Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

I've indef blocked (overriding a related WP:3RR block) User:YLHamdani, who claims to be the article subject and was adding unsourced info the BLP Yasser Latif Hamdani; info which another user, User:Yasser Latif Hamdani (also claiming to be the subject), claimed was wrong and potentially dangerous to his person. Another editor claims to have verified the latter's identity (see WP:BLP/N). The indef-blocked user also published an email address on the talk page which appears to belong to the latter editor (though this isn't verified). I'd like another admin to review my actions and/or comment on what else might need doing. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk

• Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs)

This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

Extended content
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
I, and MANY other people believe the government is covering up the truth! Looks like a Thermobaric Bomb was used to bring down the Twin Towers. Also note the tiny debris pile of mostly steel beams . . . like where's all the broken glass, concrete, steel desks, etc? Obviously something caused the entire Twin Towers to disintigrate into a cloud of dust leaving a tiny debris pile. I'm serious: CIA killed JFK! I'm an expert on this The account is wasting other editors time and disrupting talk pages. I'd like to see if somebody else could intervene and explain how Wikipedia works before more time is wasted. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] First, I don't need a soapbox for my ideas . . . I have a webpage and several Blogs for doing this. My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth. Seems everybody at Wiki thinks the Government is telling The Truth, lol, anyone who disagrees with the government's POV is considered a "soapboxer" or "conspiracy theorist." I was told by an administrator that if I am an expert on a subject, I should say so. I'm an expert on the John F. Kennedy assassination and a skeptic of the Government in regards 9/11. In the "Controlled Demolition" article's Talk Page I suggested opening up a new subject in the Article explaining why it appears that a bomb destoryed the entire two 100-story World Trade Centers, left a tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and a blanket of dust inches deep throughout New York City. The government's explaination is ridicuous. Governments do lie, U know! A bomb better explains what happened at the WTC's. I also mentioned that two references are needed for the most crucial paragraph in that article. I don't know how to add, "Citation Needed" to the one sentence and the other reference (#23) is a broken link. (Just noticed that someone fixed it but the link #23 does NOT cite a page explaining why there was such a tiny debris pile and blanket of dust throughout Manhattan . . . see the Talk-Page, cited herein.) There are many other ppl besides myself who believe bombs destroyed the WTC: Google, Thermobaric + wtc. As I said above: The article on "Controlled Demolition at the WTC" is poorly referenced in a crucial paragraph and is one-sided. How do we know the editors/censors of Wiki who are harassing me are not government agents bent on covering up the truth? Rather that allowing a discussion on a Talk Page, these ppl would censor and ban me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] You have got to be joking. Wikipedia editors are government agents bent on covering up the truth? Please. Go read our policy on reliable sources (nothing claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy fits), and WP:TRUTH. Better yet, go back to your blogs and/or Conservapedia. //roux   20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] In addition to Roux's comments, a requirement of editing here is that you assume good faith of other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm a Canadian, and if I was government I'd be getting paid more. You are espousing a point of view that is definitely considered on the fringe side of things. You'd require extensive reliable sources to be able to include such material in the articles. You're not being censored, you're going over ground that's been covered many times on these articles, and being informed as to the guidelines that need to be met for such activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Go look at reference #23 as a "reliable source" to explain the tiny debris pile and dust everywhere several inches thick. What page number in reference #23 explains this? Same to U about "Good Faith" editing! On no! The truths! Hide the children... (in fact, i think this is just a troll.)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please don't poke fun at the user here. WP:BITE and WP:NPA apply here on ANI as much as anywhere else. It's clear to me that Raquel is trying to do things which Wikipedia is not here for, including WP:SOAP etc. However, that needs to be politely communicated, and she needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in a positive manner. I left long message on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I hafta go for about 72-hours. I also promise to be more careful in the Discussion Pages but please don't ban me or erase anything I've written! If U want me to erase or edit something, please discuss it on my Talk Page before erasing what I have written! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] What you have written remains in the article history - but content that is not sourced to reliable references may be removed from the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Just for the curious :D --WebHamster 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] omai. //roux   21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] "My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth". With the best will in the world, on her own talk page this editor claims to have been around since 2005; if s/he hasn't got the clue by now, and does not move forward, it has to be "kiss, kiss, bye-bye". Without the kisses. We have far too many such editors and give them far too much leeway as it is. Absent a severe change of attitude, it's time for a kick+door scenario. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I started out in 2005 an then quit and came back a coupla months ago. Why do U write "s/he" my name is Raquel. This whole issue stems from a discussion-page about "Controlled Demolition" at the World Trade Center. The way the article is written, it is unsourced as to why there was such a tiny debris-pile and huge cloud of dust which settled over Manhattan several inches deep. The most logical explaination, which many other researchers are saying to explain that is Thermobaric Bombs were placed inside the WTCs, which complerely pulverized the two-100-story buildings. Google, Thermobaric + wtc. U guys are ganging up on me 'cause U don't wanna face reality or???? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Raquel - This is not the location to argue about content or what "the most logical explanation is." As you may be aware, we care not for the "most logical explanation" or answers to questions like "why there was such a tiny debris pile?" Instead, we care to best reflect what a preponderance of reliable sources report, and have policies for dealing with fringe beliefs, a general disregard for the "Truth", and policies for editor conduct (of particular interest to you may be one on how to deal with disruption). You may think wikipedia's approach is wrong, or stupid, or something else. If so, you don't have to participate here. If you are going to participate here, you need to abide by the local rules and standards. If you stay and don't abide, there will be sanctions and that won't be censorship -- just as tossing a shirtless guy out of a private club (who insists ignoring the dress code is a form of free speech) isn't censorship either.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] let me add that wikipedia is intended (like any encyclopedia) to be unextraordinary, unrevelatory, and non-specultive: everything short of dull, pretty much. when and if the world gets to the place where you can suggest that the twin towers were destroyed by thermobaric bombs and most people will look at you and say "yeah... so what?" - then that information belongs on wikipedia. probably not before, though... --Ludwigs2 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sigh* I get the feeling that this isn't the last time we'll be dragged into this debate. But can someone please explain to me why, when there are myriad blogs and forums, do the fringe and conspiracy theorists have to come here? Why do they have to try and insert their unproven theories and 'evidence` into perfectly good articles? When, Raquel, are you and your compatriots going to realize that Wikipedia simply doesn't care, about your theories, or 'the truth'? If reliable, third party sources discover that it was a plot and it turns out that those bloody towers were thermobarically demolished, then I'll happily admit I was wrong; hell, I'll add the paragraphs and sources myself. Until then, you can politely take your huge cloud of dust and your tiny pile of debris, and shove them. Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] If U Google, Thermobaric + wtc, U will see many reliable sources for bomb in the WTC, which puverized everything and left a tiny debris pile. If U want I'll sort through them and tell U about the aurhors (some are University professors, some are Archetects & engineers, etc.) The Government's 9-11 report never examined or explained why there was such a small debris pile and so much dust everywhere but it seems obvious to anyone with an open mind that a bomb musta done it. So what's the problem here? All I'm trying to do is add a topic catagory at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Evidence_of_Explosion:_What_Kind_of_Bomb_Could_Have_Pulverized_Everything.3F "Controlled Demolition" article at the WTC. I already showed that the critical paragraph at the article was unsourced and poorly sourced (i.e, first the link was broken and now it's linked to an 18MB PDF with no page reference.) Again, I didn't tamper with the article, I merely wanna discuss adding a new section to the article to discuss the probability of a bomb. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I personally am always open to new ideas and theories, and if you post some links on my talk page, I'll certainly have a look with as open a mind as possible. Whether or not it's 'obvious' that your theory is correct is up for debate, but I'm afriad Wikipedia isn't the place for those debates. I must admit that I haven't had a chance to read through all of your edits, and all of the background material, so I can't make any judgements, but just looking at the link you provided above, it seems that you're trying to discuss a hypothesis, and provide evidence for your theory. Like I said before, this isn't the place for you to prove that your theory of events happened. Nor is it a place to discuss how the towers may have been destroyed. Wikipedia is here to document what mainstream media have reported about the event, and what has been reported about other theories. Whether the towers were destroyed by terrorists with a plane, someone with a thermobaric device or the Teletubbies with cuteness, is beside the point. This isn't the X-Files, and while 'the truth' may be out there we aren't here to report it before it can be suitably verified. Get your theory published and peer reviewed, and then we can talk. Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] It does cite a page reference. I added it yesterday, in case you didn't notice. Hut 8.5 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorsing what Rodhullandemu said, I support the indefinite block of this user. Let's not waste any more time on someone whose definition of reliable sources is "uh, it turned up in Google". WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] These are not zero-tolerance types of abuse. The actual edits so far don't even justify a brief block - warnings, explanations, yes. If they edit articles obstinately with these beliefs and don't get it after an extended period of time, that rises to the level of disruption. But they're not there right now. Please don't overreact. This is an education problem at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] The off-wiki website initially posted on this user's page is filled with unscholarly, antisemitic, holocaust-denying statements. This user wilfully chose to make the link to their website, which promotes racial hatred with offensive videos like this. What benefit can wikipedia possibly derive from the contributions of such individuals? Raquel Baranow's continued presence would presumably allow her to add to wikipedia her controversial views that gas chambers and Zyklon B were solely for defumigating louse-ridden clothes and that the Talmud is "junk". By previously posting this link to her hate website on her user page, Raquel Baranow would appear to have forfeited the right to edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been patiently trying to explain things to the user, which is what I hoped for when starting this thread. Unfortunately, the user is playing the "I can't hear you" game and is very likely to continue making contributions that are only disruptive and violating policies. As a result, I think it would be a good idea to place an indefinite block until such time as the user agrees to follow policy. We need to protect our volunteers from wasting time dealing with somebody who is obviously a deep believer in conspiracy and fringe theories, to the point that they will our behavioral and editorial norms to accomplish their agenda. Attempts to educate the user may continue, and the user could be unblocked if those attempts prove successful. Jehochman Talk 08:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm NOT "playing the 'I can't hear U game" (see my Talk-page) . . . the problems I have is with Ur concept of "reliable sources" and with ppl erasing what I have written on Discussion pages, which I hoped would lead to an intelligent discussion rather than someone just erasing it hoping I would go away or get banned. Think of all the ppl suffering respritory diseases due to the explosions at the WTCs now (there is a wiki-article about respritory problems from rescue workers at the WTC) they deserve an explaination as to why they are suffering and dieing! The only thing I linked to my website was the CIA Killed JFK Page where I have numerous pictures of the Three Tramps arrested after the Kennedy assassination. I suggested that the pics are worth 1000 words and should be posted on the article about the Three Tramps. I never posted a link to my Holocaust-page! When the article in discussion (Controlled Demolition of the WTC) is a "fringe theory" U hafta rely on "Unreliable sources" to explain it. right? IMO: the person who erased what I wrote on the discussion page is the one who should be disciplined here, not me. What I wrote on the "Controlled Demolition" page should remain for further reference until there is a "reliable source" we can all agree on. Or, the article should include a section on the current theory of "Controlled Demolition," which is "Thermobaric Bombs." The archives, which I have read prior to writing on the discussion-page mention "mini-nukes" but that explaination is not the current theory, Thermobaric Bombs best explain the tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and several inches of pulverized concrete, etc. throughout lower Manhattan. Sarcastic: Leave a comment on the Controlled Demolition Topic I started so that when I do find an article that may be "reliable" U can help me add a section to the "Controlled Demolition" Page about Thermobaric Bombs (I don't know html very well). Mathsci is raising an issue that has been dealt with it is in the past and WTF, I use my website as a link on hundreds of blogs, etc. . . . this is the first place I have ever had a problem with it! . . . someone took the liberty of erasing the link to my website from MY Userpage (I read that U'r NOT supposed to edit other ppl's Userpages), both my address & website . . . I had no real objection. . . . The H-denial page is poorly written and biased . . . many other ppl have agreed. I am an expert on H-denial . . . so, is that a thought-crime worthy of banning me before I've done anything wrong!? Peace & Love, Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Users can remove links to hateful sites as per the rules  rdunnPLIB  14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Blogs cannot be reliably used in a case like this so I suggest Block per Wikipedia:General sanctions.  rdunnPLIB  14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Jehochman. Georgewilliamherbert has done a sterling job in explaining, but there is only so far one can extend good faith. WilliamH (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] My site explains what H-denial is as well as Global Warming, Exponential World Population Growth, Peak Oil, The Economics of the Current crisis ($531-Trillion, yes trillion in the Derivatives market), Eliminating Money, the 9/11 Fraud, etc. etc. (I don't believe in UFO's . . . I have a webpage on my website about the unlikely-hood of life anywhere else but Earth.) U ppl that mock me for my beliefs probably never read a good H-denial book or know what H-denial is. So, this is MOB RULE! U guys should realize, "Democracy is one level above tyranny." -- Plato, Republic. The only reason I used my website was it had ALL the pics of the alleged Tramps in one place. I put my website on my Usre-Page so others could know more about me . . . someone else removed it, I have no problem with that. I have NOT really caused any problems here except for those who don't wanna hear the other side . . . I have NOT repeated anything that has been said before. U guys are making a BIG deal outta nothing! It's like U wanna censor anything that U disagree with! U don't even wanna discuss it! No wonder Wiki has such a BAD reputation when U wanna refer to it for anything. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] We are not interested in the content of your site; as the owner of that site, you have an obvious conflict of interest which precludes you using it as a source when editing. Your description of your site appears to be using this discussion as a forum to promote your political views, rather than addressing the Wikipedia policy issues at stake here. Discussions of history are not simply a matter of opinion; there is also a requirement for credible evidence. I may disagree with a theory, but if there's evidence to support it, and historians out there in the rest of the world use that evidence to back that theory, I can't argue that the theory shouldn't be represented on this site. However, if there isn't the evidence, or the theory has no credible advocates, then it doesn't get covered. And I really can't stress enough that you need to read and understand WP:TRUTH. This is not a site to publish new revelations or dramatic and controversial new theories. We proceed on a basis of consensus and verification, and if that means we lack novel interpretations of material, so be it. As a courtesy to others, by the way, would you refrain from using shorthand like 'U', 'Wiki', and 'H-denial', please? Your views will be better regarded for being expressed clearly and in plain language. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alex: U will see below that I have stopped abbreviating stuff . . . I'm also not too good at spelling. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] People here in this thread have mocked me and brought off-topic issues into this so I'm defending myself . . . this has turned into a pile-on of my beliefs rather than my editing technique. I pretty much "get it" of where ur comming from. My problem seems to be your definition of "reliable source." But when U write an article on a fringe theory (Holocaust Denial, Kennedy assassination conspiracy, Controlled Demolition of WTC) and you're NOT allowed to quote directly from the people who espouse these ideas because their ideas are "fringe," COI, SOAP, TRUTH etc. etc. you're left with nothing. The words you use are like Double-Think. U guys are sooooo wrapped up in Double Think, you can't see through it. It takes an outsider, like me to show how your words and techniques for editing promote one-sided explainations. I thought Discussion-pages were supposed to be used for improving an article! How have any of my discussions NOT sought in Good Faith to improve the articles in question?! U guys have made ad-hominum attacks on me by refering to my videos (I'm not too photogenic). I am a very smart person. Soooo smart, I went from homelessness to millionaire. The only reason we're here is because someone erased what I wrote on the Discussion Page for Controlled Demolition. IMO, that was sooooooo wrong! The people who died in that tragedy, the phony war in Iraq 9/11 caused and the people who are dieing from respritory problems deserve an explaination of what happened that day. Our government has NOT offered a plausable explaination for the tiny debris pile and toxic dust several inches deep. U faceless/nameless people attacking me should be ashamed of yourselves! Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] If you're that smart, would you like to acknowledge and act on my final comment relating to the use of language, please? You currently do yourself no favours. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] ←Actually, Raquel, if you actually read the criticisms of your edits you'll see that what is being attacked is not your theory, nor you (with some exceptions on both counts, and GWH's comments on civility in this forum are well made). What is being debated is that there are no reliable sources, in WP terms, for what you are claiming. If you can come up with reliable, verifiable sources, please do so. You may feel that by definition "the Government" or "they" are in control of what we're terming "reliable sources". If so, then so be it. You may have a slightly wrong idea about what WP is. It is not a vehicle for the Truth. It is a tertiary encyclopædic source, reporting what has already been reported elsewhere. That is what it's for. That is why it is neither a vehicle for original research nor a platform to "give explainations to the people who died" (I suspect it would take more than WP to offer explanations to the dead anyway). Please read, rather than discounting as "attacks by faceless/nameless people" what has been said, read the pages you're being pointed to, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE (that last is not intended as an insult, please read it to discover why. Tonywalton Talk 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Alright, okay . . . I really appreciate you tolorating me this long. It has really opened my eyes . . . I have looked for books like, "Wikipedia for Dummies" and critical books about editorial process here. It sounds shocking that you admit you're not interested in Truth, etc. Sounds like Orwellian Double-Think and Thought Control to me. I thought the purpose of discussion pages was to improve the article. I see your points. I'll read all you have suggested and any books too. Thanks! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Looking for a book? Look no further than Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nope, WP isn't about the truth (or The Truth either, come to that. This may come as a shock, I agree. The applicable part of WP:V says very clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." There's even an essay on it, here. It's not that "we" (and I speak for myself, not the thousands of other editors) are not interested in "truth", just that that is not, basically, what WP is about. WP is about re-presenting and correlating pre-existing information. The standard (reached by consensus though this is ultimately not a democracy) is as stated here. Maybe you could try being part of the process of reaching consensus on occasion, rather than throwing around baseless accusations of editors being "faceless/nameless people". As for "the Government" remember that this is very much a global project; your "the Government" isn't my "the Government"; we get all sorts on here. This is taking up a lot of space here, please feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. Tonywalton Talk 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Let's resolve this! I'm kinda new here . . . I had a heart attack five days ago, have a problem with my best friend of 15-years . . . I thought I could improve some articles which I'm an expert in or have some knowledge of and accidently got into hot water . . . I'd like to just cool it now . . . I plan to go on vacation in a coupla weeks. I'd like to retain my abality to comment on and edit innocuous articles. Thanks everyone! I copied this entire discussion to my talk-page for further reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] As a footnote, Raquel Baranow's personal views denying the holocaust [1] were spelled out in full on the talk pages of Holocaust denial. Calling editors disagreeing with her conspiracy theories "jerks" on her talk page [2] is also uncivil, illness or no. In spite of the efforts of Georgewilliamherbert and others, she has not yet twigged on to the fact that wikipedia is not a forum where she can write whatever she likes. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Those aren't my "personal views" on the Holocaust but the views of Holocaust Deniers . . . I can reference everything I said there to Holocaust Deniers mentioned in the article or primary sources (like the Military Tribunal evidence or other government documents). The article on Holocaust Denial is BIASED . . . many other people agree (see also the archives), the article does NOT tell you what Holocaust Denial is (many other people there agree). I said this in my comment there. I called the vandal, who erased what I wrote on the Controlled Demolition page a "jerk". IMO: a vandal = jerk. I'll revise what I wrote on my Talk-Page. Raquel Baranow (talk) 10:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

