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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Berig (talk · contribs)[edit]

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)

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)

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

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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.[1] He was also just blocked by a different admin for the username. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw that[2] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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[3] 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Actually that message was left yesterday, before his response here[4] No idea why it ended up with a March 24th time stamp.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Please note the message that I left before CBM posted his message. [5]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Oh, come on. Block and be done with it - [6] vandalism only (and probably doesn't speak much english.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ([7] [8] [9]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

• The CEO of a German company is hiding out in the USA? Hmmmmm ....... [11]. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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 [12], 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The anon IP has been alerted to WP:NLT and has clarified that they were not intending a legal threat.[13] 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)

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)

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)

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)

211.179.112.62 is not follow the results from discussion (removing a CIA list. see Talk:Developed country and [14]) he is doing vandalism, because of turkish nationalism. (a 1981 CIA lists include turkey on list.) --Tnaniua (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [22] 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)

Ibrahim4048, you now say "I never said that the genocide didn't happen", but here, [[23]], 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

• 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: [24]. 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)

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

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 [25]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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: [26] Now, who did the admin assist? A guess: [27]. 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)

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 [28], 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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, Fred. However, I don't think you are the only vandal; in fact, while you are sometimes grossly uncivil, there is another who truly vandalizes and follows me around dropping poop on many pages where I edit; I suppose it could be you, and it's from the same general region but the style is different and the user behind that is pretty clearly known and, again, while it's possible you could have set up a sock with a different style, my guess is that this other vandal doesn't have your ... intelligence. I do know that you are careful not to share IP with your longer-term accounts, and, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not terribly exercised to try to pin those accounts down, though I believe it could be done. I really don't care about long-term socks; an established account is an established account, we don't make decisions by !vote, and you will be careful with your long-term assets, which means you are unlikely to compromise them by truly disruptive behavior and thus your net contribution through them is likely positive; where there are exceptions, they can be addressed according to the behavior, not the identity. As you know, I don't believe Fredrick day is your first account, every indication is that this account was created by you to provide certain freedoms and allow for what you saw as fun, and you may have been surprised by how much you could get away with. It taught me a great deal about Wikipedia, and for this I'm grateful. I may have learned more from you than from User:Absidy, though he was indeed a crash course. (It was brilliant, actually, he knew what he was doing at times.) You know you are always welcome to email me, I assume you would use one of your known IP ranges so it wouldn't provide any more information than we already have; you may also drop a note at User talk:Abd/IP where I'll eventually see it. I think from this incident here, you can tell that I'm not pursuing or tracking you, and, if you look at the past, you will see that I only acted with respect to you when you directly confronted me or my work in developing consensus or consensus process. I only responded here because I was asked to do so, on my Talk page. Good luck, and I hope you are enjoying your editing. You and those like you are an important asset for Wikipedia, if contained and harnessed with proper balance. Same as anyone with a POV, including myself, which means practically anyone who is useful: experts almost always have a strong POV. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Thanks. I actually had warned Clw182 4 previous times ([29], [30], [31], [32]). 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)
• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

looks like Harastruner is still not listening, had to revert her edits again. And sorry for restoring the block notices Momusufan (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted your revert. Asking for clarification on why they were blocked is not continuing to use their page as a social network. --Onorem♠Dil 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Not sure why she has those headers still up though. Momusufan (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the headers per WP:BOLD and left a polite message. Hopefully I, as a "fresh person" in the dispute, might get through. I wouldn't bother removing them again if he re-adds them, though, just block if he actually uses them for anything! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the assists! Apologies Apparition11, you're right that Clw182 was warned, but the account was only created yesterday so there's no long-term pattern of abuse - I thought they deserved the benefit of the doubt. Momusufan, we regard a user blanking a message as confirmation that it's been seen and understood, so it's not normally a problem if they do that (and it's still there in the page history for anyone to see). No problem though ;) I've got their talk-pages watchlisted, and they'll be locked down if the chatting resumes. EyeSerene^talk 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Hopefully it's enough for Clw182 to get the message. I'm hoping the others will, too, and will post an unblock request promising to stop (and follow through). PoaS and Harasturner are now replying to people not in their network instead of simply blanking, which could be a good sign. I'm not holding my breath, but I'll keep my fingers crossed :) Thanks for everything! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's one unblock request up now; as long as they're monitored for a while, I'd be inclined to grant it and see how things go, but we'll see what the reviewing admin thinks. EyeSerene^talk 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is a recidivist vandal who is doing this across wikis. Crosswiki checkusers and stewards are working on it as we speak. Thank you for the update! -- Avi (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Knives87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In particular, nomination of Natural afro-hair for deletion with deletion rationale of "wat" without placing deletion template on article (AFD here) followed by placing Featured Artical Nomination template on Lynne Spears [33] followed by this edit where he nominates the article for deletion. Admin attention is necessary I believe, even while assuming good faith this appears to be disruptive. I plan to drop a note on the user's talk page but wanted to bring the activities up here. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins and others, please note that after this section was placed, Knives87 blanked it and replaced the content with the word "nigger". I suggest a block is appropriate to prevent further disruption. Doc Tropics 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just block per [34] and this [35]. Clear sock of someone, here only for disruption.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet MAYBE I JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT POV YOU HIVE MIND . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knives87 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Don't think we need to see any more.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just to explain that - I was right at the end of a long day and had to log off soon, and though I tended to feel as you and will Beback did about the content I decided that decision was best left for someone else who would be up awake longer than I was, in case there was controversy over it. Posting here was the most neutral thing I could think of... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • Indefblocked PorLaRazaNada. Agree it's probably the same person as the IP, who I'm blocking for a week as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • The IP is now calling me racist, apparently for blocking them because they're white supremacists... They have an unblock request up. Someone else may want to weigh in on that. Or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A now-deleted edit to Talk:Sssr8m read in part, "Here is our website" (italics mine). The account appears to be an SPA which exists solely to promote the company Sssr8m, and is also a prohibited shared account. --Rrburke^(talk) 18:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved comment up to "Complaint" section where it belongs. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Being bold... with a good reason; a selective list of countries which have already got their own entries. That was the main source of the edit warring and the suspected socks appearances. Check the history for further background. Feel free to revert. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No argument here, and I think the article - now concentrating as it does on the definition and concept - is more scholarly as a result. Per your well-'judged' hint above I've stuck it on my watchlist too. EyeSerene^talk 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a very reasonable solution to a tough problem. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Less troubles though they may be redirected to the generic articles themselves—if they are not already. We may have to watchlist the problematic ones. Less is only more where more is no good. - Frank Lloyd Wright. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, bold edit by Fayssal. There's obviously more we can do with the article but it's much better without the country-by-country list. We might ultimately want to include those country articles in a see also or a subsection (maybe linking to a disambig page or list page) but that's hardly a pressing concern. I've watchlisted the page (which I avoided doing in the past) and will try to help make sure that specific accusations don't creep back into the general article - they just don't belong there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

  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)

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

  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)

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

• 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)

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

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)

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

Erm, WTF? Listusers isn't displaying it but the logs are. --Thinboy00 @114, i.e. 01:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've given him a hoy on his talk page.[36] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, the burden of verifiability lies with the editor who insists on adding material to an article, not with editors who spot unsourced material, who are instructed by WP:V to remove it. This is specifically spelled out by WP:Burden, which states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." One reason this is the correct policy is that if you obligate editors who find unsourced material instead of the ones who added it, then you're setting up an unreasonable burden on the former in upholding WP:V, essentially forcing them to go digging through a list of Notes to find the right source that the other editor claims has supported the material for several years, or through a webpage named in an Edit Summary. This seems right to you? No, I'm sorry, but that's the job of the editor adding the material, and WP:Burden backs this up. The reverts and warnings were not made because the source was "in the wrong place", nor did Skyring "reformat" anything. The material was reverted, and he was politely warned, without any "self-righteousness", because he didn't include one at all. As David himself pointed out, wouldn't it have been more constructive for Skyring to have added the source himself rather than blindly reverting? If he was willing to write it out in an Edit Summary, why not write it out in the passage, which is required? Regarding BITE, Skyring is not a newcomer. He's been editing since December 2004, and has accumulated over 6,000 edits since then. He should understand WP:V and WP:CS by now, as should you, as the policies I've quoted here disprove your assertions. This issue is not resolved, as the information has been re-added to the article, without a source. If the "resolved" tag that was placed at the top of this section signifies that this section will be eventually archived without further discussion, I will be reverting the material by then if it's not sourced.Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also have been more constructive if you would have added the reference yourself? You knew where to find it, after all. I'm pretty sure it would've taken less effort to add the reference yourself than to revert and warn a user acting in good faith. :) --Conti|✉ 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have added a source, improved the article, and instantly ended the silliness in less time it took to write that paragraph. It certainly took me less time to do than writing this, very short note. henrik•talk 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered that question. Repeating it will not change anything. The burden is on the person adding it, not on others. That another party upholding WP:V "can add it" and "is required to" are not the same thing. As for what I've written here, well I really wouldn't have had to if Skyring didn't make an issue of this, now would I? I remove unsourced material every day as part of my wikignome/wikifairy duties, and I've never had an editor of 4 years challenge the validity of this, or claim that I am required to cite sources for material they add, much make an ANI case out of it that required my response. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are not required to add citations to uncited material, even when you do know exactly where to find the sources.. But doing it anyhow (despite not being required to) kinda sounds like a pretty good idea nonetheless, doesn't it? --Conti|✉ 01:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. Nightscream is not being honest here. I only came to the article - when it came up on my watchlist - to reformat the birth date and age template in this diff. I didn't add any new information. As I've pointed out a few times, TB-L's birthdate has been part of the article for years. Nightscream then came along and removed birthdate, place of birth and current residence, and began sending me warnings about verifying sources. I took another look at the article and noted that there was a biography listed as a source, and I googled the subject and came up with the info. I didn't need to provide a source. I don't have time to check every source of every article I look at, sometimes just to revert vandalism or fix a spelling error. The responsibility lies on the adder of the material, or if an editor looks at existing information and smells a rat. Tim's details looked good to me, for the simple reason that they were accurate. I'm not happy at being yelled at, threatened and misrepresented by someone who should know better. Pointing out to Nightscream - and you might want to work on that user name, mate - that the sources were in place and easily checked had no effect. He just kept right on removing good information.

