Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Yasser Latif Hamdani

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

Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed

• Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs)

This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

• I, and MANY other people believe the government is covering up the truth!
• Looks like a Thermobaric Bomb was used to bring down the Twin Towers.
• Also note the tiny debris pile of mostly steel beams . . . like where's all the broken glass, concrete, steel desks, etc?
• Obviously something caused the entire Twin Towers to disintigrate into a cloud of dust leaving a tiny debris pile.
• I'm serious: CIA killed JFK! I'm an expert on this

The account is wasting other editors time and disrupting talk pages. I'd like to see if somebody else could intervene and explain how Wikipedia works before more time is wasted. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't need a soapbox for my ideas . . . I have a webpage and several Blogs for doing this. My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth. Seems everybody at Wiki thinks the Government is telling The Truth, lol, anyone who disagrees with the government's POV is considered a "soapboxer" or "conspiracy theorist."

I was told by an administrator that if I am an expert on a subject, I should say so. I'm an expert on the John F. Kennedy assassination and a skeptic of the Government in regards 9/11.

In the "Controlled Demolition" article's Talk Page I suggested opening up a new subject in the Article explaining why it appears that a bomb destoryed the entire two 100-story World Trade Centers, left a tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and a blanket of dust inches deep throughout New York City. The government's explaination is ridicuous. Governments do lie, U know! A bomb better explains what happened at the WTC's. I also mentioned that two references are needed for the most crucial paragraph in that article. I don't know how to add, "Citation Needed" to the one sentence and the other reference (#23) is a broken link. (Just noticed that someone fixed it but the link #23 does NOT cite a page explaining why there was such a tiny debris pile and blanket of dust throughout Manhattan . . . see the Talk-Page, cited herein.)

There are many other ppl besides myself who believe bombs destroyed the WTC: Google, Thermobaric + wtc. As I said above: The article on "Controlled Demolition at the WTC" is poorly referenced in a crucial paragraph and is one-sided.

How do we know the editors/censors of Wiki who are harassing me are not government agents bent on covering up the truth? Rather that allowing a discussion on a Talk Page, these ppl would censor and ban me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Wikipedia editors are government agents bent on covering up the truth? Please. Go read our policy on reliable sources (nothing claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy fits), and WP:TRUTH. Better yet, go back to your blogs and/or Conservapedia. //roux   20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Roux's comments, a requirement of editing here is that you assume good faith of other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian, and if I was government I'd be getting paid more. You are espousing a point of view that is definitely considered on the fringe side of things. You'd require extensive reliable sources to be able to include such material in the articles. You're not being censored, you're going over ground that's been covered many times on these articles, and being informed as to the guidelines that need to be met for such activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Go look at reference #23 as a "reliable source" to explain the tiny debris pile and dust everywhere several inches thick. What page number in reference #23 explains this? Same to U about "Good Faith" editing!

On no! The truths! Hide the children... (in fact, i think this is just a troll.)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke fun at the user here. WP:BITE and WP:NPA apply here on ANI as much as anywhere else.

It's clear to me that Raquel is trying to do things which Wikipedia is not here for, including WP:SOAP etc. However, that needs to be politely communicated, and she needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in a positive manner. I left long message on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hafta go for about 72-hours. I also promise to be more careful in the Discussion Pages but please don't ban me or erase anything I've written! If U want me to erase or edit something, please discuss it on my Talk Page before erasing what I have written! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have written remains in the article history - but content that is not sourced to reliable references may be removed from the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Now, this is one truth we censors editors can all live with!

• Just for the curious :D --WebHamster 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • omai. //roux   21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth". With the best will in the world, on her own talk page this editor claims to have been around since 2005; if s/he hasn't got the clue by now, and does not move forward, it has to be "kiss, kiss, bye-bye". Without the kisses. We have far too many such editors and give them far too much leeway as it is. Absent a severe change of attitude, it's time for a kick+door scenario. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I started out in 2005 an then quit and came back a coupla months ago. Why do U write "s/he" my name is Raquel.

This whole issue stems from a discussion-page about "Controlled Demolition" at the World Trade Center. The way the article is written, it is unsourced as to why there was such a tiny debris-pile and huge cloud of dust which settled over Manhattan several inches deep. The most logical explaination, which many other researchers are saying to explain that is Thermobaric Bombs were placed inside the WTCs, which complerely pulverized the two-100-story buildings. Google, Thermobaric + wtc. U guys are ganging up on me 'cause U don't wanna face reality or???? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - This is not the location to argue about content or what "the most logical explanation is." As you may be aware, we care not for the "most logical explanation" or answers to questions like "why there was such a tiny debris pile?" Instead, we care to best reflect what a preponderance of reliable sources report, and have policies for dealing with fringe beliefs, a general disregard for the "Truth", and policies for editor conduct (of particular interest to you may be one on how to deal with disruption). You may think wikipedia's approach is wrong, or stupid, or something else. If so, you don't have to participate here. If you are going to participate here, you need to abide by the local rules and standards. If you stay and don't abide, there will be sanctions and that won't be censorship -- just as tossing a shirtless guy out of a private club (who insists ignoring the dress code is a form of free speech) isn't censorship either.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

let me add that wikipedia is intended (like any encyclopedia) to be unextraordinary, unrevelatory, and non-specultive: everything short of dull, pretty much. when and if the world gets to the place where you can suggest that the twin towers were destroyed by thermobaric bombs and most people will look at you and say "yeah... so what?" - then that information belongs on wikipedia. probably not before, though... --Ludwigs2 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* I get the feeling that this isn't the last time we'll be dragged into this debate. But can someone please explain to me why, when there are myriad blogs and forums, do the fringe and conspiracy theorists have to come here? Why do they have to try and insert their unproven theories and 'evidence` into perfectly good articles? When, Raquel, are you and your compatriots going to realize that Wikipedia simply doesn't care, about your theories, or 'the truth'? If reliable, third party sources discover that it was a plot and it turns out that those bloody towers were thermobarically demolished, then I'll happily admit I was wrong; hell, I'll add the paragraphs and sources myself. Until then, you can politely take your huge cloud of dust and your tiny pile of debris, and shove them.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If U Google, Thermobaric + wtc, U will see many reliable sources for bomb in the WTC, which puverized everything and left a tiny debris pile. If U want I'll sort through them and tell U about the aurhors (some are University professors, some are Archetects & engineers, etc.) The Government's 9-11 report never examined or explained why there was such a small debris pile and so much dust everywhere but it seems obvious to anyone with an open mind that a bomb musta done it.

