel Brown, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=prev&oldid=30038920]
:''"Sorry - I'm rather new here. Are you the person responsible for this list? Can you do anything about Antidote deleting names of foreign born people? Next he'll be deleting Michael Marks. "''
* 03:22, 10 December 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]]'s actual last edit, a comment criticising [[User:Antidote]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society&diff=prev&oldid=30732106]
* 15:12, 10 December 2005 [[User:Arniep]] made a Request for comment against [[User:Antidote]] in relation to this issue [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote&oldid=30825091], claiming sock puppetry used by Antidote to manipulate an AFD for the self-same issue as that caused [[User:Poetlister]] et al to be banned, but note that they were on opposite sides.
* 16:59, 10 December 2005 [[User:SlimVirgin]] contacted [[User:Kelly Martin]] asking her to perform a CheckUser on [[User:Poetlister]] compared to [[User:RachelBrown]] based on 1 solitary piece of evidence, which was that RachelBrown had said that her IP address was 81.153.41.72 (compare [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society&diff=28675931&oldid=28672668] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society&diff=28678477&oldid=28678199], and stating that she felt that they were ganging up on her ([[User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request]]).
* 00:08, 11 December 2005 [[User:Poetlister]] wrote to [[User:SlimVirgin]] to request for her to stop "editing" (vandalising) [[User:RachelBrown]]'s user page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=next&oldid=30818697], something which SlimVirgin refused to answer, and deleted twice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=next&oldid=30823096] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=next&oldid=30824051] (didn't archive)
* 17:39, 14 December 2005, 23 days after the Request for Mediation was commenced, [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] refused mediation to resolve the issue, thus forcing it to the next stage in the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] process, which may be a Request for Arbitration [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation&diff=31348503&oldid=31340758],
:''":At Flcelloguy's request, I'm trying to ''clarify'' here:
:::# I ''am not'' interested in participating in this mediation
:::# I ''never was'' interested in participating in this mediation
:::# I have never stated anything to suggest I might be interested in participating in this mediation
:::# I have no expectation of becoming interested in participating in this mediation
:::# I am not aware of any issue even vaguely relevant to mediation here
:::I am, of course, highly appreciative of the existence and hard work of the mediation committee, and am not opposed to mediation in principle. There is simply nothing to mediate on this topic. [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 17:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
* 20:36, 21 December 2005 [[User:Poetlister]] wrote to [[User:Zordrac]] to ask for his help to advise what to do with the problem since [[User:SlimVirgin]] and [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] refused to participate in the mediation and were trying to silence the problem ([[User_talk:Zordrac/Archive1#Grateful_for_your_advice_please]]).
* 21:52, 21 December 2005 ('''Note: The block log incorrectly says 07:22, 22 December 2005''') [[User:Mindspillage]] blocked [[User:Poetlister]], [[User:Newport]], [[User:Taxwoman]] and [[User:Londoneye]] claiming,
*:''"sockpuppet of RachelBrown, used for edit warring/vote stacking/etc."'' with no evidence. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Poetlister]
* 22:41, 21 December 2005 [[User:Zordrac]] wrote on the Administrator's noticeboard asking for clarification for why there was a block. No clarification has ever been received. ([[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_check]]),
*:''Can we get a sock check on [[User:RachelBrown]] as compared to[[ User:Poetlister]], who was blocked indefinitely by User:Mindspillage as a "suspected sock puppet of RachelBrown" with apparently no evidence of this, and indeed RachelBrown has not been banned so I query whether that is an automated ban anyway. This has happened in the middle of a request for mediation in relation to edit warring with another user which involved these 2 users and a 3rd user. The mediation was refused by the person who was requested to deal with it '''([[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]])''', thus meaning that a request for comment is in order. Due process has been disrupted by this block. I ask for a sock check to prove that these two are indeed the same person, as there seems to be circumstantial evidence that they could not be the same person and [[WP:POINT]] may apply in relation to this block.''"
