Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524

Legal threat
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  rdunn PLIB 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 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 keeps insisting on his OR, I'll bring it to the OR notice board.--Berig (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

MedicLINK
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. He was also just blocked by a different admin for the username. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw that 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:
 * (probable COI account)
 * (SPA account)
 * 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)
 * 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  &#x007C;   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)

Help with a page-move vandal
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
I noticed that there is no one at UAA atm, can someone block this as they are spamming aggressively Lets  drink  Tea  21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:HeMan5 on an extreme WP:POINT vandalism spree
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 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 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 No idea why it ended up with a March 24th time stamp.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kyle XY
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 smiley.png 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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on WP:NOR
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. &mdash; 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. . --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
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... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► 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 UN, 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 - 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 ;-) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► 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... ╟─ Treasury Tag ► 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 - 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. Half  Shadow  00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Evenmoremotor repeatedly nominating pages for speedy deletion
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 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. Valley2 city ‽ 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 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. Valley2 city ‽ 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. -- Ged UK  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)

Legal threat?
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. Hers fold  (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 ....... . 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, 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... -- Ludwigs 2  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.) Half  Shadow  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. 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)

Suicide threat?
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).  rdunn PLIB 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)

turkish nationalism.
211.179.112.62 is not follow the results from discussion (removing a CIA list. see Talk:Developed country and ) 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. -- Ged UK  10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjecina again
Alright, I need an outsider's perspective. I'm close to a indefinite WP:ARBMAC block and moving on. User:Rjecina is a popular fellow here, but I really don't think having this user around is more productive than just drama-producing. Assuming good faith just doesn't seem to be an option. Discussion don't seem to go further in logic than I don't like this book because he doesn't seem to understand as much as I do versus this idiotic cherry picking. POV-pushing I can understand, aggressive POV-pushing I can deal with, but I wonder if this drama is really desired here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsourced stalking allegations against User:AlasdairGreen27.
 * Personal attacks on everyone who disagrees as "hungarian users"
 * Complaints about copyright violations which I find extremely disingenuous since Rjecina has been warned before about copying Britannica verbatim.


 * And yes, I could warn Rjecina yet again about unsourced allegations and personal attacks but there has been warnings since September and it doesn't look like anything has or will changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The diffs do not seem to warrant to indefinite block, but surely show that Rjecina is uncivil and fails to assume good faith. Take it to RFC or give him a break for a short term, if you really must feel some enforcement to Rjecina under the Arbcom sanction.--Caspian blue 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I ran into a fight between Rjecina and someone else as a fresh admin in late 2007; and it was basically exactly the same thing as this no assumption of good faith of fellow editors and many socking allegations (some well-founded, some not). From every sign of it, fighting in some form has been more or less continuous for a long time and Rjecina shows few signs of checking nationality at the door, albeit he/she is editing in a sometimes difficult area with difficult 'opponents'. But overall, I am not sure the presence of this user is a net positive for this project. henrik •talk  20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The time before last that Rjecina came up, s/he was warned (less than three weeks ago!) by Ricky81682 that any further accusations of sockpuppetry would result in an immediate indef. I'd say other unsubstantiated accusations such as stalking should fit the bill too. Else, what I suggested here seems like it would still be applicable, minus the Biszo stuff. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Providing diffs on the warning for further accusations of sockpuppetry would result in an immediate indef. would be good for everyone to see them as a reference. Ricky81682 is a hardly neutral party in this situation (he seems to side Biszo but Biszo would not agree with this) and I still think that a block for a short period is better than your extreme suggestion.--Caspian blue 20:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  20:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that other editors in the "diff" (not really) That is not what I requested, and is a mixture of accusations or sanctions related to Rjecina or his opponent.--Caspian blue 21:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The last discussion was here and it was Roux who suggested the sanctions. I supported it but recognize I'm not the most neutral admin to deal with it.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a bundle case with Biszo. I've known you as a reasonable guy but I wonder why you can't you give a second chance to the particular editor in question to redeem himself (eg. RFC).--Caspian blue 21:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking for outside views. Perhaps RFC makes sense but given this sphere (and the very persistent banned user playing here), that's going to be a mess of epic proportions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely involved admin here, but I don't think indefing Rjecina would be much of a loss. The constant accusations of sockpuppetry, both founded and unfounded are unbearable enough, and the stalking allegations against Alasdair have been going on since at least December. And to be honest, his mainspace contributions are generally reverts or almost unreadable because of his poor English. Losing him as an editor wouldn't be a net loss. --<font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been sympathetic before, as this editor is genuinely harassed by individuals with a conflicting bias, but I think it is time for an indefinite block. Unlike Ricky81682 I do not think Rjecina should then have the key thrown away, but only allowed to return when they indicate they understand that whatever policy violations that have been committed against them gives them no license to act in a similar manner - my interpretation of indefinite being a period sufficient to ensure no further disruption to the encyclopedia (at least, not perpetuating it). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I don't want to seriously weigh in, I'm not an admin and I'm involved in a "dispute" with the user. But whatever the outcome, please ask Rjecina to improve his English language skills. Those of you who are native speakers probably laugh at this, but — as someone who speaks English as a second language — after several weeks of discussion with him I notice the signs of thinking and sometimes writing in his basic level English. I came to WP to improve my English, not having to talk to someone for weeks who obviously wants to remain a tolerated "guest" here. I wouldn't talk about that if he was a newbie, but I think he had ample opportunities to improve his English skills by now if he wanted to. Probably he doesn't want to do that, so I'm asking you to encourage him to study English to be able to contribute and communicate here more effectively. Squash Racket (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been editing Balkan-related articles (as well as many others) ever since my first day on Wikipedia. Rjecina's periodic and entirely unfounded accusations of stalking against me go back at least to last September, when they went hand in hand with the pathetic and frivolous Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brzica_milos_etc. Among Rjecina's many less-than-helpful characteristics is that he seeks to intimidate other editors into leaving the whole area by constant accusations of socking, stalking etc. This creates an entirely unpleasant atmosphere and is a significant impediment to ever making any progress with the many articles here that are in serious need of remedial work. I admire Caspian Blue for attempting to give Rjecina another chance, but I wonder how many chances an editor should be given? Rjecina has time and time again demonstrated that he is entirely unwilling (not unable, unwilling) to work co-operatively with anyone else. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also speak English as a second language, and have never experienced any problems as a result. I'm not familiar with this particular case, but it seems that social skills are the problem here, not language skills.  Sandstein   07:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I'm involved in a dispute with R., so I didn't want to comment here on the proposal itself, but you can click on the link and read the discussion. Squash Racket (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's social skills that are concerning. Frankly, I think any quick reading of User:Rjecina and the subpages (like this even though it's against tons of Checkuser evidence) should indicate to most people an inappropriate soapbox attitude.  I asked him to remove some of the more aggressive political statements (like oh, I don't know, Axis of Evil should include the US and Europe) but since there was some ANI discussion approving (I'm guessing more than six months ago or so since I never knew about it), I left it alone.  Again, as Caspian Blue noted, I'm not the most neutral editor so I'm prefer to defer if I can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been peripherally involved from time-to-time in this area, and agree that Rjecina has indeed put up with a lot of POV warriors on the various articles where they work. They have also, unfortunately, maintained a behavioural pattern that on the one hand involves seeming good-faith dispute-resolution attempts and compromise, and on the other revert warring and bad-faith accusations. Their article edits often don't seem to match their talk-page intentions. I concur with Ricky's assessment and the other comments above in concluding that Rjecina has become a net negative for Wikipedia, and have no problem with Ricky issuing an indefblock (subject to removal under specific conditions per LHvU). If you feel uncomfortable issuing the block, Ricky, I'm willing to help out. EyeSerene talk 12:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