User:Iamandrewrice has threatened to 'stalk' my future edits; we came into contact with one another on Maltese people: the article has since been semi-protected (after being protected for a while because of the same vandalism). Is there a standard procedure for this sort of thing? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That editor appears to have been banned in 2007. Was there a sock involved? Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An IP account was being used: however the situation seems to have taken an unexpected turn; [3] - we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... is there anything on Wikipedia in place to deal with this type of individual? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Unless you have exclusive checkuser data saying that I am "Iamandrewrice", that the rest of us don't have, I would appreciate it if you stopped calling me it.
2. I don't believe I mentioned the word "stalking" at any time - I said I'd be keeping my eye on your edits, or am I now not allowed to do this?
3. Oh and also, please note, the article was semi-protected previously because of your editing disputes then. Now, it was protected because of you again, and you still don't listen even though the community is backing me up on the talk page. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, is there really nothing to be done about this individual? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First thing to do is to request a checkuser. The second thing, probably the best, is to simply ignore provocations. All the best. --Tone 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user was indeed indef banned (as opposed to blocked) (details) for complex and highly disruptive sockpuppetry. If I remember correctly, due to subsequent actions any unban request must be handled by ArbCom. See here for just some of the SP investigations; there is also a good deal of CU information. Note that the IP above does not seem to appear in the SP investigation I've mentioned. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. It seems doubly odd because, under an alternative IP, the editor in question accused me of being User:Iamandrewrice. He's since been tagged as this character although the situation appears more complicated - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IP editors on Maltese People. It's all rather confusing and time-wasting. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Some checkuser is here. Note again that the IP you mention is not there. Do you have a diff for the stalking threat? Tonywalton ^Talk 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the IP you mention is not there" - but it is from the same range as a third of the ones there confirmed by Alison, and traces back to the exact same place as all of them. Coupled with the behvioural evidence, the connection is more than obvious. Only a handful of fairly narrow bands of IPs are being used - someone ought to look into which of them can be rangeblocked without collateral damage. Knepflerle (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Are any admins willing to take this up and help out? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This could be Iamandrewrice but the evidence isn't stunningly strong. If the IPs were clearly violating policy in some way we could justify a checkuser pretty easily, but I haven't seen that looking at the page histories and IP edit histories.

Can you point to diffs of them being specifically abusive?

I can see the multi-IP pattern pretty clearly, but that's not necessarily any policy violation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that that IP is in a /14 block we're looking at over 260,000 possible IPs from a large UK ISP. Along with George, I'd still like to see specific diffs. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A non-exhaustive list of recent problems: (only two diffs given here for each bout, but look at history for scale of warring)

• comments to Pietru "I'd be careful how you tread" "Pietru, I'll be watching your edits"
• edit-warring on Maltese language leading to protection [4] [5] and many others.
• edit warring on Maltese people leading to protection [6] [7]
• edit warring on Maltese people (again) leading to protection [8] [9] [10]
• edit warring on Latin Europe leading to protection [11] [12] (note the IPs and their traceroutes)
• edit warring at Relexification [13] [14]
• edit warring at Mixed language [15] [16] - again compare combination of IPs to those above
• edit warring at Olive skin [17] [18]

...and for information on the original reasons for banning, see the original ban discussion and further decision and the previous connected checkusers and sockpuppet investigations: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jack_Forbes, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco

A check for further accounts is the very minimum that is required here. Knepflerle (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the...? First of all, I'm accused of being the IP who edited the same article as me several weeks ago - wow, two different IPs editing the same article - they must be the same. What's more, I didn't even edit the same thing as that IP, who seemed to obsess about returning the "language section" to his version- something I never even touched.

Then, one user comes out of the blue and starts saying I'm this. Well, let's look at this user. They are apparently (according to their old userpage) 1/3 Maltese - I'm Maltese; considering I edited a Maltese-based article, it isn't really that much of an odd coincidence is it? Or is it rare to get Maltese editors editing Maltese articles now? Also, has anyone even checked what this person's editing style was? Sorry, but are people seriously contending that my edits match this, this, and this, among others?

As if that wasn't bad enough, I'm now every IP address that has edited anything even remotely related to "Maltese people" - but Latin Europe, Olive skin, and Relexification?? How are they in any way connected to it? Apparently "Iamandrewrice" edited "Latin Europe", but where do the other two come from? Are you stating that because I'm Maltese, I would edit "Olive skin"? Is that not racist?

What is interesting is that User:Pietru claims that another IP (who he believes is me) accused him of being Iamandrewrice (I don't know when or where this was, so I can't find the diff) - I'm not suggesting either way, but we should bare in mind that the IP could be right, and Pietru could indeed be this disruptive user back, trying to frame others of what he's doing so as not to draw suspect himself (although of course, to those that think I'm that user, that is exactly what I'd be doing now?). It is for that reason that I suggest a checkuser between: "me, Iamandrewrice (to clear up that I am not him), Pietru (to see if what is written above about Iamandrewrice and he, has any worth), and also the IPs (if that's possible, although the users above stated there were thousands of linked IPs in the UK?) 89.242.102.233 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CENSEI (talk · contribs) has made a couple of comments (diff1, diff2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama that refer to Barack Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah". At the same time, this editor has made a number of non-neutral edits to Obama-related articles (see recent contribs). It is also noteworthy that he/she seems to be using WP:3RR as a way of attacking editors he/she disagrees with. I am not sure if this is the proper place (or form) to report this issue - I would welcome administrator guidance if this is improper process. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His commentary is certainly repulsive and disruptive. Not sure if its sanctionable. But it should at least stop at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Scjessey is not above playing the race card in his ongoing eidt warring in all things Barack Obama. Typical I suppose considering that his actions has put him in arbitration. I also see that when Scjessey says I have made "a number of non-neutral edits to Obama-related articles", that exact # is one, and the neutrality of the edit is not in dispute, only Scjessey's overinflated sensibilities.

I suppose all we have to do now is wait for the army of meat puppets to chime in. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of this. Clearly some logged out editing/socking/meat puppetry going on over at Teleprompter now. Here's the contributions log. [19]Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean chocolate puppetry, right? Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this over to RFCU if your suspicions are strong enough. After all, I am certainly the only person on earth who has noticed this. CENSEI (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)It's so over the top it is hard to take seriously. Calling Obama the "chocolate messiah" is a clever turn of phrase and could probably be sold to certain noted radio personalities who enjoy such things, but the term is not in general circulation and Wikipedia is probably not the best launching ground for a new cultural meme. As far as I know "chocolate" is normally a term of affection for black people, often with strong sexual / homoerotic / fetishist overtones, as in Chocolate City. And as I said at the AfD, it kind of reminds me of chocolate Santas and Easter bunnies. Not sure if you intended all that. Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly revealing to read about you wide and deep knowledge of all things black and homoerotica, but I there was little affection in my comment. Now, can we safely put SCJesseys manufactured outrage to bed? CENSEI (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. I'm too dumbfounded to be outraged. So my reaction was more to think it funny, but still, tasteless jokes with sexual / racial overtones can get people riled up. Incidentally, methinks CENSEI doth protest too much. You're the one who brought up Santorum.[20] .... |.... Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you saying that there is anything wrong with having a knowledge of matters pertaining to black orientated homoerotica? Where, indeed, do you believe a line should be drawn as regards the right and ability to understand all aspects of the human condition? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the two diffs shown at the start of this thread are enough, all by themselves, to justify an indef block for disruptive editing of talk pages. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An indefinite block for snark on an AFD page ... seriously, 90% of the users on Wikipedia would be gone if thats the criteria you are willing to use. If this wasn’t so blatantly over the top in its ham handedness, I might actually think you were serious. CENSEI (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Censei has been blocked six (6!) times previously for bad behaviour, an indef block seems like a reasonable thing to discuss. This editor seems to make very few useful contributions in proportion to the amount of bullshit generated; I would certainly support an extended block at the very least. Doc Tropics 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not personally advocate for an indef block at this time, though if this kind of thing continues that would completely appropriate. Edits like this are not really acceptable in my book and suggest that the editor is editing with a strong agenda (there is also apparently some socking going on over on the Teleprompter article—never would have guessed a month ago that that would have ended up a controversial one!) From the little experience I have with the Obama articles, problematic, agenda driven editors of any ideological stripe really can't help but engage in disruptive editing, even once they've been warned. I'd prefer to consider this AN/I thread a "final warning" to CENSEI to avoid inflammatory, racialized language, to cease trying to push negative information about Barack Obama into other parts of the encyclopedia, to forego edit warring, and generally to discuss issues in a civil fashion with other editors. If CENSEI can keep to that, great, we don't have a problem, and if not I think this editor should probably be permanently shown the door. This most recent behavior, on top of six blocks since July, is just not acceptable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← It is difficult to discern anything in Special:Contributions/CENSEI beyond single-minded advocacy and abuse of Wikipedia as a political battleground. Given that Obama-related articles are supposedly on probation, and given this block log, I'm going to ban User:CENSEI from Obama-related pages, broadly construed, for 6 months, per the terms of the article probation. As I'm not logging on much anymore, I'll preemptively open this to reversal should an administrator feel strongly that he deserves a 17th chance to reform into an encyclopedic contributor on these topics. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this topic ban, though I doubt it will go far enough. CENSEI has a long history of pushing his own personal political views into a wide variety of articles, many of which are not even Obama related, and has several edit-war and related blocks over these issues. Still, we gotta start somewhere. Maybe this will curtail his behavior. I doubt it, but I can hope... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse topic ban. I was going to suggest something similar myself. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse topic ban (non-admin).The sock/meat pupetting and constant disruption to make points about something or other poisons the editing environment whenever he's about on those pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse topic ban, it all adds up to that. Chillum 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It's a good middle ground between a "17th chance" (which, in a sense, I advocated above) and an outright indef block, though obviously it should not preclude the latter option if problematic behavior persists. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Qualified endorse (note - I'm not an admin). I've more than once been the target of CENSEI's bluster, and that has been difficult. Although I personally found CENSEI's comments funny because they are so ridiculous and over the top...sorry, sometimes tasteless comments are...I realize they are racially insensitive and would be offensive to many people. On a person-to-person level, I think hearing CENSEI out and explaining things patiently would be better than shunning him. However, we're building an encyclopedia, not running a sensitivity workshop, so at a certain point I guess it's fair to say allowing him to rant does more harm than good. Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm going to mention that the user has asked for the formality of an RFC on his conduct, and he should get one in a hearing before a broader group than merely those who frequent the ANI notice boards. I have been increasingly disturbed of late by the groupthink and one-sided tolerance for immature behavior by people espousing the "correct" position, and a corresponding rush to convict even established users with a history of valuable contributions to Wikipedia having the "wrong" position. This suggests that this project is turning into one which prizes consensus above neutrality and evenhandedness. It's getting pretty close to the point where I may, outside the walled garden of math articles, give up on Wikipedia altogether. We have a mechanism for discussing bad behavior by users of long standing, which CENSEI is. Use it. Ray^Talk 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I would submit that we have a mechanism for handling relentlessly disruptive agenda-driven editing on Obama-related articles. I used it. People who actually want to improve the encyclopedia shouldn't be forced to put up with agenda account after agenda account, and they shouldn't be forced to go through a directionless, soul-crushing, months-long process to deal with each new agenda account. If CENSEI is what passes for an "established user" these days, then I feel all the more comfortable with my decision to gradually bow out of this particular asylum. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  On the question of growing increasingly disenchanted with this particular asylum, MastCell, we agree. Ray^Talk 06:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the election and their loss of power, some elements of the right wing have abandoned all pretense of civility, and have showed their true colors, so to speak, revealing what degenerate low-lifes they really are. We can't fix that problem all across America, but we need not tolerate it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Highly offensive comments that demean wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, no jokes today. I'm angry. Why is the user in question not blocked already? Why is his kind of behavior increasingly tolerated at wikipedia? Are we that desparate for editors? I wouldn't think so. This kind of thing is going to sink wikipedia. Why is kissing up to a racist pig more important than protecting the content and the reputation of wikipedia? Where are the priorities??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note the appropriately-dispensed topic ban, and also the usual rant that "liberals run wikipedia". I wonder how he explains the fact that a user was recently blocked (and not for the first time) due to a left-wing based assault on the Justice Roberts article? Meanwhile, I know other conservatives who continue to edit their merry way, with no block or topic ban in place. How could that be? Maybe the real "bias" is against POV-pushing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Another editor used racist terminology in the same discussion. If something is offensive ask the editor to remove it. The comment was at the very least insensitive, but I don't think it warrants this kind of excessive reaction. Obama has been and will be called a whole lot worse, just as Bush was. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, the topic ban wasn't based on the language used in a single diff, but on an extensive record of edit-warring and abuse of Wikipedia. The tenor of CENSEI's recent edits certainly made the call a lot easier, in a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back sort of way. But the point of the article probation (as I read it) is that the sort of editing practiced by CENSEI should have been nipped in the bud 3 or 4 blocks ago. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is making personal attacks on the Mehmed Talat talk page and mediation case talk page. The user is under editing restrictions in that content sector, and has removed previous warnings about personal attacks from his talk page. I gave him an Only Warning a week or so ago, and he has just opened a thread that is all-around off-setting. I decided to bring the issue here after he posted this:

Your ego is getting out of control! There are nineteen, I repeat NINETEEN, pages of talk on the Armenian Genocide article. The article itself has more footnotes and references than just about any other Wikipedia article. Have you, with your aspirations to be an mediator, made a single contribution there? Have you even read any of it? Yet you have the audacity to think you are suddenly an expert on this subject, and able to contradict content that those 19 pages and countless editors helped to create. Meowy 20:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

There has been a trend of such attacks, and some that may be worse, on this page, the mediation case page, in which he is encouraging editors to ignore mediation and ignore an editor with a conflicting viewpoint, against whom he has also made a multitude of attacks. Tealwisp (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Meowy of this thread. Cardamon (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tealwisp has been making threats on editors' talk pages, like here User_talk:Onlyoneanswer. "Threats" is the correct word to use because Tealwisp is not an administrator and has no actual powers to carry out what his "Only Warning" posting suggests he is able to do, nor has any authority to decide what is "disruptive conduct". These warnings do seem to me to be attempts to bully editors into silence or compliance (which is why I removed the "warning" from my talk page), this is not something a mediator should be doing. Everything I have said about Tealwisp's mediation actions regarding the Mehmet Talat article is justified. He HAS been pandering to (in the British sense of the word, i.e. giving unjustfied attention to and encouragement to) Ibrahim4048 by engaging in an invalid "mediation" process. The process was invalid because the matter in question (Ibrahim4048's assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not happen) is not a matter for mediation and, anyway, is off-topic for a minor article that is not directly about the Armenian Genocide. There are 19 pages of talk on the Armenian Genocide article, an article which in the past has been subject to a lot of disruption. That disruption has mostly vanished because all the contentious points have been argued about to exhaustion in the talk page and it has become settled that the word "alleged" should not be applied to the Armenian Genocide. Tealwisp however, thinks he can ignore all that and present something that contradicts that hard-fought consensus. A good mediator should be able to tell involved parties which of their demands can reasonably be met. Tealwisp should have told Ibrahim4048 at the outset that his demand to term the Armenian Genocide an "alleged" event was not an attainable demand.

BTW, I was unaware that the word "pandering" has an alternative meaning in American culture, so I would be willing to change the talk page subheading and remove it. I have now done that. Meowy 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of Tealwisp's introduction of genocide-denialist propaganda into the article at the behest of Ibrahim4048. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278291530&oldid=278251367 He replaces "Armenian Genocide" with "forced relocation" and then writes "relocation resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Armenians". Those words could be straight out of a propaganda work published by the Turkish State. The "deaths of many thousands" was actually, at minimal estimates, the death of over a million people, and, as the Armenian Genocide article explains, there was no "forced relocation", there were "massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees". Meowy 20:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that that Tealwisp has been alleging http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASeraphimblade&diff=278991714&oldid=277758144 that I have been using a sockpuppet. The checkuser process is clear and easy, yet rather than going that route, he makes an unsubstantiated (and completely false) allegation. Meowy 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take significant offense at being called a propagandist. I made the edit only after no one objected, and it was designed as a super-neutral compromise. Also, I am not a genocide denier, I took the case because I don't have a particular opinion on the genocide, and I was therefore neutral. Tealwisp (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I call you a propagandist? Where did I call you a genocide-denier? I wrote that you added the objectionable content "at the behest of Ibrahim4048". If you had had an opinion, you would have known how objectionable it was. Knowing about something doesn't make someone biased - knowledge actually prevents bias! Meowy 00:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are distorting facts Meowy. I never said that the genocide didn't happen. For a couple of years I recognized the armenian genocide but after reading material from guenter lewy and bernard lewis, I started to have doubts. Whether I believe it or not does not matter. It is a fact that the genocide is disputed. There has never been a verdict given by either the PCIJ or the ICJ which is the only institution that can give the genocide verdict, no conclusive proof has been produced, countries (UK,Sweden,Denmark, Bulgaria etc) and scholars dispute the genocide. You simply can't deny the genocide is disputed. Even if you believe it happened exactly the way the armenians say it happened, still you have to accept the fact that there is a serious dispute. If something is disputed the word alleged is usually used and removing it is a sign that you deny that it is disputed. You either have to allow alleged in front of genocide or have to prove that the genocide is undisputed and accepted as an established fact or that wikipedia takes a stand in this matter and recognizes the armenian genocide as an established fact. By presenting the armenian genocide as an established fact in the talat article you are violating rules and responsible for the following edit wars, you assert something for which you don't have proof. If there was conclusive proof for the armenian genocide, dispute wouldn't exist.

Since this matter is brought forward I would also like to point out to the administrators that the armenian genocide article violates POV fork rules. The armenian genocide is written from a recognition perspective and doesn't mention most of the arguments of the deniers/doubters. The only time the deniers are mentioned is to tell that they deny it, no real mention of their arguments. There is no denial section and most of the references and bibliography is pro-recognition. Some users have tried to add denial/doubt material but it was removed by arguing that it belonged in the genocide denial article. Even the denial article consist of mostly pro-recognition material, look again at the references and bibliography. This idea of pro-recognition material on the AG article and denial material on the denial article is wrong. Wikipedia rules say every viewpoint of a subject must be represented in the article unless of course it is such a minor/obscure viewpoint (like flat earth) that it shouldn't be mentioned. The denial/criticizing of the recognition of the armenian genocide is not such a minor viewpoint and should be represented in the AG article.

If you just read through the mediation page you will see what the discussion is and also what wrongs have been done. You have to take the time to read through the mediation prcess to understand it. Tealwisp didn't make that change [28] because he denied the genocide but as a mediator tried to avoid the dispute between me and the others by only using undisputed facts in the article. Maybe it was not the right solution because some information was lost, but it was done in good faith. I have had my disagreements with tealwisp but I think meowy's accusations and behavior towards tealwisp is wrong. He just picked the wrong dispute to mediate. The armenian genocide is a big and difficult dispute and should come before a board so that at least consensus should come whether in articles where the genocide is mentioned the disputed character (alleged or other construction) of it should be given or (if wikipedia decides the genocide is an established fact) that it should be represented as a fact. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim4048, you now say "I never said that the genocide didn't happen", but here, [[29]], on the 5th March, back at the start of all this, you wrote "I am challenging the genocide's authenticity". Meowy 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "I am challenging the genocide's authenticity" was not meant to express that I deny the genocide but to express doubts about it and rejecting the representation of the genocide as an established fact. It doesn't mean that I am aiming to get denial of the genocide on wikipedia. I simply want that the other view is also represented because I believe the deniers and doubters have some good arguments and that it is not such an absurd minority view. You guys say that we turks are indoctrinated from childhood but the same thing goes for europeans and americans. You keep going on and on to try to potray me as a POV warrior and prove that I am doing this in bad faith but I hope people will eventually see that you are the one that wants to push your POV. I realize that most of my edits are on the mehmed talat article but that's not so strange since I walked into it when I was just beginning to edit and got dragged into this discussion. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim4048's comments are rather amusing and it's ironic that he is crying foul over the fact that Meowy as well as others are not allowing him to insert his absurd propaganda on the Armenian Genocide page. His sole contributions to the Wikipedia articles have been to distort the historical nature of the Armenian Genocide. It's even more astonishing that Wikipedia admins and mediators have indulged his ill-intentioned edits and allowed him to soapbox for so long. He should understand that Wikipedia has absolutely no obligation kowtow the line of the Republic of Turkey, where the denial of the Armenian Genocide is inculcated among children from a very young age. Numerous users (such as Kansas Bear) have already pointed out and introduced reliable sources demonstrating the AG's historical validity. Would anyone consistently allow the same alteration of vocabulary to be used on the Holocaust article just because some denialist thinks that the Jews did not suffer a genocide. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not for content discussion. Tealwisp really got carried away in what I think was a good faith effort in mediation; however, you simply do not offer equal or undue weight to fringe and denialist stances. As for personal attacks, I fail to see how the above quote can be construed as offensive. All I see is Meowy expressing his frustration in quite a mild manner.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"you simply do not offer equal or undue weight to fringe and denialist stances"

This should be tattooed – nay, chiseled – into the foreheads of hundreds of WP editors, in reverse type so that they are reminded every morning when they look at themselves in the mirror.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to say that I don't doubt there is good faith behind Tealwisp's mediation efforts (opinion withdrawn; in the light of recent comments made by Tealwisp I now have some doubts. He has been encouraging Ibrahim4048 to continue with his disruptions, it's like a fireman starting his own fires) - but the result of those efforts have not been good so far. Mediation is always going to be a thankless task - I don't know why anyone would want to do it (unless it is a way of proving suitability for being an administrator) - but using it for fringe-theory issues will just make the thanklessness even worse. Meowy 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save the content comments for appropriate space, but I'd like to say that I don't intend to pursue any kind of ramification for sockpuppeteering, I only wanted to say that I had a hunch. No offense meant. Furthermore, I try to mediate so that the committee is less busy, and because I think it can be a far more satisfying way to resolve a dispute, not just to become an administrator. Tealwisp (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kartel King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xcahv8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sabre Savage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polystyla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor recently made an appearance on ANI because of an edit war between himself and an IP editor. Both editors were subsequently blocked. Right after said blocks, the previously mentioned editor became the target of an SPI case, and was found to be using multiple unconfirmed accounts to avoid scrutiny. The master account, or what was assumed to be, was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts to avoid edit scrutiny.

The editor in question then started filing unblock requests, which mainly attacked other editors, including admins, the user also engaged in incivility, and personal attacks. To this date(check the second user page(the sock account), the user has not admitted any wrong doing, and in fact continues to attack other editors, myself included. Here are some great diffs:

• Disapointing how you can persistently abuse your powers and not even have the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. Almost seems as if you enjoy it. Disapointing. I would be ashamed but I guess we are completely different people. El Machete Guerrero(check the bottom of the page)

• Calling me clueless

Any way, I do not see the editor to be a productive one if he is going to act as if he is infallible, and not admit that when he attacked others, it was wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note, that after looking through the contributions of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, many of them have violated 3RR.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a ban, although at this point it is just a formality; since none of the old accounts will ever be unblocked and any new ones will be blocked as socks the user in question is effectively banned anyway. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone needs to remind him or/show him something: he claims that we are allowed to have multiple accounts. This is, as we all know, true. What we of course are not allowed to do is to use those multiple accounts to evade blocks, or avoid policy - such as multiple votes, avoiding 3RR, etc. Someone needs to show him where he used those multiple accounts to eithe evade a block, or to avoid a policy. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was under the impression that using a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny for one's actions, as the CU found, was expressly forbidden. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have declined an unblock request at User talk:Polystyla, and protected the page since it's been used for soapboxing, personal attacks, and editwarring (to a ridiculous extent) between Polystyla and Daedalus969. I am of the opinion that any unblock should only be considered for the master account (El Machete Guerrero). Comments welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse full ban. User is unclear on the concept. Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ban - After all the incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, and sockpuppetry, boot him from WP. Could Machete's behavior be considered trolling? →Dyl@n620 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ban While I share BMW's concerns that Machete wasn't shown clear and concrete evidence that his use of alternate accounts constituted sockpuppetry, I think the recent abuse of the unblock template via those alternate accounts, combined with continued edit warring at these talk pages, is sufficient reason to enact a community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Machete is making point-by-point responses to this thread at User talk:Xcahv8#Proposing a ban against me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ban. I've posted a rebuttal of his most recent unblock request that I've read at User talk:El Machete Guerrero 2. Given that that page was locked when I posted the rebuttal, I'm not entirely certain he's seen it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• EDIT) Reposted it at User talk:Xcahv8#Unblock request. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse ban - If merely to go from de facto into de jure. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ban. Clearly not going to helpful until he learns and changes his conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ban - negative outweighs positive. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From what I see, he just doesn't get it. Can we simply limit him to one account, and proceed with additional banning if they go beyond that? I feel that if we ban him, he's just going to come back worse in other ways. Tell him that the policy on alternate accounts does not apply to him ... monitor his sole account for bad edits. Maybe even mentor him? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he can agree to chill out, I'd absolutely support giving him another last chance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Against giving him another last chance - he responds to seeming unfairness by assuming ill faith on behalf of the person who did him wrong (In that instance, I had fulfilled an IP's request for full-protection of Reggaeton to stop a very protracted edit-war that breached 18RR rather than block the IP or El Machete). I don't want any more admins to face the same type of crap I did (and still do) get from him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're absolutely right Jéské, this user is extremely problematic at present. Judging from his continued responses, I'm not confident that a last chance would work. However, I feel that if he can agree to some temporary sanctions (probably including mentoring) we can possibly gain a good and interested editor out of this mess. Is it not worth trying? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've written him and suggested a way out if he genuinely wishes to continue editing here. As he's now put up an effective "away" message at his talk, can we have a moratorium on further arguing for now? It's clear that arguing isn't working, and I think that if he doesn't accept this olive branch, we can consider a community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm backing off the hammer here; he seems to see no wrong in what he's been doing (least of all the removals of the sock template that users kept adding per the checkuser findings). I fear my continued presence there will just rile him more. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this brief exchange from User Talk:Xcahv8 (where all the recent developments have been):-

Sheff:If you want User:El Machete Guerrero unblocked, you should request an unblock for that account, not this one. For more information, see How to request to be unblocked and expand the sections titled "Current unblock message" and then "What do I do now?"