* 07:57, 22 December 2005 {{User|71.244.86.178}} vandalised [[:Image:BON11.JPG]] to falsely suggest that [[User:Taxwoman]] had anything to do with [[User:RachelBrown]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BON11.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=32288604]- this was done by a vandal with a long history of abuse [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.244.86.178]. A CheckUser request was refused by Arbitration Committee members to determine if this person was [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] or anyone else involved in this dispute. (see: [[#Anonymous IP editor]])
* 06:16, 23 December 2005 [[User:Kelly Martin]] provided "evidence" (which was just her opinion, in which she falsely stated that she was not involved) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Poetlister&diff=32455012&oldid=32453173]:
*:''"I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]]. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily."''
*::(Except that they weren't obsessed with the same topic, and didn't collude at all)
* 07:29, 23 December 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]], the person most central to the block, wrote to [[User:Zordrac]] threatening him in relation to his attempts to find out the truth of this case, saying that he would get Zordrac banned if it continues. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZordrac&diff=32408859&oldid=32405491]
* 08:16, 23 December 2005 [[User:Antaeus Feldspar]], who had been stalking and harassing Zordrac since the [[User:Zordrac/Daniel Brandt|Daniel Brandt incident]], wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zordrac&diff=next&oldid=32414326]
* 17:48, 23 December 2005, this page ([[User:Zordrac/Poetlister]]) was created. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zordrac/Poetlister&oldid=32462959]
* 18:38, 23 December 2005, [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]] discovered evidence that a photo had been vandalised to try to pretend that [[User:Taxwoman]] was related to [[User:RachelBrown]]. (see: [[#Anonymous IP editor]])
* 06:03, 24 December 2005 [[User:Dan100]] unblocked {{User|Poetlister}}, {{User|Newport}}, {{User|Londoneye}} and {{User|Taxwoman}} after reviewing the evidence presented on this page.
* Dan100 began investigations, including discussions with [[User:Arniep]], [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]], [[User:Kelly Martin]] and [[User:SlimVirgin]] as to what had happened.
* 17:25, 24 December 2005, [[User:Kelly Martin]] admitted that there was no evidence of collusion, but was still angry at Dan100 for his questioning her judgement,
*:''"It's not "once edited from the same computer"; there is an ongoing pattern of edits by multiple accounts from the same group of computers (both work and home). I think it is unreasonable to say that there is "no evidence" as there clearly is evidence. Your argument should not be that there is no evidence, but that you think that there is countervailing evidence based on edit content (which I did not review, since I was merely asked to review the CheckUser evidence). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)''" ([[User_talk:Dan100#The_evidence_on_RachelBrown_et_al.]])
*09:42, 25 December 2005, [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]] created a subpage of the Wikipedia:Administrator's Noticeboard to document this dispute: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=32672961&oldid=32672937#User:Zordrac.2FPoetlister_.28new_discussion_to_resolve_issues_not_covered_so_far.29]
* 16:53, 25 December 2005, Dan100 wrote that in his opinion that,
*:''"From what I can tell, one of the accounts is a sock (Newport) but the rest are genuine editors who happen to know each other in real life. From I've learned of the Checkuser results, several of these accounts once edited from the same computer. For people who live near each other and are friends, I don't think it's unexpected for them share a computer at some stage. Further, all the accounts (apart from Newport) have very different edit histories and areas of expertise, and have been making good edits. Quite apart from anything else, Wikipedia the encyclopedia will suffer without those editors. Finally, the blocking policy only allows for the blocking of socks when they are being used to violate policy. As far as I can see, that's not happened. None of the other accounts have been used for anything else that could justify a ban."'' ([[User_talk:Dan100#The_evidence_on_RachelBrown_et_al.]])
*20:06, 25 December 2005 [[User:Nandesuka]] blocked [[User:Poetlister]], with the reasons of ''User with an expiry time of indefinite (Sockpuppet of Rachel Brown; evidence provided (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...3173)'' (referring to [[User:Kelly Martin]]'s opinion, as if it were actual evidence).
*02:44, 26 December 2005 [[User:David Gerard]] blocked "[[User:Poetlister]]" with an expiry time of indefinite (Rachel Brown sockpuppet) - even though it was already blocked.