With some regret, I must endorse the ban. A few weeks ago, I tried to stop some of the disruption by imposing a fairly strict special regime on Rjecina: No unexplained reverts, no edits without informative edit summaries, and no additions of substantial pieces of text unless previously cleared by a competent speaker of English. With this edit, yesterday, he broke several of these rules. I also note how in this edit (linked to in Ricky's first posting above) he fails to make any sense at all; the point he's trying to make is totally opaque to me. It's a pity, but he seems really unable to communicate meaningfully about what he's doing here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of order, but actually in this edit, he's saying that Squash is lying about what the sources he's citing and wants him topic-banned but Rjecina is acknowledging that in this this edit, the language "The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy" he's replaced it with are a direct copyright violation. His basis for the source lying claim is I guess argued here which looks like basically "I've cherry-picked some bits and pieces of language and I won't accept both views so you're obviously lying", which seems to follow a pattern of personal attacks against anyone who offers a differing opinion.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another note on Rjecina's attempted topic bans, in my RfA he tried to say that should I become an administrator "that future administrators from Balkan end involvement in Yugoslav related disputes". Despite the fact that I'm from the US, my sense of what he was trying to say is that should I become an administrator I should no longer be allowed to edit in the same areas as I previously had been. These disingenuous attempts to keep others with opposing views from editing articles is extremely problematic, and seem to go hand in hand with his constant sockpuppet accusations and accusations of stalking. <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw that and wished I had noticed that before. Also, I don't know who added it but the image and caption added here was probably the funniest thing I've seen here: "Not every user disagreeing with you is a sockpuppet of an evil person. Some of them are legit users that just happen to pass by." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban per Fut.Perf. Upon reaching a certain level, incompetence becomes disruption.  Sandstein   14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban - I've read previous AN/ANI threads about Rjecina; we've given him ample opportunity to reform his behavior. If he's not going to take up on our good faith OR heed to restrictions, then a community ban is the only remaining road I can see. Enough of his incivility and POV pushing. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban As noted, I am involved, though I would have no objections to Rjecina returning with enforced mentoring and the restrictions enacted by Fut.Perf. in place. <font face="Zapfino" color="black">AniMate <font color="Black">talk 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have suggested to Rjecina to comment here and will wait until morning my time to decide what to do. That looks to be within his normal editing period (and he's already been notified generally about this discussion). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse Ban - Uninvolved non-admin speaking here. I don't know how many times I have seen this user with their grossly uncivil unfounded accusations on this board, but enough is enough.  The user has shown he/she can't change their behavior.  Why let them continue to do it.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse Ban - per Future Perfect. I think enough time has gone by to see that waiting longer for Rjecina to straighten out his behavior will not be productive. When Rjecina responded to the concerns in this thread with a rambling and hard-to-understand rebuttal (below) it did not help his cause. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban per Fut. Perf. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If I will be banned can this happen without false reasons ?

"NPOV" Administrator Ricky81682 has given 3 reasons for my banning:


 * 1) Unsourced stalking allegations against User:AlasdairGreen27
 * 2) Personal attacks on everyone who disagrees as "hungarian users"
 * 3) Complaints about copyright violations


 * Administrator Fut.Perf. has given reason number 4: my poor language skills.

Let as see situation....
 * 1) User AlasdairGreen27 has never edit article Svetozar Boroević. His only edit is revert of my edit article history . Then we are having AlasdairGreen 4 december 2008 words I've just spent my evening trawling through 18 months of Rjecina diffs for nothing.   I have protested during  Requests for adminship/AniMate   this only to recieve answer that controling of my edits is OK.

My point is: '''Stalking is OK. If you protest stalking you will be banned !!!'''

Can somebody understand my surprise with discovery that administrator during next 48 hours has been without free time to remove copyright violation from article, but with enough free time to start banning action ?????
 * 3) This point is for me funny. During editorial dispute in which "NPOV" administrator is involved I have discovered  that another user has added false statement or in another words: statement is saying 1 thing and source is telling something different. Source is telling:"The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy". User has writen:"The concept of Croatia in personal union with Hungary is a source of a major historical controvers". Maybe because of my poor english this 2 statements are very, very different. In my naive thinking I have shown this to "NPOV" administrator which ulmost never look sources during disputes.   My naive thinking has been to show difference between source and statement in article and expected that administrator will change my statement which is having copyright problem.

This is not first but around number 10 attack with wrong or in best case scenario questionable reasons by Ricky against my edits: Block or ban try of March 9,  dispute about Holocaust Template. First he has voted on talk page against me. When I have shown that his vote is inconsistent with his earlier decision he has changed his earlier decision so that his vote against me is staying. For the end we are having my user page "problem". On user page he has noticed Template:User Republika Srpska and started deletion demand. After vote has been against him, he has never explained why this template need to be deleted, but not for example template which is supporting independence of Palestine and he has only withdrawn nomination []. This are "only" 3 examples from March 2009 and all this his "mistakes" has started in September 2008. Can somebody explain me if actions of administrator in question has been part of problem or part of solution ?

I do not know what they are, but I have been very frustrated by this...


 * 2) Yes I am guilty of incivility on Royal Hungary talk page, but not for personal attacks because earlier is discussed that user Bizso is not from Hungary and he don't speak Hungarian (another Ricky "mistake", because he is knowing this)

For the end


 * administrators has demanded that I end sock accusations. I have ended this accusations.
 * Administrator Fut.Perf has demanded that I end writing articles without another user grammar help. I have ended this (maybe I have writen statement of 5 words)

I have been many times on this noticeboard, but in 90 % situations newly created account which is not knowing how wikipedia has started this actions.

Like I have writen in beginning if there will be decision about my banning can this be done with right reasons and not with false attacks. point 1 of accusation is false like, point 2 (personal attack) and in my thinking point 3. About point 4 in my thinking there is no need to discuss because I have edited like Fut.Perf has demanded.

Only my guilt is incivility writed in time when I have been frustrated and penalty for this can't be banning ! --Rjecina (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was you who said that I am not from Hungary, not Ricky. Your statement is full of misrepresentations. --Bizso (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bizso, might I suggest that you stay far, far away from this? Your issues with Rjecina are well-known, and there is no need to generate further drama here. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that I'm an involved editor. I just wanted to point out an inconsistency, that's all. No further drama here.--Bizso (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't mean to sound like a DICK but this statement by Rjecina really seems to be indicative of the problem being discussed. The crux of the issue that has resulted in the suggestion that he be banned has to do with the attitude that he's in the right and that all complaints made against him are either unfounded or made in bad faith. The community does have a legitimate complaint against Rjecina's contributions and it is highly unlikely that any of those concerns will be alleviated if his attitude stays the same and he refuses to open himself up to criticism, constructive or otherwise. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if he were the most polite editor in wikipedia, if that's the way he normally writes then he needs to take some time off and improve his English. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear where this is moving, at this point. I don't see much of a perspective for avoiding the ban under these conditions. So, I've gone ahead and enacted it. I've set the block for a year, not indef, since this is the kind of limit Arbcom would probably set itself under such conditions, and there is no reason to exclude the possibility that Rjecina might yet again become an editor in good standing in the future, if he can work on those issues in the meantime. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some clarification about the "falsified" sentence. As in ALL Wikipedia articles, I included the article's title, "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" in the first sentence as a layout change.
 * After we started a — still ongoing — debate over renaming the article, I indicated that the article's title is a temporary solution as the present title seems to be wrong or at least POV. Rjecina knew about this as he participated in that discussion.
 * The author of that book doesn't take a stand, simply presents the Croatian version on one hand, and the Hungarian and Serbian points of view on the other hand. As the article's title had been moved to personal union from simply "union" without discussion, it reflected the Croatian point of view. I added that description in the lead based on what the reference says, though not as a word-for-word citation.
 * I also have to add the lead should reflect what all the references say, not just one. Some reliable sources simply say "Croatia became part of Hungary", "Croatia was conquered" etc.
 * To sum it up, I didn't understand R.'s outrage, especially the removal of that part:"while Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered. The significance of the debate lies in the Croatian claim to an unbroken heritage of historical statehood which is clearly compromised by the other claim." in the middle of the outrage. Squash Racket (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably better to put this to rest at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks Future.  Squash, let us continue this at the article talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Meowy making personal attacks
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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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". <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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! <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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 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, [], on the 5th March, back at the start of all this, you wrote "I am challenging the genocide's authenticity". <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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   <font color=#974423>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. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">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)