Machete:I did and was until OhNoitsJamie protected the page using an invalid reason. That is why I was forced to come to my other accounts. And I do not want to use the email, as I want all discussions to be public so the admins can't avoid scrutiny.

This user seems to have an absolute belief in their own innocence - and that of no one else (including admins & checkusers). I think this is either a troll or they're going to become one, and I'll be pleasantly surprised it there's anything anyone can do to prevent that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but this user adamantly refuses to back up any of their accusations. Every time I try to tell him to back up his accusations, otherwise they're personal attacks, he either refuses and deletes my request, or refuses to respond at all. So far, this user has only cited a single diff as evidence to their accusations, this diff to be specific. However, as I may have stated before, the cited diff above does not justify this user's claim of wikistalking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this is exactly the sort of situation where the old CSN used to employ a transclusion template from the blocked editor's user talk to the discussion. Perhaps one of our code monkeys could install it for use here. He's attempting to communicate, and using that would allow him to do so on a more equal footing here where his ban is under discussion. If he's capable of reasonable compromise it's more likely to happen that way. Either way, that template usually makes the decision clearer. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I believe you're referring to Labeled Section Transclusion. This extension is not currently installed on Wikipedia, and I do not know what is required to get it installed. Other than that, we could possibly use a noinclude or includeonly tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what it's named, but anyone can head over to the WP:CSN archives and nick functional code there. We did it with Betacommand. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found an old CSN archive page that uses it. Basically, you just need to mark all but a single section of his user talk page with <noinclude>, wherein the user can make responses. Note that when this is archived, the transclusion should probably be subst'ed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence page underway

Machete (as Xcahv8 (talk · contribs)) has requested that I provide him with evidence as to why I am endorsing this proposal. So be it. An evidence page is currently under construction at User:Dylan620/Machete. →Dyl@n620 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter the evidence you provide, Machete isn't likely to agree with you and will just accuse you of harassment and personal attacks, as he is doing to me whenever I rebut his claims. He has an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" mentality at present. Do yourself a favor and stop - nothing you provide will satisfy him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, OK, so let me get this straight; if I DON'T provide evidence, Machete will grow impatient. If I DO provide evidence, he'll accuse me of harassment? →Dyl@n620 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you do provide evidence, he'll claim it isn't and rebut the lot of it, and will only serve to be agitated more. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I request that you delete my evidence page. It's no use making a page if it will only provoke Machete further. →Dyl@n620 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead and make it; see if you can find any incontrovertible evidence he cannot refute. It may irritate him further, but it will also give people just coming into this topic willingly or otherwise the story thus far. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth making for the benefit of uninvolved observers who haven't seen the background here and are trying to sort things out. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the help, guys! I will continue with my evidence page, and will let you guys know when it's finished. →Dyl@n620 09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EMG's response

This section was done off of the suggestion of Duvora. Since I have not been able to find the thread she noted, I decided to improvise. I am transcluding the user's talk page using noinclude tags.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

Category:Street gangs by ethnicity has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plaxico'd but back for more

I wish make a complaint against a user for harassment and personal attacks on me on Wikipedia. I am using this new account because I feel threatened and wish to remain anonymous. Sincerely James Tucton (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your request, but more details are required. To which user are you referring? And to which edits/articles have these attacks happened? TNXMan 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand your concern for your privacy here, but you need to tell us WHO is harrassing you and what specifically they are doing which is harassing. Once you do that, we'll know what your old account is anyways, because it will be the only way we can verify your complaint. Still, with nothing more than vague allusions to harrassment, and no concrete complaint to go on, we have nothing here. Please give us some details so we can investigate and discuss! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the underlying dispute, but the new user making the complaint doesn't appear to be that concerned about folks figuring out what area the problem is in. He's opened up a sockpuppet investigation on User:Marek69 here [30]. I have no opinion on whether user Marek69 is involved in sock-puppetry or anything else, but it seems highly disruptive to allow a new declared sock to open up such an investigation and go around tagging an apparent editing opponent (under some other identity) as such as he's done here [31]. I propose a probationary blocking of the declared sock James Tucton; and if there's an actual harrasment/real world stalking problem that prompted his creation of a sock puppet and he is in fact afraid, he can contact admins/arbcom offline about it under his first user name.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. The user in question is Marek69 and today I have received Off-wiki harassment from him. He had phoned me making threats of violence. Can you do something about him? James Tucton (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that scared you into making a largely frivolous sock puppet report, on the notion that such action would calm the situation and make you safer? I'm not convinced.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a load of shit, if you ask me, particularly given that James Tucton and this IP are clearly one and the same, and given (i) the unwarranted warnings given by the IP to Marek69 on the latter's talk page and (ii) the report to AIV all in the space of about an hour (whilst Marek has been offline, incidentally). The link between Marek69 and Acemandude5 is clearly explicable by the fact that the former created the latter as part of the account creation procedure. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm pretty sure that James Tucton is merely trolling, but on the offchance) I'm curious to know hoe he could have obtained your phone number? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me but I do not know James but user Marek69 has been harassing me as well with threats of violence. He got me blocked for a month for doing nothing and I personaly know four others who he is misabusing. Geoff Keen (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh, sure... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a checkuser would be appropriate here. On the complainants. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just blocked User:Geoff Keen for trolling and admitted block evasion [32]. I have no problems with somebody else blocking the first complainant's account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just block "James Tucton" and be done with it. If there were actual real-world harrasment going on (which there almost certainly wasn't) they could call the police and/or provide some evidence in email if the original user wants to stay anonymous. I also recommend a CU on Tucton, so the other accounts can be blocked (and unblocked if it turns out there is any merit to these claims, which seems doubtful, later).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the set of "warnings" on the page, since they were never legitimate (and were quickly followed by a false report on WP:AIV). I still recommend blocking the account to prevent further activity. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another new "editor" has just popped up. Gerald1971 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Within the first 20 minutes of creation has been telling other editors they're blocked and asking for information about their IP addresses [33]. I noticed because he did this at Marek's page [34]. Marek is apparently caught in some kind of weird range block that doesn't make much sense (this may just be my ignorance of how wikipedia works). But i know the single user who's been sockpuppetting against him has been making threats [35]. It's all very strange. At any rate, the new editor Gerald1971 is clearly a disruptive sockpuppet of somebody.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killed him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and filed an SPI [36]. May seem overkill, but don't think this is the end of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've given it a more appropriate code letter. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bali, Jerke, etc. I never knew that this page existed let alone modified it, but I would like to add in another user opinion to make us a bit less oligarchic. It really looks like Marek is being targeted unfairly as a result of an edit war over a local Oklahoma high school. I think an administrator should ensure that Marek is able to respond to what is going on before more blocks go out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardino (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry -- Marek's conduct is not what anyone here (except the blocked sock puppets) is currently concerned about.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't seeking to sanction Marek at all. We're seeking to sanction those harassing and targeting him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one - JennyP1993 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been bagged and added to the SPI case. I'm going to check on the user Jenny claims they're socks of. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, she claims they're socks of each other - impossible. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this vandalism seems to be linked to a aerial pest that has been harassing me for a while and vandalising articles that I have on my watchlist. He was originally vandalising and harassing as User: 767-249ER and has been continuing with many new IP addresses such as User: 114.77.199.50 and continues to create new socks such as User: Gerald1971. He obviously has nothing better to do than continuously vandalise wikipedia and create fantasy scenarios that other users are harassing him. J Bar (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some eyes are needed to monitor the edit warring and the suspected socks. On a related note, since there's State-sponsored terrorism, does anyone here believe that State terrorism should be AfDed? Awful articles gathering many nationalist POV-pushers from all sides carrying the 'my country is good and yours is so bad' flag. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between state- and state-sponsored terrorism, and I really wouldn't like to predict if an AfD would result in the nationalists having their toy taken away ;) Might be worth a try though, and certainly removing the entire "by country" section would help. EyeSerene^talk 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be good to delete the whole lot of them. They are mostly forks, owned by tendentious editors. We'd be better with nothing than "Allegations of state terrorism by X". Any useful content can be merged into the appropriate history articles. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles will always be problematic, and there will always be a lot of POV pushing as there is for any other article or issue which arouses nationalist sentiment. But that's obviously not sufficient cause for deletion. As EyeSerene points out, there is a distinction between State-sponsored terrorism and State terrorism as the very names suggest. The idea of deleting the article on state terrorism is a bit absurd in my view, as there is an enormous academic literature on the subject (e.g. this WorldCat search), though unfortunately very few of the people who participate in the endless edit warring and argumentation about these articles are conversant with that literature.

And really it's not just about "state terrorism." There is a whole nexus of articles about terrorism that are deeply problematic, simply because "terrorism" itself is such a deeply problematic - and incredibly contested - term. Problems with its usage have not been solved in the real world so we're not likely to solve them here on Wikipedia. The best we can do is craft neutral articles describing the controversies which is admittedly difficult to impossible but still worth attempting. Jehochman and many others don't like these articles and find them annoying (which they are), but I don't think anyone can seriously deny that this is a serious and notable topic. To delete state terrorism would leave a significant and odd hole in the encyclopedia, though if there are creative solutions for dealing with all of the "Allegations of" articles other than blanket deletion I'm all for that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSerene and Bigtimepeace make good and valid arguments. I may have been exaggerating a bit. However, everyone can be pleased with having a disambiguation page directing readers to "Allegations of state terrorism by A/B/C/D" but having all those A/B/C/D entries duplicated and placed at State terrorism is inappropriate and a source for extra and additional conflicts between suspected socks, a bunch of IPs and unregular users who pop up everytime there's an edit warring. I believe the article has the shortest intro I've ever seen over here; the rest is a list which may have 10 countries today, 2 tomorrow and 192 the following day (the last time I checked a couple of months ago there were a dozen or so). Whether we maintain that (or those) article(s) as defining articles or get rid of them and use them as disambiguation pages. Keeping selective lists (depending on edit warriors) of countries there is not a good idea. Otherwise, as I requested, it would be great if some 'serene' eyes monitor the situation in order to reach 'big time peace ever' :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with that - all of the specific points about countries do not belong in the general state terrorism article. My Wiki time is necessarily limited for the present and I'm hesitant to jump back into the "state terrorism" morass, but I'll see if I can bring up cutting that stuff out of state terrorism assuming someone has not already. I like the approach of setting up a disambig page for the various articles as FayssalF suggests and directing readers to that from the article. It's far from an ideal solution, but it would (or at least could) keep much of the bickering off the general state terrorism article (which theoretically could be quite good and informative) and restrict it primarily to the various "allegations" articles which are of less importance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article and it's relatives have collevtively been a craphole ever since they were created. Good luck to anyone trying to balance it-- I'm burnt out after all the crap with Giovanni33, his socks, and his friends last year. Jtrainor (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As bad as these articles may be, any attempt to delete specifically the state terrorism article would likely raise drama because the nomination would likely be viewed in certain quarters as an aggressie attempt to push a pro-US POV. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would do that and some would view an attempted deletion that way, but that's hardly the reason we should not delete it. "State terrorism" is a completely legitimate - albeit highly contested - concept. Google Scholar alone shows over 6,000 hits on that exact term. We tend to get caught up in the crappy politics underlying these articles which is understandable but I think ultimately wrongheaded. We need an article on state terrorism because it's an important topic thoroughly discussed in all kinds of reliable sources in all kinds of ways - i.e. it's exactly the kind of thing a good encyclopedia should cover. The various "allegations" should be covered in some way as well, though obviously we have not done an especially good job with that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well expressed, yes. Of course we don't retain articles specifically because someone might complain (if they ought to be deleted anyway). However poorly written this may be, there's the potential for a serious encyclopedia article here. Probably the sort of thing that will remain contentious, unfortunately. But we're not censored. Durova^Charge! 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, these articles probably do belong here even though they'll always be battlegrounds, but I think we could mitigate their potential for conflict by removing the specific "By country" sections. I'm reluctant to do this unilaterally, as they are sourced, but when I ask myself "does their inclusion improve the encyclopedia?" I'm forced to conclude they don't. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the list were removed, and valid content could be merged into the relevant article or daughter article about the country. Allegations of state terrorism by Elbonia is just a POV fork of Foreign policy of Elbonia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ntoo2B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 193.35.132.149 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

As User:Fredrick day's userpage shows, this is a banned user. I suspect that brand new account User:Ntoo2B is a sock of that banned user for the following reasons:

• Please note this new account's userpage: [37]. Now, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. Please note the supporting evidence presented in the second request from the top. As you can see practically all of Fredrick day's sock accounts have started out with their first edits by having "hi" on their userpages.
• One of the major signs of Fredrick day socks is spamming pages with "cruft" things. In fact, one of Fredrick day's socks was even called "User:Killerofcruft". This new account's edits have focused almost entirely and right off the bat on editing Wikipedia:Listcruft and then spamming the essay to various guideline pages.