Looking at Nightscream's past edits, he has a history of this. For instance, he removed accurate, sourced information on Natalie Cole's second and third marriages, even though that material was given in one of the listed references. He removed rubber pioneer Charles Goodyear from Naugatuck, Connecticut - Naugatuck's most famous son, gone! It just goes on and on - we're losing good, sourced, accurate information from our articles due to Nightscream's misplaced zeal. There's a ton of vandalism and dubious material in our articles, why doesn't this chap go hunting down and removing the bad stuff instead of getting rid of valuable information? I echo and underscore the earlier label of self-righteousness, and I again hope that he gets better in his performance as an editor. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Five seconds on the BBC's website confirms details of birth date. – ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Hang on. Nightscream is not being honest here. I only came to the article - when it came up on my watchlist - to reformat the birth date and age template in this diff." Untrue. This edit shows him re-adding unsourced information. Thus the only one not being honest is you. Whether it was in the article for "years" is irrelevant. Whether info on it was at Google or BBC is irrelevant. It has to be sourced in the article. Not in an Edit Summary. Not on another website. Unsourced information does not earn some type of legitimacy simply because it goes unnoticed in an article for years. The hoaxed material at the center of the Seigenthaler incident went unnoticed for four months. That didn't mean that it became legitimate. That's not my opinion. It's Wikipedia's.

"I didn't need to provide a source. I don't have time to check every source of every article I look at, sometimes just to revert vandalism or fix a spelling error." Yes, you do. We are not talking about vandalism or spelling. We're talking about information you re-added to an article, that was not sourced.

"The responsibility lies on the adder of the material..." Right. And you're the one who kept adding it. You seem to be laboring under the belief that because you may have not been the one who originally added it, that therefore, that doesn't count. Wrong. Whether you added it initially when the article was first written, or re-added it after it was deleted is irrelevant. Unless you can provide a policy-based rationale why my removal of it was invalid, restoring it without a source was a violation of WP:V.

"Tim's details looked good to me, for the simple reason that they were accurate." Which must be supported by a source cited in the text, and not merely your say-so, which constitutes Original Research, and is prohibited. If you want to continue editing, you really ought to familiarize yourself with policies like this.

"I'm not happy at being yelled at, threatened and misrepresented by someone who should know better." No one yelled at you, threatened you, or misrepresented you. You were politely admonished not to keep adding unsourced material. Because you refused to stop, higher level warnings were required, which is part of their use. This does not constitute "yelling".

"Pointing out to Nightscream - and you might want to work on that user name, mate..." Continue to make personal comments that add nothing to these discussions, and all you do is reveal to others the number of different policies you're willing to chuck out the window when you don't get your way, in this case, WP:Civility, WP:Attack, etc.

"Looking at Nightscream's past edits, he has a history of this. For instance, he removed accurate, sourced information on Natalie Cole's second and third marriages, even though that material was given in one of the listed references." It doesn't matter if they're in references. They need to be cited in-line where the information is presented in the article, which I pointed out above. Do you continue to dispute this?

"He removed rubber pioneer Charles Goodyear from Naugatuck, Connecticut - Naugatuck's most famous son, gone" Of course I removed it. It was not sourced. What part of this do you not comprehend? User:Polaron reverted that edit, with the Edit Summary "restoring Charles Goodyear -- the article on Goodyear does discuss this". In fact, other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, as explicitly spelled out here. I even looked at the Goodyear article, just to see if there was a source that I could copy and paste into the Naugatuck article. Guess what? It's wasn't even sourced in Goodyear's article! (Polaron has since found a source for it.)

"There's a ton of vandalism and dubious material in our articles, why doesn't this chap go hunting down and removing the bad stuff instead of getting rid of valuable information?" False Either/Or Fallacy. You imply that there is a forced choice where none exists. One does not need to choose to remove vandalism "instead" of unsourced material. If you bothered to actually look through my Edit History, you'll see that I remove vandalism along with unsourced information every day. There's no either/or here, because both vandalism and unsourced material are bad. If you care enough about Wikipedia to maintain its quality, you'll look over WP:V, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:CIV, and all other pertinent policies, and conform to them, instead of thinking you can just violate them, and attack those who try to correct you with personal comments. Nightscream (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Achievement Hour an event that is an alternative to Earth Hour was deleted by speedy deletion today (3/25/2009). The event was under discussion with a count of 5 for and 5 against at the time of deletion.

The dispute with deletion is logged here instead of Wikipedia:Deletion_review because of the suspicious nature of the deletion.

The deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_Achievement_Hour

The speedy deletion was absolutely unnecessary, as there was a quality discussion for its merit. User_talk:Yandman is responsible for its deletion and gave zero reason for the decision of deletion. His user account also indicates a spotty record and a itchy deletion trigger finger.

Furthermore, knowledge of the fact that the event occurs this upcoming Saturday the 28th of March, and the fact that no argument or reasoning was presented for a deletion case, creates reasonable suspicion that deletion was a directive of personal bias of the events nature, and not a neutral editor with good cause.

The event is notable, and has been mentioned in the National Post, a major newspaper with a global reach.

Additionally, the event has been mentioned by Michelle Malkin who has a nationally syndicated column reaching more than 200 newspapers, and is additionally a contributor on Fox News, MSNBC, and C-Span.

The event is also to be brought before the House Floor of the Oregon State Congress by Representative Matt Wingard with a youtube video to follow.

The O'Reilley Factor has contacted CEI about the Wikipedia take down as well.

Thehondaboy (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion, yandman closed the AfD debate. The consensus, discounting the meatpuppetry that made no attempts to justify keeping the article based on Wikipedia policy, was clearly to delete. A quick search through Lexis reveals that the article doesn't come close to meeting WP:N. Taking the discussion here instead of WP:DRV is improper; that's exactly what deletion review is for. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The consensus was clearly a tie. "Meatpuppetry" is your opinion. The weight is on those who want to delete to give reason why it does not meet Wiki guidelines. The only reason given was WP:SR which is the weakest argument anyone could have possibly given. The reason for the post here is not for deletion review. A critical read of the statement was that instead of allowing the discussion to continue awaiting an actual Wiki guidelines complaint as reason for deletion, it was taken down abruptly and conveniently 3 days before the event. Something that generally does not occur on Wiki when there is a decent debate, or no actual reason for deletion has been given. Therefore the deletion is suspicious as bias and not actual wiki guidelines. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, correct. The people that suggested to keep the article were either IP editors, or single purpose accounts relating to keeping the article. Again, this is not the place to debate whether the article was correctly deleted or not, that is deletion review. The admin was correct in closing the article with a delete. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "consensus" on the Keep side consists of an editor who votes twice, two IPs with few other edits (I can make a good guess on those) and - of the remaining two Keeps - one with a rationale which was basically "it's notable, the deleters have a hidden agenda", Still, just in case, this is what you want. Black Kite 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Yandman of this thread. shoy (reactions) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't count votes here, there is no such thing as "a tie". Articles have to meet our notability guidelines, which in all honesty are not that stringent. AFD discussions last five days, which is how long the above discussion was open for. You're being willfully obtuse when you claim that no reason for deletion was given, since the reasons were quite fundamental. Again, please read WP:N, Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have started a review of the deletion at WP:DRV; you are welcome to contribute. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "you are welcome to contribute once" :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh lovely -- anything and everyone that isn't contributing to Earth Hour is deemed to be part of this HAH, including the Smithsonian because they are showing a film that won't finish before the hour. Wikipedia is not here to be part of some sort of promotion. dougweller (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An event whose acronym is HAH, we're supposed to take seriously??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Speaking of this. Clearly some logged out editing/socking/meat puppetry going on over at Teleprompter now. Here's the contributions log. [37]Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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.[38] .... |.... Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