== Lulu Bad Editing timeline ==
Timeline of bad editing practise by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] on [[List of Jewish jurists]], which is at the centre of this dispute:
:(per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...action=history)

* 14:36, 15 August 2005 [[User:TShilo12]] created [[List of Jewish jurists]] per a discussion in [[Talk:List of Jews]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&oldid=21044467]
* 09:06, 18 November 2005 Anon IP {{user|65.9.143.76}} nominated [[List of Jews in law]] for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&oldid=28628400]
* 20:57, 18 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] became the first to vote on the AFD, voting keep [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_jurists&oldid=28695564].
* 05:56, 19 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] caused controversy by moving [[List of Jews in law]] to [[List of Jewish jurists]] during an AFD and became the first to edit the [[List of Jewish jurists]] article for over a month and violated [[WP:OWN]] by taking over "ownership" of the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=28693395&oldid=25101297]
* 06:24, 19 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] became the 2nd user contributing to [[List of Jewish jurists]], which began an edit war with [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] due to his taking "ownership" over the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28693540]
* 07:03, 19 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] violated [[WP:AGF]] by adding in comments next to entries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28697779] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28698221]
* 07:36, 19 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] removed Lulu's comments, explaining why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28698439]
* 08:06, 19 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] violated [[WP:V]] by commenting out an entry backed up by a book source [[Jewish Year Book]], claiming that he had never heard of it before, an action that began the controversy (he later would delete entries and put in rude edit summaries etc) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=28702869&oldid=28700584]
* 16:00, 19 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] commented out (effectively deleting) a number of entries, rather than just putting in a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag, which would have been more [[WP:CIVIL]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28732719] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28732948] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28733716] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28733879]
* 18:42, 19 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] reverted un-civil comments by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28734187]
* 02:34, 20 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] restored reverted un-civil comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28739812]
* 02:49, 20 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] reverted back with comments to try to avoid an edit war, ''"Reverting to my last version - see discussion. Let's not give ammunition to those seeking to delete this page, by giving the impression it's totally unreliable."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28760778]
* 03:00, 20 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] restored un-civil comments with an un-civil edit summary, ''"Restoring to evidenced version: let's not MAKE this page totally unreliable"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28761758]
* 03:20, 20 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] added (NPOV) tag to demonstrate the edit war. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28762430]
* 05:11, 21 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] violated [[WP:CIVIL]] in removing validated (NPOV) tag [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28847987]
* 05:49, 21 November 2005 [[User:Poetlister]] reverted back to RachelBrown's POV version with comment, ''"Revert to last version by RachelBrown. The NPOV tag had been wrongly removed by an editor falsely claiming that I had given no reason for NPOV. He may disagree with the reason but not deny it exists"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28848613]
* 16:35, 21 November 2005 [[User:Nlu]] enacted a Request for Mediation on behalf of [[User:RachelBrown]] against [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] due to his bad editing practises on [[List of Jewish jurists]]. )see: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists]])
* 04:54, 22 November 2005 in spite of RfM existing (and Lulu ignoring it), Lulu made things worse again, by commenting out more entries, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28924189] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28924774]
* 06:56, 22 November 2005 [[User:Jayjg]] reverted [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]]' un-civil comments, as "silliness" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28931389] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28933536]
* 09:33, 22 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] removed comments with [[Jewish Year Book]] as cite [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28942831]
* 09:43, 22 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] removed (NPOV) tag (for a third time) without first making article neutral [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28943299]
* 10:03, 22 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] with more un-civil comments and disruptive behaviour with comment, ''"No evidence for Cosgrove except "RachelBrown says so" (and created an article for claim). Need WP:V cite"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28944433]
* 10:50, 22 November 2005 more un-civil disruptive behaviour by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]], with comment, ''"Despite annoying revert war, still no support provided on Carlile's page. A reference to "Jewish Year Book" must have ISBN, year, and page (or URL), and be visible in article, not commented out"'' (note: in spite of acknowledging revert war, he refused mediation...) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28947334] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28948358]
* 11:20, 22 November 2005 [[User:Jayjg]] acknowledged ridiculousness of [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]]' un-civil comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28948774]
* 11:32, 22 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] attacked [[User:Jayjg]] with edit summary comment, ''"Clarify Asser (please don't be obstructionist, first link doesn't give any information on sense of "Jewish")"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28950294]
* 22:46, 22 November 2005 [[User:RachelBrown]] restored a link [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28951016], reverted by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=28979656], reverted back [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29001026], acknowledged by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters to be correct (!) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29006076]
* 08:34, 24 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] violated [[WP:V]] *AGAIN* in removing sourced entry with edit summary comment, ''"At least one editor on the talk page to this says Goldsmith is NOT Jewish, and still no reference on Lord Goldsmith article"'' (note: still refusing to participate in Mediation and stating that there is no problem) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29089220]
* 09:18, 24 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] added un-[[WP:CIVIL]] comment, ''"According to some Wikipedia editors, Goldsmith is Jewish"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29093471] elaborated to ''"whether by ethnicity, culturalal association, or religious practice is not known at this time"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29094926]
* 03:54, 25 November 2005 [[User:Jayjg]] notified [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] of violation of [[WP:POINT]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29150016]
* 05:02, 25 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] pretended he wasn't the one violating [[WP:POINT]] and tried to divert attention [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29150177]
* 11:27, 25 November 2005 more un-civil comments by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]], ''"I remain VERY suspicious about the cite that apparently contradicts everything else we can find: but even as such it must be VISIBLE, not hidden comment."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29156040] and this comment ''"I wonder if some editors with an agenda have made a mistake, as jayjg did innocently"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29177502]
* 12:13, 25 November 2005 more violations of [[WP:POINT]] by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] with comment, ''"Other sources dispute the claim that Goldsmith is Jewish."'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29177554]
* 04:07, 26 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] went further in to the depths of [[WP:POINT]] and [[WP:OWN]] by *deleting* an entry outright, with the comment, ''"No citation on Carlile page. CANNOT be included otherwise, period!"'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29223789] and more here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29226208] with comment, ''"No cite on Heilbron article, CANNOT be included otherwise, period!"'' and re-added [[WP:POINT]] violation here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29226270]
* 04:12, 26 November 2005 [[User:Jayjg]] acknowledged [[WP:POINT]] violation again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29226404]
* 04:21, 26 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] re-deleted sourced verified claims, stating that adding them was in violation of [[WP:V]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29226920]
* 16:08, 27 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] added (no original research) tag to the article (in spite of many claims) as part of his [[WP:OWN]] ownership of the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29349576]
* 16:28, 27 November 2005 [[User:Jayjg]] reverted Lulu's claim [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29358031]
* 16:39, 27 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] deleted more references outright, in violation of [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:POINT]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29358452]
* 00:33, 28 November 2005 [[User:SlimVirgin]] backed up [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] as "one voice with 2 accounts" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29380182]
* 04:21, 28 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] added severe violation of [[WP:CIVIL]] with this comment, ''"PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE NAMES TO THIS PAGE WITHOUT INCLUDING A CREDIBLE SOURCE FOR THE INFORMATION. SEE [[WIKIPEDIA:VERIFIABILITY]] AND [[WIKIPEDIA:NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH]], WHICH ARE POLICY"'' (in caps), with apparent approval from [[User:SlimVirgin]], an action whcih significantly escalated the dispute and created much more hostility. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29383247]
* 06:18, 30 November 2005 [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] hypocritically added in his own unverified entries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29534420], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29622612], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29623007], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=next&oldid=29623566] in clear violation of [[WP:OWN]]