Given that this concerns a banned user with a seriously problematic edit history, I strongly urge a checkuser familiar with this editor to take a look. I will notify involved parties of this thread momentarily. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report might be better handled if filed at WP:SPI. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed checkuser requests before, but not reports there; if someone can help, it would be appreciated. Also, while this may be after the checkuser evidence unless the previous checkusers kept records, I strongly suspect this account meets the WP:DUCK if nothing else. . The "hi" as first edit followed by calling things "cruft" is consistent with other blocked socks of his, such as [38]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello gang, Fred here - one of my traits was to edit normally for a bit before kicking over the anthills. I went back to normal editng a while ago, whoever this guy is, it's not me. Fred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.132.149 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everything FD says should be taken very carefully. He has, before, thought he was logged in and wasn't, thus revealing his IP. But he's also, possibly deliberately, set up decoys, traps, and his frequent goal -- or at least effect -- has been to get editors fighting with each other. If Fredrick day has "returned to normal editing," I'm not terribly exercised about it. I'm only concerned with disruption. We have, here, prima facie evidence that 102.52.132.149 is indeed Fredrick day. I'll take a look at the registered editor, but, unless that editor is being disruptive, I'm disinclined to make a witch hunt out of it. It was FD's claim that this is what I was doing, but I never was. He practically had to grab me by the collar and shake me to get me to file an SSP and checkuser report for Allemandtando, nee Killerofcruft. Who was pretty disruptive! --Abd (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IP account made a reply to you over six months, so I guess it's the same person? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Okay, my opinion. Could be Fred. This is not a a new user, registers and immediately dives into WP space, uses HotCat, concerned about "cruft," yes. The IP is quite certainly Fred, that specific IP has been used by Fred before. It is possible that it is used by other persons (i.e, as with cell phone access or the like: the IP belongs to Orange). Look at the block log: [39] Now, who did the admin assist? A guess: [40]. Fascinating. Yawn. A Nobody, if you'd like to take this to WP:SSP, let me know and I'll comment there. You should know about Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, which has a listing of identified or suspected IPs. That can be useful. By the way, some Fred socks immediately kicked over anthills, were immediately noticed, and still managed to maintain disruption for a long time. FD was quite popular among "cruft-killers" who weren't so bold as to use that title, but loved the idea. "I destroy what you love." It's a formula for turning Wikipedia into a battleground, which seemed to be his goal. Ntoo2B hasn't been seriously disruptive, if disruptive at all, so it's no emergency, please be civil and avoid unnecessary roughness. Why was the new user connected with the IP address? --Abd (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been a part of some very weird behavior. Fredrick day is known to be able to simultaneously -- or rapidly -- switch between IP addresses, he probably uses multiple computers and multiple monitors to partition accounts. Take a look at [41], at the rapid IP switching in the most recent edits to this user page, which is itself quite odd. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I may be in over my head here, but there are two explanations I see for the IP behavior at the user page above. One is that this is a cell phone or some access which uses a short IP range and which assigns the IP per message. Is that done? In which case most of those edits aren't Fred. The other is that they are all Fred. Certainly they are all the same user editing that user page that day. I'm looking further. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I've seen rapid IP switching in a small range like that before from a user editing with a mobile device. This is one of the reasons why blocking a single IP in such a range can hit multiple users - they edit once, there's no problem, then they switch IPs and hit a block. Especially problematic if it's hardblocked. That range of addresses seems to service a large range of Orange mobile users. Black Kite 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - orange only use a quite short range for their mobile gateway, so multiple users can appear to be using the same IP and a single editor can rotate around a small number of IP addresses. I would guess that *some* are this FD but others are just random editors, he's get a different IP in the range everytime he logs on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Unrelated Ntoo2B (talk · contribs) et al and 193.35.132.149 (talk · contribs)

 Possible 193.35.132.149 (talk · contribs) = Frederick day (talk · contribs) as same range but this is a dynamic IP range, so use care in blocking this IP

 Confirmed Ntoo2B (talk · contribs) = SuperBB12 (talk · contribs) = Tweevan55 (talk · contribs) = Trenlotari (talk · contribs) = Loggibbi (talk · contribs) = Tacqtrioni (talk · contribs) = Trinity54 (talk · contribs) = Bontri46 (talk · contribs) = Sendabrin (talk · contribs) = Sotenburger (talk · contribs) = Tromanion (talk · contribs) = Beeline-Dozer (talk · contribs) = GRBeetonova (talk · contribs) = Grapetrau (talk · contribs) = Tremnai55 (talk · contribs) = Dragonivich65 (talk · contribs) = Greotrau (talk · contribs) = Trenoty (talk · contribs) = Grawtoe (talk · contribs) = Tolokomi (talk · contribs) = 58Extraten (talk · contribs) = Lithenium (talk · contribs) = Propren40 (talk · contribs) = Beautromp12 (talk · contribs) = Hatherington (talk · contribs), blocked all named confirmed users indef, blocked underlying IP also-for a month. Tagged User:Hatherington as master since the oldest. Anyone interested in this should look at how sequentially these socks and their start/stop dates match up. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the check; not who I suspected...but I knew something was up and the results are even more extensive than I would have guessed. Will have to check to see if there has been any vote stacking or anything. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's the chronology of account creation for the 25 confirmed accounts:

• User:Hatherington on 07:21, 17 February 2009
• User:Beautromp12 on 09:32, 17 February 2009
• User:Propren40 on 10:48, 17 February 2009
• User:Lithenium on 13:26, 17 February 2009
• User:58Extraten on 14:53, 17 February 2009
• User:Tolokomi on 07:57, 22 February 2009
• User:Grawtoe on 16:20, 23 February 2009
• User:Trenoty on 15:44, 25 February 2009
• User:Trinity54 on 10:11, 3 March 2009
• User:Greotrau on 14:47, 3 March 2009
• User:Dragonivich65 on 20:20, 3 March 2009
• User:Tremnai55 on 14:24, 4 March 2009
• User:Grapetrau on 18:24, 4 March 2009
• User:GRBeetonova on 22:01, 5 March 2009
• User:Beeline-Dozer on 23:33, 5 March 2009
• User:Tromanion on 12:21, 6 March 2009
• User:Sotenburger on 14:19, 6 March 2009
• User:Sendabrin on 19:10, 6 March 2009
• User:Bontri46 on 07:34, 7 March 2009
• User:Tacqtrioni on 17:43, 7 March 2009
• User:Loggibbi on 23:18, 12 March 2009
• User:Trenlotari on 02:15, 13 March 2009
• User:Ntoo2B on 00:59, 20 March 2009
• User:SuperBB12 on 14:01, 21 March 2009
• User:Tweevan55 on 01:05, 22 March 2009

Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see we got this sorted. Best Fred. (Oh Abd, as I mentioned before, there will be no problems if you get your page underprotected). --84.70.147.206 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In, Template:Eastern Bloc defection‎, user Dahn has repeatedly deleted 43% of the article -- every parenthetical description of the profession of various defectors (must be 50+ of them) in the Template, here, here and here.

Worse still, this appears to be from frustration during an attempted deletion of the Template earlier today here. In that discussion, when it was pointed out that the parentheticals in the Template aided users navigating in the Template, one user switched his vote here.

After this was when Dahn began his triple deletion of the parenethicals. He simply deleted every one without so much as a word on the talk page.

I need help because I'm afraid if I restore them again, I would be in violation of WP:3RR.

Please help.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just noted this ANI Section on Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn. I can't particularly say I'm surprised at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, I just saw this:

Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn (new try)

and this:

The oppinion of other editors about User:Dahn

Looks like this is a continuing problem. I ran across the wrong guy this time.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man. First of all, I have proposed and will support any move to delete the whole template, but I am not as obtuse as not to want it cleaned up if kept. After a series of hidden comments in which I pointed out the serious issues of subjectivity the template sections had, I tried to fix and standardize the template by alphabetizing the items and removing the utterly pointless remarks accompanying the entries - these were and are not present in the article titles (they were just added because Mosedschurte thinks they add something), they are completely whimsical, and they break with the standard for just about any navigational template. I won't answer the personal attacks and allegations Mosedschurte makes above - I'll just point out he has already been advised to refrain from such comments on the TfD page he mentions. As for the "continuing problem" (wikistalking anyone?): Mosedschurte would do best to look closer and notice that those frivolous threads he quotes were initiated by editors either blocked for long periods and kept under admin supervision for severe disruption or simply the sockpuppet of a banned user. Is there any serious question about the constructive nature of my contributions? Dahn (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for that 3RR allegation: bogus. Dahn (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the utterly pointless remarks accompanying the entries

You've got to be kidding. These were the professions and or workplace of the people that had defected. Such as "NKVD", "author" and "KGB". They can quite clearly be seen here.

Honestly, Dahn, I don't want to be yet another of these editors that apparently earn your attention as those in the many ANI links above, but your excuse doesn't even rise to the level of being laughable. Another user actually switched his vote in your attempted article delete after I specifically pointed out the the parentheticals usefulness.

It was only then that you started a mass delete of every single parenethical description in the entire template. An utterly bizarre exercise.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Mosedschurte, as I have already explained, I removed all superfluous info within the brackets to comply with a standard confirmed by time, as opposed to a standard confirmed by Mosedschurte. Add to this that there is a logical limit to how much of an article a template can summarize. In short: did I delete such mentions from the articles? do you and the reader know that clicking the links will clarify these and many more details? If the answer to both of these is "yes", you're wasting everybody's time with baseless accusations.

The post hoc ergo propter hoc you present me with is what is bizarre, and I have explained my rationale by now. Replying to it any further would only feed into a paralogism. One final time: the discussion you say I didn't engage in is carried out there, and I don't reject the possibility of people changing their minds, even if i believe they're wrong. Incidentally, the user who changed his vote has also warned you about launching into personal attacks, something you may want to give more consideration to.

And again: citing calumnies launched against me be users who were blocked or banned partly for engaging in such attacks (though not because of those complaints, as you seem to insinuate) does no service to your argument. If you think reanimating archived trolling validates it somehow as a critique of those "who earn my attention" (what is that supposed to mean?), you're terribly wrong. Dahn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I removed all superfluous info within the brackets to comply with a standard confirmed by time, as opposed to a standard confirmed by Mosedschurte.

Again, just incredibly bizarre. What "Standard confirmed by time" compels the deletion of every single parenthetical description in a Template, including the most straight forward possible such as, for a defector under the spy group, simply "(KGB}"?

Dahn, you didn't even try to make it appear in good faith, but instead you DELETED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, without exception, and did so only AFTER it was pointed out in the Template Deletion page that you started that such parentheticals were actually helpful, and another editor switched his vote against yours because of it.

At this point, after reading through the various ANI links above, I almost hestitate to bring this up, and I would like to be able to simply place some parenethical descriptions in a Template without engaging in some world class bizarre WP:Edit War.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I deleted every one of them without exception - it's because they're all pointless. Such info is picked up from the article, not from random brackets in the templates. And removing just "some of them" would have pushed the template even deeper into the relativism that you still don't seem to notice. Which ones was I supposed to keep? The ones you like best? The ones I like best? Let me also note that even in your version there was an entire section without such mentions, which, like the fact that you separated "chess" from "sports", only added to the clownish aspect of the template.

You would "like to be able to simply place some parenthetical descriptions in a Template"? Well, if you would like it, then I guess it makes all the difference. And then I would like to add something on their marital status, their birth date, photos etc. Why? It's important. Sure, it can be picked up from the article, but it's too important to be read just there. Before you ask: yes, I'm using reductio ad absurdum; no, I'm not being mean. Of course, the entire template could be restructured in accordance with citizenship (the country they defected from, which I would picture is of much more contextual relevancy) as opposed to profession (of secondary importance except in White Nights). Dahn (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Of course I deleted every one of them without exception - it's because they're all pointless.

These assertions have gone from troublesome to simply hilarious. As if it was "pointless" that the person who defected was in the KGB. Seriously, that's one of the many parentheticals you deleted. Now that's the reason you're now falling back on in retrospect for a clearly non-good faith deletion of every parenthetical?

Re: Well, if you would like it, then I guess it makes all the difference.

And if you don't, then it should be deleted however relevant?Mosedschurte (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it simpler: I'm consistently applying a standard and making no exceptions for the sake of making exceptions. Removing trolling and trying to discern what is civil in your post, let me answer whatever is answerable in your questions. "[Is consistency] the reason [...] for a [...] deletion of every parenthetical?" Yes, for the fifth time, yes. "And if you don't, then it should be deleted however relevant [Mosedschurte thinks some of them are]?" Again: Yes. The templates are for the simplest common denominators, not for "you might also think this is relevant", and certainly not for "when reading the article Mosedschurte found this relevant". Do you have any other questions? Dahn (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I'm consistently applying a standard and making no exceptions for the sake of making exceptions."

This makes absolutely no sense, especially in this context.

Like much of the attempted linguistic rope-a-dope from the issue, it also does not cover up that you deleted every single parenthetical for non-good faith reasons only after it was pointed out in the Deletion request page that they helped. Nor does it help with your continued deletion of all attempts to add any such parentheticals.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you later added on my Talk page at least something of an argument, that the parentheticals "add[ed] a layer of subjectivity?" What possible "layer of subjectivity" do you think parentheticals like "author" and "journalist" and, in the spies section, "NKVD" or "KGB" actually add? And how could it possibly rise to the significance of deleting them all? These came from the Wikipedia pages of the articles! Again, the entire thing appears to be pretty blantant non-good faith deletions after the comments on the deletion page, with nothing remotely like an even passable excuse after the fact.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. I'm officially done with this discussion, as I see I'm only being confronted with caricatures and travesties. It's hard to believe that, having read my posts, someone would still not get my comments to the point of producing such opaque replies, so I have to assume Mosedschurte is merely trying to irritate me by repeating the same absurdities and insinuations over and over again. Dahn (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding with that fake melodrama. Your after-the-fact excuses for the deletions of 43% of the Template have thus far been:

• "I'm consistently applying a standard" without describing even one word of the standard,
• "it's because they're all pointless" without providing a single example of a pointless parenethetical (much less all), and
• that they "added a layer of subjectivity" without again giving a single example.

None of these even approached passable after-the-fact excuses. Cold hard reality: You simply deleted all of them after the comments in a separate Deletion discussion template about how they were helpful, in fact I think within an hour or two. The bobbing and weaving afterwards has done nothing more than highlight that.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: cutting out half a template with thorough justification is well within the bounds of WP:BOLD, even if another user doesn't like that and, yes, even if the excised half caused another user to switch his vote in a deletion discussion initiated by the first user on a template created by the second one. And dredging up three ANI threads fully two years old (an eternity on Wikipedia), even regardless of the fact that they were initiated by a sockpuppet and a troll, raises questions of motivation. Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time out

Mosedschurte and Dahn - stop responding to each other. Whatever the original incident, you're just arguing back and forth here and being disruptive. Stop responding and let some uninvolved administrators review and get back to you with more feedback.