IP Address 195.74.144.129
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)

Suspected User:Fredrick day sock
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: 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 NobodyMy talk 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note this new account's userpage: . Now, please refer to 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 Listcruft and then spamming the essay to various guideline pages.


 * 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 .  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy 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: Now, who did the admin assist? A guess:. 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, 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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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)

❌ et al and
 * = as same range but this is a dynamic IP range, so use care in blocking this IP
 * ✅ =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =   =   =   =   =   =, 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  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 NobodyMy 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 NobodyMy 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)

Social Network

 * Blocked

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.
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive507
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive505

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. Apparition11 <sup style="color:#330099;">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. Apparition11  <sup style="color:#330099;">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 . 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! Apparition11  <sup style="color:#330099;">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! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► 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! Apparition11  <sup style="color:#330099;">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)

Username possibly outing an admin's real life identity
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)

User:Knives87 possibly disruptive account
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 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 and this . 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)

National Council of La Raza protected - need version review
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 is the same editor as, 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)

Mozart Marley appears to be a shared account
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)

User:MarekMarek6969 impersonating User:Marek69

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

State terrorism article
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. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">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' :) -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">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. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">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. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">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)

Potential Gwarp Accounts Made
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. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> 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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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 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. <font style="color:# 787878;background:# 41653D;"> rdunn <font style="color:# 41653D;">PLIB 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. <font style="color:# 787878;background:# 41653D;"> rdunn <font style="color:# 41653D;">PLIB 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? <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(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. -- Thin boy  00  @114, i.e. 01:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee, birthdate, and night screams
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 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. &mdash;/M endaliv /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. 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? <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">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  So Why  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. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">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 AfD
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 Deletion_review because of the suspicious nature of the deletion.

The deletion discussion is here: 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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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)

User:Aramgar
Would someone please take a look at the activities of the user. he spends much of his time for attacking articles about Turkic civilization and history. sure, he may call attention to other articles now, someone please look at his older activities in wikipedia.--Huckelbarry (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI
has made a couple of comments (diff1, diff2) at 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. 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. .... |.... 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&mdash;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. <u style="color:#66FFFF;">-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...  Grsz 11  20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can somebody define Axmann's topic ban?  Grsz 11  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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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. S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Huckelbarry
Would someone please take a look at the activities of the new user. 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. He appropriated User:Kansas Bear's userpage, presumably in order to cover his nationalist edits. He has engaged in personal attacks. His edit patterns, fractured English, and nationalist fixations are very similar to the banned user. 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 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)

User:CUTKD
Awhile ago, I politely requested this user remove the tags from his signature, as they can cause disruption. How did he respond to me? He added in three big tags.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably a joke. He's not using that signature anywhere else: . 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  <b style="color:blue;">T</b> 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Opinoso vandalising Rio Grande do Sul
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)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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, 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:

''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)

A little light relief
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 &#9786; 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 :) <font style="color:#999933;"> GARDEN 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually tell them my password is 'fuckyouyougreasyasshole' and wait for the fun to start. Half  Shadow  21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * lol :D J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">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)

Nightscream removing valid, sourced information
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)

Rick Ross (rapper) and Deeper Than Rap (album) edits made by Dumaka
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, 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. -- Ged UK  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)

Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed


This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

my Wikistalker
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; - 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 - Administrators' noticeboard. 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  and many others.
 * edit warring on Maltese people leading to protection
 * edit warring on Maltese people (again) leading to protection
 * edit warring on Latin Europe leading to protection  (note the IPs and their traceroutes)
 * edit warring at Relexification
 * edit warring at Mixed language  - again compare combination of IPs to those above
 * edit warring at Olive skin
 * ...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: Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jack_Forbes, Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice and 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 - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maltese_people&diff=226778439&oldid=226777590 78. edit] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maltese_people&diff=227033902&oldid=227010082 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:UC Bill
Over at Talk:Nancy Cartwright, UC Bill has responded to User:Scorpion and me (who opposed his idea) by calling us "morons," calling me a "waste-of-space" who engages in "fascism," calling Scorpion an "idiot" and "dipshit," and telling him to "go fuck [him]self." Much of this came after he'd already stated that he was walking away from the situation, so I don't trust his second such claim.