''Note: [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] has continued to edit this page after this date, attacking more editors, with more nasty edit summaries and continues to do so to this day''

== Collusion ==
From April 2005 when [[User:RachelBrown]] first started her page until November 2005, at which time [[User:Taxwoman]], [[User:Poetlister]] and [[User:Londoneye]] were all well established, there was no collusion with any articles at all. The people who try to justify this ban have tried to suggest that these 4 usernames lay in wait, that they waited until that exact moment to collude. Perhaps they will suggest that they were all alter-egos. They have even totally ignored all of the evidence of lack of collusion up to this point in time by focussing on this small period of time. Perhaps they all had a party. Perhaps they did briefly give each other their passwords. But it certainly wasn't a long-term collusion, and they were definitely different people. Since no actual evidence has been brought forward, we are left to guess. However, in aiding this investigation, I have conducted my own investigation in to the so-called collusion, based on contributions of the persons who have been accused (note: [[User:Newport]] could not have done any collusion, as her first edit began after the time period of the so-called collusion had ended).

Sources: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Taxwoman&offset=0&limit=500 Taxwoman contribs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Londoneye&offset=0&limit=500 Londoneye contribs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Poetlister&offset=0&limit=500 Poetlister contribs], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=RachelBrown&offset=0&limit=500 RachelBrown contribs].

On 27 November 2005, [[User:Taxwoman]] made 10 contributions in 10 different AFDs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_scientists_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324154], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_academics_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324396], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_political_figures_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324498], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_business_figures_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324573], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_show_business_figures_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324641], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_writers_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324730], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_artists_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29324820], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_musicians_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29325289], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_American_sport_figures_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29325342], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29326160], almost all of which were simple "copy and paste" jobs from each of the others - i.e. she was arguing that they should be made in to categories like [[List of Jews]] suggests. Note that this is a totally different opinion to that exercised by the other 3. She voted, yes, but she did not collude. There is also zero collusion before or after this.

From 17 November-27 November 2005, [[User:Londoneye]] made 9 contributions in 9 different AFDs (note: not the same articles that Taxwoman voted on) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers&diff=prev&oldid=28580252], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_bankers&diff=prev&oldid=28580417], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28624603], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28662915], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_16&diff=prev&oldid=28669283], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=prev&oldid=28817918], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_chess_players&diff=prev&oldid=28997145], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_sports&diff=prev&oldid=28997410], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Science&diff=prev&oldid=28997478], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=29315171], not all of which were actual votes (most were comments), with different, well thought out comments for each particular decision. She also did not edit any of the same articles as the others listed, other than in these AFDs.