So what's the problem here? All I'm trying to do is add a topic catagory at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Evidence_of_Explosion:_What_Kind_of_Bomb_Could_Have_Pulverized_Everything.3F "Controlled Demolition" article at the WTC. I already showed that the critical paragraph at the article was unsourced and poorly sourced (i.e, first the link was broken and now it's linked to an 18MB PDF with no page reference.)

Again, I didn't tamper with the article, I merely wanna discuss adding a new section to the article to discuss the probability of a bomb. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally am always open to new ideas and theories, and if you post some links on my talk page, I'll certainly have a look with as open a mind as possible. Whether or not it's 'obvious' that your theory is correct is up for debate, but I'm afriad Wikipedia isn't the place for those debates. I must admit that I haven't had a chance to read through all of your edits, and all of the background material, so I can't make any judgements, but just looking at the link you provided above, it seems that you're trying to discuss a hypothesis, and provide evidence for your theory. Like I said before, this isn't the place for you to prove that your theory of events happened. Nor is it a place to discuss how the towers may have been destroyed. Wikipedia is here to document what mainstream media have reported about the event, and what has been reported about other theories. Whether the towers were destroyed by terrorists with a plane, someone with a thermobaric device or the Teletubbies with cuteness, is beside the point. This isn't the X-Files, and while 'the truth' may be out there we aren't here to report it before it can be suitably verified. Get your theory published and peer reviewed, and then we can talk.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It does cite a page reference. I added it yesterday, in case you didn't notice. Hut 8.5 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorsing what Rodhullandemu said, I support the indefinite block of this user. Let's not waste any more time on someone whose definition of reliable sources is "uh, it turned up in Google". WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

These are not zero-tolerance types of abuse. The actual edits so far don't even justify a brief block - warnings, explanations, yes. If they edit articles obstinately with these beliefs and don't get it after an extended period of time, that rises to the level of disruption. But they're not there right now.

Please don't overreact. This is an education problem at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki website initially posted on this user's page is filled with unscholarly, antisemitic, holocaust-denying statements. This user wilfully chose to make the link to their website, which promotes racial hatred with offensive videos like this. What benefit can wikipedia possibly derive from the contributions of such individuals? Raquel Baranow's continued presence would presumably allow her to add to wikipedia her controversial views that gas chambers and Zyklon B were solely for defumigating louse-ridden clothes and that the Talmud is "junk". By previously posting this link to her hate website on her user page, Raquel Baranow would appear to have forfeited the right to edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been patiently trying to explain things to the user, which is what I hoped for when starting this thread. Unfortunately, the user is playing the "I can't hear you" game and is very likely to continue making contributions that are only disruptive and violating policies. As a result, I think it would be a good idea to place an indefinite block until such time as the user agrees to follow policy. We need to protect our volunteers from wasting time dealing with somebody who is obviously a deep believer in conspiracy and fringe theories, to the point that they will our behavioral and editorial norms to accomplish their agenda. Attempts to educate the user may continue, and the user could be unblocked if those attempts prove successful. Jehochman ^Talk 08:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT "playing the 'I can't hear U game" (see my Talk-page) . . . the problems I have is with Ur concept of "reliable sources" and with ppl erasing what I have written on Discussion pages, which I hoped would lead to an intelligent discussion rather than someone just erasing it hoping I would go away or get banned. Think of all the ppl suffering respritory diseases due to the explosions at the WTCs now (there is a wiki-article about respritory problems from rescue workers at the WTC) they deserve an explaination as to why they are suffering and dieing!

The only thing I linked to my website was the CIA Killed JFK Page where I have numerous pictures of the Three Tramps arrested after the Kennedy assassination. I suggested that the pics are worth 1000 words and should be posted on the article about the Three Tramps. I never posted a link to my Holocaust-page!

When the article in discussion (Controlled Demolition of the WTC) is a "fringe theory" U hafta rely on "Unreliable sources" to explain it. right? IMO: the person who erased what I wrote on the discussion page is the one who should be disciplined here, not me. What I wrote on the "Controlled Demolition" page should remain for further reference until there is a "reliable source" we can all agree on. Or, the article should include a section on the current theory of "Controlled Demolition," which is "Thermobaric Bombs." The archives, which I have read prior to writing on the discussion-page mention "mini-nukes" but that explaination is not the current theory, Thermobaric Bombs best explain the tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and several inches of pulverized concrete, etc. throughout lower Manhattan.

Sarcastic: Leave a comment on the Controlled Demolition Topic I started so that when I do find an article that may be "reliable" U can help me add a section to the "Controlled Demolition" Page about Thermobaric Bombs (I don't know html very well).

Mathsci is raising an issue that has been dealt with it is in the past and WTF, I use my website as a link on hundreds of blogs, etc. . . . this is the first place I have ever had a problem with it! . . . someone took the liberty of erasing the link to my website from MY Userpage (I read that U'r NOT supposed to edit other ppl's Userpages), both my address & website . . . I had no real objection. . . . The H-denial page is poorly written and biased . . . many other ppl have agreed. I am an expert on H-denial . . . so, is that a thought-crime worthy of banning me before I've done anything wrong!?

Peace & Love, Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Users can remove links to hateful sites as per the rules  rdunnPLIB  14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs cannot be reliably used in a case like this so I suggest Block per Wikipedia:General sanctions.  rdunnPLIB  14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Jehochman. Georgewilliamherbert has done a sterling job in explaining, but there is only so far one can extend good faith. WilliamH (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My site explains what H-denial is as well as Global Warming, Exponential World Population Growth, Peak Oil, The Economics of the Current crisis ($531-Trillion, yes trillion in the Derivatives market), Eliminating Money, the 9/11 Fraud, etc. etc. (I don't believe in UFO's . . . I have a webpage on my website about the unlikely-hood of life anywhere else but Earth.) U ppl that mock me for my beliefs probably never read a good H-denial book or know what H-denial is.

So, this is MOB RULE! U guys should realize, "Democracy is one level above tyranny." -- Plato, Republic.