← 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)

• Strongly Oppose. Per RayAYang, and also, the disturbing lack of warnings to this user. Typically, warnings are given, not immediate (6-month long) bans. Personally, I believe that is ridiculous. Also, note that this man serves in the military. If anyone is allowed to give their opinion (which, from the looks of it, this is an opinion of his), it is the men and women who serve our country. -Axmann8 (Talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No warning? How about this one? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 6 blocks is substantial warning. And because he's allegedly in the military he can do what he want? I don't think so... Grsz¹¹ 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, can somebody define Axmann's topic ban? Grsz¹¹ 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to User:Axmann8/About me, he's under a topic ban on politics. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban, as I brokered it, applies only to editing articles related to politics or directly commenting on said articles on public noticeboards short of serious behavioral issues (i.e. sockpuppetry, Frankenstein's Monster, legal threats). It does not extend to noticeboard discussions about users (unless the complaint involved political biases) or to talk pages (so long as the deed and intent are not disruptive or otherwise violates core policies), so Axmann's topic ban does not apply here. IAR can't be invoked here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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)
• Endorse topic ban. I was going to suggest something similar myself. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• Endorse topic ban, it all adds up to that. Chillum 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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

  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)

• Endorse Highly offensive comments that demean wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)

  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)

  I understand that there are concerns about prior issues. But this report is about this incident (see thread title). An RfC or other process would be more appropriate for a more generalized investigation of behavior. It's also worth noting that many of this editor's critics in this thread seem to be as unhappy with the political content and this editor's perspectives as they are with any of his/her actions as far as civility. That's a dangerous way to go, and I think the utmost impartiality is required when such a serious enforcement measure is discussed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I could care less about a topic ban, maybe it will do me some good. Quite honestly though, it has become virtually impossible to edit any Obama related article as a small tight nit group of editors and their lackey admin buddies now WP:OWN every Obama related article and have done a wonderful job of chasing nearly every other editor they don’t approve of off Administration related articles and the entire encyclopedia itself.

Polices , especially WP:BLP, have gone from being “non-negotiable” to based on bullying tactics passed off as wp:Consensus. In truth its really the sound of one hand clapping.

Have I been blocked several times, this much is true. Some of it was pure unadulterated bullshit and some of it was legitimate, and considering the harassment I have received I could have reacted better to it. But to say that there hasn’t been constant provocation by some editors is laughable.

This wont stop until someone important decides its going to stop (I am talking to you Jim Wales).

And for the record, what the hell is so racist about calling him the Chocolate Messiah? I know how powerful all this manufactured outrage can be, but can we please give the PC huggers a break?CENSEI (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An RfC may or may not be carried out regarding CENSEI's overall conduct, but it would be a mistake to confuse the existence of an RfC with the legitimacy of CENSEI's Obama topic ban, which under the terms of the article probation requires nothing more than an uninvolved admin's discretion. I would also like to point out that continuing to refer to Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah" on Wikipedia may be viewed as a violation of that ban - though I'd welcome input from other admins on that point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And MastCell is an uninvolved administrator? You really buy that? And as far as continuing to refer to Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah" being a violation of the ban, how am I supposed to dispute these charges unless I can repeat them? Am I supposed to talk in code? CENSEI (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an Admin, but I fail to see how phrases like "Chocolate Messiah" can be construed as anything but provocative and disruptive. We don't have "freedom of speech" here on WP, and that kind of crap doesn't do anything to help produce higher quality articles. Doc Tropics 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this apply to all conduct on Wikipedia that offends people's PC sensibility? The next time someone says something that someone else deems to be offensive against msulims/Christains/Jews/Catholics/gays/Mormons/women whatever …. Are we going to have them prostrate them in from of the community and demand they say 10 novellas to the “offended” parties before they are allowed to edit again? CENSEI (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. We might ask them to modify their behavior, as you have been asked to do multiple times. If they decided against modifying their behavior, and in fact persisted in their dirsuptive behavior, I presume administrative actions would eventually be taken. The last time I tangled with you in an editing dispute you, basically, challenged me to a fight. Your choices at the moment are to change your behavior, accept that your unchanged behavior is going to lead to restricted editing rights, or simply leave. It's all in your hands.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Challenged you to a fight ... thats quite the whopper, care to back that up with a link or something? CENSEI (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an email you sent me - you don't remember? (The point of bringing this up is that you interact inappropriately and with hostility to lots and lots of people. That's what's gotten you into trouble... not your political views).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Email is off-wiki and off limits as far as discussion of conduct is concerned. Bali, it might be an idea to strike that one sentence above, in the interest of de-escalating the situation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNINVOLVED. You might also wish to review Talk:Barack Obama/article probation and consider how well your conduct matches the ideals laid out there. If on reflection you still want to dispute MastCell's suitability to do so, I will impose a six month Barack Obama topic ban myself. If on the other hand you wish to dispute the legitimacy of the top`ic ban altogether, it might be best to email ArbCom directly; feel free to use any terminology you see fit. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI, it's certainly reasonable to ask that you refrain from using that phrase in the future. It doesn't serve a useful purpose as far as building and collaborating on the encyclopedia. As far as inappropriate conduct or phrasing by others that may be tolerated based on unfair and unequal standards of political correctness and political biases, that may be true. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't abide by the highest standards yourself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. CENSEI's reference to BA in this way belongs on conservative talk radio, as do most of his opinions, as I've experienced them. Block indef. ► RATEL ◄ 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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 ([39], [40], [41], [42]). He appropriated User:Kansas Bear's userpage, presumably in order to cover his nationalist edits [43]. He has engaged in personal attacks ([44], [45]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

i put only reliable sources in to articles. is it a crime in wikipedia? those are want me to quit wikipedia, so they would change articles with their racist opinions.--Huckelbarry (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

look at Aramgar's attacks to the articles Sultanate of Rum, Attila the Hun and other Turkic Peoples related articles. He is a pure vandalist, and a great enemy of Turkic civilization. I called him an anti-turk, and now he uses this term as an "attacking word" as same as " the vandalist". he like to mark peoples as a nationalist, racist but his opinions deserves a massive check up.--Huckelbarry (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

CUTKD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Awhile ago, I politely requested this user remove the <big> tags from his signature, as they can cause disruption. How did he respond to me? He added in three big tags.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably a joke. He's not using that signature anywhere else: [46]. He probably just missed a sarcasm tag. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm it was a joke. I was hoping the sarcasm was obvious, but I guess not... C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User Opinoso edit warring to impose his POV that Gaúchos are not of Portuguese ancestry. Till when will is this disruptive behaviour be tolerated? Ninguém (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about providing a cite to support your view that Gaúchos cannot be of any other race?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that they cannot be of any other race. People of Portuguese ancestry predominate in Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul. This is the information Opinoso wants to remove from the article. Ninguém (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém's version:

People of Portuguese ancestry predominate on the coast and southern parts of the state, being mainly of Gaúcho (especially in the Southwest) or Azorean background (especially in the coastal region).

Opinoso's version:

People of Gaúcho ancestry (who can be of any race) predominate in the Southwest. People of Portuguese, mostly Azorean background predominate in the coastal region.

Looks to me like they say essentially the same thing -- Gauchos (of whatever race) in the SW, Portuguese/Azorean people on the coast. To support your version, you'd need a cite saying that most of the Gauchos in the SW are of Portuguese ancestry. Failing that, stop accusing each other of vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Gaucho a background, and the nationality of one's ancestors deteriminative of one's ancestry? Ninguém's version seems to be more accurate in portraying Gaucho as cultural, the others as geographic, though Azorean needs to be looked at in either version. Further, Opinoso's reads as three different groups, gaucho, portuguese, and azorean, in two distinct regions, whereas Ninguéms shows two origins of one group in two related regions. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the IBGE racial data for Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul:

• Total.......................747.115
• Branca (White)..............606.650
• Preta (Black)................40.138
• Amarela (Yellow)................548
• Parda (Mixed)................95.404
• Indígena (Native).............2.078
• Sem declaração (undeclared)...2.296

(Go [47], select table 2094, chose all options in the Raça/Cor box, go down to "Níveis Territoriais", click "Fazer Seleção Avançada" in the Mesorregião Geográfica line, clik "Listar", find "4306 - Sudoeste Riograndense", click "Selecionar", go down and click "OK".)

Which means, while those people "can" be of "any race", they in fact are, in the majority, White - 606 thousand out of 747 thousand. Now nobody has claimed that those people are of Italian or German descent, because they aren't. Any source about the immigration of Germans and Italians will tell you that they settled, respectively, the Central region and the Serra Gaúcha. Ninguém (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYNTH. Find a source which shows the people are Portuguese, don't use your own personal research/synthesis. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here: [48]

O povoamento foi sendo feito a partir da chegada dos primeiros lagunistas, que se fixavam para criar gado. A ocupação do solo se adequava às características da criação de gado, e aos padrões de propriedade rural adotados em toda a colônia: eram doadas grandes glebas de terras a um proprietário, que as ocupava com gado.