From 17 November-20 November, [[User:Poetlister]] made 8 contributions in 4 different AFDs (multiple contributions for 2 of the articles which she felt strongly about) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers&diff=prev&oldid=28589389], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_16&diff=prev&oldid=28589507], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_bankers&diff=prev&oldid=28589714], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28628572], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28688735], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28689241], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=prev&oldid=28740722], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=prev&oldid=28740759], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_jurists&diff=prev&oldid=28764905], and her argument was totally different to the others. Hers was mostly copy and paste (except for Jewish jurists) where she argued anti-semiticism for the reason for the deletions being proposed.

From 16 November-19 November, [[User:RachelBrown]] made 14 contributions in 6 different articles (focussing mainly on [[List of Jewish Fellows in the Royal Society]] - an article which none of the other supposed sock puppets cared about) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_bankers&diff=prev&oldid=28432156], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers&diff=prev&oldid=28440257], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_16&diff=prev&oldid=28579169], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28604310], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers&diff=prev&oldid=28620402], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28621007], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28621131], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28661489], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers&diff=prev&oldid=28661804], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers&diff=prev&oldid=28661896], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28664009], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Technology&diff=prev&oldid=28667944], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/!
List_of_
Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Technology&diff=prev&oldid=28668975], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Technology&diff=prev&oldid=28669825], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28685520], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=28740228], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Technology&diff=prev&oldid=28740448], most of which were very un-[[WP:CIVIL]] comments verging on being [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]], in attacking [[User:Antidote]] and alledging corruption of process. Note that none of the other supposed sock puppets did any of this.

So this, it seems, is the collusion. However, in addition, [[User:Poetlister]] also edited a handful of articles which [[User:RachelBrown]] also edited, and acted in support of her friend. More collusion here:

They both repeatedly wrote on [[Talk:List of Jewish jurists]], they both wrote repeatedly to [[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]], and [[User:RachelBrown]] contributed to [[List of Jewish jurists]], and then, after RachelBrown left Wikipedia, [[User:Poetlister]] contributed on [[User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp]]. Collusion?

Oh, and [[User:Poetlister]] and [[User:RachelBrown]] also contributed to [[List of British Jews]] and to [[Talk:List of British Jews]], once again criticising [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] for bad editing practise. Collusion?

That is in fact the entirety of the collusion. Throughout the other 6 months of editing with 300-1,000 edits each, they never edited the same articles, or indeed even the same types of articles. RachelBrown is the only one of them interested in Judaism, and even then only indirectly. Whilst it is clear that they were all asked to vote on the AFDs for Jewish Lists, and may possibly have all done it from the same house on one night (they might have had a party?) that is about the extent of it.

Oh, and as for the [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy]] meaning that their IP logs can't be displayed - that is only if the users don't want them displayed. Go on and ask them. I bet that they DO want them to be displayed, after this action. Then the privacy policy will tell you that they can, and should, be displayed.

== Additional actions related to the block ==
The following users involved in this dispute tried to prevent this evidence being presented:

* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] has accused [[User:Zordrac]] of being a "sock puppet of Poetlister".
* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] has accused [[User:Zordrac]] of being on a campaign against him.
* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] has threatened to ban [[User:Zordrac]].
* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] has accused [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]] of being a "sock puppet of Poetlister".
* [[User:SlimVirgin]] tried to suggest that [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]] was a sock puppet of banned user [[User:Chaosfeary]] in order to get her banned.
* [[User:Kelly Martin]] has "severely warned" [[User:Zordrac]] for "not assuming good faith" because he questioned whether [[User:Mindspillage]]'s action was warranted.
* [[User:Kelly Martin]] reprimanded [[User:Dan100]] for trying to investigate the claims.

==Anonymous IP editor==
''(This section primarily written by [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle]] on 18:38, 23 December 2005, initially to correct a mistake made by [[User:Zordrac]] that there was a connection between [[User:Taxwoman]] and [[User:RachelBrown]] or any evidence that they were friends.)''

