Wikipedia:Long term abuse/HeadleyDown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before deleting, or suggesting the deletion, of this page for any reason, please see this deletion discussion.
HeadleyDown
Original name(s): Uncertain: EBlack, D.Right, and probably Agiantman and 24.147.97.230
Wikilifespan: 1st half 2005 - Present
ISP: Various
Known IPs: Any (uses IPs around the world)
Known hostmasks: See intel
Physical location: Past Hong Kong, possibly UK, or Netherlands
Severity: Extreme (virulent)
Requests for comment: Probably same as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.147.97.230.
Requests for arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (list of blocks in that article) and probably same as: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy
Instructions: Block on sight
Block on behavior
(variable country IP)
Vandalism
Dealing with vandalism
Obvious vandalism
Long term abuse
Open proxies
Resources & assistance
Counter-vandalism tools
Cleaning up vandalism
Counter-vandalism unit
IP WHOIS tools
Further information
Blocking IP addresses
Vandalism studies
ISP contact information
Do not provoke vandals
 v • d • e 

HeadleyDown is the best known alias of a community-banned Wikipedia vandal and habitual reincarnator who specializes in massive sneaky pov vandalism with multiple sock/meatpuppets (around 50 - 80 over some 3 years, often 3 - 10 at a time on multiple articles), and devastates articles by long term damage, and driving away of bona fide editors. It is not always clear which editors are socks, and which are meats run by his associates.

His preferred technique is to engage severe POV slanting/hostile editing, often via gradually introduced socks.

HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article. However in practice long-term he is a virulent and destructive subtle POV warrior who ignores bona fide research (sometimes calling it "promotion") and gradually over time using multiple socks forces a massive POV slant until articles end up attacking their own subjects, or twisted to a very one-sided POV, rather than explaining them. This is claimed to be "more concise", "more scientific", "cited", "skeptical", "keeping pov out", or "more neutral", a stance undermined by at least one incarnation where he pov warred on the opposing side instead. At times, he has forged cites and credentials, invented material, and deleted bona fide information, to do this. He is quite tenacious and persistent and tries to come back if blocked. He favors "the best defense is a strong offense" and accuses others of multiple bad actions when criticized, to muddy the waters.

It is worth noting that Wikipedians lacking prior experience usually mistake HeadleyDown's socks as being good-faith editors, perhaps who don't quite understand 'personal attack', and treat his disputes as run-of-the-mill content/civility/3RR/NPOV issues. As a result his socks are very often given much good faith even by experienced editors, and only slightly chastised by Arbcom, which he uses to continue degrading the article and deterring genuine editorship for months on end.

The most obvious visible symptom is a combination of

  1. An editor (or clique of editors) who says they are being helpful or neutral and following Wiki-process (adding valid cites and genuine info and removing unsupported statements etc), while the article somehow keeps getting more and more virulently extreme or unbalanced, and eventually a feeling of despair that it's "just not going to get better".
  2. Eventual vicious personal attacks on more neutral editors, especially alleging bias or pro-<subject>.
  3. Suspicion of sock/meatpuppetry. There are many ways to confirm a HeadleyDown presence if suspected but these are not obvious to unfamiliar editors.

HeadleyDown has been classed as "block on behavior" by David Gerard, repeatedly confirmed by Mackensen. Because of his modus operandi the significant damage he does is not easy to unravel.

Contents

[edit] Modus operandi

Operates under multiple IP's, often multiple socks at a time. Often claims initially to have helpful information and merely want to help with a few problems with the article. Plays the game with policies, especially WP:NPOV, cites, and demands for cites. Eventually turns to virulent personal attacks (alleging bias, promotion, covert support for topic X) to kill off any editors who might object to their actions. Appears to be within rules and yet somehow the article keeps getting more and more extreme, even as claiming to be "helping" it or making it "more neutral".

Often cites tangential or minor writers as if major or expert, whilst rubbishing deleting or ignoring genuine facts, attacks (often by playing WP:CITE) others who revert or correct the POV slants, and either gradually or viciously builds a case accusing those who try to include genuine facts or balance of being biased, and of working "against" the neutral editors or against policy.

