Misplaced Pages

and without consequences for repeated false accusations it's now open season on admins. He's still making these claims. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was prompted to let this go, and I offered to do so if you would, and this you would have seen clearly stated above. But since I made that offer you have written more than once that I am fabricating false allegations against you. This is not the case, and I cannot be expected to stand by while you say so repeatedly. You have succeeded in forcing me to say again, strongly, I stand by the accusations of impropriety I have made against you, and each of which I am prepared to have examined in detail, the evidence is out there for anyone to see. To be accused of making false allegations, especially by an admin, is not something that I ought to be expected to tolerate. I suggest you take a step back, take another look at all the posts, and reconsider your position. Once again, if you will leave it here, right here, then I will too. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) Actually, your allegations made above have not been corroborated by evidence, nor have they accepted and acted upon by the plethora of admins reading this page. You therefore need to accept that it's valid criticism. There's a cardinal rule 'round Misplaced Pages: file your beef, or shut up about it. Well, you brought it out ... and it has not been supported. That means, it's time to give it up, and/or file something at WP:RFC. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone's actions stand in plain relief if you're prepared to do the necessary dusting. I think you're wrong that the lack of admin involvement means that I am wrong: The "plethora of admins" have chosen not yet to get involved on either side. It seems your comment could be addressed to either party. Furthermore I do not think that most WPns follow what you say is a cardinal rule. Most sort it out amongst themselves - if they did not do so this page would be a lot busier than it is. I did not bring us here and most WPns would never have brought us here for the reason stated. The original reason we are here is long gone now, as Toddst1 acknowledges. The only admin intervention so far has been a repeated one asking the parties to let it go. I have done my best to follow that advice but I don't want me doing so to be thought of as a sign of weakness or that I am admitting to be in the wrong. I regret you may think my seeming reluctance to file an RfC is either of those. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrative conduct should be open for review and criticism. Merely criticizing the conduct of an administrator should in no way be grounds for blocking, as long as it is done within the bounds of civil discourse. Administratorship is primarily a janitorial service, in which handling criticism and upset users are an expected part of the job, and nothing to get worked up about. Not that I particularly enjoy getting my errors pointed out to me, but it is an essential part of the legitimacy of positions of trust.

In the majority of cases, criticism leveled by users against administrators who have sanctioned them is not justified on objective grounds. But in those instances where that is not clearly the case, the administrator should try to explain his reasoning further, or dispassionately seek wider review of the actions taken. But in no way should the act of civilly criticizing itself be an actionable offense. In this particular instance i feel that Toddst1, which otherwise seems like a good chap, is mistaken in his handling of the matter. henrik•talk 09:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're hitting what was really my point: Todd needs to be open to constructive criticism. So does Psb777. No administrative action was ever required here, and the ongoing tit-for-tat "but he should get X" and "no, he should get Y" is...well to be polite...what my children do. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this user is obviously in need of punitive action (like the kind I received. it has obviously done me good and shaped me up). If I may, mfield, I am respectfully stating that you may have a conflict of interest in this incident, seeing as how in my not-so-good days, you often were on the side of being against me. I am not making accusations, but this is a possibility and I am not going to pretend like the possibility does not exist. As for PSB, some sort of a block is obviously in order because he is falsely accusing an administrator of inappropriate behavior (which is, in itself, inappropriate seeing as how it is all laid out here and we can all see that Todd, contrary to PSB's false accusations, did not engage in inappropriate behavior. Also, Todd, I would disagree with your statement that Henrik not have an opinion here. He has been very fair from what I can see, and he gave me second chances when no one else was willing to. Again, however, I will re-affirm: I, personally support a two-week block on PSB. However, perhaps a compromise could be reached and we could settle on a week-long ban? -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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  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 - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#IP editors on Maltese People. It's all rather confusing and time-wasting. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some checkuser is here. Note again that the IP you mention is not there. Do you have a diff for the stalking threat? Tonywalton  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)

Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI

CENSEI (talk · contribs) has made a couple of comments (diff1, diff2) at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages would be gone if thats the criteria you are willing to use. If this wasn’t so blatantly over the top in its ham handedness, I might actually think you were serious. CENSEI (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

← It is difficult to discern anything in Special:Contributions/CENSEI beyond single-minded advocacy and abuse of Misplaced Pages 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  05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

• Endorse topic ban. I was going to suggest something similar myself. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages altogether. We have a mechanism for discussing bad behavior by users of long standing, which CENSEI is. Use it. Ray 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  04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  On the question of growing increasingly disenchanted with this particular asylum, MastCell, we agree. Ray 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 carrots 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Highly offensive comments that demean wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 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 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 carrots 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor's behaviour at AfD

Could someone please read this dialogue and review an editor's behaviour (User: A Nobody) at this AfD. My opinion is that this behaviour is disruptive and shows horrendous assumptions of bad faith. Seraphim♥ 17:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I second this opinion, being present at the AfD and leaving him a polite notice about his comments. He willfully ignored my request and continued his previous behaviour, which I found very disruptive. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We have two editors who regularly delete other editors contributions complaining about A Nobody, who regularly attempts to save editors contributions. Is this really news?

A Nobody had the adacity to respond four times in an AFD! My God! This is normal and permitted, there is no rule that prevents this. There are specific rules about WP:NPA and WP:AGF which Seraphim has violated.

WP:KETTLE Seraphim, isn't by accusing another editor of not have good faith, a "horrendous assumptions of bad faith" yourself?

I guess comments like this by Seraphim are models of WP:AGF, this comment set the tone for the entire section which Serphim quotes:

"Continually repeating your points looks disruptive and looks like an attempt to ram your opinion down people's throats " In addition, accusing A Nobody of "badgering" and "disruption" more models of good faith.

I would ask all of these editors, in the own words of Seraphim, too "Try to respect the views of others who have a differing opinion," because it is only "badgering" and "disruption".

Ikip (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm yeah, when someone continually, and repetitively repeats their opinion throughout a discussion, it certainly does look like an attempt to force-feed an opinion. You should also correct your first statement. "Two editors who regularly delete other editors contributions complaining about A Nobody" - I haven't commented in an AfD debate with A Nobody probably since last year, and probably long before that too. Seraphim♥ 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that deleting contributions is not, last time I checked, a crime that invalidates a users opinion. Ikip is hardly the most neutral user to be commenting in such a situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt talking about A Nobody's AfDs. I was not claiming that deleting contributions was a crime. Never claimed to be a non-partisan.

A Nobody inserted four sentences in an AfD, and is personally attacked as a result. Is adding four sentences to an AfD a blockable offence? Is there a limit to how much someone can comment in an AfD? What does Seraphim suggest be done? Ikip (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Four sentences? I count forty-seven contributions signed "A Nobody" in that AfD, most simply gainsaying the views of contributors advocating deletion. I'd suggest that there is, in fact, "a limit to how much someone can comment in an AfD" when the activity of commenting rises to the level of disruption. Deor (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is engaging in discussion in an AFD. What's wrong with that? I find it healthy and view User: A Nobody's comments as constructive. SunCreator (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