I would appreciate if an uninvolved party could please remind Bill of Civility and No personal attacks, as I suspect that any such message from Scorpion or me would only fuel his anger. Thanks! —David Levy 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I just noticed this . Perhaps something more than a friendly warning is in order.  —David Levy 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31. Unacceptable conduct.  Feel free to lengthen or whatever you wish.  Cheers, <font style="color:#339933;"> GARDEN  22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could if I was an admin. This is Wikipedia, not YouTube or 4chan. You cannot say whatever you want (if you frequent YouTube comments, then you know what I am talking about. We try to be civil around here. MuZemike 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this... looking at Bill's contribution history, today's actions seem in sharp contrast with his edits over the past while. (Look at the sudden burst of category edits, as well as abusive text that appears to be significantly more severe than the blunt speech he usually employs.) I'm not saying there haven't been civility issues before this, but one has to wonder about the severity of today's events. The threats of vandalism also appear to be out of sync with someone who has been contributing extensively to the project as a developer. Is it possible that something has happened over the past few days, or that the account has been compromised? It just seems that an indef-ban coupled with a full lock down and blanking of his pages is too much without further attempts to figure out what is going on. (If there are other details that can explain this, please let me know - but what I've seen today doesn't add up.) --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC) (Addendum - just so everyone is clear, this should in no way be taken as a criticism of Hersfold. I've had interactions with Bill before today, hence my surprise at what has happened. If I hadn't worked with him before this, I might well have done the same thing as Hersfold. I've already left a note on Hersfold's talk page, and he is aware of this post; the idea is to try to figure out what the heck has happened to Bill. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy '' 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Possible. My previous comment aside, it is odd, indeed. MuZemike 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to say the same thing, it seems like a totally over the top reaction. Who would go straight to deleting their own code and threatening to vandalize multiple articles? It's an over the top reaction for a prolific contributor and a probably pretty easily traceable and accountable person and given his own userpage. Mfield (Oi!) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Although i'm a semi-retired non-admin, I do still edit wikipedia when I can and since I have Nancy Cartwright in my watchlist, I saw the posts made by Bill on the talk page. They are very offensive. I was going to file a report here myself, but decided to offer advice to the user on the receiving end of Bills abuse instead. Looking over the situation as it is now, I feel Hersfold is 100% correct in dishing out an indefblock (i've seen users indeffed for less!) and think Bills threat of vandalism should not be ignored. John Sloan (view / chat) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I endorse this outcome. Bill made hurtful comments toward several people (including me), and the vandalism threat was unfortunate, but I'd hate to permanently lose a valuable contributor simply because he was having a bad day.  The advice (and explanation of what's expected of him) that you posted on his talk page is appropriate.  I hope that he takes it to heart.  —David Levy 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A ridiculous and stupid situation completely overdramatised, he should be unblocked at once and everyone given the opportunity to shake hands and move on. Giano (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that ain't how we roll, honey. <font style="color:#660000;"> GARDEN 21:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not your honey. I have no wish to imagine how you "roll." I note your talk page says "I am not much of an editor " It seems you're not much of an Admin either. Pity! Giano (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there really a need for that, Giano? Seriously, was it absolutely essential that you include an insult there? You're behaving like a petulant child. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #614051;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a need, if admins want to behave like precious, delicate, little old ladies returning from an outback church meeting, then they should not be shocked if others disagree with such behaviour. Giano (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of your critiques against Wikipedia silliness are very astute; sharply cutting through huge swaths of bullshit and exposing the nakedness of our collective foolish behavior. Unfortunately you sometimes engage in a tit-for-tat with silly namecalling which I have a hard time seeing the usefulness of - it makes your well-founded arguments less effective, not more. <font color="#B38F00">henrik •<font color="#AFA29F">talk  09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake, Giano. Telling Garden he's not much of an admin based on an idiosyncratic phrasing that was meant to mock how Wikipedia actually functions as opposed to the lies we tell ourselves? That was necessary? Get over yourself. You're one of those people who only feels good about himself when he hacks other people down, which is pretty goddamn sad. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #355E3B;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, what is pretty sad, is incompetents becoming admins and exacerbating situations. It is common sense that if someone becomes angry, the best thing to do is stay away from them, keep out of their way and let them calm down in their own way and time. An intelligent person does not go and keep prodding and attempting to excite them to further anger. Wikipedia need to have a complete overhaul of its admins and their powers or at least attempt to train them before letting them loose on valuable editors. Of course it won't because any change is dependent on these self same incompetents agreeing to it. It's a complete miracle that thee are any decent editors left. Giano (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Way to ignore what I actually said. Namely, pointing out that not only was your attack completely uncalled-for, it was also wrong based on the actual meaning of what Garden said. But I suppose expecting you to take a moment for self-reflection and admitting that you're wrong, well... it'll happen sometime after the heat death of the universe. Maybe. I have no idea why your behaviour is tolerated here, but it's sickening. You seem to have free rein to attack anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason--or, rather more frequently, no reason at all. Grow up. This is not how adults behave. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #801818;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I await with interest Giano's bid for adminship; after this succeeds maybe he can show us how it's done. Until then, perhaps he could refrain from unhelpful comments and get on with something useful? --John (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the admns here is that at best their attitude to civility is provincial and their attitude to handling the policing of a project, infantile. Regarding something useful - I am of more use to this project than the whole pack of kids gtahered here put together. Giano (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. Why not go and show us rather than telling us while you demonstrate the opposite with these pointless efforts to stir up trouble here? --John (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not in a police state, pointing out the shortcomings of admins is not stirring up trouble, but merely preventing future trouble. No matter how upsetting they and their friends seem to find it. Giano (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question @ Giano: Are you defending Bill's right to call people names, or are you merely saying that his block was unjustified? J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question. I am currently writing a page on Versailles because it's such a famous place people will expect to see and read more than architecture so I have had to do a lot of very serious research outside of my chosen field, and the more I research Versailles the more I see Wikipedia. A crowd of aristocrats (Admins) obsessed with their status and placing nice pretty manners and etiquette above what's really important (writing the encyclopedia). Fawning aristocrats performing sweeping bows and doffing feathered hats to each other (as happens on this page) while failing to understand in anyway those trying to do a serious job. Of course, no one ever learns from history, which is a pity. Giano (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, Giano, wiki-floggings of the serfs (editors) by the administrators is pretty common here. However, since wiki-serfdom is self imposed serfdom, those who are excessively dissatisfied can exit when they choose. The the freedom to leave is one of the few freedoms available to everyone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * thank you, you prove my point perfectly. Many do leave because of the admins are so bad. Giano (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think one of the problems is that admins don't seem to realize that they are supposed to be the servants. The whole reason for it being called 'the mop' is because they do the clean-up bidding of the community. Unfortunately they are now too busy circle jerking each other and pleasuring themselves with said mop. Unomi (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted the archiving of this section, One cannot archoiive just because one does not like what is emerging. Giano (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, conversation was archived because the matter is resolved and now it's just pointless (largely negative) chit-chat, addressed both at you and at admins. I'd have figured Giano you'd rather be working on Versailles. Have it your own way. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone said, "That's not how we roll, honey" to me, I'd be livid. Throwing drag queen and faux "street" "disses" at people is not wit.  It's rude.  It's also using petulance for argument.  If people have arguments, and Giano does, then let them present them.  I also agree with Giano that politeness is not "civility."  Furthermore, telling Giano that he has no right to comments upon admins until he goes through an RFA is just about stupid.  It says that there really are aristocrats, and the serfs can't understand them.  I had thought that someone with active editing (instead of "not much" editing) for five years would have the right to speak.  Now me, I don't.  I'm not an administrator.  I wait patiently to be told what to do in hopes of collecting my wages.  Utgard Loki (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And this has exactly what to do with the topic of this thread or purpose of this notice board? The matter is resolved.  Isn't this supposed to be a notice board for dealing with behavior problems and other items in need of administrative attention?  It is not a general forum.  As such, Giano is wrong - admins can close a discussion when the job is done and further discussion is in their judgment unproductive.  Re-opening a resolved matter so he can heap abuse on admins is pointless.  If Giano wants to vent about what's wrong with other Wikipedia editors there is an open discussion somewhere he can pounce on.Wikidemon (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, I do seem to have rufled a few delicate feathers. The matter is not resolved because UC Bill is still wrongly blocked. This genteel civility culture is damaging, pretentious and provincial. Soemone should have the guts and sense to unblock straight away.Giano (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer your first edit summary Seicer so typical of what we have come to expect from our noble admins. Giano (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * . Am I reading this wrong or did the block expire nearly 12 hours ago?--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is he should have been unblocked before being driven off. Giano (talk)
 * Well done Admins! You have surpassed yourselves . Giano (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats concerning American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
User:Morgananderson82 has threatened User:John Nevard concerning sourced information the latter restored to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. User writes "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  "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. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(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)

Yasser Latif Hamdani
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).