If you continue pushing each others' buttons, a short block to prevent further disruption and rude behavior may be required. Please don't do that - let us review, ask you some questions on your talk pages, let things calm down now.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had some experience of communication with Mosedschurte and I can add my humble 2 cents that, hopefully, may be useful. To my opinion, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Mosedschurte is a unique phenomenon that cannot be characterised purely negatively or purely positively. His strengths are

• He uses only reliable, mostly academic, sources; the articles edited or written by him are always well sourced;
• He writes fast and well; after his intervention the articles look much better than before.
• He is bold;

However, he:

• Frequently cites the sources incorrectly, or directly misinterprets them;
• Makes numerous factual errors (and sometimes performs WP:SYNTH);
• He is too bold.
  I don't think these Mosedschurte's peculiarities to have significant detrimental effect on WP, provided that one can fix all errors or misinterpretations Mosedschurte is doing. However, Mosedschurte is absolutely indisposed to accept arguments of others. Discussion with him may last almost infinitely, similar to what we see above. To my opinion, that resembles a refusal to get a point, a characteristic of a problem editor. In addition, during and after his work on some article Mosedschurte vehemently opposes to any changes made by others; any attempt of the others to achieve a consensus leads to endless discussions (aimed, probably to exhaust the opponent). As Dahn correctly pointed out, that may fit WP:OWN criteria.
  Summarising all said above, I think we have here not a 3RR, but the normal content dispute + WP:IDHT + WP:OWN (both from the Mosedschurte's side), so Mosedschurte had no reasons to complain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HeMan5 (talk · contribs) attempted to add a table about a DVD release to an article and was told no to do so, so he's now on an extreme spree of removing tables from TV articles all over the place, citing a guideline as a policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:HeMan5/Archive_12#March_2009 and Heman's edits to The Pretender (TV series). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...he WP:3RR earlier over expanding these tables, then when explained to at length how wrong he was (and others from the TV project supported the table removal), started throwing a tantrum and claiming he was "done with this place" and wanted his account deleted and edits removed[42] Guess he decided to go around and undo his expansions and rip all tables out. Now technically, he's "correct" in that those tables don't belong in series articles if they are higher quality, however he is also not bothering to replace them with the proper prose summary either, and definitely doing it to be pointy and disruptive rather than seeking to actually improve any of the articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your friggin' minds, do you want tables or not? This is unbelievable, I undue the 'damage' done to the article by inserting all these stupid tables and now I am being cited for vandalism- what kind of crapshow are you running here?? HeMan5 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REmoving them to try and make a point and without properly replacing them with the proper prose is not improving, nor do you appear to be doing it because you desire to "undue damage" but to be disruptive because you couldn't get your way. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: HeMan5 has now had both his user page and user talk page deleted and claims (again) to be leaving, and had his name changed to User:Iam4Lost -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the deleting admin's talk page regarding this ANI thread to ensure they were aware of the circumstances surrounding the user. Seems like RTV is not applicable to this user in this situation. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this issue when I deleted the talk page; I took it as a good faith request. I suppose my instinct at this point is to leave it deleted and let him go quietly. But I would be interested to hear what those with experience working with this editor think. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he isn't leaving. He just left me a message on my Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that message was left yesterday, before his response here[43] No idea why it ended up with a March 24th time stamp.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to deal with this case because I believe this user's head is in the right place but the behavior is disruptive nonetheless. This user has been taking pages about criminals and nominating them for speedy deletion as attack pages in batches. Generally, these have been declined by various admins including myself, User:Ged UK, User:Valley2city, and others, though some have been deleted (questionably if you ask me but that's another conversation) as well. Multiple people have tried to reason with the user on their user talk page ([44] [45] [46]) but the user just deletes the notices and keeps on doing the same thing. This user has also been recently blocked for edit warring on the same topics as well. Any idea what can be done to discourage a user who is trying to keep the best interests of the project at heart but won't listen to reason? Oren0 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Allen Glick, Mickey Featherstone, Marat Balagula, they do like BLP nightmares. Mostly unsourced and full of random speculation. Just because people think they are criminals doesn't mean you get to ignore BLP. I might delete them myself if I cannot wipe them clean immediately. Sources are fine but actual policy says they should be removed immediately. AFD makes sense if he's willing to slow down but I really don't see a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure what to make of this. I don't know whether or not to AGF in this situation. I've been monitoring many of these alleged Attack CSDs for days and we keep telling him that they clearly don't qualify. I invited him to submit to AfD but that G10 and prodding were not appropriate. The user is also removing sources he may not agree with. The worst is that he is removing and completely disregarding the hand-writen notices that have been placed on his talk page asking him to cease-and-desist. That and the edit-warring... I don't know if the user has a COI, but if this continues with a flagrant disregard to so many editors trying to reason with him without a response and instead continuing with the inappropriate CSDs, I suppose we should discuss a potential ban on mafia and mob-related topics. Valley2city^‽ 06:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Valley2city, can you show me examples? I think my explanation was a little more clear. If it an article has some sources, it's clearly not an attack page. However, just because articles are on mafia and the mob doesn't mean BLP gets to be ignored. I mean, Allen Glick was filled with source requests from February 2007. At some point, it's pretty reasonable to remove that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is saying that being about criminals means the articles get a free pass. But at the same time being about criminals doesn't make the pages automatically attack pages either. Two of the ones I declined had citations to books which I have no access to, so I can't judge the veracity of the claims. But an article calling a mobster a mobster with a source isn't the type we speedy delete. As I explained to the user already, this is what AfD is for. The reason I've brought this here is because I don't believe the user wants to listen to reason and will continue filing these nominations and removing sources. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll agree these aren't attack pages and aren't CSD nomination. He has stopped since Allen Glick so let's see on that front. Again, examples of sources he's removing? I see removals of FindAGrave but I don't know anything about that, so if there's a policy that it's considered reliable then he need to be told to stop that. Ganglandnews, Hollywoodmafia.com, Geocities all seem fine to remove. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There actually has been a lot of issue with some of his edits. He has gone through a lot of articles and converted books and publications listed as general references into further reading sections and then would remove a huge amount of the article as unsourced, which to me seems questionable. A lot of the articles needed inline citations rather than subverting the publications listed as sources. There has been a lot of edits that just go over the line in that way, starting with articles covering Israeli related mob articles and attempts to discuss this with him resulted in the 3 or 4 sections on his talk page with very long titles being plastered on any talk page where his edits were raised. It's been very messy and I had tried to discuss his editing with him only to mostly be rebuffed. I've been concerned with the seemingly single focus of his edits and some misinterpretation of policy in doing so. He did seem to finally learn some things, but there was an issue with retitling reference sections and then claiming the article is unreferenced. I spent a lot of hours looking at edits across a lot of pages and realized there is a singularity in his focus. He tends to use policy in a dogmatic, haphazard but not always appropriate way. The deletion nominations are just another incarnation of his doing that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, you have to admit this is a little better than an admin unilaterally deleting pages under WP:IAR. =) People get on an idiotic policy focus and I wouldn't be shocked to find this is all really a big WP:POINT game with him. Besides, looking at his history, he's always been focused on these articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not complaining about the discussion. Yes, he has a single focus and I'm not defending him. I'm just glad he's finally caught someone else's attention. He did respond once to me [47] about the blog sites, though I had told him that was the one thing I had no problem with. If someone wants to take him under his or her wing, that would be fine. I don't care that much about mob articles and I don't see myself as a mentor! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my FireFox keeps crashing and I'm finding it difficult to get a word in before it crashes. With this I might be going to sleep (though that's not necessarilly the case). Of course we need to respect BLP, it is quite serious. Granted, he's right when he quotes WP:BLP, but articles that he has CSDed, such as Marat Balagula are not only not attacks but are significantly sourced for BLPs and he has no leg to stand on when he cries "speedy". You can check for other examples too, but most of the CSDs are not merited. Also he really needs to be more careful with 3rr this one wasn't caught. It's still 3rr! I agree with your latest statement on his talk page. It's a bit disconcerting that he is rapidfiring all of these speedies and needs to slow down. Pardon the pun but it's like the penultimate scene of The Godfather where all of the dons are taken out at once. He's been given plenty of warnings regarding the CSDs and has not heeded them. Valley2city^‽ 07:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about this warning I gave him? Basically, I explained Balagula above, but be more careful, be more specific, don't go so fast, and don't just slap policy at people but regardless of whether you are right (or just think you are right), if you are disruptive, you will be blocked. Also another 3RR violation. I think a block would be punitive at this point since he's stopped everything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that might help, I'm all for. But this and this have been the usual response to attempted help on the user's talk page, and I'll be quite surprised if the current messages are treated differently. Oren0 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, I see but I have no problem with a block if he doesn't stop and recognize that people are serious about this. He's had a few chances to explain himself and listen and if he chooses not, we stop him and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've all explained our actions numerous times with regard to declining speedies. He/she hasn't once replied with an explanation. I, and others, have assumed good faith several times, as they appear to be coming from a belief in the importance of BLP, but they are now disrupting the project. If I come across another inappropriate attack speedy, I will issue a short block. I will notify on their talk page. --GedUK  08:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent reduction of these articles to stubs is an acceptable temporary measure, but consideration should be given to restoring the material properly and carefully from the sources. DGG (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but this experience in part underscores another problem of sourcing to books. I have no access to the books that were cited before Evenmoremotor turned them into "Further reading" so I have no real way to restore that information faithfully. Someone put work into these articles and I don't see why it should have to be redone if facts were previously accurately cited in books. Oren0 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show Kyle XY has been cancelled, and in response a group of fans has started a petition to keep the show on the air. Since a couple of days ago, several anonymous and new users have been adding the petition to the article, although my communication with one of these users determined that the petition's most prominent coverage has come in the form of a couple of blogs. I normally wouldn't bother the board with this, but I have recently become aware of an off-Wiki canvassing effort to attract fans of the show to "keep the post up there." I'd appreciate more eyes on the article. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say semi-protection of the article is probably in order. According the article, they have all but said they will continue to add the link after accounts are blocked or use IP accounts....so let's keep them from using them and not lock the page up altogether. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 24, 2009 @ 07:11

I have semi'd the page. Just think, this may be the last time you ever have to ask for protection Oren0 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's better ask for it if he's an involved admin, but good luck on the RFA nevertheless. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the canvassing, I stuck a "general reply" to it up at Talk:Kyle XY. Hopefully it'll help defuse the situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLT, I'm making a note here of this edit by Alastair Haines. I have not been involved with application of the NLT policy before, and I am already involved with the arbitration enforcement with Alastair Haines. Advice from or activity by other admins solicited. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but that is one of the most blatant threats of legal action I've seen on this site. I'd recommend an immediate ban block. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed  rdunnPLIB  12:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him indefinitely for that legal threat. If any unblocking is done (and as usual, I don't have any problems with a reasoned unblocking), please reinstate the previous block (or unblock for both at once of course). If I'm not around while unblocking is suggested or discussed, feel free to proceed without me. Fram (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with agressive OR at Cimbrian language, see User talk:Spinach Monster. Help is most welcome.--Berig (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've already received assistance from another administrator, but if Spinach Monster (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on his OR, I'll bring it to the OR notice board.--Berig (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Berig (talk · contribs)

please see simultaneous AN notice here. Also, Berig grossly assumed bad faith and called me a vandal, an act inappropriate for anyone, let alone an administrator. Is this the right place to report that? Spinach Monster (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another bout of edit warring on WP:NOR. Really this is just the latest flareup; there was another bout earlier this month with (most of) the same parties. The current edit war includes User:Bob K31416, User:SlimVirgin, User:Jayjg, and possibly other people. If some uninvolved admin is willing to resolve the situation, that would be wonderful. Some sort of 1RR might be helpful for encouraging people to discuss on the talk page instead of via edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Might want to take this up to WP:AN3. Cheers. I'^mperator 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the message that I left before CBM posted his message. [48]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page for 3 days - hopefully that will give everybody time to discuss. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that it is odd that CBM is putting me in the same class as SlimVirgin. It was SlimVirgin who made the 3 reverts in 9 hours and hasn't discussed the issue in the relevant Talk page section for 17 days. Whereas I have had considerable discussions there, and I left her last revert stand voluntarily, when I had reverts left that wouldn't violate 3rr. I don't see how CBM couldn't have been aware of this, but if it was an oversight on his part, I can accept that he made an honest mistake if he admits it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it was you who continually tried to change policy, citing a consensus that didn't exist, and edit-warred to keep it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Wikiwiki892 has been repeatedly adding content (with no sources) to a business-related Wikipedia page in an attempt to damage the Directors of the company.

We have tried to Undo the changes but not stand risk of the 3RR (3 Revert Rule). We haved warned this person to discontinue adding non-factual information, but to no avail.

What steps are available for us to take? At this point, we are aware of who the individual with this account is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediclink (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I came here about this very article. More to come: pls wait KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the answer you'll like, but personally, I'd say re-delete this already once speedied article for the self-promotional spam that it is (along with Jonathan Brett), considering it was almost entirely created by Mediclink there. Block Mediclink for promotional username. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't wait like I asked, could you? KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say "others please wait and not tag it for speedy as an unremarkable company, because that's what it is. The edit warring is a separate issue, and yeah, warnings are needed around the way, but that still doesn't excuse Mediclink's making articles about his defunct company and himself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "more to come, pls wait". I saved so others would not bother posting here until I'd posted my comments, so they had all my input before replying to me. You replied to ... nothing. A request to wait to see what I had to say. And told me "Not the answer you'll like" - which is presumptuous at best. Your comments about speedy tagging are not applicable to my comment here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the answer I'd like was to Mediclink, not you, as was my entire response. That's why it is indented under his and not your response.... As an FYI, he just posted to my talk page saying he agrees both articles are inappropriate and saying they should be deleted.[49] He was also just blocked by a different admin for the username. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that[50] and now OrangeMike has indef'd him, without bothering to post here. Is everyone in a Big Hurry today? The World Will Not End if you take the time to discuss what you're doing, people. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, he posted right as I clicked the edit button apparently. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article MedicLINK Systems Ltd. is apparently a recreation of a speedy deleted article whcih was deleted under G11. However, the company seems to be defunct, and numerous awards and sources are mentioned. Three editors have been merrily edit warring (well past 3RR) without a single post on the talk page. I've protected (for one hour) and templated the heck out of the editors:

• Mediclink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probable COI account)
• Wikiwiki892 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (SPA account)
• 72.139.23.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I ended up involved in this as I did some AIV; Mediclink had reported Wikiwiki892, whose talk page was then a redlink. Once I templated Mediclink with bad AIV; Mediclink templated Wikiwiki892 with a bv template, even though this is just a really active, unsourced, edit war about content on a very questionable article. I am going to do other things, and leave it to you wise folk to determine how to move forward about this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Mediclink is an obvious spamusername and role account, I have blocked that account. The article looks like an A7 to me, but that may merely be the miserable job of citing done by the original COI/spammer account. I'm going to bump up the protection to a week while we get this settled. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nods, totally agree on that - my feelings precisely. It might be an A7, but I'd rather do a little due diligence, or send to Afd, rather than delete out of hand. It seems to have gotten some ink - the edit war was over non puffery bits, hence Mediclink's rapid agreement to the deletion of an article he'd twice created. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ﻼﻻﻺﻹ has been adding a message in Arabic to several talk pages. The Google translation appears to be nonsense, I think someone with a better understanding of Arabic may be needed to determine whether it is vandalism or not. —Snigbrook 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The username is a little awkward too... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a {{uw-english}} to his talk page, but as he's now threatening to destroy other editors' pages with arabic (?!) I'm not too hopeful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Latin user names are acceptable per Wikipedia:UN#Non-Latin usernames, assuming that they don't otherwise violate guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Block and be done with it - [51] vandalism only (and probably doesn't speak much english.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, actually. I've reported to AIV, they can decide ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd, and Micron27 is right behind him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, does anyone know what language/script the username is? It looks vaguely Hebraic, but I know it's not that... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is Arabic and yep the message and the name is nonsense, I don't think the user has any real Arabic skills. He wrote هو يأكل الذرة البول (he is eating the urine atom (or corn)) Makes no sense --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins might also want to look at User:Oxc315 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm not sure what the connection is between them, but that account is just adding random inappropriate tags to various pages. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking I find someone with a foreign text name is, more often than not, just a troll who thinks doing this will make reporting them difficult. HalfShadow 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can one of you kind admins assist with some of the page moves that User:Zhafts has done? I've reported the user to AIV, but some help in cleaning up their mess would be appreciated. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This potentially contains a threat of legal action, among other things. The threat is implied only, and may simply be a poor choice of words by the IP editor. Left to my own devices I'd clarify that with the editor concerned before doing anything else. But as the implied threat is against me I'm bringing it here instead in the hope someone else can ask if this is in fact a threat, and if so politely point the editor to WP:NLT. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how else that could be interpreted. I think a polite pointing to NLT in the form of a block would be in order. Not doing so myself just yet, I'll let some others comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is definitely a legal threat. Reyk _YO! 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He says he'll report it to the WMF lawyers, rather than take legal action himself. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Tango, this does not appear to be a legal threat. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons people are blocked under the No Legal Threats policy are:

• It reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation,
• It reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki,
• It reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment,
• It prevents the difficult situation where a person is both seeking to be collaborative partner and also setting themselves up as litigious adversary (in general those two roles are mutually exclusive).

and in my opinion all four apply here. Threatening to use your personal influence to turn the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers against an editor to frighten that editor away from making certain edits is just as bad as threatening to use your own lawyers for that purpose, if not worse, and should be dealt with the same way. Reyk _YO! 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The CEO of a German company is hiding out in the USA? Hmmmmm ....... [52]. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  eh, in this economy, you can never be too careful. –xeno (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think the user is trying to gain an upper hand in the discussion (whether intended or unintended) by going to the lawyers from the WMF—people he may or may not know. He might be doing that to establish contact with his lawyers in an attempt of taking legal action. Hence, I think this goes against NLT, and a block should be placed per convention until this issue be resolved or he retracts. MuZemike 22:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the user is not going to gain an upper hand in the discussion and he's not hiding out in the US...lol (your economy is even worse than ours in Germany). For clarification: we stay in touch with WMF layers and I have alked to one of them several times about the priciples of the wikipedia and about notability etc. I guess they will pass my informations over to WM board just to make sure, that the quality of the wikipedia will be kept on a high level, which is not the case, when articles like the one in question will be kept. Is that a satisfying explanation for everybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish you to reveal any information you do not wish to, but the thought still occurs that the Chief executive officer of Infochannel Germany, per previous assertion [53], is both unlikely to have an IP that resolves to Missouri and probably unlikely to use the phrase "lol". Just my two pence when it comes to economy... Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is, unless we've recently sold Missouri to cover part of the national debt. see Louisiana Purchase... --Ludwigs2 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP: Which member of the Foundation legal team did you interact with? Daniel (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? He's bullying whether he's lying or if he's telling the truth. Block him until he promises to desist from what could be a chilling tactic to some editors (wouldn't be to me -- it's pretty laughable -- but it might be to some).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know why the first edit of an IP would be stern assertion on an AfD discussion as well. There's nothing about the discussion that remotely involves legality. Its about whether a subject is notable or not. No laws have been broken and a decision making process is again underway on the merits of the article. That process itself is being disrespected and that disrespect and abuse should not be tolerated. The AfD is a mess as a result of all this puppetry. Mfield (Oi!) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after the comment made at me (I'm guessing as it wasn't threaded at me), I call bullshit. MuZemike 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the IP not already blocked? Legal threats and other similar types of intimidation are forbidden. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a legal threat. Stating in an AFD that an editor will take this to the lawyers of the Wikimedia foundation does not constitute a legal threat. Do we block IP's who wish to escalate to OTRS? No. Do we block IP's who wish to escalate to ARBCOM? No. Do we block IP's who state they will get their own lawyers involved? Yes. That eventuality has not happened here. Pedro :  Chat  00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yet it appears to be an attempt at intimidation of other editors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; if someone isn't careful, he'll type mean things at you. (Rolling-eye smiley and all that.) HalfShadow 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us are immune to mean things. We get innoculated by a treatment called "RfA". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anon IP has been alerted to WP:NLT and has clarified that they were not intending a legal threat.[54] That resolves my initial request, thanks for everyone's assistance and comments. I find the rest of the IP's claims unlikely, but that's just my opinion - if a German CEO temporarily in residence in Missouri wants to discuss an obscure AfD debate with friends who coincidentally are WMF lawyers, he's perfectly entitled to. :) Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkymusicinc (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal)

I noticed that there is no one at UAA atm, can someone block this as they are spamming aggressively LetsdrinkTea 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Talk:Nancy Cartwright#Disambiguation (de-archived), UC Bill has responded to User:Scorpion and me (who opposed his idea) by calling us "morons," calling me a "waste-of-space" who engages in "fascism," calling Scorpion an "idiot" and "dipshit," and telling him to "go fuck [him]self." Much of this came after he'd already stated that he was walking away from the situation, so I don't trust his second such claim.
I would appreciate if an uninvolved party could please remind Bill of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as I suspect that any such message from Scorpion or me would only fuel his anger. Thanks! —David Levy 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I just noticed this. Perhaps something more than a friendly warning is in order. —David Levy 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31. Unacceptable conduct. Feel free to lengthen or whatever you wish. Cheers,  GARDEN  22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could if I was an admin. This is Wikipedia, not YouTube or 4chan. You cannot say whatever you want (if you frequent YouTube comments, then you know what I am talking about. We try to be civil around here. MuZemike 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on this... looking at Bill's contribution history, today's actions seem in sharp contrast with his edits over the past while. (Look at the sudden burst of category edits, as well as abusive text that appears to be significantly more severe than the blunt speech he usually employs.) I'm not saying there haven't been civility issues before this, but one has to wonder about the severity of today's events. The threats of vandalism also appear to be out of sync with someone who has been contributing extensively to the project as a developer. Is it possible that something has happened over the past few days, or that the account has been compromised? It just seems that an indef-ban coupled with a full lock down and blanking of his pages is too much without further attempts to figure out what is going on. (If there are other details that can explain this, please let me know - but what I've seen today doesn't add up.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum - just so everyone is clear, this should in no way be taken as a criticism of Hersfold. I've had interactions with Bill before today, hence my surprise at what has happened. If I hadn't worked with him before this, I might well have done the same thing as Hersfold. I've already left a note on Hersfold's talk page, and he is aware of this post; the idea is to try to figure out what the heck has happened to Bill. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)) [reply]

Possible. My previous comment aside, it is odd, indeed. MuZemike 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the same thing, it seems like a totally over the top reaction. Who would go straight to deleting their own code and threatening to vandalize multiple articles? It's an over the top reaction for a prolific contributor and a probably pretty easily traceable and accountable person and given his own userpage. Mfield (Oi!) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although i'm a semi-retired non-admin, I do still edit wikipedia when I can and since I have Nancy Cartwright in my watchlist, I saw the posts made by Bill on the talk page. They are very offensive. I was going to file a report here myself, but decided to offer advice to the user on the receiving end of Bills abuse instead. Looking over the situation as it is now, I feel Hersfold is 100% correct in dishing out an indefblock (i've seen users indeffed for less!) and think Bills threat of vandalism should not be ignored. John Sloan (view / chat) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the history of his userpage, in line with his request, rtv, WP:BAN, common decency, and whatever else. If he comes back and wants it restored it can be. I personally think an indefinite ban with an indefinite lockdown on the talk page is over the top. Has there even been any abuse of the email? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block reduced

After consultation with Hersfold - the block has been reduced from indefinite to 24 more hours, about when the original 31 hrs would have expired.

We have a longstanding policy that we allow users to vent on their user talk pages after a block. We know editors are human - we hope and expect that they will be adult about being blocked, but we're all human, and humans sometimes get upset. The best practice in these situations is to disengage and let people calm down before they come back - continuing to go back and forth on their user talk page just escalates the anger if they started out that way.

If a user starts actively threatening people or does something truly disruptive, there are limits. But UC Bill's behavior here was, while certainly aggressive, not nearly as bad as I've seen before in other cases.

We want to avoid piling on. Yes, there was a clear problem today. The original block was good and appropriate. But the next step should have been to leave him alone until the block expired.

I've also restored his userpage - if he's not indef'ed he may well want it again later. If he choses to walk away and vanish, we can (and should) delete it again, but we should take that decision out of the context of the then-current indef block and let him make up his mind later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this outcome. Bill made hurtful comments toward several people (including me), and the vandalism threat was unfortunate, but I'd hate to permanently lose a valuable contributor simply because he was having a bad day. The advice (and explanation of what's expected of him) that you posted on his talk page is appropriate. I hope that he takes it to heart. —David Levy 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please take a look at the activities of the new user Huckelbarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since he created an account on 18 March, he has engaged in a campaign of tendentious editing with the purpose of aggrandizing Turkic peoples, deleting material he feels diminishes the Turks and adding a load of unsourced ethnic fringe theory. All attempts to restore consensus versions he immediately reverts as "vandalism". He has falsified at least one source and added it to Attila the Hun four times in twenty-four hours ([55], [56], [57], [58]). He appropriated User:Kansas Bear's userpage, presumably in order to cover his nationalist edits [59]. He has engaged in personal attacks ([60], [61]). His edit patterns, fractured English, and nationalist fixations are very similar to the banned user Orkh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the two are the same person but difficult to confirm because Orkh seems to have used a number of public computers (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orkh). More eyes and assistance would be appreciated. Aramgar (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The account has knowledge of wiki procedures, though it claims to be only a week old. It seems to be preoccupied with serial reverting and personal attacks as described above. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read several of his sources in depth, and I agree that he's falsifying source information (claiming references say things that they do not).

Insults are also problematic.

Investigating the possible sockpuppet angle now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see some similarity with Orkh, but not enough that the little duck is quacking for me. Aramgar, if you feel strongly that it's him, can you file a new SPI request for Orkh and Huckelbarry?

I will leave a warning regarding the personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into the matter. Let's just hope he mellows, or goes away once he realizes that WP is not a tribalist battleground. Aramgar (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had an irritating interaction with Nightscream, who after I updated the birth date and age template for Tim Berners-Lee, removed the birthdate, place of birth and current residence lines, citing BLP and V. I've provided sources in edsums and correspondence, but this is inadequate for Nightscream, who threatens me with blocking. As he is apparently an administrator, though one with a poor handle on research and wikirules, could I get another administrator to have a quiet word with him? --Pete (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream is correct in that you need to properly cite the source in the passage where you make the statement using a reference footnote. Putting it in the edit summary is unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. That said, I think it was a little unfriendly of Nightscream to have reverted you again instead of adding the reference himself unless he actually has a problem with the source. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate is in fact sourced from the biography listed as a reference at the end of the article. Just looking at his assertion that every item in every BLP needs an inline reference, I find that this is rarely the case for birthdates. Or indeed for anything much. One would imagine that citing a good biography as a source would cover all information extracted from it for use in the article, but apparently not. This point needs to be cleared up with Nightcream, who is pursuing a policy of purging articles of useful sourced information. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to be reminded of WP:3RR. If you have a dispute, work it out on the relevant talk page, don't revert back and forth. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the source should be added to the article. However, it looks to me like Nightscream is objecting to the inclusion of the birthdate regardless of sourcing. Seems like we need to get the word from him. Dayewalker (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given him a hoy on his talk page.[62] Looking at WP:CS, using a general reference is appropriate: If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is commonplace with biographical articles. --Pete (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to the inclusion of the birthdate regardless of sourcing. I am objecting to the inclusion of information without a source. Sources must be placed at the end of the specific passage they support. Skyring quotes WP:CS thus "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end." What he fails to notice on that very policy page is that this is only if "It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic." This is because developed articles are not supposed to rely on merely one source. Pursuant to this point, WP:CS then states, "In most cases, an inline citation is required in addition to the full citation. This shows which specific part of the article a citation is being applied to." The Tim Berners-Lee article is not an undeveloped article or stub, nor does it even have a list-type References section. It has a Notes section with the properly-formatted footnotes. There is a Further Reading section after, but if this is a References section that someone mislabeled "Further reading", Skyring did not even specify which source in that section (or the Notes section) he was referring to. His only specific citation was in an Edit Summary. If he's willing to write it in Edit Summary, why not add it to the passage itself? As for his comment on my Talk Page that "if what you say is true, most of our articles are quite unsourced and should be quickly purged", well, yeah, they are, and yeah, I've been doing so. As for 3RR, 3RR does not apply to correcting obvious policy violations. It does, however, apply to the violations themselves, and Skyring has now violated it by reverting it four times in 24 hours, and ignored my final warning to him. If he had a genuine policy interpretation dispute, that would be different, but as aforementioned, he has ignored or failed to read WP:CS carefully enough, while accusing me of being "confused or poorly-informed.", and making cryptic or borderline uncivil comments to me, such one about "feeling better soon", and his distortion of my username in this section's title. Nightscream (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it have been more constructive to add the source yourself rather than blindly reverting? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting and giving final warnings simply because the source was in the wrong place seems quite excessive. We're not a bureaucracy here. I have to agree with David above, wouldn't it have been easier to just add an inline cite yourself if you felt it was necessary in that passage? henrik•talk 06:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was reformat existing information, sourced within the article via the general reference which is commonplace. The information has been part of the article for several years. I regarded Nightscream's continued removals as borderline vandalism, and was in fact quite surprised to find that he held the admin bit. Sorry if he took offence at my gentle hint that he may have been in the wrong, but he could have been a little less self-righteous in his comments. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors here made mistakes, Skyring overreacted and Nightscream's handling of the situation was poor, given the fact he could have easily added the reference he thought missing in the time it took him to warn and revert Skyring. In no way was reverting Skyring exempt from WP:3RR because good-faith policy violations are not considered obvious vandalism.

Let's not drag this out any longer. Skyring, please remember WP:CIVIL and try to avoid comments like "confused or poorly-informed" and "feeling better soon" which can easily be seen as personal attacks and if someone reverts you, just talk to them first before reverting them in turn.

Nightscream, if you think an editor forgot to add a source, just do it yourself, if you clearly have it. You should not revert edits that were clearly made in good faith if you can as easily fix them. That's behaviour that, as we can see from the reactions here, reflects badly on you and the project and might be BITEy. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:RS or WP:V state that the source has to be provided as an inline citation, just that the material is sourced. If an editor presents the source another way, it's not a violation of those policies because that can easily be fixed. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just full protected this article ( National Council of La Raza ) for a day, due to edit warring.

I suspect I protected the wrong version - however I would prefer another admin to review and determine the most neutral article to leave it on while it's protected... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note about this on your talk page. The IP who left the most recent version is clearly pushing an outrageous point of view, if not outright vandalizing the article. I have no problem in principle to protecting the article, but the version you protected isn't just the wrong version, its wrong to the point of being defamatory. I know this isn't technically a WP:BLP, but under the "do no harm" principle, can we at least go back to the sourced, neutrally worded version and not the one whose lead is nothing but inflamatory political screed? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone back to the version before the last IP edit. The page revision that was protected seemed to be inflammatory in nature and much less neutral than the revision I've gone back to. The page seems to only be semi-protected at the moment. Camw (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for seeing to this. I was going to ask for help, but help arrived on its own! It appears that PorLaRazaNada (talk · contribs) is the same editor as 76.30.203.19 (talk · contribs), but the account is still too new to be auto-confirmed.   Will Beback  talk  05:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was checking the recent changes page for vandalism and what not when I seen a mass of accounts being made by User:GismGism. According to the log it looks like the user made around 50 new accounts. Some of them has standard Gwarp crap in the user name, so have other usernames in them...probably should block all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 25, 2009 @ 08:51

Someone's already started shutting them down. Quick note, addies: Block so that account creation, email use, and talkpage editing are all suppressed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)}

Is there some way this sort of nastiness could be oversighted, by deleting any record that these accounts ever existed?