After posting a similar request to tone down participation at the AfD to the only editor who has more edits to that page than A Nobody (the nominator, Locke-something, with 40 to Nobody's 36), A Nobody seemed to respond favorably to the request. Perhaps this particular frustration with AfD badgering has passed. However, as I mentioned in an earlier note on A Nobody's talk page, this respond-to-every-dissent approach to AfD harkens back to his habits under a previous user name under which he was repeatedly warned against/requested to refrain from such "overwhelming participation" at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC) AGF folks... AGF. We have all seen AfD's where a spirited nominator made sure to answer every keep over and over and over, refuting every keep comment ad nauseum... yet these nominators are not called to task. And we have all see AfD's closed as keep because, and even though it is not a vote, the closer saw 10 votes to delete and 1 or 2 to keep... with the 2 making a sound policy case for keep and the 10 making "I Don't Like It" cases for delete. Not a vote surely, but we all seen closers often act by weight of numbers as opposed to clarity of argument. Else we'd never have any article go to Deletion Review. With respects, and assuming the best of good faith, I see A Nobody making an appeal to reason and guideline and common sense in his rebuttals, and though he must realize that his arguments won't disuade the editors whose comments he is answering, it can be seen that he is hoping that other editors reading the discussion will note that the arguments being countered have indeed been countered. Such enthusiasm in the defense of Misplaced Pages is to be admired. Schmidt, 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with AGF is that we've been here before. In general, multiple comments at an AfD aren't unusual, but this is over the top. Quite apart from his previous incidents involving AfDs, it's simply ridiculous to claim that a topic is notable because you can type it into a Google Books search and get hits ( - of course, all the hits are irrelevant). People tend to ignore multiple repeated comments - keeping them to a few, relevant, statements is always the best course of action.Black Kite 18:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do? The basic problem is myspacers versus people who believe there should be standards of inclusion and discrimination. The myspacers have probably already won (sic all the Power Rangers articles.) While i find the vociferous repetitions of the same 10 word statements at an AFD annoying, can't see how it can/should be prevented. Would require a complete overhaul of the whole culture.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that whilst making multiple comments at AfD isn't disruptive (indeed, it can often be beneficial), flooding the AfD with comments that don't actually address the issues that people are trying to discuss can be. I understand that AN feels strongly about the issues, but he doesn't need to do this to get his point across. Black Kite 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I share your view. However, it's problematic in this regard. I feel all my comments to that afd have been helpful, advancing an argument in a meaningful way, etc.... but others may feel differently. And Mr. Nobody asserts that his contributions are likewise (though you and I would disagree). Short of having a quota on commenting to an AfD (a bad idea) it's juts the type of minor disruption that has to be lived with (unless it escalates into personal attacks and so on, and there are mechanisms for dealing with all of that.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't A Nobody swear up and down to be good (particularly regarding disrupting AfD) after being allowed to switch over from his previous account? It was a few months ago and all, but this seems particularly out of sync with his comments at the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiasm and love of[REDACTED] should be guided, not decried, as he loves it as much as those editors whose arguments he countered. Any one of us, when seeing the same arguments repeated, even though we feel it was adequately answered earlier in the discussion, might get a sense of "didn't they read before commenting?" Please know that I am not condoning nor defaming such comments, only offering that we have all seen some quite lenghty AfDs.... some far longer than the article being discussed... and each of us wish the review of the article to be as fully informed as possible. Schmidt, 22:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiasm isn't what's being discussed here. Commenting 50 times in a single discussion is disruptive by any remotely reasonable definition. And more to the point, this is exactly what he promised the community he wouldn't do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who Editor:A Nobody was in a past wiki life or what his offense was. Just looking in as an observer, I realize that a common discussion style is to rework/reword a basic thought in varied new ways, hoping (against hope in some occasions) that THIS time it will be understood. What is being discussed is a mis-interpretation of Editor:AN's enthsiasm. He is enthsiastic: Editor:Seraphim sees it as disruptive...Editor:AN has a point and he is searching for a way in which to be heard. What's wrong with that?...--Buster7 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably that he was repeatedly warned for it for months prior to vanishing, coming back as a sockpuppet to carry on exactly the same behaviour (his second sock account, in fact), being permanently blocked and only eventually allowed back on after vowing to change his behaviour (specifically his behaviour on AfDs). Every time general opinion of him reaches a certain threshold of negativity, he spams out another two or three hundred WikiLove templates on people's user pages, collects together another group of fans / confidantes / unwitting bystanders to defend him and tones it down for a few weeks. His enthusiasm is not in question here - his cynical exploitation of the good faith of others to continue to behave in a way that the community at large finds unacceptable is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is a common disagreement on AFD. Making WP:INFO less cloudy would be a lot of help. Both sides tend to be rusted into their own argument and rarely see the other side. Both sides are guilty here. - Mgm| 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Editor:Chris...I would hazard a guess that it is more than likely a small percentage of 'the community at large that had expressed any opinion about Editor:A Nobody...then or now.--Buster7 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm marking this as unresolved because I've heard of this previous identity, and I share the same sentiment as Chris Cunningham: wasn't he on course for a block under his old identity? Sceptre 10:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the said old account?  rdunnPLIB  10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and
• User:Elisabeth Rogan
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