User:Bobert300 - just a heads up
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. -- Ludwigs 2 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...  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I have them filed mentally under "confused" rather than disruptive.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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. Half  Shadow  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.  -- Ludwigs 2  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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic
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 Lets  drink  Tea  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 Lets  drink  Tea  22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a fair report, it just grew somewhat! -- Ged UK  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.      Since mid-February, my user talk page has been repeatedly defaced by a series of anonymous IPs - I'm guessing open proxies.     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)

y is redpen allowed 2 stalk my edits?
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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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 and  are the same user. I also agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that  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. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) (review) 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sunshinatic28
This user has uploaded numerous copyright violations as own work, despite a final warning being issued. Could an admin have a look? &lowast; \ / (⁂) 09:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * AIV is the right venue for this. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(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?&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours. I hope they can find some free images of this actress.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) (review) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably depends who's patrolling AIV; copyright scares me silly. -- Ged UK  20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

on the reference desk I am being called a troll, racist, hatemongerer, etc.q
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)

Date formatting and linking poll
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 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. -- Ged UK  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. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">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 <span style="border:1px solid #082567;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  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 <span style="border:1px solid #082567;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  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 <span style="border:1px solid #00009C;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  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
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
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&mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) edits by 60.224.0.121
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
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 -- Chuq (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern about the AfD for Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)
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. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(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. Wily D 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. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> 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)

User:TruckTech
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)

Issue with administrator User:Orderinchaos
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)

Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist
As of this moment, the first 57 edits of today's AfD log have all been identical nominations nominations with identical rationale by user. 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. 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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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)


 * 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!). <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 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... <font style="color:#660000;"> 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)

Serial copyvios by User:Mrc1028
I've got to give this guy credit, he's industrious.LeadSongDog <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So is Krazy Glue. What's your point? Half  Shadow  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. -- Ged UK  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 <font color="red" face="Papyrus">come howl 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Mark Lessig
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). &mdash;/M endaliv /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)

Repeated vio of BLP
I had encounter repeated violation of Wp:BLP by user:Radeksz. My previous attempt to receive the feedback from BLP noticeboard was fruitless, 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 is vio of BLP) However this damaging info repeatedly restored by Radeksz . 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: - 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 is vio of BLP)  - note that here I was actually restoring some referenced text as well as a few instances of text with  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: 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)

Abuse of administrative priviledges
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)

Geography of Zimbabwe
Came across a worrisome edit while using Huggle. Not sure whether to take this seriously? Just thought I'd let you'd know. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">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.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After a review of that address's recent contribs, I've blocked it for a month.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does look bogus. Just thought I'd give the heads-up, just in case. Thanks. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪  16:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for raising the matter. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yashveer r
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)

Backlog at WP:AIV
Could available admins lend a hand?

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

Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero


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

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


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


 * Calling me clueless

Any way, I do not see the editor to be a productive one if he is going to act as if he is infallible, and not admit that when he attacked others, it was wrong.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that after looking through the contributions of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, many of them have violated 3RR.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  12:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


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

Comment Someone needs to remind him or/show him something: he claims that we are allowed to have multiple accounts. This is, as we all know, true. What we of course are not allowed to do is to use those multiple accounts to evade blocks, or avoid policy - such as multiple votes, avoiding 3RR, etc. Someone needs to show him where he used those multiple accounts to eithe evade a block, or to avoid a policy. ( talk→  Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 12:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that using a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny for one's actions, as the CU found, was expressly forbidden. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have declined an unblock request at User talk:Polystyla, and protected the page since it's been used for soapboxing, personal attacks, and editwarring (to a ridiculous extent) between Polystyla and Daedalus969. I am of the opinion that any unblock should only be considered for the master account (El Machete Guerrero). Comments welcome.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse full ban. User is unclear on the concept. Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban - After all the incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, and sockpuppetry, boot him from WP. Could Machete's behavior be considered trolling? &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban While I share BMW's concerns that Machete wasn't shown clear and concrete evidence that his use of alternate accounts constituted sockpuppetry, I think the recent abuse of the unblock template via those alternate accounts, combined with continued edit warring at these talk pages, is sufficient reason to enact a community ban. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that Machete is making point-by-point responses to this thread at User talk:Xcahv8. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. I've posted a rebuttal of his most recent unblock request that I've read at User talk:El Machete Guerrero 2. Given that that page was locked when I posted the rebuttal, I'm not entirely certain he's seen it. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * EDIT) Reposted it at User talk:Xcahv8. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban - If merely to go from de facto into de jure. <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; <font color="#5A3696">neuro <font color="#5A3696">(talk) (review) 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban. Clearly not going to helpful until he learns and changes his conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse ban - negative outweighs positive. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I see, he just doesn't get it. Can we simply limit him to one account, and proceed with additional banning if they go beyond that? I feel that if we ban him, he's just going to come back worse in other ways. Tell him that the policy on alternate accounts does not apply to him ... monitor his sole account for bad edits.  Maybe even mentor him? ( talk→   Bwilkins / BMW   ←track ) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If he can agree to chill out, I'd absolutely support giving him another last chance. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Against giving him another last chance - he responds to seeming unfairness by assuming ill faith on behalf of the person who did him wrong (In that instance, I had fulfilled an IP's request for full-protection of Reggaeton to stop a very protracted edit-war that breached 18RR rather than block the IP or El Machete). I don't want any more admins to face the same type of crap I did (and still do) get from him. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right Jéské, this user is extremely problematic at present. Judging from his continued responses, I'm not confident that a last chance would work. However, I feel that if he can agree to some temporary sanctions (probably including mentoring) we can possibly gain a good and interested editor out of this mess. Is it not worth trying? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've written him and suggested a way out if he genuinely wishes to continue editing here. As he's now put up an effective "away" message at his talk, can we have a moratorium on further arguing for now? It's clear that arguing isn't working, and I think that if he doesn't accept this olive branch, we can consider a community ban. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm backing off the hammer here; he seems to see no wrong in what he's been doing (least of all the removals of the sock template that users kept adding per the checkuser findings). I fear my continued presence there will just rile him more. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider this brief exchange from User Talk:Xcahv8 (where all the recent developments have been):-
 * Sheff:If you want User:El Machete Guerrero unblocked, you should request an unblock for that account, not this one. For more information, see How to request to be unblocked and expand the sections titled "Current unblock message" and then "What do I do now?"
 * Machete:I did and was until OhNoitsJamie protected the page using an invalid reason. That is why I was forced to come to my other accounts. And I do not want to use the email, as I want all discussions to be public so the admins can't avoid scrutiny.
 * This user seems to have an absolute belief in their own innocence - and that of no one else (including admins & checkusers). I think this is either a troll or they're going to become one, and I'll be pleasantly surprised it there's anything anyone can do to prevent that.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but this user adamantly refuses to back up any of their accusations. Every time I try to tell him to back up his accusations, otherwise they're personal attacks, he either refuses and deletes my request, or refuses to respond at all.  So far, this user has only cited a single diff as evidence to their accusations, this diff to be specific.  However, as I may have stated before, the cited diff above does not justify this user's claim of wikistalking.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment this is exactly the sort of situation where the old CSN used to employ a transclusion template from the blocked editor's user talk to the discussion. Perhaps one of our code monkeys could install it for use here.  He's attempting to communicate, and using that would allow him to do so on a more equal footing here where his ban is under discussion.  If he's capable of reasonable compromise it's more likely to happen that way.  Either way, that template usually makes the decision clearer.  Durova Charge! 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - I believe you're referring to Labeled Section Transclusion. This extension is not currently installed on Wikipedia, and I do not know what is required to get it installed.  Other than that, we could possibly use a noinclude or includeonly tag.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what it's named, but anyone can head over to the WP:CSN archives and nick functional code there. We did it with Betacommand.  Durova Charge! 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I found an old CSN archive page that uses it. Basically, you just need to mark all but a single section of his user talk page with, wherein the user can make responses. Note that when this is archived, the transclusion should probably be subst'ed. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Questions for El Machete Guerrero: you say that multiple accounts are permitted. They are, in some circumstances.  But not in the manner you have been using them.  Apologies are not required in this situation: acknowledgement of the problem is required, along with assurances that it will not be repeated.  Sometimes editors who have used multiple accounts in violation of policy are restricted to one account for any and all purposes, as an alternative to sitebanning.  That will almost certainly occur in this instance; would you cooperate with that?  Another point: the bit about it taking two to tango isn't necessarily accurate.  If a man dances the tango alone in a busy street, and a crowd calls to him, they may be asking him to stop before he hurts himself.  You have a transclusion template now, which allows you to post to this thread on a more equal footing.  If we make room for you here at the sidewalk, will you step away from the oncoming bus without shoving us?  Durova Charge! 03:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence page underway
Machete (as ) has requested that I provide him with evidence as to why I am endorsing this proposal. So be it. An evidence page is currently under construction at User:Dylan620/Machete. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No matter the evidence you provide, Machete isn't likely to agree with you and will just accuse you of harassment and personal attacks, as he is doing to me whenever I rebut his claims. He has an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" mentality at present. Do yourself a favor and stop - nothing you provide will satisfy him. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, OK, so let me get this straight; if I DON'T provide evidence, Machete will grow impatient. If I DO provide evidence, he'll accuse me of harassment? &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do provide evidence, he'll claim it isn't and rebut the lot of it, and will only serve to be agitated more. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, I request that you delete my evidence page. It's no use making a page if it will only provoke Machete further. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead and make it; see if you can find any incontrovertible evidence he cannot refute. It may irritate him further, but it will also give people just coming into this topic willingly or otherwise the story thus far. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth making for the benefit of uninvolved observers who haven't seen the background here and are trying to sort things out. Durova Charge! 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the help, guys! I will continue with my evidence page, and will let you guys know when it's finished. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently conclusive evidence
Sorry to jump the gun on what you're compiling, Dylan, but I think all that's needed at this point is clear evidence that Machete's alts were being used to avoid scrutiny. Now, Machete has previously asserted; "None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia" (earlier unblock request). It's pretty clear from the diffs above that all of these accounts work in the exact same subject area.
 * primarily edited Reggaeton, but also edited articles pertaining to Latino Urban rap. In one case he edited a Daddy Yankee album and an article on Pitbull (rapper) (see below)
 * also frequently edited articles related to Reggaeton such as Daddy Yankee discography, Gasolina (Papa A.P. song) and Gasolina
 * edited articles related to Pitbull (rapper), specifically Krazy (song)
 * made one articlespace edit, which was to focus a paragraph more on Reggaeton than what it had already been focused on. Note the date/time of this edit compared to this one from Xcahv8.
 * edited articles related to Krazy (song), but also had tried to force the addition of a mention to a Reggaeton song to List of best-selling singles worldwide