The only reason I used my website was it had ALL the pics of the alleged Tramps in one place. I put my website on my Usre-Page so others could know more about me . . . someone else removed it, I have no problem with that. I have NOT really caused any problems here except for those who don't wanna hear the other side . . . I have NOT repeated anything that has been said before. U guys are making a BIG deal outta nothing! It's like U wanna censor anything that U disagree with! U don't even wanna discuss it! No wonder Wiki has such a BAD reputation when U wanna refer to it for anything.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in the content of your site; as the owner of that site, you have an obvious conflict of interest which precludes you using it as a source when editing. Your description of your site appears to be using this discussion as a forum to promote your political views, rather than addressing the Wikipedia policy issues at stake here. Discussions of history are not simply a matter of opinion; there is also a requirement for credible evidence. I may disagree with a theory, but if there's evidence to support it, and historians out there in the rest of the world use that evidence to back that theory, I can't argue that the theory shouldn't be represented on this site. However, if there isn't the evidence, or the theory has no credible advocates, then it doesn't get covered. And I really can't stress enough that you need to read and understand WP:TRUTH. This is not a site to publish new revelations or dramatic and controversial new theories. We proceed on a basis of consensus and verification, and if that means we lack novel interpretations of material, so be it.

As a courtesy to others, by the way, would you refrain from using shorthand like 'U', 'Wiki', and 'H-denial', please? Your views will be better regarded for being expressed clearly and in plain language. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex: U will see below that I have stopped abbreviating stuff . . . I'm also not too good at spelling. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

People here in this thread have mocked me and brought off-topic issues into this so I'm defending myself . . . this has turned into a pile-on of my beliefs rather than my editing technique. I pretty much "get it" of where ur comming from. My problem seems to be your definition of "reliable source." But when U write an article on a fringe theory (Holocaust Denial, Kennedy assassination conspiracy, Controlled Demolition of WTC) and you're NOT allowed to quote directly from the people who espouse these ideas because their ideas are "fringe," COI, SOAP, TRUTH etc. etc. you're left with nothing. The words you use are like Double-Think. U guys are sooooo wrapped up in Double Think, you can't see through it. It takes an outsider, like me to show how your words and techniques for editing promote one-sided explainations. I thought Discussion-pages were supposed to be used for improving an article! How have any of my discussions NOT sought in Good Faith to improve the articles in question?!

U guys have made ad-hominum attacks on me by refering to my videos (I'm not too photogenic). I am a very smart person. Soooo smart, I went from homelessness to millionaire.

The only reason we're here is because someone erased what I wrote on the Discussion Page for Controlled Demolition. IMO, that was sooooooo wrong! The people who died in that tragedy, the phony war in Iraq 9/11 caused and the people who are dieing from respritory problems deserve an explaination of what happened that day. Our government has NOT offered a plausable explaination for the tiny debris pile and toxic dust several inches deep. U faceless/nameless people attacking me should be ashamed of yourselves!

Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're that smart, would you like to acknowledge and act on my final comment relating to the use of language, please? You currently do yourself no favours. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

←Actually, Raquel, if you actually read the criticisms of your edits you'll see that what is being attacked is not your theory, nor you (with some exceptions on both counts, and GWH's comments on civility in this forum are well made). What is being debated is that there are no reliable sources, in WP terms, for what you are claiming. If you can come up with reliable, verifiable sources, please do so. You may feel that by definition "the Government" or "they" are in control of what we're terming "reliable sources". If so, then so be it. You may have a slightly wrong idea about what WP is. It is not a vehicle for the Truth. It is a tertiary encyclopædic source, reporting what has already been reported elsewhere. That is what it's for. That is why it is neither a vehicle for original research nor a platform to "give explainations to the people who died" (I suspect it would take more than WP to offer explanations to the dead anyway). Please read, rather than discounting as "attacks by faceless/nameless people" what has been said, read the pages you're being pointed to, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE (that last is not intended as an insult, please read it to discover why. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, okay . . . I really appreciate you tolorating me this long. It has really opened my eyes . . . I have looked for books like, "Wikipedia for Dummies" and critical books about editorial process here. It sounds shocking that you admit you're not interested in Truth, etc. Sounds like Orwellian Double-Think and Thought Control to me. I thought the purpose of discussion pages was to improve the article. I see your points. I'll read all you have suggested and any books too. Thanks! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a book? Look no further than Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, WP isn't about the truth (or The Truth either, come to that. This may come as a shock, I agree. The applicable part of WP:V says very clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." There's even an essay on it, here. It's not that "we" (and I speak for myself, not the thousands of other editors) are not interested in "truth", just that that is not, basically, what WP is about. WP is about re-presenting and correlating pre-existing information. The standard (reached by consensus though this is ultimately not a democracy) is as stated here. Maybe you could try being part of the process of reaching consensus on occasion, rather than throwing around baseless accusations of editors being "faceless/nameless people". As for "the Government" remember that this is very much a global project; your "the Government" isn't my "the Government"; we get all sorts on here. This is taking up a lot of space here, please feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Schonken stalking

Note: Thread archiving by Francis Schonken undone, and his comment ("forum shopping") added below. Thread title changed from WP:SP to Francis Schonken stalking

I made some changes to Wikipedia:Subpage, which Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) reverted. I restored them here. Frank characterizes my changes as "tendentious, inaccurate". What do you think? -Stevertigo 08:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Forum shopping - take to Wikipedia talk:Subpages. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop#Temporary injunction: non-interference with relevant policy and other related guidance for the duration of this case --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)}}

• • Forum shopping or otherwise, this should probably not be archived by an involved party. –xeno (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to mention it violates NPA, CIVIL, and WP:CON. -Stevertigo 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed this thread to reflect a number of reverts by Francis of my changes to a number of articles, indicating harrassment. Diffs forthcoming. -Stevertigo 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please close this report as a process fork an arbitration committee action Stevertigo filed here, on which Francis Schonken and Stevertigo have both commented. Stevertigo's revert warring against Francis Schonken and other editors on policy/guideline/essay pages, and his now-frequent appeals to AN/I over the subject, are at issue in the arbitration. Thus at this point any issue raised here is entirely subsumed by the Arbcom case. At some point Arbcomm may issue an interim injunction against continued policy manipulation by the parties, and we may need administrative help if Stevertigo continues to edit war, but that seems premature for now. As for stalking, Stevertigo's frequent accusation that other editors are stalking him is both moot and an assumption of bad faith. Francis Schonken has stated in the arbitration action that he has no bone to pick but that he is active on and watch-lists a number of policy pages that Stevertigo has recently started editing on, so Stevertigo's accusation of "stalking" is basically an accusation that Francis Schonken is not telling the truth. Even if that were so, given that Stevertigo is the subject of an Arbcom case, and of reports of Obama article probation violations, it is legitimate even if true that an editor would be watching his edits for signs of further trouble and reverting where appropriate.Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: Gwinndeith

Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) engaged in disruptive editing at Center Against Expulsions, a planned museum of both the German government and the German Federation of Expellees.