O RLY? Show him the door. Enough chances have been given, enough faux-RTV has been used to evade scrutiny, enough of this mess entirely. //roux   11:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that all of this is made up of circles.  rdunnPLIB  12:00, 24 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.

• 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.

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)

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   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   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. --AniMate 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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. AniMate 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. →Dyl@n620 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. AniMate 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.— Dædαlus 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 !!!

• 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.

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 ?????

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[REDACTED] 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   18:22, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

User:Meowy making personal attacks

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are distorting facts Meowy. I never said that the genocide didn't happen. For a couple of years I recognized the armenian genocide but after reading material from guenter lewy and bernard lewis, I started to have doubts. Whether I believe it or not does not matter. It is a fact that the genocide is disputed. There has never been a verdict given by either the PCIJ or the ICJ which is the only institution that can give the genocide verdict, no conclusive proof has been produced, countries (UK,Sweden,Denmark, Bulgaria etc) and scholars dispute the genocide. You simply can't deny the genocide is disputed. Even if you believe it happened exactly the way the armenians say it happened, still you have to accept the fact that there is a serious dispute. If something is disputed the word alleged is usually used and removing it is a sign that you deny that it is disputed. You either have to allow alleged in front of genocide or have to prove that the genocide is undisputed and accepted as an established fact or that[REDACTED] 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. Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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". 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 Misplaced Pages articles have been to distort the historical nature of the Armenian Genocide. It's even more astonishing that Misplaced Pages admins and mediators have indulged his ill-intentioned edits and allowed him to soapbox for so long. He should understand that Misplaced Pages 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 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero

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

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

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

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

• Calling me clueless

Any way, I do not see the editor to be a productive one if he is going to act as if he is infallible, and not admit that when he attacked others, it was wrong.— Dædαlus 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.— Dædαlus 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. -Jeremy 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 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. OhNoitsJamie 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? →Dyl@n620 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. —/Mendaliv//_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#Proposing a ban against me. —/Mendaliv//_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. -Jeremy 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• EDIT) Reposted it at User talk:Xcahv8#Unblock request. -Jeremy 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - If merely to go from de facto into de jure. — neuro 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. Jauerback/_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. —/Mendaliv//_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. -Jeremy 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? —/Mendaliv//_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. —/Mendaliv//_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. -Jeremy 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Images by Todd Marshall

Not sure where else to post this, but several dinosaur images by illustrator Todd Marshall have been uploaded with no appropriate source or permission and should be deleted, they can be found here: FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a minute "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the original image author and image description are credited" Whats wrong with that? Theresa Knott | token threats 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof and no source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Benosaurus#Rajasaurus and User_talk:Benosaurus#Todd Marshall Images, along with the talk-page section immediately below the latter. Is there any evidence that an OTRS ticket was ever filed, establishing the permission that Benosaurus claims was given by the artist? Deor (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See also this Commons deletion debate, where someone else has been trying and failing to get GFDL permission from the artist. Bencherlite 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep it looks like we don't have permission for these images. I'm happy for them to be deleted. (but I'll wait a little while before doing it myself) Theresa Knott | token threats 16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The images by him on Commons need to be deleted too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

you need to go tell commons... en doesnt have the same rules and commons is, well, different. Spartaz 19:23, 23 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 Misplaced Pages. I am using this new account because I feel threatened and wish to remain anonymous. Sincerely James Tucton (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I know nothing about the underlying dispute, but the new user making the complaint doesn't appear to be that concerned about folks figuring out what area the problem is in. He's opened up a sockpuppet investigation on User:Marek69 here . 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. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another new "editor" has just popped up. Gerald1971 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Within the first 20 minutes of creation has been telling other editors they're blocked and asking for information about their IP addresses . 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[REDACTED] 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)