You know, it's for reasons like this that splitting up one's contribution history is frowned upon... WP:SOCK specifically says "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". The only, and I stress only, reasonable explanation for this is deception. Machete's assertion that the accounts were used in different subject areas seem like a confirmation that his intention is deception, along with his demand that that all his accounts be unblocked should El Machete Guerrero be unblocked. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still want to go ahead with my evidence page because a.) I'm not letting my effort go to waste, and b.) it will include further evidence such as personal attacks, harassment, wikilawyering, edit warring, etc. Also per Jeremy and Durova above. &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More on one of the points raised above: Krazy was the subject of an edit war over whether it should be a redirect to a song or a disambiguation page. Both Polystyla and Xcahv8 took part in that: Polystyla moved the old article out of the way to Krazy (comic), then Xcahv8 made the article a redirect to point at Krazy (song). This left the other editor (User:Stephenb) under the impression that he was in a minority in thinking that Krazy should be a disambiguation page. If the accounts had been linked in any way, this would not have been the case.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to post this evidence to his talk page? Or just wait for him to read it here?—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (to Dylan) Certainly do continue; I know I'm missing diffs and (as Sheffield indicates) missing points of possibly disruptive behavior. Plus I'm not addressing the incivility that's occurred since then. (to Daedalus) I'm not going to post this to his talk; we already know Machete is reading this. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (@ Daedalus): It's OK, I read up on ANI frequently. :) &rarr; Dyl @  n  620  23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dylan: May I also suggest using the diffs from here for evidence of incivility and such? -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has now been two days and there is still no response from EMG about this evidence? Should we give him a time limit to respond?  I ask this because when I was 'arguing'(if you will) on his talk page about sock puppets, he was extremely quick to respond.  But now in the face of actual conclusive evidence that he can't deny, he is extremely slow to respond.  It doesn't add up.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's been a day since he's had an offer to agree to a restriction to one account, and hasn't responded to that either. Resumption of discussion seems fair at this point.  Durova Charge! 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of discussion

 * Pending a response to the questions posed above, endorse ban. Durova Charge! 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * His response insists that he has not violated the socking policy, and expresses defeatism about the suggestion of a restriction to one account. We know from past experience that solution can work if the editor is cooperative.  Interesting that he continues to express that he thinks an apology is being demanded, although it is not and other actions are required that he refuses to make.  El Machete Guerrero, please wait six months without editing and email an administrator to appeal the ban if you wish to return.  Durova Charge! 05:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still endorse ban; evidence presented thus far indicates that Machete's intent was deception. Unless he can accept the community's restrictions (one account only, mentorship and possible restriction on reversions), there is no place in the community for him. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that Machete's attempted to explain his behavior, I still endorse a ban. If his behavior doesn't constitute a to the letter violation of WP:SOCK, he's been gaming the system. But I'm absolutely convinced that he had been previously attempting to avoid scrutiny. I second Durova's six month limitation on appeals, and even then following an unblock he should be indefinitely limited to one account. Machete has presented zero convincing reasons for needing multiple accounts, and has failed to provide an explanation as to why his accounts were not visibly linked (apart from a lack of explicit requirement, which in my view constitutes a WP:GAMING violation). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion has not changed whatsoever. Machete is bullheaded and either will not listen or, in the case of irrefutable evidence, take a powder. Endorse ban. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * EMG's explanations are at best double-talk and at worst hyperbole. After the explanation, my position stands: Endorse ban. I do agree that a six-month limit on appeals should also be enacted, but I don't even think six months will help. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 06:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this user's game is, but as far as I can see, he repeatedly lied and personally attacked others. Although checkusers are trusted to make sound judgements, this user requested addition evidence.  I honestly wonder what he hoped to achieve, as, not that we have evidence, it proves he was using his socks disruptively.  What did he expect?  That we are so lazy we wouldn't have found such evidence?  Or was he only trying to prolong the disruption he originally caused?  I don't know, but I do know that I stand firm in my endorsement of his community ban.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a note, the user in question has responded, but the responses do not address the points made in the evidence above.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  05:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

EMG's response
This section was done off of the suggestion of Duvora. Since I have not been able to find the thread she noted, I decided to improvise. I am transcluding the user's talk page using noinclude tags.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs 

Proposing a ban against me

As I cannot edit outside of this talkpage I will reply to this ban proposal here. I was not found to be using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny and the quote is as follows: "These appear to be multiple accounts being used to avoid scrutiny"

Now this only proves the use of multiple accounts under one IP and not sockpuppetry something which an admin who does not like me admitted. The admin who said this quote is presumably the same admin who performed the checkuser, and make a note that he had absolutely no evidence or diffs to support his claim. It is my belief this is a thin veil for a checkuser performed on the ground of fishing, and when it was discovered I was not El Perso or the described IP he needed an excuse and this was sufficient.