Disruption in mainspace:

• Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) introduced him/herself with this edit, calling the head of the federation "a daughter born to Nazi Germany stationed in occupied Poland who claims expellee status", altering the museum's objective as outlined in the respective German law and the charta as "claims" and altering the text in a WP:POINTy manner.
• This edit was rolled back by another user, restored by an IP most certainly Gwinndeith [1] and reverted by me [2].
• Gwinndeith then introduced a bunch of unsourced "claims" the museum allegedly made in respect to the history of Gdansk [sic!] [3] which I reverted [4]
• Gwinndeith then again introduced the information that the head of the foundation is a "a daughter born to Nazi Germany " among other stuff [5] which I reverted.
• Gwinndeith tagged the article with a POV-tag, re-introduced the "claims" about Gdansk and added paragraphs to the criticism section detailing the views (most certainly in line with Gwinndeith's views) of a writer and a Holocaust survivor devoting an own paragraph to each. [6][7] These paragraphs were then combined to a section "Jewish criticism" because both critics were of Jewish descent [8] When I tried to integrate [9] the views of these two in the views already stated in the criticism section per WP:UNDUE, this was reverted, again the museum's objectives declared as "claims", and the head of the federation tagged with a POV- and a weasel-tag because the information about her "Nazi father" was removed
• This was restored, along with the removal of information another user has added in the meantime, i.e. that one of the critics said something positive about the head of the federation (the"Nazi daughter").[10]

Talk: According to WP:DE and WP:DONTBITE Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) and I outlined the relevant policies at Gwinndeith' talk page. Also I forwarded a discussion at the article's talk page outlining the respective policies WP:WTA WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:BLP WP:POINT which s/he did not adhere to, also the respective arbitration cases.

I think I have exhausted the steps outlined at WP:DE and that the behaviour shown by Gwinndeith matches the behaviour described there as typically disruptive, and thus I turn here. A glance at the edit history of Gwinndeith shows that before turning to the article in question, s/he was devoted to "cleaning" articles from German names. I also doubt from his/her behaviour that s/he is really that new to wiki (account is of early Feb 2009). Skäpperöd (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by non-admins collapsed for readability

I ask admins to look into what Skapperod writes-not all links show what he claims is happening. The main controversy is that Erika Steinbach is born to Nazi Germany soldier in occupied Poland and claims status as expelle. The fragments Skapperod cut do not show what I wrote-the precise wording was that she is a daughter of Nazi Geramny soldier in occupied Poland not "daughter of Nazi Germany". This fact has been brought up by Polish government in discussions with Germany. Skapperod removed information that people have retreated from support of the Centre and the POV template on his own, while the dispute was ongoing[11]. I asked Skapperod to remove the template after the dispute will be over and seek third party solution as he the side of the dispute[12](before Skapperod created thread here) As to Jewish criticism I am opened to discussion-criticism by Holocaust Survivors would be ok. But arguments of those people should be represented not removed. I oppose Skapperod's removal of criticism by various people and removal of referenced information, as well as removal of arguments for the criticism which are removed.--Gwinndeith (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC) You want to make this look like it was a content dispute, but it is not. It is mud slinging agenda pushing. "A daughter born to Nazi Germany" are your words, added repeatedly, don't accuse me of misquoting. These words and your subsequent tagging are directed against a member of the German parliament. Previously you accused wiki editors of writing an article that reads like a neo-Nazi campaign. Some of what you edited to be "claims" is a project of the German federal government ruled out in federal German law. Of course criticism should be stated, and there is a section on criticism already. But to full quote someone whose notability for this project is questionable at least who calls the German government "nationalistic", "arrogant" and self-serving is not constructive, neither a "content dispute", it is making a point in a disruptive manner. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Behind Gwinndeith is no other than User:Molobo again, who is still on a 1R parole.[13] I'm not even sure this is helping since by simply using a different provider he has always easily managed to get around CheckUser. If you think about it, even blocks wouldn't help with someone who can just create a new account. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC) I wanted to cooperate on the article and as of now I am not editing it. I asked Skapperod to consider involving a third party that would see what should be included and what not(before this thread here started). I expect cooperation and discussion on the article-but impression is some users want to turn this into other direction. Skapperod does not present my whole sentences: I wrote reference for the fact that daughter of a Nazi Germany soldier occupying Poland was the chief supporter not "daughter of Nazi Germany"-two different sentences. The reason for this is that it is the source of conflict between Poland and Germany over the museum centre: [14] Criticism of Erika Steinbach united Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, the President, the Prime Minister and the PiS leader yesterday.Asked about Ms Steinbach by journalists in Berlin Monday, Mr Sikorski appealed to the head of the Federation of Expellees to follow the example of President Horst Köhler, who was born in Poland in a family of wartime settlers and never considered himself an expellee.'Do people whose families had lived there for generations want to be identified with a person like Ms Steinbach who came here with Hitler and had to leave with Hitler?' asked Mr Sikorski. 'Who was no expellee, but whose family, who father, it was Feldfebel Hermann, I believe, had to flee before the victoriously attacking Red Army and Polish Army,' said Mr Sikorski.Poland opposes Ms Steinbach's participation in the board of the 'visible sign' museum that is to commemorate German expellees. Prime Minister Donald Tusk repeated yesterday her presence on the board was unacceptable for Poland. He called Mr Sikorski's statement tough, but noted that in Pomerania (Sikorski comes from Bydgoszcz) even those have only basic historical sensitivity know what the Nazi Germans did with the local population. As to BLP-you prefer we use words of Polish minister if that wording is to you BLP-or you say she was not born as daughter of Nazi Germany soldier who occupied Poland ? I didn't ever see denial of that-even from Steinbach. previously you accused wiki editors of writing an article that reads like a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=278776987 neo-Nazi campaign The link you show demonstrates that I did not. NPD is a far-right, German nationalist political party. Perhaps the editors did not intent, but it reads to me that way in certain parts. One book used as reference in the series of those articles is titled "Terror attacks against Germany by Allies"-that was my reaction. Some of what you edited to be "claims" is a project of the German federal government ruled out in federal German law' And ? There are discussions about German government intentions. Like other governments not all people trust its words. But to full quote someone whose notability for this project is questionable at least who calls the German government "nationalistic", "arrogant" and self-serving is not constructive, neither a "content dispute", it is making a point in a disruptive manner The making point in disruptive manner was made by the last living leader of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It's also notable because German Foreign Minister Fischer responded to Marek Edelmans criticism[15]. Crticism should be included and arguments presented. Writing "some are crtitical"-is not enough, show why they are criticial. My view and your view are different, I believe again that third party should judge what to include and what not, a discussion should be resolved not fought against other side. --Gwinndeith (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Psb777