Shubal Stearns

user:Til Eulenspiegel persistently reverts citation and tone tags in the article Shubal Stearns. Instead of addressing the concerns clearly expressed by tags, they resort to personal attacks in the article talk page. The tags are related to the most fundamental and long established[REDACTED] rules: WP:V and WP:NPOV. I suggest some respectable admin explain this to Til Eulenspiegel. - 7-bubёn >t 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to read Talk:Shubal Stearns. This slow back-and forth has been going on since Jan 2008, but apparently nobody but SemBubenny thinks the article has an indecent tone, and I have shown the utmost patience in awaiting his explanation of why he thinks there is one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nobody cares about the article (it says itself: "though his name is little remembered or taught today"). Please don't put your words ihn my mouth: I didn't write "indecent tone". And your patience amounted in patiently deletion of tags that require following the most basic[REDACTED] policy: WP:CITE. I am stopping this useless bickering, and if nobody else cares about maintaining[REDACTED] standards, I am not going to waste any more of my time with aggressive defender of the glory of Shubal Stearns. - 7-bubёn >t 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few {{fact}} tags for statements that require a direct reference in support. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 23 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. -- FayssalF - 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. The best we can do is craft neutral articles describing the controversies which is admittedly difficult to impossible but still worth attempting. Jehochman and many others don't like these articles and find them annoying (which they are), but I don't think anyone can seriously deny that this is a serious and notable topic. To delete state terrorism would leave a significant and odd hole in the encyclopedia, though if there are creative solutions for dealing with all of the "Allegations of" articles other than blanket deletion I'm all for that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Motorheadfan7707

Bear with me, because behavioral issues are my weakest area; you guys would be better at deciding what to do. I just left this note on the editor's talk page: "In your talk page history, I see a long list of admins who have patiently explained CSD criteria and image uploading criteria, and every time, you blank the page and keep on doing things the same way. I think it's time for a trip to WP:ANI to discuss whether taking a few days off from editing might be helpful." He's been asked multiple times to slow down and be more careful, and it doesn't seem to be working. What next? It's a problem because CSD work goes much slower when the taggers have no idea what they're doing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you got a reply from him/her while I was taking a look at the situation.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, what do you mean, the speedy deletes issue or my copyrighting problems? Yes i am sometimes thinking that some pages are litteraly so low on content and so something nobody cares about should be deleted. But i am trying to fix this issue, thanks for your reminder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorheadfan7707 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Motorhead. There are problems with uploading copyrighted images and there are a lot of speedy deletions that you proposed that got turned down. I'd be happy if you would at least not tag the wrong pages for speedy deletions; there have been 4 comments on your talk page about speedy deletions so far: . - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see you're getting help from Chzz on your talk page; I don't have anything else to bring up here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Range block needed

Rwandan Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being vandalized by a dynamic IP so a report to WP:AIV would do no good. Would someone be willing and/or able to do a range block?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done on 198.248.65.80/28, which targets the IPs used today. If they hop farther, please re-request. Regards SoWhy 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Belt and braces! Shouldn't cause any problems, however. --Rodhullandemu 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected User:Fredrick day sock

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

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

• Please note this new account's userpage: . Now, please refer to Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Listcruft and then spamming the essay to various guideline pages.