Para o trato dos animais, usavam-se alguns poucos homens, livres ou escravos. A estância consolidava-se, aos poucos, como célula básica da vida gaúcha, e o estancieiro, senhor absoluto dentro de sua área, não era apenas responsável pelo cuidado do gado e dos homens sob suas ordens; também se encarregava da defesa do solo, garantindo sua posse à coroa portuguesa. Numa região permanentemente em conflito, a estância iria desempenhar o papel de defesa, de sobrevivência, de segurança, e seria a marca da presença portuguesa no Rio Grande do Sul.

Translating,

"Settling was made starting with the arrival of the first lagunistas, who established to raise cattle. Land occupation fitted the caracteristics of husbandry, as well as the land property standards in the whole colony: huge portions of land were donated to a proprietor, which would occupy them with cattle.

For the care of the animals, a few men, free or slave, were used. The estância slowly consolidated as the basic cell of the gaúcha life, and the estancieiro, absolute lord in his own area, was not only responsible for the cattle and the men under his authority; he would also take care of the defence of the land, ensuring its possession to the Portuguese Crown. In a region of permanent conflict, the estância would play the role of defence, of survival, of security, and would be the mark of the Portuguese presence in Rio Grande do Sul." Ninguém (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it me, or are trolls getting... well.... dimmer? This appeared on my talkpage from an IP (obviously I've redacted the names, and the diffs have been oversighted). Spelling mistakes are as they originally appeared:

We at Fooglebuzz High School would like to apologize for the resent vandalism by "a user" (or as we know him "his real name") he is a bit slow. we will make sere it dose not happen agine.

To help us in this can you give us his account password so we may monitor him.

I'll send them the infrmation right after I've posted my passport to that poor chap in Sierra Leone who's offered to send me $1500000 for looking after some gold bars for him ☺ I'm flagging this as "resolved" straight away, but thought a bit of light relief amidst the drama might come in handy Tonywalton ^Talk 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

hey, for 10% of that, I'll go to Sierra Leone and bring the gold bars back for you. and yes, I take PayPal.

Thanks, Tony, made my evening at least :)  GARDEN  21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually tell them my password is 'fuckyouyougreasyasshole' and wait for the fun to start. HalfShadow 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

lol :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You could also turn the tables on the Sierra Leone guy by asking him for a loan. That might evoke some interesting responses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're after Scam baiting, Bugs. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. Scam baiting could become an industry unto itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Further to an incident above, now marked as resolved, Nightscream continues to remove valid, sourced information from our articles, citing WP:V and WP:BLP. A recent example may be found here. In this edit Nightscream removes the birthdate of Robert Pattinson. The birthdate is provided in the IMDB site listed at the end of the article, and may be easily checked elsewhere.

While I could, of course, restore the information and make an inline reference, I don't feel that I (or any other editor) should have to get a broom, follow around admin Nightscream, and sweep up his doings. I'm also wondering if this may be trolling behaviour on Nightscream's part, given the nature of our recent interaction. Could I get an admin to comment on this incident? --Pete (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDB can be challenged as agents and other people can change content without verifying the information on it. Where are the other sources showing this birthdate? MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick google shows oodles. While the movie world and acting fraternity is full of misinformation, shadows and dubious characters, I don't think we really need a birth certificate to accept information so widely and freely available. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly... Nightscream, please stop, the project does not benefit from such a strict interpretation of WP:BLP. We have much bigger BLP problems here to waste time on this... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not applying a "strict interpretation" of BLP or any other policy. Whether you like it or not, WP:V requires all material in articles to be sourced. Pattinson's birthdate was not sourced, contrary to Skyring's assertion. The only cite given at the end of the opening sentence of his article (which contained his birthdate), made no mention of his date of birth. Skyring labors under the false belief that something is "sourced" if there is a source for it somewhere "out there" on the Internet. This is wrong. "Sourced" means that the source is cited in the article, in the text that contains the material in question. He was given ample opportunity to refute this as a matter of policy in the other discussion. Instead of doing so, he made false accusations about my conduct with him, false statements about his own Edit History, engaged in a number of non sequiturs, and made a series of irrelevant, personal comments, in violation of WP:Civility. As for Imdb, Imdb is not considered a reliable source of information, a I've come to learn after previously relying on it myself. You can verify this by asking at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where that question has been asked more than once. The fact remains that if there's "oodles" of reliable sources, then you should be able to add them to the relevant passages in the article. Nightscream (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The user Dumaka has been editing these two articles to support his dislike of the entertainer. Notably was his revisions to the entertainer's article where he revereted a legitimate revision to another one which included the line " Next album = "Carol City Correctional - Represent". That of course is not the entertainer's next album, yet Dumaka purposely reverted it to contain the line. A quick glance over his contributions should show his agenda is trying to disrupt articles associated with this entertainer.--97.97.160.121 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is Deeper Than Rap. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the IP address of Lithium72990 (talk · contribs · count), who i blocked for messing about with AIV reports. I have just shortened his block on appeal, and told him not to use this IP address, though that was after this was posted. --GedUK  08:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Everything I have post about this entertainer has been fact and NPOV. Everything Lithium as posted has been bias in support of this artist. The reason he is accussing me of this is because he doesn't like the truths I'm placing into the article. You can check the logs. " Next album = "Carol City Correctional - Represent". I didn't even make this edit. 98.14.64.86 did this edit. I reverted this by mistake. I was reverting the bias not the vandalism. I didn't notice his until Lithium decided to accuse me.Dumaka (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) Just for the curious :D --WebHamster 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC) omai. //roux   21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC) "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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Users can remove links to hateful sites as per the rules  rdunnPLIB  14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) ←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) 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) Looking for a book? Look no further than Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC) 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) 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) As a footnote, Raquel Baranow's personal views denying the holocaust [49] were spelled out in full on the talk pages of Holocaust denial. Calling editors disagreeing with her conspiracy theories "jerks" on her talk page [50] 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) 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) By uncritically repeating their claims (in your own words: some "witnesses" say the Zyklon was "swept out the doors" and dumped through holes in the ceiling, aerial reconnasiance photos, which contradict eyewitness testimony of smoke & flames belching from crematoria chimnies and shows no huge piles of coke necessary for mass cremation above those that died during typhus epidemics or other causes), you are giving the appearance of being in agreement with certain extreme holocaust deniers. The same goes for your videos. Perhaps you could tell us here in one sentence what you think holocaust denial is, since the lede of the article already seems to makes that quite clear. As far as I understand what you have written on the talk page, you are saying that it is an established fact that there was no systematic and deliberate mass extermination of Jews in concentration camps and that they in fact perished because of typhus. Please correct me if I have made an error. Mathsci (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC) I'm saying, I can reference the quote about Zyklon swept out the doors to the IMT-Trials documents; can reference aerial photos by US reconnasiance airplanes to an official government site or a CIA report I have in my files that states, "there is no evidence of pits, pyers or smoke and flames" as alledged by witnesses during the Hungarian evacuation where 10,000 people were allegedly exterminated/day . . . (this is in the CIA report I obtained/photocopied from the government documents section of our University library), a quote from Hermann Goering at the IMT-Trials about the necessity of crematoria to dispose of bodies due to typhus epidemics, etc.. If it was an "established fact" that there was no "systematic and deliberate mass extermination" then there would be plenty of "reliable sources." The paragraph I wrote on the talk page describes what Holocaust Denial is or what "Deniers" believe. That's what the (biased, redundant) article is supposed to be about. People have stated repeatedly in the talk pages (archive included) that the article does not articulate what it purports to explain, is biased & redundant of the Holocaust Denial criticism article. Are you trying to say that experts with a POV can not edit articles at Wikipedia?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
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)

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

An IP account was being used: however the situation seems to have taken an unexpected turn; [51] - we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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 [52] [53] and many others.
• edit warring on Maltese people leading to protection [54] [55]
• edit warring on Maltese people (again) leading to protection [56] [57] [58]
• edit warring on Latin Europe leading to protection [59] [60] (note the IPs and their traceroutes)
• edit warring at Relexification [61] [62]
• edit warring at Mixed language [63] [64] - again compare combination of IPs to those above
• edit warring at Olive skin [65] [66]

...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)

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)

Notwithstanding the above I don't see any link between this IP and Iamandrewrice (that doesn't mean there isn't one, but I can't see it). In particular I don't see any claims made by the IP to be IamA, and his style has certainly come on a bit if that's him!I do recall IamA claiming to be part-Maltese, (but then again he claimed many things…) A CU might be a good idea, RFCU gives instructions on how to go about it. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is discussed on the Maltese language and Maltese people talk pages. Whoever this IP is, their brand of editing is particularly insidious and destructive. Some sort of check is imperative (having undergone one in relation to this business already, I don't see why everybody involved on these articles shouldn't), it's a shame no admins seem interested in seriously following this up! Pietru (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking back the relevant checkuser has already been done right here - User:Alison, who has prior experience of this case, confirmed that IPs from both the 78.14*.*.* and 89.24*.*.* are used for this disruption by User:Iamandrewrice.