I have only acted in knee-jerk reactions to other editors and have been defensive when I have felt appropriate. I have been consistently and constantly attacked and have been blocked indefenitely with no diffs whatsoever and invalid claims against me. I am a good editor and have only improved wikipedia in my time as an editor, something which cannot be said for the blocked IP editor I was in a revert war with. Whom by the way is now making edits even though he has been the only sockpuppeteer in this issue, using his socks to evade blocks and break policy.

One of this prominet editors is Daedalus969 who has persistently wikistalked me, harrassed me, attacked me and given me threats in my dealings with him. He is not an admin and originally had no involvement in this issue and nothing to do with it. But he decided to make himself involved due to his vendetta against me. Now because I will not apologise to him as he will not apologise to me he has proposed a ban on me. You can see his character from reading. He has also called in recruits to gang up on me, all editors who have something against me and who will help his cause.

Where is this Daedalus969? I have told you time and time again you must show diffs for such strong accusations against me, and it's funny you even mention that after the 20+ reverts you made on my talkpage! I will now go count them so an admin can block you appropriately, and trust me they will because I was blocked for the exact same thing. And admins don't like to be seen as having discrimination. I was blocked for getting in an edit war with a block editor. Now I am a blocked editor and you had an edit war with me, so now you should be blocked for getting in an edit war with a blocked editor. And you made more reverts then I did on my original block. I will now proceed to count them. I counted OVER 40!!! So you should be blocked for twice as long as I was because I reverted 18 times with a blocked IP who was a sockpuppeteer and gamed the system. El Machete Guerrero


 * Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Blocking me now would be pointless, as it wouldn't be preventing anything, as I have stopped reverting.— Dædαlus Contribs 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So did I, but that didn't stop me from getting a block. And I'm sure admins don't wish to discriminate and show they edit based on self interest instead of what's fair. El Machete Guerrero.
 * Again you persist to badmouth me. And again I will point out that you were the first one not to provide any diffs whatsoever for all your attacks on me over the past week on pretty much all my talkpages, and only now at the end of the line you have decided to copy me and use what I have been CONSTANTLY telling you to do and provide diffs. Again as I have already said, I am done with you. You are not worth my time replying as you never listen and I will not repeat myself to you again.


 * Ironholds, come here and explain why you support a ban. BTW, I can't make any new accounts as OhNoitsJamie has blocked me from doing so, which he would not need to do if he unprotects my talkpage on El Machete Guerrero
 * We are allowed multiple accounts, yes, but not for the purpose of evading blocks. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and I did not evade my block. My accounts are not sockpuppets and this is the reason I was blocked indefinitely. El Machete Guerrero


 * Thankyou Bwilkins, this is exactly what I have been getting at! Someone does need to show me where I abusively used my multiple accounts as sockpuppets, because I am telling you I never did, although I had the choice of doing so when the IP proceeded to do so. But I know this is wrong and against policy so I did not. El Machete Guerrero


 * Jeremy the CU did not find this and I in no way or form was avoiding scrutiny. Do not assert false information to mislead others, it is against policy. Asserting false information and attacking me!
 * So if I went thru your contribs for all your socks, I won't find personal attacks, edit-warring, or the like? 'Cuz if I do, you're screwed. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me quote myself: "Go ahead! Be my guest! I encourage it! What is EMG?! While you do this you can also see all my improvements to wikipedia which only helps me, so please do! And if you find I have been abusing my accounts let me know, because I am quite certain this will not be the case as they all concentrate on different areas of wikipedia."
 * Jeremy, you have failed to provide any diffs. Dylan says he will so I shall soon see.


 * Again, SheffieldSteel this is not a master account as my accounts are not sockpuppets. But like I said that is where I am wishing to request the unblock and when it is found not to be an abuse of multiple accounts, the others will automatically be unblocked. El Machete Guerrero
 * SheffieldSteel, I am disapointed in you and did not think you would speak on my behalf and make such attacks on me as you did on the AN/I calling me a "troll". I was genuinely rooting for you not to lower yourself to such comments and had alot of respect for you until I saw those comments. I guess this ban proposal is like a snowball rolling down a hill, and it keeps collecting admins on the way.


 * OhNoitsJamie, come here and explain exactly what concept I am unclear on as I feel I am perfectly clear on every aspect especially the aspect where you protected my talkpage with no valid reason. And explain why you support a ban.
 * Provide diffs or retract your statements as I could say the exact same thing about you "Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it." and suggest you get banned and provide no diffs aswell. Infact I will say the exact same thing until you provide diffs for me. OhNoitsJamie should be banned because "Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it."


 * Dylan620, come here and explain why you endorse a ban. I will also note that in your reason for an endorsement you have broken wikipedia policy and have attacked me. Provide diffs otherwise it is against policy. I could say the exact same thing about you, it's easy. It's like me saying I was the first man on the moon and expecting people to believe me. But they wont because I don't have evidence!
 * I was endorsing a ban per Daedalus's nom, but have it your way. An evidence page will be under construction soon at User:Dylan620/Machete. In addition, I see from just above that you wish for admin to be banned; maybe you would like to provide some evidence? &rarr; Dyl  @  n  620  20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No I would not as he has not provided diffs for me. And you know or anyone else can see exactly what I am getting at with that reply so don't be smart.
 * Dylan don't listen to him, he does not speak for me. I speak for myself. He rebutted my unblock request point by point and I then refuted every point. He then rebuttaled and then I again refuted. He though, did not provide one diff. You say you are going to. So proceed to do so and I will reply to you accordingly.


 * Mendaliv, this is not sufficient enough at all and had I not been wrongly blocked in the first place and abused, I would have not needed to take such drastic measures! And you say my continued edit warring is warrant for a block, but what you do not mention at all is Daedalus969 and what should happen to him making over 50 reverts in edit wars. And what you fail to mention is it is my talkpage and I can remove what I want from it. I would like to see how you would act if you had the same unjustified block and abuse put on you. I am not sure if you could handle it as well as I have.
 * Thankyou Mendaliv for making the rest of the users aware that I am replying to them here, I really appreciate it. As you know I have left a reply for your endorsement of a ban on me. Could yo please reply, cheers El Machete Guerrero.


 * Jeremy, I have refuted every point, read them and then tell me what reason you have for supporting a ban on me.


 * neuro, come here and explain why you support a ban. Simply saying you do with no valid reason effectively excludes your vote in the decision.


 * Ricky81682, come here and explain why you support a ban.


 * Jauerback, this is completely false either prove it or retract it! Someone ban Jauerback as "negative outweighs positive". You see how easy it is to make completely unfounded statements.