[[:Image:BON11.JPG]] was a photo taken by Taxwoman but NOT RachelBrown like the description previously said. The '''description was vandalised''' from ''"Friend demonstrating the BDSM meaning of [[strappado]] <nowiki>{{PD}}</nowiki>"'' to ''"Rachel Brown demonstrating the BDSM meaning of [[strappado]] at 07:57 on 22 December 2005 <nowiki>{{PD}}</nowiki>"''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:BON11.JPG&diff=prev&oldid=32288604] by an anonymous editor, [[Special:Contributions/71.244.86.178|71.244.86.178]] ([[User_talk:71.244.86.178|talk]]) who may be one of the other editors embroiled in this dispute - Perhaps a sockpuppet/user check would be a good idea.
Other edits from this IP include these:
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.244.86.178&diff=prev&oldid=32287389 "That seems like a pretty weak 'quarter'...so I guess you take all <s>cummers<s> - I mean - comers."] to editors' talk page in reply to (a polite message from) Taxwoman, after anon had previously left an insulting message on her talk page.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drini&diff=prev&oldid=25372207 "== I've learned to live with my man-breasts. Have you? ==" "'''It is suspected that this user may be a [[Dick]] or impersonator of [[User:Drini|Drini]]'''.<br>Please refer to [[Dick]] for evidence."] - added to [[User_talk:Drini]] with an edit summary of "Fixed info."
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skank&diff=prev&oldid=24969818 Removal of "Usually pejorative unless used between close friends"] from "[[Skank]]"
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aranda56&diff=prev&oldid=25372350 Vandalism to] [[User:Aranda56|Aranda56]]'s userpage (several times)
*Other blankings and vandalism, see [[Special:Contributions/71.244.86.178]]

The following persons had motivation to change the image to pretend that RachelBrown was related to Taxwoman:
* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] - central figure in the dispute, was calling everyone a sock puppet.
* [[User:SlimVirgin]] - person who first asked for a CheckUser claiming sock puppetry.
* [[User:Mindspillage]] - made the block, and was unable to produce any evidence of linkage.
* [[User:Kelly Martin]] - agreed to do the CheckUser, refused to provide any evidence, made a false "neutral review" of the evidence (lying about not being involved in the dispute), and needed some evidence that there was an actual connection.

No other users had any motivation to do this.

Why would an anonymous vandal vandalise a page to make someone look like they should be blocked AFTER they were already blocked? The simple reality is that they wouldn't. Not unless they were involved. The most likely person to have done this is [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]], or alternately someone who was asked by Lulu to do this.

To date, Arbitration Committee members have refused to perform a CheckUser to confirm these suspicions (note that 2 of the persons with motivation to do this were Arbitration Committee members).

== Sock puppetry ==
=== Interests ===
If they were sock puppets, why did they have different interests and different editing histories?

*{{user|RachelBrown}} (created 15 April 2005) was interested in biographies [[User:RachelBrown/biographies]], bibles, lists and geography [[User:RachelBrown/articles]]
*{{user|Poetlister}} (created 12 July 2005) was interested in poetry. [[User:Poetlister/articles]]
*{{user|Taxwoman}} (created 10 August 2005) was interested in S&M, bondage, sexy clothing and lifestyle, and has many photos of herself. [[User:Taxwoman/articles]]
*{{user|Londoneye}} (created 28 September 2005) was interested in photos [[User:Londoneye/contributions]].
*{{user|Newport}} (created 3 December 2005) edited mostly Jewish and Bible-related articles.

=== Even if they were sock puppets, why ban them? ===
Having 2 accounts is discouraged, but by itself is not a bannable offence: See [[Wikipedia:Sock puppet]].

The 100 edit limit is used as a guideline to determine if a user is a sock puppet or not (if more than 100 edits, then they are presumed not to be). Edits per user: [[User:RachelBrown]]: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=RachelBrown&dbname=enwiki 1,428], [[User:Poetlister]]: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Poetlister&dbname=enwiki 342], [[User:Londoneye]]: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Londoneye&dbname=enwiki 193], [[User:Taxwoman]]: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Taxwoman&dbname=enwiki 432], [[User:Newport]]: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=Newport&dbname=enwiki 93]. Ergo they can't automatically be determined to be sock puppets (even Newport's 93 is close enough to 100 to be given some explanation). There needs to be investigation.

For a similar case, see: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote]] - in that case, which, ironically, is over the same issue (but from the opposite side), Antidote is proven to have sock puppets, yet is still able to state his case and try to prove his innocence. There is also evidence of collusion. Yet there is a fair process, where it is displayed publicly.