Hi, I just wanted to report this harassing and derogatory response I received from User:Psb777 after I sent him this friendly, civil reminder. I don't expect to be harassed and lambasted for giving friendly reminders, therefore, I reported it here. I expect that the administrators will handle this in a timely, effective manner. Thank you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what nonsense! "Harassed and lambasted" is a mischaracterisation. And the "friendly reminder" seemed calculated to patronise and annoy. No wonder Axmann8 has to have the bold warning at the top of his Talk page showing his readiness to take offense. As demonstrated here. Clicking on the "contributions" link of such a speedy deletionist seems oxymoronic. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Houston, looks like we have a problem here: WP:AGF and WP:Civil. PSB has been warned. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Rotary_Air_Force_RAF_2000 for more context. I think expressions of frustration can occasionally be understandable, I don't see that there is any need for admin intervention here: it is basically a miscommunication between two users helping the project in very different (and sometimes conflicting) ways. henrik•talk 13:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No question that it was a hasty CSD tag. However that isn't a license for namecalling. Toddst1 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd now appreciate additional eyes on this as PSB has accused me of inappropriate behavior after I left a polite message. I think further action is in order but I'll leave that for someone else. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my accusation of inappropriate behaviour. It is inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to over-react. It is inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to falsely accuse anyone of personal attack. Now, possibly, and out of frustration, *I* overreacted when an article was overzealously tagged for speedy delete. I suggest the same remedy for Toddst1 as for me, whatever that is. Perhaps we should monitor his behaviour to make sure he doesn't over-react again? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think nothing would be served by dragging this incident on longer. I suggest everyone drop the matter and go back to editing. God knows there is plenty of other stuff that could use the time and effort here other than prolonging a minor disagreement. henrik•talk 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I really do owe you an apology Hendrik. But I need to point out this: User_talk:Toddst1#Rotary_Air_Force Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it to your userspace User:Psb777/Rotary_Air_Force where it can be worked upon. Once it is more complete, it can be moved back to article space. henrik•talk 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Henrik wanted to drop this, but I would like a chance to respond to the situation, as it has obviously been blown out of proportion by PSB. To clarify my opinion on this matter, you are a hypocrite, PSB. You completely overreacted to a friendly reminder (which you somehow took as a conspiracy against you, like i planned it out to patronize you, as if I wanted to waste my time on something so petty). I suggest you stop acting so paranoid and learn to take advice when it is given. I've been in your shoes. Trust me, I have. Ask most of the people on here, and they will tell you I used to get VERY defensive and upset over things, but I learned to control it and deal with it like an adult, not like a child who got their candy taken away. All I am saying is that you need to create articles in your user namespace before you put dictionary definitions into places where entire articles belong. Personally, I don't think articles should be published into the article namespace until the first draft is completely finished, but that is just me. Anyhow, learn to take advice and don't jump to conclusions and assume people are out to get you. If anyone has had inappropriate behavior, it is you, PSB, no one else. -Axmann8 (Talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I wish you hadn't posted that Axmann. Calling fellow editor hypocrites, [a] "child who got their candy taken away" and accusing them of unilaterally inappropriate behavior is simply not ok, even if you think they could have behaved differently. Every editor should be treated with respect, at all times. I hope I don't have to see any more comments like that. henrik•talk 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the repeated [16] [17] [18] [19], disruptive, ad hominem responses from PSB have been addressed or should be excused as "a miscommunication between two users" ... "go back to editing." Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of PSB's edits are definitely not just miscommunication and are unacceptable. I hope this discussion has made it clear to him that he needs to control his behaviour. dougweller (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My postings are mischaracterised. The first of the four cited by Toddst1 [20] is not a personal attack. It may be rude but is no more rude than the heading on Axmann8's talk page, where I placed the comment complaining forthrightly about a delete tag for which Toddst1 himself later admonished Axmann8. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The last three cited postings [21] [22] [23] I stand by word for word. Intemperate behaviour by an admin, an admin breaking the rules, an admin misusing his powers at WP are unacceptable and deserve censure. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I realize this is getting difficult to follow so here is a summary of the relevant events involved:

Well, it is a summary but it is not an impartial one. Key events are left out (e.g. interventiosn by another Henrik) and the chronology seems to assume I would have seen 11:34 event before my 11:43 edit. Impartiality is lacking in that contributions are characterised inaccurately. E.g. "Polite warning" is how Toddst1 describes his own actions but I am "rude". I note that an hour after I squealed that the CSD was too quick, that Toddst1 agreed with me. He could have done so an hour earlier. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Relevant chronology collapsed for readability - please review

(Non-material edits of others not included) 11:25, 22 March: Psb777 creates Rotary Air Force 11:27, 22 March: Psb777 creates Rotary Air Force RAF 2000 11:28, 22 March: Axmann8 requestsg speedy deletion (CSD A1) of Rotary Air Force RAF 2000 (too speedy) 11:34, 22 March: Axmann8 leaves polite note on User talk:Psb777 11:43, 22 March: Psb777 makes rude edit on User talk:Axmann8 11:51, 22 March: Axmann8 brings issue to ANI 12:56, 22 March: Toddst1 leaves polite warning about AGF and CIVIL on User talk:Psb777 [24] 12:57, 22 March: Toddst1 updates ANI, confirming problem, noting warning issued to Psb777 13:02, 22 March: Toddst1 after looking further, amends warning on User talk:Psb777 to final, noting that Psb777 has been previously blocked for personal attacks [25] 13:06, 22 March: Toddst1 deleted Rotary Air Force (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: recreate if you intend to finish the article and demonstrate any reason this should be included in Wikipedia) 13:22, 22 March: Psb777 makes accusation of inappropriate behavior against Toddst1 on User talk:Psb777 [26] 13:32, 22 March: Toddst1 leaves note about CSD too speedy on User talk:Axmann8 13:49, 22 March: Toddst1 asks for additional eyes on situation after finding accusation on ANI from Pss777 13:58, 22 March: Psb777 reiterates accusation on ANI and suggests that Toddst1's outcome be equal to Psb777's [27] 14:10, 22 March: Psb777 makes makes third accusation of inappropriate behavior against Toddst1 on User talk:Toddst1 [28] ...