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

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

I have filed checkuser requests before, but not reports there; if someone can help, it would be appreciated. Also, while this may be after the checkuser evidence unless the previous checkusers kept records, I strongly suspect this account meets the WP:DUCK if nothing else. . The "hi" as first edit followed by calling things "cruft" is consistent with other blocked socks of his, such as . Sincerely, --A Nobody 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Black Kite 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best, --A Nobody 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)

Continued disruption by twice-blocked editor

Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just returned from a 24 hour followed by a week-long block, and is back to disruptive POV pushing and edit-warring at Rigveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See previous ANI complaint and discussion of edits on article talk page. Time for indef yet ? Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted that particular open ended tariff. Making exactly the same edit as incurred the previous block does not indicate any willingness to re-evaluate their editing stance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Lets see if he is willing to relent and accept a conditional unblock (to which I won't object). Abecedare (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued Disruption by User Dahn in Template:Eastern Bloc defection‎, perhaps 3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh man, I just saw this:

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

and this:

The oppinion of other editors about User:Dahn

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

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

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

Re: the utterly pointless remarks accompanying the entries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This makes absolutely no sense, especially in this context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time out

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

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

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

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

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

However, he:

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

MovieMan123

I've just tagged three more copyright violations from MovieMan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and was taken aback when I looked at his talk page. Apparent serial copyright violator.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MovieMan123 is indefinitely blocked until they understand and agree to abide by our copyright policies... They had been warned previously and didn't respond to the warnings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:HeMan5 on an extreme WP:POINT vandalism spree

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

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

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

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. -- Collectonian (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 -- Collectonian (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)

User:Lessthan8%oftheearth'spopulationiswhite

User:Lessthan8%oftheearth'spopulationiswhite is very new, but already problematic. User:Prodego has deleted her user page, but I think that it's worth thinking about a block considering the user's response to that and her other contributions. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With a username like that, I think it's safe to say he/she will most likely not make any constructive edits, so I fully support an indef block. --Whip it! 02:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Mufka (talk · contribs) –Juliancolton 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think the user's talk page should be protected for good measure. This edit proves my point. --Whip it! 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Recreated with {{indefblocked}} tag and full protected. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 24 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. Valley2city 06:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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)

Legal threat

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

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

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

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

Officeworks123

Pure vandalism from Officeworks123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I just wanted to check whether people felt this was anything to worry about? Should someone notify Sydney Grammar School? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably if the user does more edits like it.  rdunnPLIB  11:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say email their IT department with a link to the diff. Let them decide if they want to pursue it further. If we need to, a checkuser can get the IP address for the police. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

After the "Langston Hughes death threat", a local reporter received an email from Jay Walsh, communications director for WikimediaFoundation.org, which says the local authorities are usually notified promptly. I don't think this should be left alone just in case the worst happens -- then that would be on your shoulders for the rest of your life. The local authorities need to be notified as well as the Foundation staff. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have emailed a courtesy alert to webmail at sydgram dot nsw dot edu dot au, cc'ed to info at wikimedia dot org, in which I have tried not to be alarmist. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Spinach Monster (talk · contribs)

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 Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion by User:Eeeeeewtw

I believe that the said user may be a sockpuppet of User:Nationalist, who was the subject of an ArbCom case that resulted in an indefinite block and an ArbCom ban (which has since expired).

Both of the accounts display an obsession with either replacing "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" or "ROC" (or some variation thereof). User:Eeeeeewtw has also made at least one edit where the expression "Republic of China" is intentionally bolded, which is consistent with the agenda of User:Nationalist.

Furthermore, the name of the account User:Eeeeeewtw is obviously objectionable. When you split it into two parts, namely "Eeeeeew" and "tw", it becomes clear that this user seems to have something against Taiwan ("tw" seems to stand for Taiwan in the user name).

I believe that this user needs to be checked to see that he or she is not the same person behind User:Nationalist (checkuser is probably not suitable due to the amount of time that has passed since the banning of User:Nationalist). If User:Eeeeeewtw turns out not to be a sockpuppet account, then I believe that the user should be forced to change their username as it is offensive.

However, if the user is found to be a sockpuppet of User:Nationalist, I would recommend that the Arbcom ban be renewed and extended (possibly for an indefinite period). Alpha77a (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note:Consider WP:SPI and maybe even WP:RFCU. Cheers. I' 14:14, 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. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: Might want to take this up to WP:AN3. Cheers. I' 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 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ Bellamy, p.37