Those IPs were used to disrupt Latin Europe. The connection from that disruption to the Olive skin article comes from these contributions, which was disrupting mixed language with the same sources as were being used to disrupt Maltese language by a sockpuppet of a user who had been disrupting Latin Europe - one sock to push POV claiming Maltese's mixed nature in Maltese language, relexification and mixed language, the other to edit Latin Europe.

Just look at this sequence at Maltese people - 78. edit 89. edit and again 89. 78. and tell me they're coincidentally connected twice.

To connect the IPs to Iamandrewrice, how about these strings of edits - first from Iamandrewrice putting incorrect information on the origins of Maltese and editing the Latin Europe article, then using a confirmed sockpuppet on the same articles - now compare those to all of the edit-warring IPs above. Combined with User:Alison's checkuser, there is no doubt here. Knepflerle (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To connect the IPs to Iamandrewrice, raise a checkuser case. I'm distancing myself from this one now - frankly I had enough grief, stress and drama over that sockpuppeteer back in 2007 to last me the rest of my life. I'm sure there are enough admins around here to take it further if necessary Tonywalton ^Talk 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins actually willing to help, as well as voice their opinions, would be appreciated. Pietru (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at, Knepflerle - all you have shown is that IP addresses have edited these articles. You haven't proved any connection between them. Not only that, but the IPs you use are in fact further proof that all these IPs cycle, and that you can't just accuse someone based on that - see here, where it appears that the Dynamic IP cycled to another user. I'm sorry but the way it is, you don't have a leg to stand on. I also notice you ignored my comment about User:Iamandrewrice's editing style? 78.149.172.122 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Morgananderson82 has threatened User:John Nevard concerning sourced information the latter restored to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. User writes [71] "John, you may like to consult A4M www.worldhealth.net legal officer on your posting and involvement in editing the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4M or read careful page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism" followed by [72] "will send your message to A4M legal advisor to review". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse NLT block, seems blatant to me. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP has redone the edits the blocked user was making. Likely an IP sock of the blocked editor. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And now User:Vernontnh has joined in. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer has semiprotected the article. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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 —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

this user left a completely random disruption template on my talk page here, possibly copied over from one that User:Soxwon left on his page. I checked his other contributions and saw things like this on the George Bush talk page, this in an asian language I can't read, and this odd claim about getting soxwon banned. he might just be in a tiff with soxwon (other edits he makes seem perfectly normal and acceptable), but it might be something to look into before it gets any bigger. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the good faith interpretation is that they didn't know how to warn you, and copied a warning from someone else. Did the section header mean anything to you? If not, Never mind - chalk it up to weirdness and don't worry about it. Still looking at their other contribs... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

will do. it's not really a problem for me, just something I thought was bizarre enough to point out. --Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have them filed mentally under "confused" rather than disruptive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese text roughly translates as:

==Hello prostitutes==

Hey! Is stupid! I hate! And I can not delete the page. Bye. HalfShadow 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL! confused it is. he did leave a note on my talk saying the tag was a mistake, so probably everything is ok. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a more accurate translation of the Japanese text is more abusive: "Hello prostitute. Hey! You're stupid! I hate you! You shouldn't erase my page. Goodbye." Just FYI, as this may influence your decisions regarding this user's conduct. silverneko (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're more generous than me. I reverted some fairly inappropriate edits to the article Violent crime and deleted a clear copyvio article that the editor started. Looking further back, I wasn't able to find much in the way of contructive editing. Didn't block, but I'm not convinced that I shouldn't have. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the newer translation above, I'm inclined to think that this editor may after all be disruptive in future. However, their last contribution was a "practice article" in user space (maybe they're getting a head-start on a {{2ndchance}}). I guess all we can do is wait and see. Please report any further disruptive edits here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) I need an administrator to review this person's actions. He has been accusing Wikipedia of spreading lies and vandalism at Darko Trifunović. He has made multiple copyright violations as well, and possibly made legal threats at the page he made, Wikipedia against individual Human Rights (I didn't read the page carefully at first because it looked like nonsense). He has also been accused of sockpuppetry LetsdrinkTea 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the content of the user on their talkpage per WP:SOAP and WP:USER, and have suggested they take their concerns regarding the Darko Trifunovic to WP:OFFICE. I did these actions in response to the editor posting to the AIV board (I think he was reporting Wikipedia generally). If they fail to use the proper processes to resolve any problem they have with "their" article (I am AGF'ing that the account is the subject) then I think they should be blocked, for a short while initially. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I reported them at AIV because the page he made looked like the generic Wikipedia is fascism nonsense LetsdrinkTea 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a fair report, it just grew somewhat! --GedUK  22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is altogether a curious business. The article started out as a straightforward attack article against the subject. I cleaned it up and reliably sourced it some time ago. However, over the past six months it has repeatedly been defaced by new or anonymous editors who have made essentially the same edit each time - replacing the content with POV promotional text, typically a poorly spelled curriculum vitae of the subject.[73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] Since mid-February, my user talk page has been repeatedly defaced by a series of anonymous IPs - I'm guessing open proxies. [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] I strongly suspect that the same individual is responsible for defacing the Darko Trifunović article and my user talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello admins: I need help. I being stalked by redpen, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom. Y is User_Talk:TheRedPenOfDoom allowed 2 stalk me & my edits. & when s/he raises an objection, I am blocked. Nothing no repercussion 4 him/her. S/h followed me to Elisabeth Hasselbeck, to Tim Hasselbeck, to Girlfriends, to Omarosa. Y is this ok?
After the Hasselbeck pages crazy I moved on to other pages, but was followed there. redpen repeatedly reverts when I add s/t to already saved versions of articles, then says the burden is on me for the WHOLE ARTICLE when I didnt write the whole article! I add a section or info that is sourced. So how am I responsible for the whole article?
Pls look @ the pages & look & the histories & see what I mean. After we strongly disagreed on the 2 Hasselbeck pages redpen followed me to Omarosa and Girlfriends. Thanks. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not using reliable sources? In fact, I see you *removing* seemingly-valid sources. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(3x edit conflict) From looking at your contribs, you seem to be either adding original research repeatedly adding copyrighted material including images, and messing up MoS and referencing templates on several articles—up to the point of revert-warring over all of them. Also note that you are at three reverts (3RR) in less than a 24-hour period at Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth; I furthermore have reason to believe that you are over 3RR at Tim Hasselbeck, assuming 70.108.74.81 (talk · contribs) and 70.108.110.22 (talk · contribs) are the same user. I also agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that [85] is a BLP violation, especially with the addition of unverifiable content. You seem to be also going against consensus at the Talk:Tim Hasselbeck talk page and, as I mentioned above, revert-warring over it. MuZemike 03:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The sock accusation could merely be a dynamic IP change, and not intentional. Marking this as resolved, frivolous complaint. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has uploaded numerous copyright violations as own work, despite a final warning being issued. Could an admin have a look? ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV is the right venue for this. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion. I've never managed to get a copyright violation handled at AIV, and usually report at ANI. Can you document any cases of AIV reports resulting in a serial copyright violator being blocked for copyright violation?—Kww(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. I hope they can find some free images of this actress. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I always get my copyright violations handled there. I can list two recent ones straight off: this and this. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably depends who's patrolling AIV; copyright scares me silly. --GedUK  20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I addressed these personal attacks here, on the reference desk's talk page, moving them from the main page. However they were returned. I feel the main page is not the place for these attacks. Is it possible to remove them?