I'm amazed that a single regular user account is capable of creating so many other accounts in such a short time. I have a vague recollection that this was meant to have been throttled, but the throttling code, if any, clearly does not work. Is this something the AbuseFilter could fix? It would seem reasonable to limit account creation for regular users to, say, three accounts per day per parent account. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total agreement with The Anome - I'm sure there was a throttle?? Any event, I believe they have all now been blocked between me and The Anome. Pedro :  Chat  09:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is supposed to be a limit of 6 accounts per 24 hours for users without the accountcreator flag. I'm going to raise a bugzilla for this. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Could we also add a forced inter-account-creation interval of perhaps 5 minutes? This would allow admins to react in time to stop these sorts of rampages before they really get started. -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's needed as long as the 6-account limit stays in place. On a side point, I'm going to go do a clearout on users with the accountcreator flag who aren't using it. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are lots still left unblocked. More admin help, please! -- The Anome (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raised bugzilla at bugzilla:18150. I'm at work so don't want to go and do the blocking, given the usernames involved. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the account creation log can be oversighted, and I know accounts can't be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been a glitch as I was just looking at here Special:AbuseLog and a server error message came up... dunno if that helps.  rdunnPLIB  09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WORKSFORME. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we've now got them all, email disabled, user talk disabled. Pedro :  Chat  09:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Good. While we're waiting for the next batch, anyone got any idea why Grawp doesn't have anything better to do? )-: Stifle (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  When he gets to puberty he mind find something better. Until then... RBI. Pedro :  Chat  09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Its probably someone organising people who want to vandalise together, sorta like a Wikipedia version of the Taliban or sommat like that.  rdunnPLIB  09:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd give very short odds that it's 4chan. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you can't delete accounts per se, but a couple/many of those ought to be renamed away so they don't show in the current user log... should be obvious which ones in particular... Arakunem^Talk 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't OSers just change log item visibility? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps... I'm more thinking of someone who brings up the Special:Listusers to maybe check the user rights of a user (to verify admin, CU, etc), and sees these other accounts, listing purported email adddresses and even phone numbers... Arakunem^Talk 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cabal, cough, I mean oversighters have been alerted. -- Avi (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this message on Talk:David_Murdock. Because I do not have experience in such matters I decided to bring it here. Ruslik (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

check the IP to see if they have another account (it looks similar to one I saw a while ago).  rdunnPLIB  09:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Canadian IP (Ontario), no other edits. If someone is willing to contact the authorities, please either contact me or any checkuser (the IP is in the CU logs). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. As many of you (or possibly very few of you!) may be aware, I've been trying to set up community poll on date linking to help try and resolve the issues from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. Whilst the poll is in very much in its final stages of completeness, it's getting increasingly difficult to get comments and suggestions from neutral people because of the infighting on the page. The major problem I'm having is the edit warring and attacks/jibes being flung from the involved parties left, right and centre. From 0:00 (UTC) tonight, I plan to stop everyone who is already involved in this page from editing it or the talk page until the start of the poll on Monday so the neutral people are free to comment without being subjected to the attacks and comments already being given by the involved parties. Is this something that everyone feels would be ok? I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm an involved admin in the issue. I don't believe I have made any edits to the RFC Ryan is talking about, but if he thinks it is needed to ensure a peaceful resolution, I will agree not to comment at the RFC. MBisanz ^talk 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely the right thing to do, and if you need further admin assistance in enforcing it, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems fine to me if people can't just stop squabbling and vote. --GedUK  10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it is totally unfair to impose a sudden deadline on parties that have been working towards agreement on the text, who in good faith accepted a start-date of 30 March. The claim that "it's getting increasingly difficult to get comments and suggestions from neutral people because of the infighting on the page" is just that: a claim. The RfC draft is shambolic in structure, to begin with, requiring users to make eight entries and signatures, five of them redundant. I have just proposed a structure in which users are spared those redundant entries and signatures (with the chaotic edit conflicts that would ensue). All WPians should be able to comment on the streamlined structure, without a dictatorial edict by Ryan Postlethwaite, who owns neither the page nor the RfC itself. If he had proposed that participants not edit with more reasonable notice, it might be different. A few hours is not reasonable notice. I believe a compromise of more reasonable notice, such as three days, is in order. The downside may be that the RfC results may not be regarded as credible: no one wants that. Tony (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't look right to me, Ryan. Please allow more notice before imposing this. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • The parties were lucky to get 12 hours - I was planning on doing it immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that 12 hours is no use to people in some timezones, plus people everywhere have had reason to count on having more time. Your last comment sounds a bit like you're only interested in posts that agree with you, frankly, Ryan. If you've already decided what to do, and think the parties should count themselves lucky, why are you asking "everybody's" opinion on ANI at all ? Bishonen | talk 12:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Based on the reaction above by Tony, the sooner the better, especially as he, for one, has been fighting this particular battle for, it appears, some years now, so he's had ample opportunity to date. --CalendarWatcher (talk)
      • As far as I am concerned, I am also not entirely certain why the whole poll is held at all, but one thing I'm certain of: it's crucial that a certain core of people on both sides simply needs to be told to shut up and let others work out the rest. Whether it's now or in twelve hours or in 48 doesn't matter much to me, but the sooner the better. It's long past the stage where continued input from the same set of people could provide anything helpful to the project. That's not to say they are being intentionally disruptive; it's just that the issue has taken up such a larger-than-life significance to them the intensity of their involvement is just out of scale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never understood why you're doing this poll in the first place. Has ArbCom asked you to do it? Surely we should wait for ArbCom's decision in the case before launching any new polls - we've already been through very extensive community discussion and polling on this issue, and there is a hope that ArbCom might successfully interpret the results of that previous discussion and indicate what (if any) it considers are the outstanding issues to be resolved. But if you insist on doing things backwards and launching a poll now, then certainly don't impose a deadline of the type you're considering, because everyone will just rush to edit it just before the deadline and you'll end up with a more or less random version. The sensible thing to do would be to put up your version, don't let anyone touch it, but continue to invite comments (from everyone, involved or otherwise) and edit the version in line with those comments as seems sensible, until it becomes stable. But as I say, really don't do this poll yet (unless ArbCom has asked for it; but in that case we're entitled to know exactly what it has asked for and why).--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another red herring, another hoop to jump through. The poll is a pointless exercise. The community spoke last in December 2008. The community does not want years, dates, months etc. bluelinked, or almost never. The score was 190 to 7. No one knows for sure why the Arbcom accepted the case for arbitration instead of rejecting it out of hand, as they should have. No one knows the official status of Postlethwaite's project. In the absence of hard facts, speculation grows. I am keeping my own counsel.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another poll? Gah. --NE2 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, please. A little peace and quiet would be helpful. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Many notices were posted to various talk pages, requesting input on the format. So far, the feedback from other editors has remained limit, although we have had a helpful anon. I don't know if topic banning and hoping for more outside feedback will suddenly rush in. I'm pretty sure the issue is that everybody is tired and bored to death over lamely regarded issue, and they just want everything to be over. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck, Ryan. I'm surprised that there is still so much drama surround this; I had thought that it was resolved twice long ago with those nasty RFC's and commenting periods, but I suppose some individuals just cannot let it rest. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also surprised to see this still rumbling on. The whole bizarre episode has at times amused, baffled and appalled me; I wish I could say "only on Wikipedia...", but it reminds me of nothing so much as two neighbours fighting a 30-year court battle over six inches of hedge. I suspect part of the reason it's been allowed to get so far out of hand is that outside the interest groups, most of us really don't care if dates are linked or not (and seriously, do our readers?) There are some damn good editors on both sides who are muddying their credibility with this silliness and the sooner it's over the better, so, yeah, good luck Ryan ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the worst cases of admin bullying I have ever seen ("I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be."—I wonder on the basis of what aspect of WP:BLOCKING or WP:ADMIN?). Ryan, you are supposed to be the head of WP's Mediation process; I presume that you have expertise in the kind of facilitation that persuades editors in highly problematic disputes to resolve their issues in as peaceable a way as possible. There has been little evidence of this; instead, suddenly we are faced with apparently arbitrary dictating of "What's going to happen", and threats to block editors for participating on a page in which they have found themselves involved for weeks. I grant you that it is a difficult page to manage, but you did initiate it of your own volition. That you did so after several parties at the related ArbCom hearing expressed a lack of confidence in your clerking and called for you to step down from that position, has brought a particularly strong need for you to bring to bear all of your talents and attention to the page. I am surprised that you are now playing the role not of a mediator, but an aggressor; I am sure that this is not your practice as head of Mediation (is it?).

I note your statement that "I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 UTC on 28 March", but I'm afraid it's not your place to dictate. You do not own the space, and it is not an ArbCom matter (you yourself have stated this). Rather, you might have said to all parties "I wonder whether we might agree on a closing time to let things settle: how about 0:00 UTC on 28 March?". People would probably have agreed and been on-board with you, respecting your good management. I'm afraid your aggressive actions have not created that situation. Tony (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what has triggered this reaction from Ryan. It should have been no surprise to anyone that there would be sniping and edit-warring here, given that it came part and parcel with the MOSNUM saga. In case you haven't noticed, all this here is already extremely civil and cooperative compared to what went on before. This whole dispute is pretty lame alright, but the "I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be" is not the correct antidote to this poison. The whole problem with Masem's RfC was that it was rushed out in a panic attempt to counter Tony's effort, and this sort of dominatrix act is just going to result in another poorly constructed RfC with a lot more bad blood and a perpetuation of this dispute. There is already an injuction on, and the RfC appears to be moving in the right direction, so where's the frakking rush? Then Mr Chairman of the mediating committee suddenly decides that he owns the whole process, and threatens to take the ball away... I'm not seeing very skillful mediating skills being displayed here. Quite the opposite - this behaviour is quite lamentable. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ryan

Some sort of period of neutral involvement is needed, as the participants in the date delinking arbitration are clearly too close to the issue to be of much use now (the base questions are formulated and generally agreed upon, but the longer this drags out the more it seems new issues are found total rewrites are attempted). I won't comment on the threat of blocks except to say that, in his capacity as mediator/clerk, it's a tool he may need to use to keep order in the neutral discussions. I sincerely hope we can get something useful out of this RFC, and the only way that will happen is if neutral parties (those totally uninvolved with the issue prior to the ArbCom case) are allowed to critique the questions and offer their own input without fear of being hammered to death by people on either side of the debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

211.179.112.62 is not follow the results from discussion (removing a CIA list. see Talk:Developed country and [63]) he is doing vandalism, because of turkish nationalism. (a 1981 CIA lists include turkey on list.) --Tnaniua (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the motive of User:211.179.112.62 is to oppose what he sees as Korean nationalism on the part of User:Tnaniua, rather than to promote Turkish nationalism. This is part of a content dispute at Developed country regarding the inclusion of the CIA list which has been running intermittently since March 13, involving various named editors and IPs. Spacepotato (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We removed a CIA list on 13:08, 6 March 2009. but 78.40.231.225 start doing vandalism (08:19, 13 March 2009). --Tnaniua (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've removed the request at WP:AIV as Tnaniua has brought it here. --GedUK  10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations to articles.

The aforementioned IP address has been targeting me on multiple websites and this has now moved to wikipedia. The articles Adventures of Stephen brown and Athlete Stephen Brown were altered in an attempt to cause me personal distress.

I would be very greatful if you could prevent this IP address from carrying out similar attacks.

Many thanks in advance for your assistance.

• 19:14, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Paul Heaton ‎
• 16:32, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Adventures of Stephen Brown ‎
• 16:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Adventures of Stephen Brown ‎
• 15:26, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Stephen Brown (athlete) ‎ (top) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.201.81 (talk)

Those five-week-old edits were the last (and only) edits made by that IP. The IP was warned about their edits, stopped a while afterwards and hasn't edited since What admin action are you looking for? Tonywalton ^Talk 10:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article was vandalised, and the vandalism has been reverted. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prince Of All Saiyans (talk · contribs) Blocked
• WaltDaMan (talk · contribs)
• Clw182 (talk · contribs)
• Harasturner (talk · contribs)
• O.Stroud (talk · contribs)

I stumbled across this little social network. It looks like this has been going on for a while, except that the network has grew a little.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Two_using_Wikipedia_as_Myspace
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive507#Just_block_them..please
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505#Myspace_guys..again

Prince Of All Saiyans, WaltDaMan, Clw182, and Harasturner have all continued to chat after level 3 or 4 warnings, while O.Stroud hasn't since a level 1. Prince Of All Saiyans has previously been blocked for this; WaltDaMan has, too. The only one that I can see that has many non-talk page edits is Harasturner, although I did not look very close. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indefblocked Prince Of All Saiyans and WaltDaMan (POAS didn't have a previous block, but I found almost no useful article edits and they have been previously warned). Unfortunately I'll be unexpectedly afk for the next hour or so, so if someone wants to look at the rest... If not not, I'll see to it when I get back. EyeSerene^talk 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick response. Sorry about PoaS not having a previous block, I must have looked at the wrong tab or something. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, I do that all the time (too many tabs open at once :P). I've also indeffed Harasturner per previous warnings (their removing the last to reconfigure their talk-page back into chat-sections was a good indication of how much notice they'd taken). As new users with no previous warnings, I've left notes for Clw182 and O.Stroud; hopefully they'll get the message. Thanks for your report ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I actually had warned Clw182 4 previous times ([64], [65], [66], [67]). It's hard to keep up with due to all of the blanking and the long revision history because of the chatting. Hopefully, they'll get the message. Cheers and thanks again! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that Prince of All Saiyans, and Harastruner are removing block notices after they were blocked. Could those talk pages be prevented from editing? Momusufan (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with removing block notices. --Onorem♠Dil 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But if they are blocked, their talk pages are still open for them to edit, shouldn't they not be allowed to edit their pages? Momusufan (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have a right to request unblock via their talkpage. If, however, they choose to continue to use the Talkpage as a social networking page - the reason they were blocked in the first place - then yes, the first time they do it, the page should be locked. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for protection unless they abuse them by continuing to chat. And please stop reverting the users if they remove the notices. --Onorem♠Dil 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the correct place to report a username which appears to give the full name of a user who is a Wikipedia admin? Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reported at WP:UAA Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a new policy that I wasn't aware of, and does it mean I have to change my username? Tonywalton ^Talk 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just change your real name and you are within policy. --64.85.214.236 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)--64.85.214.236 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the problem was that the username was created by someone who is not the admin in question, and appeared to be an attempt to "out" the admin. Making your user name the same as your real name is not, as far as I know, a problem at all. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there was me filling in deed poll forms to change my name to 127.0.0.1. Since the username in question has ben blocked I'm marking this as "resolved". Tonywalton ^Talk 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a nigger. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]