It's clear that Psb777 isn't internalizing any feedback he is receiving and has shown no indication of ceasing this behavior. He's been blocked 3 times for personal attacks and once for disruptive editing, although not recently.

"Not recently" is so long ago that the statute of limitations in most countries would have it stricken from my record. "Not recently" is so long ago most WP editors were not here then. I suggest that citing this is a prime example of Toddst1's lack of balance in this matter. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To halt this behavior, I propose a two-week block of Psb777 for disruption/gross incivility. Please comment on this proposal below. Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I counterpropose that Toddst1 be admonished to internalise his behaviour. I deny "disruption" and I deny "gross incivility". Toddst1 is overzealously persuing me despite being advised by another admin to back off. At worst I am guilty of an initial instance of rudeness, which I have acknowledged, provoked by the prospect of losing an article within one minute of its creation. On the other hand Toddst1's response has been repeatedly over the top dramatic and identified as such by another admin. Additionally he is both taking part in this dispute over a premature CSD as some supposed impartial admin and then, given the timing, in some seeming fit of pique deliberately deleting the other of my newly created and closely related articles despite a 3rd party request not to do so! This is just an abuse of power and is at least inappropriate. See User:Psb777#Wikipedia_and_society. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've made your point. Assume a bit on good faith of Toddst's part too, he's only here to help, same as everybody else. Could you please try to avoid provoking the situation further? henrik•talk 10:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave things as they are, if they're left as they are, now. Declare the matter closed. Mark it resolved. Thanks for all your very constructive input. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with Psb777's proposal here. It seems as if the only way this user is willing to cease his disruptive behavior is when a 2-week block is proposed. I am prepared to support Todd's good-faith 2-week block proposal as an effective solution to Psb777's (Paul's) obvious lack of willingness to assume good faith. It is quite interesting that this user is only willing to drop this whole situation is when a situation that would be unfavorable to him is proposed. As said before, I'd concur with Todd's 2-week block proposal. -Axmann8 (Talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My, perhaps already predictable, view as the other admin involved in this little kerfuffle is that a two week block of anybody would be a gross overreaction. I think it would be wise to have a clear consensus from many more before enacting anything of the sort, more views from others would be useful here. henrik•talk 06:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Henrik, your inolvement apparently has a history. As someone who has apparently intervened on behalf of this user in the past[29], perhaps you should step aside from this and let the discussion unfold. Your continued one-sided protection of this user against complaints from both Axmann and now me escapes my comprehension. dougweller has already weighed in on this labeling Psb777's actions as "unacceptable" Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Nope, this is my first interaction with User:Psb777, as far as I can remember. The four years ago is in reference to the previous blocks, I think. henrik•talk 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

retract the 4 years ago part as I was reading his comment. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Henrik. A two week block at this point would be punitive rather than preventing anything and would maybe only add bad feeling that would make a repeat more likely. It would seem that apologies and promises to avoid a repeat would be more appropriate given the amount of attention this has already received and the time that has passed (both between the users last blocks and 2009, and between the comment that started this and this point in this discussion). I would think that the prospect of a future block if this situation repeats itself would be more than enough given that the original comment sounds like more of a frustrated comment than a direct personal attack. Speedy deletions can often cause frustrated reactions in contributing editors and whilst that is no excuse, it is something to take into account, and the editor has admitted that their reply was rude. Mfield (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the CSD. My point is Psb has made fabricated and repeated accusations about misconduct and abuse of power on my part - which is far more serious than a rude response to a CSD. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

With great power comes great responsibility great opportunities to be accused of abuse of power. Comes with job, doesn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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; [30] - we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI

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

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

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

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

Speaking of this. Clearly some logged out editing/socking/meat puppetry going on over at Teleprompter now. Here's the contributions log. [31]Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Gee, thanks. I'm too dumbfounded to be outraged. So my reaction was more to think it funny, but still, tasteless jokes with sexual / racial overtones can get people riled up. Incidentally, methinks CENSEI doth protest too much. You're the one who brought up Santorum.[32] .... |.... Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse topic ban. I was going to suggest something similar myself. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban (non-admin).The sock/meat pupetting and constant disruption to make points about something or other poisons the editing environment whenever he's about on those pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban, it all adds up to that. Chillum 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. It's a good middle ground between a "17th chance" (which, in a sense, I advocated above) and an outright indef block, though obviously it should not preclude the latter option if problematic behavior persists. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor's behaviour at AfD

Resolved

 – This isnt something for ANI. If this user is being disruptive an RFC might be a better guage of what the community considers disruption but this doesn't yet merit a block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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![33] 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 Wikipedia is to be admired. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 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 ([34] - 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 wikipedia 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, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 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)

Discussing sources at AfD

Resolved

 – There's really nothing more to say about this, here or anywhere else, so let's move on.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this user correct that removing comments on sourcing from an AfD is appropriate [35]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As such bringing sources in as an example of why you have made your decision (for example to indicate notability) is perfectly appropriate. These sources should be put into the article in question, but that is no reason to remove them right off the bat. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it appropriate to introduce sources at AFD... but isn't that one of the points of AFD? If reasons can be found to keep an article (reliable sources, for instance), then shouldn't that be brought up at AFD? -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This matter has already been brought up by the same editor in a previous incident report. ChildofMidnight is needlessly prolonging this resolved argument. Just to be clear, no comments were removed. A list of news organs (not actual sources) was removed because the same list had been posted in several places (article talk, user talk, etc.). I believed it to be poor form and was informed later that this was not the case, after which I immediately apologized. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The other discussion was old and dealt mainly with your refactoring (reorganizing) of the AfD discussion. In the days since you've continued to argue that it's okay to remove lists of sources from an AfD discussion so it's been hard to move on. Now that numerous editors have clarified the matter and you seem finally to accept that it's not okay, I hope you will refrain from doing so in the future. I suggest you strike your most recent comment on the discussion page where you say that it is okay to remove a list of sources from an AfD discussion, it's not. Sourcing is a critical aspect of AfD discussion. The process is not just a vote and meant to be an ongoing discussion that reaches a consensus through ongoing discussion. Also, respecting the comments and advice of good faith editors is an important part of contributing constructively. But when we mess up, it's important to recognize the mistake and to agree not to do it again. This allows everyone to move on and is more helpful than continuing to argue an improper action was somehow okay. Good luck, take care. I hope this is resolved now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like stoking a dying fire since you say this is resolved, but why not bring this up at WT:AFD where you would meet a more focused and concerned audience. This is not really ANI issue anyway. Anyways, just a suggestion. ^LeaveSleaves 04:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. A good suggestion, thanks. I didn't think of posting there, but will try to do so in future for this type of thing. I think this is resolved, although I just noticed this [36] edit summary from Scjessey. I'm not easily offended, but the civility guidelines and prohibitions on personal attacks require that we act collaboratively and respectfully of other editors, even when there are disagreements and we're frustrated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