 * Bwilkins what don't I get? I thought you were the only one who could see I was blocked on a completely baseless reason and that I was not using sockpuppets. Why do I have to be limited to one account? We are allowed to have multiple accounts and is the only reason I do have multiple accounts. Had I not been allowed to have more than one account I would not have more than one account. I don't see how this is so hard to understand, it's crystal clear to me. You can moniter all my accounts for bad edits, I have not used them for bad edits, I have used them to improve wikipedia and have done a great deal of help to Wikipedia. Just take a look at Daddy Yankee discography, I completely changed that article for the better. And these type of edits I have been doing all over wikipedia, that is why I have each different account concentrating on different areas. So I can split up the load. And mentor me? What do I need mentoring in? I feel like I know most policies and I also feel I have remainded true to all these policies. El Machete Guerrero
 * Mendaliv, how can I chill out? I have been unfairly blocked not once but twice and the second time it was pretty much a ban. The first time I did not care as I had admitted to breaking the 3RR and conceded that I could and probably should be blocked. But I also mentioned there was no use in blocking me as I had stop the reverts and the page was protected. So then when the block was issued it was punitive and not preventative, and was just George choosing to flex his muscles and showboat. Then I was blocked indefinately by Nixeagle claiming I was using a sockpuppets when this was never, ever proven. And since then I have been constantly harrased, abused and attacked. So please explain to me how you would chill out if this happened to you? Because I doubt Ned Flanders himself could not have even handled the situation as well as I have. El Machete Guerrero
 * Let me put it this way; your use of multiple accounts, as you say above to work in different topic areas, is frowned upon at the very least, especially since you did not make it clear prior to the checkuser that the accounts were connected. While you don't feel this fits the definition of sockpuppetry, to outside observers your use of multiple accounts in this manner looks very bad. I'm asking you, with the best of intentions, to chill out, because I think the dispute here is as a result of several compounded misunderstandings. BMW is trying, very admirably, to encourage the community to give you another chance, and from all appearances you're spitting on his good intentions. I'm asking you to chill out because if you can it would go a long way in proving to the community that you're willing to work within our rules. I'm not saying this is fair, but from my perspective it's all you can do. Continuing to rail against everybody who tries to defuse the situation will only hurt your case. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it frowned upon exactly? I did not mention it prior to the checkuser as I did not need to. I don't have to connect them it is in wikipedia policy and if you read every one of my talkpage you will see I have quoted this somewhere. I don't feel it is sockpuppetry as it isn't! It does not fit the definition and I am allowed to have more than one account. It says this! How do I chill out though? What do I do to chill out? Stop defending myself? Because if I do not continue to defend myself against editors attacks then I am almost guarenteed to be banned. I need to prove what they are saying is wrong, otherwise people will believe the deceit. I know this I can read the AN/I and I am immensely grateful for BMW highlighting the fact that we are allowed multiple accounts and that no one has provided me with proof that I am avoiding scruting using sockpuppets. I am not sure what you mean by me spitting on his good intentions, as I have already told him that I am thankful for his help and what he is doing for me. I am willing and have always been willing to work within the rules of wikipedia, what does chilling out mean? Because I will "chill out" if I can understand exactly how to "chill out". If it means stop defending myself against slander though, I will not chill out. But if it means something else I am happy to chill out. In person I am a real chilled guy anyway and I get along with everyone, I am always told how easy going I am. So please explain what this means to me as I am clueless. El Machete Guerrero
 * As the Checkuser indicated, the apparent use of your alternate accounts was to avoid scrutiny. That is to say, you did so because you did not want your edits from one account to be connected to those from another account for some reason, and the variance of names of your accounts suggests that is the case. That sort of behavior is expressly mentioned at WP:SOCK. There's been no good reason given why you needed to have multiple unconnected accounts, and apart from a genuine misunderstanding of the rules (which you've argued hasn't happened), the most obvious reason is abusive sockpuppetry. However, I'm going to suggest an alternative below, if you'll bear with me.
 * This was not apparent at all and is the only way he could get away with calling me a sockpuppet master. I have multiple accounts because I am allowed to have multiple accounts, and I have already explained their purpose. So don't try and accuse me of ill intentions, my accounts having different names does not suggest anything. So don't make ill accusations and then say that the behaviour is expressly mentioned at WP:SOCK, as I am well aware of the policy and let me quote myself once more for you, "They all focus on different areas of wikipedia and different article spaces and are in no way used to avoid scrutiny and their edits combined would not be considered improper if done by a single account!". There has not needed to be any good reason given why I have multiple accounts, as let me remind you, I am allowed to. So wether or not you feel that there has been a good reason given or not given, your opinion has absolutely no merit or influence in the slightest. I am sorry, but this is the case. The only thing obvious to those who are hellbent against me or do not or will not understand that multiple accounts are allowed, is abusive sockpuppetry. Anyone who is aware of the policy or whom does not have a grudge against me should be well aware that we are permitted multiple accounts and we do not have to make them public. I will hear you out, but as this is leading from your belief that I am abusively using socks, I do not know if I will agree with what you say next.
 * The situation you describe resembles a catch-22; if you continue to argue the way you have been, I can promise you that the ban will go from being de facto to de jure very quickly. However, you're right in that if you stop, roll over and die, the de facto ban will continue. What I propose is that you create a new section on your talk page and do this for clarity's sake:
 * Admit that you've used alternate accounts and will cease doing so from here on out. This isn't an admission of sockpuppetry but will help establish that further blocking and banning will cease being preventative and become punitive.
 * Agree that if the community will allow it, you'll be glad to continue editing constructively, and will be glad to take advice from here on out.
 * Apologize for previously edit warring and promise that you'll be careful to avoid it in the future.
 * Accept mentorship from another, more experienced editor for a period to be determined.
 * Abstain from making references to individual editors' involvements in your case, as that will be viewed as goading.
 * How does that sound? The particular wording doesn't really matter, but the point is to make it clear you want to participate constructively and not waste everyone's time. If you can agree to restrictions, I believe it will obviate the need to block and ban you. But really, you need to consider this as genuinely your last chance. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If I have been arguing then everyone else has been to, as it take two to tango and an argument needs more than one person. You choose to use hard words like argue, when I choose to view my comments as just that, comments or replies, they are discussions.
 * I have admitted to using multiple accounts. It is obvious I have used all my accounts talkpages. Why should I cease using them all when I am permitted to? All blocking I have recieved has been punitive and not preventative, so you can see how I would be sceptical thinking this would prevent any further blocks.
 * I have agreed to this, and am happy to take advice that is not a threat under disguise.
 * I have apologised for edit warring and am quite happy to apologise again. I know this was wrong and for that I am sorry. I will promise in future, even if I feel like I am reverting vandalism, that I will not break the 3RR and I will contact an administrator for help.
 * I don't care, I am willing to accept mentorship from an admin. But as I have already mentioned, I feel like I am knowledgable on most of the policies and aspect of wikipedia. But of course help from someone who has been on wikipedia longer than I, will never be turned down by myself.
 * How can I be seen as goading when, I am the one who is unable to edit outside of this page, I am the one who has proposition of a ban on me, and I am the one everyone is defaming. I need to defend myself, so I need to reply and address all comments made about me by all the editors. Otherwise people may start to believe the unfounded statements.
 * I do want to participate constructively and I have been. I am not wasting anyone's time, everyone has became invovled in this by their own choice. I did not tell them to comment on me. I don't know why I should consider it as my last chance as I was punitively blocked both times. The only two times in my time as an editor on wikipedia. El Machete Guerrero

Follow-up on this case
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. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wilco.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL 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. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The user has apparently decided to not go quietly
Please see Sockpuppet investigations/El Machete Guerrero.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint
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? TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  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 . 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 . 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. <font color="#CC0000">pushthebutton &#x007C; <font color="#669900">go on...  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">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 .  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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another new "editor" has just popped up. . Within the first 20 minutes of creation has been telling other editors they're blocked and asking for information about their IP addresses. I noticed because he did this at Marek's page. 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. 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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and filed an SPI . 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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another one - .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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, she claims they're socks of each other - impossible. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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

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, 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 . Pretty obvious. Let's block.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And right behind it this one . 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 per .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. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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     19:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added it for you and blocked him 72h. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(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     19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found another
 * who made this edit signing as Marek69 in the same manner as the above user(s). --     19:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bagged. Bali, start using user rather than checkuser; the latter linebreaks your comment. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)