In general, am I allowed to remove personal attacks against me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tango's response on the linked page sums it up nicely. Let it go, stop soapboxing on talk pages and find something productive to edit about. You're beginning to get disruptive. Bullzeye ^contribs 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Seems fine to me if people can't just stop squabbling and vote. --GedUK  10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• No, it doesn't look right to me, Ryan. Please allow more notice before imposing this. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
  • 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)
    • 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).
      • 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)
• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Hear, hear. About bloody time someone with a lick of sense did something about this mess. And typically for Wikipedia, a smart solution that takes a chainsaw to the giant blocks of bullshit sitting around is met with a bunch of screaming from the usual suspects. It really is interesting to note that the objections are largely coming from those who have been the worst offenders in terms of heaping scorn upon others, especially Tony1, who originally rammed through the whole delinking thing last year by a) claiming a consensus that didn't actually exist, and b) canvassing a whole bunch of article talkpages (claiming this nonexistent consensus) in order to generate a consensus of some sort, instead of c) actually discussing it at MOSNUM. The single reason why the majority of the community hasn't gotten involved in this is because there are about half a dozen editors on both sides who have made it their business to make this entire discussion as hideously unpleasant as possible to get involved in. I wholeheartedly support Ryan's actions, and would equally wholeheartedly support any blocks given out to the usual suspects in this discussion--on both sides, mind--who won't take a fucking chill pill, back the hell away, and let the community decide. Frankly, I see absolutely no reason why all of those people shouldn't be blocked now for the duration of the poll, as it absolutely would prevent disruption. //roux   16:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Tony did discuss it endlessly at MOSNUM and elsewhere, large numbers of editors did participate in the previous discussions and RfCs, and consensus was clearly and fairly generated. You seem to be joining in the scorn-heaping yourself with this attack on Tony and veiled attack on others. Why do you say "let the community decide", and ignore the decisions that the community has already made? (Perhaps because you don't like those decisions?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Tony went on a spree of canvassing about a hundred or so article talk pages, claiming a consensus that did not in fact exist. Pardon me for being a little put out with someone who disingenuously claims that they followed the way we do things while very carefully sliding around how we do things. But I'm not getting sucked any further into this absolutely insane issue. The battleground has simply moved from MOSNUM over to the poll, and all the usual suspects on both sides are happily sniping away at each other. I'm with FutPerf: block the lot and let some sane people make a decision. //roux   12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The little involvement I've had makes it clear to me that this debate has caused far more disruption than any good could be done by any outcome. Both sides need to step away, or in the last resort be forced to step away. However, I do find that claiming consensus and trying for force some result through pretty poisonous. Sometimes I wonder if the Wikipedia's impprovement is really the point here. RxS (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't give a flying whozit which way the dispute gets resolved. I have a vague preference for keeping dates linked, for a variety of reasons, but it's hardly important. //roux   13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been a deeply unpleasant process, and the only way it's going to get resolved is for the community's will to be assessed by an RfC that's carefully crafted to ensure the results will be unambiguous and enforceable. Anything less than that is a guarantee of an endless continuation of the dispute. It's more important to get it right than to get it quickly. A three day cutoff seems reasonable to me. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan[edit]

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 and 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)

I also agree with the above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk involvement[edit]

Part of the reasons the Committee is so careful in selecting clerks is that they are expected to be neutral, yet have both the reasoning ability and the authority to keep a minimum of order and discipline to an otherwise chaotic and painful process. In order to do so, they are granted great leeway in setting rules of order during the heated debates that can arise out of Arbitration cases. Occasionally, maintaining that order requires application of blocks and bans.

When a clerk states that some bit of process should be followed, and warns that disregarding that process can lead to protective measures, they are not threatening or bullying, they are doing their job. They do so with the ascent and the blessings of the Committee. Should an editor feel that they are overstepping their remit, the proper venue to discuss this is with ArbCom who will then be able to either sustain or overturn the action. Trying to build a lynch mob because a clerk is doing his job is both fundamentally unfair and disruptive.

In this particular case, the committee did not request that the poll take place— but the initiative is both welcome and greatly appreciated. In fact, part of the reason a proposed decision has not been yet posted in Date Delinking is because we are hoping the poll will lead to a better sense of what the problem really is, and where the community actually stands. This poll should be viewed as an extension of the Arbitration Case. That a committee clerk is trying to organize that poll and to make it both coherent and conclusive is a boon to the dispute resolution process. If, in their opinion, stronger enforcement of both focus and decorum is necessary for the poll to lead to a reasonably useful result, then their judgment will be given serious consideration by Arbitrators and will not be taken lightly.

Again, if you have serious concerns that a clerk is being unreasonable (and, I should not need to point out, "He's not doing what I want the way I want it!" is probably not it) or that their behavior is not appropriate, then bring it to the attention of the Committee. Heaping abuse on a someone dedicating time and effort to attempt to help solve a longstanding divisive dispute will not be looked upon with kindness. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Coren, and to Ryan for extending the courtesy to give uninvolved and/or neutral parties time to comment on the process. seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The above user has been going through and changing a large number of pages from either "Australian football player" or "Australian association football player" to "Australian football (soccer) player" and the same for some clubs, templates and league pages. The change looks untidy and changing a large number of these pages but not all of them has led to a large amount of inconsistency.

The user has been unwilling to stop from making these changes while a discussion on the changes is attempted. He is on the border of the three revert rule on two or three pages (such as Charlie Miller) at the moment. I'm willing to discuss and compromise, and if the decision is that the change is appropriate, I would help apply it to all the relevant pages.

I haven't been undoing his edits as I was hoping he would be willing to discuss the changes and see if we could compromise, but he will only refer to a vote/consensus on a single talk page from 2-3 years ago and will continue to make the changes.

Would someone be willing to step in here and have a look and see if the user can at least be persuaded to stop making the changes until a discussion has been had please? I'm willing to compromise and to discuss the issue but it is difficult when he considers that I have a neutral point of view problem and that consensus has already been determined. Camw (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also please see our talk pages here and here for some attempts at discussion. I have notified the other user that I've asked a third party administrator have a look at him continuing to edit pages while others attempt consensus. Camw (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfair blaming by Camw[edit]

This above user talk has been compalined about me editing the football (soccer) artcles, but has completely omissed the people doing the same thing as they were editing to what HE believed was right. . It was discussed and agreed on in great lengths here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move. The person claimed I was "undoing edits". I was reverting edits from a user User talk:Portillo. When I asked him to to edit as it had been agreed on his answer was "I disagree. Football is fooball not soccer". Portillo (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC). To me, this is POV editing. I was simply reverting the edits what is atm the AGREED term. Camw did not report nor mention Portillo in his complaint above I suspect that Portillo was not complained about because he/she shared his/hers "preferred term". It will show that another user User:Dudesleeper edited the pages to Camw's preferred term while his term was opened for discussion, but still failed to mention that he was editing the pages while the discussion was open too. Both of those users have been editing the pages, despite that I have shown them the debate page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move. It was lengthy debated and agreed on, but both have not given a real reason for their edits (apart from Portillo's POV comment). I am asking for a third party to to tell Camw that his complaint of me is not fair and biased as in it he did not mention the other editors presumably to make me look like the agressor in this. He also fails to mention that both users are close to the 3 edit rule too and that Portillo has been blocked several times in the past, where I have never been. The user also claims that I am only referring to a board that is 3 years old (which it isn't yet), but i have contacted several people to give their opinions, User:Grant65, User:MarkGallagher, User:*Paul*, User:Xtra, as at the moment there are only people in the discussion that have HIS POV. It seem that in Australia 4 sports claim the title of 'football'. To claim that one sport should have it and no-one else does not seem to be fair. He calls my editing to football (soccer) "untidy" but the reason it was agreed on was that the word "football" by itself was too vague as most Australians call it soccer. I am also furious at the automatic assumption I am male.60.224.0.121 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are at the center of the issue as it was your edits on 100+ pages that started the discussion. The consensus you have linked to a number of times here is from February 2006, that is over 3 years old. I'm sorry if you are furious about being mistakenly referred to as "he", but you've made the same assumption in a number of your comments (including the very first line above) so it is not really a fair complaint if you are going to do the exact same thing. My original note isn't meant to be a report against you, it is a request to have someone look at all the parties involved (including me) even if perhaps I did not express it very well. Camw (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are right though that it isn't just you on the edge of the three revert rule - can whoever checks into this issue please have a look at the other users involved as well. Camw (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My name is being thrown around here, but i only found out that there was an issue a few weeks ago. Also i had no idea that discussions or consensus' had been reached, if any. Portillo (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments on this are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits -- Chuq (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This AfD may achieve a consensus that amounts to condoning a known sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user's edits to Wikipedia.

That might be justified in the circumstances, but I thought it best to mention the matter here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is 'condoning' anything. It is not against current policy to not revert good contributions from banned users. From WP:BAN:

“

This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

”

The presumption is that banned users will likely only make unwanted contributions. Keeping around constructive edits from banned users is already policy. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that AfD is not a terribly efficient forum in which to address articles on otherwise notable subjects when written by banned editors known for creating hoax articles.Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably no efficient forum exists for this, one may have to accept inefficiency sometimes. WilyD 15:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis—a user has expressed concern that the banned person has a history of introducing plausible falsehoods and disguised copyvios into Wikipedia. I don't know the truth of that. If you're confident these are "constructive" edits then as far as I'm concerned we can call this matter resolved.