=== Theory that they might all be the same person ===
Rachel Brown starts up her own account on 15 April 2005 to edit Wikipedia. After a while, she thought that she'd like to edit poetry related articles, but didn't want anyone to know that she was a poet, so on 12 July 2005 she set up [[User:Poetlister]] to do this. Then later on she wanted to be a bit kinky so thought to make a sexy fantasy character [[User:Taxwoman]], who she created on 10 August 2005 to have fun with kinky things, and included a lot of photos to try to draw attention to herself (Taxwoman was enormously popular, it should be noted). Then this was going along well, so on 28 September 2005 she decided to make up a new account with a name that makes it sound like she knows what she is doing, so she added [[User:Londoneye]]. Then she was having trouble with edit wars, and so "quit" on 3 December 2005, the same day that she made her new account [[User:Newport]], so that she could continue editing in peace.

However, after problems with Lulu and SlimVirgin, Rachel Brown, who before that time had not coordinated any of her 4 user names, then decided to use them all to gang up on these 2, so that instead of it being 2vs1 it became 4vs2 in her favour, thus also engendering support from others.

=== Theory that they might not be the same person ===
Rachel Brown starts up her own account on 15 April 2005 to edit Wikipedia. When her friend visited her house a few times, she caught Rachel editing Wikipedia and thought that that might be fun, so she created her own account [[User:Poetlister]] on 12 July 2005. The two of them then chatted about it and from time to time edited the same articles. Unknown to them, [[User:Taxwoman]] started up her own account on 10 August 2005. Unknown to them, [[User:Londoneye]] set up her own account on 28 September 2005. When Rachel Brown was having problems with SlimVirgin and Lulu, Poetlister offered to help her out, but then Rachel was talking to some of her friends and found out that Londoneye and Taxwoman also had accounts, and asked them if they could help with things too. Taxwoman agreed to vote only, but Londoneye, being Rachel's cousin, offered to help out a bit more to try to resolve the dispute. When Rachel left Wikipedia, Poetlister asked for someone to help them out, and found another friends, Newport, who offered to help them out. (note: [[User:Arniep]] has evidence that Newport and RachelBrown are different people)

=== Theory in between ===
RachelBrown quit Wikipedia on 3 December 2005, publicly at least. She felt that she was being harassed too much. So she then created a new account, Newport, to avoid the harassment.

== Proposals ==
=== Renominate AFDs for deletion ===
Given that these users have been banned because of a "suspicion" of sock puppetry in AFD votes, it is only reasonable that all of the AFDs in which they voted in the period 17-27 November 2005 be renominated for deletion as part of [[Wikipedia:Deletion Review]]. They are as follows:

* [[List_of_Jewish_Fellows_of_the_Royal_Society]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_sport_figures]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_musicians]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_artists]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_writers]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_show_business_figures]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_business_figures]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_political_figures]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_academics]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_American_scientists]]
* [[List_of_Jews_in_sports]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_Recipients_of_National_Medal_of_Science]]
* [[List_of_Jewish_jurists]]

In addition, 2 other articles were focusses on dispute, and should also be nominated for deletion, as follows:

* [[List_of_British_people_of_Jewish_descent]]
* [[List of African American jurists]] (POV fork of [[List of Jewish jurists]])

Users who should be prohibited from contributing to the AFDs:
* [[User:RachelBrown]]
* [[User:Poetlister]]
* [[User:Londoneye]]
* [[User:Taxwoman]]
* [[User:Newport]]
* [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]]
* [[User:SlimVirgin]]
* [[User:Antidote]] (per [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote]])
* [[User:StabRule]] (sock puppet of Antidotie)
* [[User:HotelRoom]] (sock puppet of Antidote)
* [[User:EscapeArtistsNeverDie]] (sock puppet of Antidote)

=== Short term solution proposal ===
* The CheckUser results made public per [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy]] as a request from the users concerned who want to prove their innocence.
* [[User:Taxwoman]] be unbanned as she did not coordinate with RachelBrown at all.
* [[User:RachelBrown]] be banned instead of [[User:Poetlister]], since Rachel Brown was not active at the time of the ban while Poetlister was.

=== Medium term solution proposal ===
* That [[User:Mindspillage]] contact [[User:Poetlister]] by e-mail (as the most active person as at the time of the bans) and then organise for the 6 affected persons to talk to her on the phone to confirm their identities.