Has forged cites or chosen selective interpretations, to support his edits. Long term aim is to turn articles into cynical travesties of themselves over time on the basis that this is "the real view", "neutral", "more scientific", "wikipedias view", or the like.

Has also attacked article contributors (eg mentor:Woohookitty: [1][2][3] and User:FT2 [4]), at times threatening editors with bans or other disciplinary procedures if they do not "work with neutral editors", discussing their "crimes", "vandalism" or "blatent bias", agreeing (between socks) they should be ignored etc. If accused of wrongdoing, will deny, and counteraccuse bias or bad faith. Sometimes he uses socks to support or argue with his other socks to "muddy the waters" or prevent rational discussion, or during RFC/RFArb.

Also likely to be long term: promised to leave neuro-linguistic programming but instead within a day or so came back as 3 or 4 new socks. When finally removed from there came back 6 days later under a new name on zoophilia. Simultaneous to NLP (which reached RFArb) was also subject of independent 2nd RFArb under other aliases on Ted Kennedy et al, and active on Stalin. After attacking NLP for months, started inserting equally spurious pro-NLP edits and views in multiple articles and talk pages in July 2006 (reverted by many editors). May be active elsewhere too. Seems to focus on only one (or a few) article at a time, but stick with them long term.

[edit] Meat recruitment and other off-wiki action

HeadleyDown often tries to recruit meatpuppets as well as using socks: see this comment on RFC/24.147.97.230 for the Kennedy articles, and the RFArb for RFArb/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Likely_source_of_visiting_users_identified on NLP, for two examples. More recently tried to recruit user:Jean Mercer for "help" with NLP (Q2 2007) [she declined] and contacted by email fellow banned sock-warrior user:DPeterson on the Attachment Therapy arbitration case (Q3 2007), as well.

Headley also contacts editors by email, and when rebanned or discovered, or has meats removed, attempts to "spin" this as success, or as helping by removing disruptive editors or exposing bad practice. Spurious in each case.

[edit] Examples

  • A new HeadleyDown sock acting as the "sweet voice of reason" on Paraphilia and Felony
  • Use of WP:COI to make a vicious (but superficially plausible) case for attack on another editor. Examination of the many cited DIFFs shows in fact minimal issue on most of them. [5] Editor bringing complaint later admitted HeadleyDown sock. [6]
  • No comment needed: [7] and [8].

[edit] Identification methods

There are a variety of strong evidences which rapidly help to identify a HeadleyDown reincarnation or sock. Please contact FT2 for details if suspected.

David Gerard advises IP variability is such that IP alone is not sufficient to detect. [9]

Mackensen confirmed on RFCU that suspected HeadleyDown socks should be blocked on behavioral evidence even if Checkuser is unhelpful. [10]

Pages known to be attacked:

[edit] Handling

HeadleyDown's preference is to cause long term POV/NPA damage with extended chaos and dominate articles via his socks, so once he's firmly and dismissively called on it and editors stop being drawn into his sock-dramas (WP:DFTT), the article is no longer likely to be such good "entertainment fodder". So spotting him (ie "this could be HeadleyDown's work" as opposed to "just another typical POV/3RR/NPA editor") and blocking on sight solves much of it. Of necessity such blocks have to be "on suspicion and behavior", and if caught he will deny, deny, deny - and counteraccuse (play the game that not giving good faith to his edits shows extreme bias). If removed, watchlist the article for new socks in future and add suspected socks/meats to this page.


Examples of dismissals that worked: (1) dismissively letting him know he's spotted, (2) response to new meatpuppet why they can't edit despite claiming to be a different person.