Wikidemon—I got an edit conflict with WilyD when I was trying to say, AfD isn't efficient for any purpose, but then it's not aiming to be efficient.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and stubbified the article, with prejudice. Whatever the outcome of the AfD (and it's really a process question as to whether RBI should apply) there is less to be troubled by at the moment (i've also pointed out that it "was" an island, not "is" an island).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when are banned users allowed to edit? It has always been my understanding that banned users are banned, period, and that any and all edits they make are subject to reversion on-sight, regardless of the edits' so-called merit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. However with the caveat that any person reverting is taking responsibility for said edits that they meet WP policy and such. spryde | talk 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say the right approach, then, is (1) revert the edit; (2) turn the sock in and make sure he's indeffed; and (3) go back and make the edit, if necessary. That seems like tedium, but a banned user cannot be allowed a foot in the door, or banning becomes meaningless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a participant (in opposition) at the AfD discussion. A side problem here is that the person being treated as a banned user is probably not the person who was originally banned, and therefore should feel little need to obey the ban (which doesn't apply). To sort this out, I recently opened an Unban proposal at wp:an about the entire mess, which includes a topic ban proposal for the editor who opened the AfD. About this AfD, it seems to be settling down to the correct decision, to keep, which I describe as a win-win-win decision there. :) Just to share that more is going on here, and I think it is under control, that there is no need for a continuing incident discussion here. doncram (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a strange case and I am at a loss as to how to proceed. I've assumed good faith and unblocked the account since he seems to have followed the GFDL rules, but there's still the COI matter and the fact the article still "quacks" like an ad. However, the subject certainly seems worthy of inclusion. Can someone step in and perhaps offer some more insight on his talk page? Thanks. I have to log off. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The question about any article is whether it's "notable". Is this a major truck line, or is it just a small company that he's trying to plug? He seems polite and sincere, and if so, he just doesn't understand how to write an article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had an issue with this administrator as seen here. It seems that when I reach a point in a debate where there is nowhere left for this administrator to turn, he lashes out at me. This is not the first occasion he has used the same lines against me. He says I am arguing for the point of it and creating spot fires. Nobody likes to debate more than they need to. I don't want the debate to go on, I want the outcome. And now I am being accused of a lack of content development which I find very offensive given my editting history.

I am opting out of this particular argument, because I actually do have better things to do, and I'm pretty convinced you are just arguing for the sake of it. Even Antony Green himself does not maintain the ABC Elections is a reliable source in the sense we mean - it's an information resource for the benefit of the general public and has some predictive capacity at a point when little information is available in the initial stages of counting - so you're actually trying to argue something he isn't. Seriously, get into some content development sometime, instead of bickering over minor points and starting random spot fires in an attempt to prove other ones. Much better use of your time, and mine. Orderinchaos 06:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this attitude very unbecoming of an administrator. This is the standard reaction given when there is nowhere left for the administrator to turn as far as content disputes and debates over policy go. Admittedly that is my own point of view. These run-ins do not happen all that often but when they do, and I feel as though i'm the one in the right, the admin flies off the handles. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

There are options listed, at WP:DR, for dealing with conflicts with other editors, such as mediation. I don't see where Orderinchaos used his admin tools, or even where he used his position as an admin to "win" any arguement. If you had not mentioned he WAS an admin, there would be no evidence from his own editing in this conflict that he was one (for the record, I knew he was an admin, but was making the point that it does not appear that such a fact has entered this conflict at all). Given that, I find his administrator status to be somewhat moot here. Admins don't have advanced position at Wikipedia, just some extra tools, and if they have not abused or threatened to abuse those tools, they are subject to the same venues of dispute resolution as any editor. Try WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB or WP:WQA for additional input from editors that are good at solving conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, the first 57 edits of today's AfD log have all been identical nominations nominations with identical rationale by user Juvenile Deletionist (talk · contribs). I've looked over a handful of them and although they look problematic and need improvement, it seems that this person has a grudge against standalone articles about songs. Given the username and the fact that his/her account was created four days ago my guess is this person is trying to cause a disruption. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC); edited own comment, 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was just going to request a mop. Clearly disruptive since there is no clear deletion rationale given for the nominated articles, and the speed at which they are nominated shows the nominator did not follow any of the BEFORE steps in checking the notability of the articles. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the time I copied the above diff to now he/she has added 17 more. [86] KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are all over the place. Something like The_Cha_Cha_(song) should just have been PRODded, it's clearly an uncontroversial deletion, others are reasonable for AfD, but some are almost certainly notable. I'd be tempted to remove all the AfDs, to be honest. Black Kite 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the songs nominated was a Grammy nominee. I've demanded an immediate stop for discussion here, and will block if they continue. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is a block for abusing Twinkle in order? KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday (talk · contribs) has blocked indef for disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Friday. I'm going to remove all the AfDs from the daily log, delete the clearly disruptive ones, and AfD, PROD or speedy anything that falls into those categories (which is how it should've been done in the first place!). Black Kite 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this really resolved in under 10 minutes? Wow, I'm impressed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, removed them all from the log and rolled back the addition of the AfD notices to the articles. I'll be AFK for a while, but will sort all those out later. I suspect quite a few are - by the law of averages - reasonable AfDs, but the nominating was completely random in places. Black Kite 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to try and NAC a bunch of these; let me know on my talk if I'm doing anything wrong. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No point - I've removed them from the log. Black Kite 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - moving on..... KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to drag this out, but is this a sock? Certainly looks it...  GARDEN  22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Very likely. The first edit is in his monobook.js page, and the second (and on) one already gets to work on AFDs. That or the user has learned very, very quickly. MuZemike 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • People don't have to be logged in in order to learn. One can read policy, guideline, and help pages without having an account, after all. That said, this is fairly obvious intentional disruption, and Friday made the correct decision with the block. An account named "Juvenile Deletionist" whose edits are juvenile (in spelling, grammar, and so forth) and confined to deletion nominations? As 168.28.199.74 said: pull the other one, it has bells on. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got to give this guy credit, he's industrious.LeadSongDog come howl 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Krazy Glue. What's your point? HalfShadow 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Give them a final warning. They haven't edited since the last warning on their talk page. I'm a great believer in final warnings. I'm soft like that. --GedUK  21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Got a reply this A.M. there (please see). Is there a right way for teachers to do this with a class, or is it simply something they shouldn`t do? LeadSongDog come howl 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to have a look at this - it's been an odd account with a mix of sensible and objectionable edits, and too much personal contact info on the user page, and the editor has now put {{mfd}} on both user page and talk page (but nothing on the MfD page), with edit comment "(I'm just the nephew of Mark Lessig impersonating him, and so my user page and talk page should be deleted.) ". PamD (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Should probably be blocked indef anyway per this edit (which I note was still live until a moment ago). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Could be compromised, whoever's been editing from it lately doesn't seem too keen on encylcopedia building. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's almost certainly a sockpuppet, several accounts that have edited the same articles have been blocked for similar vandalism, disruption or harassment - and probably an impersonation account. —Snigbrook 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I had encounter repeated violation of Wp:BLP by user:Radeksz. My previous attempt to receive the feedback from BLP noticeboard was fruitless [87], however as current situation becoming worse, I am seeing help again.

• Lokyz - please be serious. Noone claims Mudde is extremist. Garsva is and you know this.
• nothing to prove - are you saying Garsva is not an extemist? (mocking Kazimieras Garšva)
• reverting spurious attempts at whitewashing (restoring unreferenced info and trying to associate prominent living persons with questionable "organization", neglecting fact that it was already suggested that inserting unreferenced material [88] is vio of BLP) However this damaging info repeatedly restored by Radeksz [89][90]. I dont want to engage in revert warring (even then I have immunity then dealing with vio of BLP), so can anybody help on this? M.K. (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a recurring problem with MK's edits - he has been trying to insert text referenced to an extremist, nationalist organization - Vilnija - and one of its members - Kazimieras Garšva - into several articles. I have removed this text per FRINGE. MK considers this a BLP violation (and Lokyz has been tag teaming him in this endeavor) because ... well, not exactly sure why, but it seems he thinks that calling Garšva a member of this organization (of which he is a leader, per article) is a violation of BLP. Of course if it was the case that either Vilnija was NOT an extremist organization (which it is) or that Garšva was not its leader (which he is) then it would be a BLP violation - and in that case both the relevant articles would need a serious overhaul. But there is plenty of reliable sources to support both of these facts. The bottom line on this is that MK really wants to enter the text based on this extremist nationalistic source into several articles on Polish-Lithuanian relations but he has trouble getting around the fact that it is an extremist nationalist organization of which Garšva is a leader. So he's making a spurious BLP violation claim.

And let's look at the above edits that MK cites:

• Lokyz - please be serious. Noone claims Mudde is extremist. Garsva is and you know this. - Lokyz restored the material cited to Vilnija because ... Mudde who calls Garsva extremist is a reliable source (Mudde was cited to show that Garsva was an extremist). Of course Mudde is right! But that's why this should be removed. And Lokyz is clearly violating AGF here since it's been pointed out several times previously (for example here: [91] - and note the incivility implied in the section title) that the problem is with Garšva, not with Mudde. And he's clearly aware of this.
• nothing to prove - are you saying Garsva is not an extemist? (mocking Kazimieras Garšva) - Here I am simply reverting MK's repeated attempt to enter non-RS text into an article. I am not mocking anyone. As the article on Kazimieras Garšva clearly states, he is a leader of an extremist organization. I am merely stating this and it's supported by many reliable sources. If MK wants to make a case that this guy is not an extremist, and that he is a reliable source, let him make that case on talk pages and provide some *evidence that this is not the case. But the sources clearly identify him as such.

• reverting spurious attempts at whitewashing (restoring unreferenced info and trying to associate prominent living persons with questionable "organization", neglecting fact that it was already suggested that inserting unreferenced material [92] is vio of BLP) - note that here I was actually restoring some referenced text as well as a few instances of text with ^{[citation needed]} tags, all of which had been inserted only quite recently. This basically seems to be the "fact tag it then quickly delete it" strategy of removing info that doesn't agree with one's POV that MK is pursuing here.