=== Long term solution proposal ===
* That the 4 banned accounts have their bans lifted.
* That a Request for Arbitration be filed against [[User:RachelBrown]], [[User:Poetlister]], [[User:Taxwoman]], [[User:Londoneye]], [[User:Newport]] and [[User:81.153.41.72]] for allegations of sock puppetry and manipulation of Wikipedia, and that persons affected are able to submit evidence towards proving or disproving this theory.
* That the Request for Arbitration also submit evidence surrounding allegations of coordination of their attacks.
* That the Request for Arbitration produce suggestions as to possible resolutions, including warnings for meat puppetry, and consider possibly banning 1 or more of the usernames.
* That all of the affected articles be renominated for deletion with none of the above persons (or Lulu or SlimVirgin) permitted to comment in any of the AFDs.
* That the mediation/comment/arbitration against SlimVirgin and Lulu be recommenced in relation to this case.
* Upon completion of the Request for Arbitration against RachelBrown et al for allegations of sock puppetry, a Request for Arbitration should be filed as Rachel Brown et al vs SlimVirgin and Lulu.
* This Request for Arbitration should work towards resolving all of the Jewish list related disputes, and work towards civility.
* Unless absolutely necessary, bans against affected users should be discouraged.

== "Evidence" to support this block ==
To date, no evidence has been presented to support the block. The word of [[User:Kelly Martin]] has been used to justify the block. No evidence has been presented to date either showing evidence of sock puppetry or collusion. A CheckUser has allegedly been done, although its details have not been presented anywhere, in violation of [[Wikipedia:Privacy policy]] which states that it must be made public upon a request by the users concerned. [[User:Kelly Martin]] has stated that any questioning of her word is a violation of [[Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith]] and has warned both [[User:Zordrac]] and [[User:Dan100]] for trying to investigate this issue.

== WWJD (What would Jimbo Do?) ==
Would Jimbo be horrified at the level of corruption and revert the bans and stop the abuse?

Or would he simply allow them to carry on per usual and criticise the people who tried to make Wikipedia more transparent?

Is Wikipedia's public image more hurt because of the existence of this page that proves the corruption? Or is it more hurt by the fact that the corruption exists?

If there is anyone who is neutral to this, and wishes to contact [[User:Jimbo Wales]] for comment, I, [[User:Zordrac]], give full permission for them to do so.
:I will do it. I personally think that Poetlister should be unblocked.--[[User:Bonaparte|<font color="#FFFFFF" style="background: maroon;"> Bonaparte </font>]] [[User talk:Bonaparte|<small>talk</small>]] 08:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
::Bonaparte was banned shortly after making this pledge.

== Postscript, July 2006 ==
Many people were concerned about these blocks, which were done without an RfAr or even RfC, and the refusal by Kelly Martin and Mindspillage to release the Checkuser evidence to the blocked editors. Kelly Martin accepted that there was strong evidence that controverted her conclusions from the Checkuser evidence, but said that as she had only been asked to do a Checkuser, she was not interested in reviewing this evidence.

Dan100 unblocked Poetlister, Londoneye, Taxwoman and Newport on 23 December, "pending evidence". However, David Gerard reimposed the blocks on Christmas Day, still not citing evidence. He also gave RachelBrown a one week block, although Kelly Martin and Mindspillage had not blocked her and she had not edited for several weeks. Nandesuka had re-blocked Poetlister, though not the others, earlier on Christmas Day.

It is not clear how much impact this incident had on the ArbCom elections in January, although Kelly Martin felt obliged to withdraw after the elections started. Charles Matthews was elected to the ArbCom and reopened the ban on Poetlister. Following discussions with her and with David Gerard, he was satisfied that the ban was unwarranted and unblocked her on 31 January 2006. She has resumed her editing.

Many felt that if the ban on Poetlister was unwarranted, the bans on the others could not hold water. Londoneye was unblocked on 9 February, Taxwoman on 25 February and Newport on 26 February 2006. All have resumed their previous editing, continuing to receive expressions of appreciation from other editors in their respective fields. However, some involved in their blocking have remained unhappy. Claims that Newport is a sockpuppet of RachelBrown have not stopped. It has even been claimed that Newport is User Guy on [http://wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review]. Kelly Martin and Sannse opposed Poetlister's RFA, claiming that they could not trust her[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Poetlister].

Zordrac, Bonaparte and Mistress Selina Kyle remain blocked. Subsequently, Vulturell and Arniep have also been blocked.

I did this already when I reviewed the Poetlister case in March and April. If anyone doesn't know, I copied User:Zordrac/Poetlister at Encyclopedia Dramatica, but the pictures and links are best viewed on Wikipedia itself.

Yes, that was Jayjg. I can't find the reference now but it must have been early 2006. It's good, because it's an admission that Newport isn't Poetlister.

Well, it's in two places now. Hopefully, those days of some admins censoring stuff from Wikipedia because they don't like it or are trying to hide something are over.