[edit] Community ban

Evidence that the community tends to view HeadleyDown as community-banned in the sense of WP:BAN includes:

  • Patience exhausted - on almost every article where HeadleyDown has been identified, the universal view of other editors (both those who are new to him, and those who have prior experience) seems to be exhaustion of patience, ignoring, reverting, or relief when removed. See for example Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming from March 2006 onward. Other evidences of community patience finished are readily available on ANI, and article talk pages, as well as the RFArb bans list.
  • Repeated reincarnations continuing identical behaviors as blocked for (ie, lack of interest in changing).
  • Accorded a handling of "block on behavior and likely identification" in writing by two experienced wikipedians, David Gerard (due to variable IP) and Mackensen (following review of his behavior) (see elsewhere on this page).
  • The wide range of admins blocking the user on the RFArb page, evidencing that this is a community view.
  • This thread on ANI regarding a reincarnation, describes "lying about contents of reference... holding articles hostage... KV may very well be one of the most tendentious, disruptive and dishonest editors I have ever had the displeasure of having to deal with"
  • Ratings by uninvolved editors, such as this edit, April 2007.
  • Reincarnations since 2006 tending to simply be blocked for being a "likely sock of HeadleyDown", without further explanation (example).

[edit] History and past incarnations

HeadleyDown himself (via EBlack and D.Right) only goes back as far as early 2005. However it is likely from Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming and other RFC/RFArb posts that HeadleyDown was also Agiantman and 24.147.97.230, and examination of articles and disputes that user was in reveals that HeadleyDown had a parallel incarnation (including a large number of socks and anon IPs) simultaneous to his involvement on NLP, which were independently the subject of a second set of RFC's and ArbCom in 2005.


Main aliases Alias used Articles attacked
As twin sockpuppets EBlack and D.Right
and also A.Warner		 March - August 2005 Scientology, Electroencephalography and Neuro-linguistic programming
As Agiantman and many others, probably including 24.147.97.230 July - August 2005 Bill Clinton, Kathleen Willey, Dan Rather, Ted Kennedy, Stalin and other similar articles, and then Neuro-linguistic programming
As HeadleyDown and many others August 2005 - June 2006 (blocked) Neuro-linguistic programming (anti-NLP)
As JHartley and FFodor July 2006 (one blocked, one not) Zoophilia
As Mindstore July 2006 (not blocked) Neurolinguistics, Psychotherapy, Linguistics, Cognitive linguistics (pro-NLP)
As CSIvor July 2006 (not blocked) Zoophilia and Paraphilia, also various others (Canada, Criminal law Crime scene photography)
As RoKeMo July 2006 (not blocked) Psychology and ScienTOMogy
As 144.214.62.99 July 2006 (not blocked) Personal attack sock

[edit] Other notes

Private email from HeadleyDown, 13 June 2006:

"Oh a lot of what I did on the article was for my own fun. I found it highly amusing to see you respond to my socks as if they were different people, and to real editors as if they were socks. And I got you to say some really stupid stuff. It really kept me going... sockpuppets are just too entertaining."

Comment by mentor Woohookitty after HeadleyDown blocked, when new socks started to show up (20 June 2006) [11]:

"Honestly, I think I'm done with NLP. My problem is that once we do this editing, someone will come by and make it awful again. It's just pointless. Too many meatpuppets. Too many socks. Just too much work for this old Wikipedia soul."

Response to a post on WP:ANI that his activities were self sacrificing to help Wikipedia be more neutral in the light of POV editing by others (11 Feb 2007) post response:

"The above would all be plausible, if it wasn't for the email that basically says with glee 'I had loads of fun jerking everyones chains with sock-play' and 'It was great fun to mislead people' ... 'NLP is pseudoscience' by one sock and 'NLP is really good' by another..."

Email after another sock block (Nov 2007) "Well, that took you long enough to work out".

[edit] Known sock/meats

[edit] Used to attack Ted Kennedy and the like

The first two of these editors were the subject of two RFC's and one RFArb for edits in connection with Ted Kennedy and other political articles, and had near-identical modus and timing to HeadleyDown. Again, there was other evidence tying them in, see user:FT2 for details. The 3rd is behaviorally confirmed. The last two are covered in the RFC on 24.147.97.230 and RFArb on Ted Kennedy.

[edit] Used to attack Neuro-linguistic programming and the like

Meatpuppets or possible sockpuppets:

Untested possible sockpuppets:

[edit] Used to attack Zoophilia

[edit] Used to attack Psychology

Untested sockpuppets:

[edit] Used for personal attack

[edit] Unsorted


Other IPs used include:


(Not all socks are included on this page)