Resolved

 – — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee has made incivil racist comments on Talk:Newcastle Central railway station#Requested move:

Newcastle Central railway station is a fictional name made up by Wikipedia. The station is correctly called Newcastle Central Station by all national sources when they are not being as lazy as a tabloid, and it is known as Central Station to the entire North East of England, even the scum down the road when they are escorted in and out of it. It is abbreviated by the Welsh and other provincial peoples simply as Newcastle, lazy as they are, because they don't have the intelligence or the culture to know any different.

User has been blocked 13 times before, 7 times for incivility and harrassment[37]. Note that I posted this on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but was directed here given the editor's history. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a longer block would be in order. He obviously hasn't learnt his lesson, and comments like that are inexcusable. Ironholds (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. He seems to get like this when any editor simply disagrees with him. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is a reoccurring pattern with this user. Someone disagrees and he gets abusive. Attacking the whole group of "Welsh and other provincial people" is really out of line. Wikipedia is not the place to espouse baseless prejudice. Considering the long history this user has with abusive behavior I have issued a block. Chillum 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not entirely resolved. He is asking for the block to be reviewed. He is claiming I have some sort of bias. I really can't remember, but if I have had dealings with him it was more than a month ago(that is as far back as I checked my contribs). Chillum 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He will probably accuse any admin who blocks him of being biased. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Now it is resolved. Chillum 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strange, now he is saying I am impartial(I think) and something about Giano and Jimbo? Does that make sense to anyone else? Chillum 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo blocked Giano over that article about the Times writer, that's about all I remember. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang's continued edit warring at John G. Roberts

DegenFarang (talk · contribs) has been blocked once for a 3RR violation on John G. Roberts. He has also been blocked two other times for incivility and disruption. And once again, he's edit warring at John G. Roberts. Note that I am not involved in editing that article, I'm merely coming by as an uninvolved observer. DegenFarang regularly deletes warnings on his Talk page, which is his right, but it leaves new people placing warnings there to think that he has not been warned before about his activities. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, DF edit warred to include the information about the foulup with the Presidential oath into the lede. After that blew over, he seems to come back periodically to try and add something else to the lede, but never anything else substantial to the rest of the article. It seems like he's just driven to place something in the lede, regardless of the quality. I concur with the block. Dayewalker (talk) 19:54, 22 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^talk 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Note I don't want to seriously weigh in, I'm not an admin and I'm involved in a "dispute" with the user.
But whatever the outcome, please ask Rjecina to improve his English language skills. Those of you who are native speakers probably laugh at this, but — as someone who speaks English as a second language — after several weeks of discussion with him I notice the signs of thinking and sometimes writing in his basic level English. I came to WP to improve my English, not having to talk to someone for weeks who obviously wants to remain a tolerated "guest" here.
I wouldn't talk about that if he was a newbie, but I think he had ample opportunities to improve his English skills by now if he wanted to. Probably he doesn't want to do that, so I'm asking you to encourage him to study English to be able to contribute and communicate here more effectively. Squash Racket (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing Balkan-related articles (as well as many others) ever since my first day on Wikipedia. Rjecina's periodic and entirely unfounded accusations of stalking against me go back at least to last September [38], when they went hand in hand with the pathetic and frivolous Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Brzica_milos_etc. Among Rjecina's many less-than-helpful characteristics is that he seeks to intimidate other editors into leaving the whole area by constant accusations of socking, stalking etc. This creates an entirely unpleasant atmosphere and is a significant impediment to ever making any progress with the many articles here that are in serious need of remedial work. I admire Caspian Blue for attempting to give Rjecina another chance, but I wonder how many chances an editor should be given? Rjecina has time and time again demonstrated that he is entirely unwilling (not unable, unwilling) to work co-operatively with anyone else. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I also speak English as a second language, and have never experienced any problems as a result. I'm not familiar with this particular case, but it seems that social skills are the problem here, not language skills.  Sandstein  07:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, I'm involved in a dispute with R., so I didn't want to comment here on the proposal itself, but you can click on the link and read the discussion. Squash Racket (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's social skills that are concerning. Frankly, I think any quick reading of User:Rjecina and the subpages (like this even though it's against tons of Checkuser evidence) should indicate to most people an inappropriate soapbox attitude. I asked him to remove some of the more aggressive political statements (like oh, I don't know, Axis of Evil should include the US and Europe) but since there was some ANI discussion approving (I'm guessing more than six months ago or so since I never knew about it), I left it alone. Again, as Caspian Blue noted, I'm not the most neutral editor so I'm prefer to defer if I can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been peripherally involved from time-to-time in this area, and agree that Rjecina has indeed put up with a lot of POV warriors on the various articles where they work. They have also, unfortunately, maintained a behavioural pattern that on the one hand involves seeming good-faith dispute-resolution attempts and compromise, and on the other revert warring and bad-faith accusations. Their article edits often don't seem to match their talk-page intentions. I concur with Ricky's assessment and the other comments above in concluding that Rjecina has become a net negative for Wikipedia, and have no problem with Ricky issuing an indefblock (subject to removal under specific conditions per LHvU). If you feel uncomfortable issuing the block, Ricky, I'm willing to help out. EyeSerene^talk 12:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

With some regret, I must endorse the ban. A few weeks ago, I tried to stop some of the disruption by imposing a fairly strict special regime on Rjecina: No unexplained reverts, no edits without informative edit summaries, and no additions of substantial pieces of text unless previously cleared by a competent speaker of English. With this [39] edit, yesterday, he broke several of these rules. I also note how in this [40] 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)

• 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^talk 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Meowy making personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ibrahim4048, you now say "I never said that the genocide didn't happen", but here, [[42]], 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)

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

Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum

Resolved

 – Actively being discussed at WQA, this is forum shopping. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#A proposal in regards to RFA comments about tightinging WP:NPA enforcement at RFAs. Malleus made the following comment:

“ My thoughts Ipatrol are to wonder whether you've discussed this idea with your parents, and whether they allowed you to stay up late and post this rubbish ” — Malleus Fatuorum

By suggesting that I am a child, he is suggesting that I am immature and that attacks me as a person. In the course of the proposal, a WQA alert, and a posting on his talk page, I recieved other personal attacks and incivil comments from users such as Ironholds, Ottava Rima, and Iridescent, but Malleus' comment really takes the cake. Malleus has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks before, the latest block was for three days just 15 days ago. Though I must avoid calling the kettle black, the history of blocks that I see leaves mee with no assumption of good faith about this user's ability to remain civil. What wonders me is from the block log and the talk page posting, this user has an incredible ability to draw supporters. Because of this, any block leveled should be non-negotiable and firm.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forum shop. This is the same thing you brought up at WP:WQA; them telling you to stop taking it so seriously is not an invitation for you to run to the other parent. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. the matter is still actively being discussed at WQA? (though I think the comment is way beyond ranges of acceptable tolerance on incivility).--Caspian blue 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Ipatrol, you are forum shopping and I strongly suggest you stop. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I have asked Ipatrol to stop asking at the user talk pages of all and sundry regarding this. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The response Ipatrol got at WQA included "Since this is far from the first time he has belittled others whose stance he doesn't agree with, I'm not sure what WQA can do." So I think its a little harsh to describe his moving the topic here as forum shopping. ϢereSpielChequers 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, it is still ongoing. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal - Ban any mention at WP:DRAMA of DRAMA 2 and vice versa. That would settle the drama loop. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Resolved

There was an edit war going on back and forth at Family Court With Judge Penny. The end result was the block of both EdBever and OhioRuthie for 24 hours. In the process, as seen in the history here, EdBever abused his rollback privileges significantly during the edit war. Should the privileges be removed? Jd027 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with OP, rollback should be removed due to abuse. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks like I missed that when I blocked them. Either way I have revoked his rollback privileges. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seem its not the first time this EdBever has been involved in edit wars see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockall&action=history I shall his other "edits" also. Moggiethemeow (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Family Court with Judge Penny

Somebody is trying to use their IP, 69.119.246.108, to restart the edit war at Family Court with Judge Penny. And, should their edit be reverted? Jd027 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only one edit so far, maybe wait. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have protected for a week. Some discussion about the material vis a vis BLP needs to be take place. --Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Request

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. WP:RAF — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I hearby request that the following text, which is the MO of the Wallflowers98 socks to place in music articles, be disallowed, as it seems the sock master is operating out of a range that cannot be blocked.

<content removed>

Thankyou for your time, please disallow this addition from the article space.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to ask for this at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested, which is set up to manage requests like these. It's new, of course, which is why you've never heard of it, but it's meant to be a central log of such requests. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out the stuff he was inserting per WP:BEANS. Hope you don't mind, Daedalus.  GARDEN  23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, as long as I can have some beans. I've got the nibbles, you see. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

USSoccerCulture

Two editors have disputed an edit User:USSoccerCulture continues to attempt to add to Seattle Sounders FC. The edit does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Section has been added to the article's discussion page and s/he has been asked to join but has only continued to revert edits. A sock puppet investigation is pending due to IP edits. Would appreciate any assistance asking user to use talk page.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page has been protected so let's see. If the user doesn't respond and decides to just continue warring once protection is lifted, go with a template:bv and then report at WP:AIV if they continue. If there's an issue, I'd be more willing to stop them, so message me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 23 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 ^Contribs 10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

• I have declined an unblock request at User talk:Polystyla, and protected the page since it's been used for soapboxing, personal attacks, and editwarring (to a ridiculous extent) between Polystyla and Daedalus969. I am of the opinion that any unblock should only be considered for the master account (El Machete Guerrero). Comments welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support full ban. User is unclear on the concept. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - After all the incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, and sockpuppetry, boot him from WP. Could Machete's behavior be considered trolling? →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/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Images by Todd Marshall

Resolved

 – All deleted since its clear that they are not correctly licensed, the author has not released them on a compatible license and wikipedia is not a host for copyright violations. Good catch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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: [43] [44] 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^Talk 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.[45] 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 ^Humbug! 19:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

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

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

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

I know nothing about the underlying dispute, but the new user making the complaint doesn't appear to be that concerned about folks figuring out what area the problem is in. He's opened up a sockpuppet investigation on User:Marek69 here [46]. 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 [47]. 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 [48]. 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)

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 wikipedia 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 wikipedia policy: WP:CITE. I am stopping this useless bickering, and if nobody else cares about maintaining wikipedia 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 - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

[moved from below] 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: [49] [50] [51] [52]. - 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

Resolved

 – semi-protected for a week, but they seem to have stopped --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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

I have filed checkuser requests before, but not reports there; if someone can help, it would be appreciated. Also, while this may be after the checkuser evidence unless the previous checkusers kept records, I strongly suspect this account meets the WP:DUCK if nothing else. . The "hi" as first edit followed by calling things "cruft" is consistent with other blocked socks of his, such as [54]. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

(edit conflict)Okay, my opinion. Could be Fred. This is not a a new user, registers and immediately dives into WP space, uses HotCat, concerned about "cruft," yes. The IP is quite certainly Fred, that specific IP has been used by Fred before. It is possible that it is used by other persons (i.e, as with cell phone access or the like: the IP belongs to Orange). Look at the block log: [55] Now, who did the admin assist? A guess: [56]. Fascinating. Yawn. A Nobody, if you'd like to take this to WP:SSP, let me know and I'll comment there. You should know about Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, which has a listing of identified or suspected IPs. That can be useful. By the way, some Fred socks immediately kicked over anthills, were immediately noticed, and still managed to maintain disruption for a long time. FD was quite popular among "cruft-killers" who weren't so bold as to use that title, but loved the idea. "I destroy what you love." It's a formula for turning Wikipedia into a battleground, which seemed to be his goal. Ntoo2B hasn't been seriously disruptive, if disruptive at all, so it's no emergency, please be civil and avoid unnecessary roughness. Why was the new user connected with the IP address? --Abd (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been a part of some very weird behavior. Fredrick day is known to be able to simultaneously -- or rapidly -- switch between IP addresses, he probably uses multiple computers and multiple monitors to partition accounts. Take a look at [57], 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)

Continued disruption by twice-blocked editor

Resolved

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 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)