This is a case of a particular editor who really wants some very controversial, very POV, extremist material put into some articles and who can only find sources to back up that material which are ... well, controversial, extremist and POV. Unsatisfied with standard wiki policies which don't support inclusion of such material and sources he is making any kind of accusation he can.

I apologize in advance if this comment is lengthy and if at some points my frustration shows through, but this has been going on for quite awhile. Whenever I actually tried to engage MK (or other editors involved) in some kind of discussion all I got was crazy accusations, obscurantism, changing the subject matter and other dead ends.radek (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will save neutral editors time and would not respond to rants above on my character, however I will respond to other issues, particular:

Radeksz says: Mudde who calls Garsva extremist is a reliable source.

Nope Mudde does not call Mr. Grašva as an "extremist", as far I as can say he even don't mention his name.

Radeksz says Here I am simply reverting MK's repeated attempt to enter non-RS text into an article. I am not mocking anyone..

I asked many times to provide academic material to support such shameful claims that The State Genocide Research Center of Lithuania sources are note RS and constitutes "extremist ones", no luck but a continues slander on the living person who is not even an author that those findings...

Radeksz says This basically seems to be the "fact tag it then quickly delete it" strategy of removing info that doesn't agree with one's POV that MK is pursuing here.

Actually WP:BLP is very categorical : We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion . And that I did, and I get a doze of another accusation of "whitewashing" from the editor who was already blocked for incivility.

Regarding usage of "extremist" (as shown in examples) then describing Mr. Garsva, I see it as direct vio of BLP, because that "extremist" is considered as pejorative labels and requires a high degree of sensitivity as noted on BLP policy. Inserting such labels on talk pages and edit summaries is indeed inconsistent with good editing practice per BLP.

Judging from reply of Radeksz, he refuses to consider such practice as harmful, therefore he should warned about WP:BLP issues. M.K. (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Kazimieras Garšva clearly identifies hims as extremist. The article on Vilnija clearly identifies it as an extremist organization. In my edit summaries I am merely repeating the information - clearly cited to reliable sources - that is found in the Wikipedia articles on these topics, as well as the actual sources themselves. The "shameful claims" that Vilnijia is an extremist organization are right there in the article itself. For example ... wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... Mudde! Direct quote from the source "The petition was also signed by representatives of extremist organizations such as the LNDP, the UJI and the association Vilnija". So questionable text, sourced to an extremist organization is being inserted into articles based on the fact that ... there are reliable sources which call that organization extremists! Because there is a reliable source somewhere in that chain?!? Or something. The problem with MK's contention about BLP is in the "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" part. It's sourced. It's not contentious except for him.

Continuing along ... MK says "from the editor who was already blocked for incivility". For the sake of keeping that record clean I will refrain from further comment.

And speaking of incivility, here's MK changing my edits on a talk page: [93]radek (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

radek (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As a comment on the underlying issue, it is fairly clear that the term can be used to refer to this particular nationalist if there is a source for it. It is fair characterisation of a very nationalist politician. (I've helped mediate an article where he appears, so I remember). Other words could be found however, as there is usually no point in getting stuck at a particular way or wording the matter. There is a fairly wide range in describing the public views of a political figure without violating BLP. I think MK's claim with respect to BLP, frankly, a little absurd in this case. DGG (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting opinion. Where do you see attribution and academic sources for that assertions? Where do you see attribution and academic sources involving Mr. Paviržis, Mr. Zinkevičius, Mr. Piročkinas? BLP rather clear, that editors should do in those cases, and no, definitely not accusing others of "whitewashing". M.K. (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I in good faith previously moved the disambiguation page at Glamour to Glamour (disambiguation), and made Glamour into a redirect and pointed it at Glamour (presentation); because it seemed to me that unlike Glamour (magazine) the Glamour (presentation) article covered glamour, rather than Glamour models or a magazine, it seemed to be the primary topic.

However, User:Bkonrad using his admin powers undid this in the middle of a discussion about whether to move Glamour (presentation) to Glamour.

Now, the discussion wasn't (to my surprise) going my way at all it's an uphill battle, but we weren't finished yet, and so I was even more dismayed that Bkonrad undid this before the discussion was finished, and did it under CSD 6 (which is supposed to be for completely non controversial activities); obviously it's not non controversial since I was calling for a move, and he also voting in the discussion.

That's clear-cut abuse of administrative powers. He should either wait till the discussion was ended, or he at the very least shouldn't have voted and used a different CSD.

Could somebody explain to him that this falls clearly short of the level we expert from administrators, they're not judge, jury and executioner.

If he continues to do stuff like this, I would request that he be desysopped, because IMO it would then be the case that he cannot be trusted.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not just let the discussion go on, get a consensus, and then go to WP:RM? Much less dramatic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say what Doc did. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I may or may not do that anyway, but that's not the issue, it's just that I don't like seeing admins doing that kind of thing.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Came across a worrisome edit while using Huggle. Not sure whether to take this seriously? Just thought I'd let you'd know. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Odd choice of page on which to post. Surprisingly non-specific about where to send help, too. You'd think they might be able to type a bit more, and turn off CAPS LOCK. All in all, meh. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

After a review of that address's recent contribs, I've blocked it for a month. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does look bogus. Just thought I'd give the heads-up, just in case. Thanks. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yashveer r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) I don't have the time just now, but could someone review this user's edit history. He is engaged in a systematic campaign of modifying movie infoboxes, often adding to them. However based on the comments on his talk page and the number of his actions that have already been reverted, I am concerned that he might be engaged in a deliberate campaign of subtle vandalism to include false information in these boxes. Even if problems are somehow accidental, there definitely needs to be someone looking at these for accuracy. Dragons flight (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Could available admins lend a hand?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up on this case[edit]

Sorry to revive this thread, but could someone uninvolved please redirect and protect the banned editor's user talk pages? Specifically needing protection per WP:BAN would be User talk:Xcahv8, though all the other socks in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of El Machete Guerrero might merit blanking/redirection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wilco. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, I think. The socks' userpages are tagged as checked socks, the master userpage is tagged as a banned user and sockmaster, the socks' talk pages are protected redirects to the master talk page, which has been protected, blanked and tagged as a banned user. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has apparently decided to not go quietly[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [94]. 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 [95]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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

I agree. I just blocked User:Geoff Keen for trolling and admitted block evasion [96]. I have no problems with somebody else blocking the first complainant's account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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 [97]. I noticed because he did this at Marek's page [98]. 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 [99]. 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)

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

I've gone ahead and filed an SPI [100]. May seem overkill, but don't think this is the end of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Cut and pasted from below

MarekMarek6969 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing user pages of several users whose usernames resemble females' real names. His autosignature points to the user page and user talk page of user Marek69 (talk · contribs), who has been having problems according to his talk page but is an otherwise productive editor. I would ordinarily have reported this at AIV, but I'd like a recommendation as to what other forum this issue belongs at. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism probably sock. Run a WP:SSI, and block account. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I originally posted this. I have added the account to the SPI. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am Marek69. Thank you to everyone who has help to tackle these pests. I've found another person signing as me, IP 93.97.167.197 to add to the list.

Unfortunately I am still unable to edit using my account. It is very frustrating as I cannot even edit my own talkpage. Today I have found out that my IP address 86.7.65.177, is not actually static as I previously stated, but in fact dynamic and can be allocated to someone else when I am not using it (please don't ask me how this works). I'm not sure if this may be something to do with my current technical problems. -- Marek69 using IP 91.135.6.121 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock just popped up Morek69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Pretty obvious. Let's block.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And right behind it this one Psychoanalyst5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Trolling women's talk pages with crude sexual suggestions, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And right behind that one, this onw JellyWellyFish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per [101].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Exterminated. I've also suppressed email and talk page; I don't want whomever this is finding out that either still work. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the SPI page for Marek69 to prevent further nonsense there. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back from the void. Could I please add this IP 92.26.242.240 as another user pretending to be me, leaving fake vandalism messages for users. 27 in all - I've reverted them now. I suggest an admin deals with them appropriately. Regards Marek.69 ^talk 19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added it for you and blocked him 72h. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to clarify the situation; I was able to log in as Marek69, but unable to edit. I would also like confirm that the only messages I left during this period (08:48, 23 March 2009 - 18:43, 27 March 2009) were with IP 91.135.6.121 and IP 90.215.61.181 (public wireless hotspot) and one message to my talkpage with IP 80.229.36.16. I can confirm all the edits by these three IP addresses (up to present time) were by me. Any other edits during this time, supposedly signed by me, were not in any way, anything to do with me. I again thank everyone who helped expose this deception. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've found another Psychoanalyst15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

who made this edit signing as Marek69 in the same manner as the above user(s). -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bagged. Bali, start using {{user}} rather than {{checkuser}}; the latter linebreaks your comment. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)