Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved

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

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

Not an admin, but that is one of the most blatant threats of legal action I've seen on this site. I'd recommend an immediate ban block. Ironholds (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
agreed  rdunnPLIB  12:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked him indefinitely for that legal threat. If any unblocking is done (and as usual, I don't have any problems with a reasoned unblocking), please reinstate the previous block (or unblock for both at once of course). If I'm not around while unblocking is suggested or discussed, feel free to proceed without me. Fram (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Spinach Monster (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue, WP:NOR/N. — neuro(talk)(review) 14:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

You might want to try Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I've already received assistance from another administrator, but if Spinach Monster (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on his OR, I'll bring it to the OR notice board.--Berig (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Berig (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

MedicLINK[edit]

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

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

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

And I came here about this very article. More to come: pls wait KillerChihuahua?!? 19:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Not the answer you'll like, but personally, I'd say re-delete this already once speedied article for the self-promotional spam that it is (along with Jonathan Brett), considering it was almost entirely created by Mediclink there. Block Mediclink for promotional username. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't wait like I asked, could you? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You didn't say "others please wait and not tag it for speedy as an unremarkable company, because that's what it is. The edit warring is a separate issue, and yeah, warnings are needed around the way, but that still doesn't excuse Mediclink's making articles about his defunct company and himself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I said "more to come, pls wait". I saved so others would not bother posting here until I'd posted my comments, so they had all my input before replying to me. You replied to ... nothing. A request to wait to see what I had to say. And told me "Not the answer you'll like" - which is presumptuous at best. Your comments about speedy tagging are not applicable to my comment here. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Not the answer I'd like was to Mediclink, not you, as was my entire response. That's why it is indented under his and not your response.... As an FYI, he just posted to my talk page saying he agrees both articles are inappropriate and saying they should be deleted.[1] He was also just blocked by a different admin for the username. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Saw that[2] and now OrangeMike has indef'd him, without bothering to post here. Is everyone in a Big Hurry today? The World Will Not End if you take the time to discuss what you're doing, people. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oops, he posted right as I clicked the edit button apparently. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This article MedicLINK Systems Ltd. is apparently a recreation of a speedy deleted article whcih was deleted under G11. However, the company seems to be defunct, and numerous awards and sources are mentioned. Three editors have been merrily edit warring (well past 3RR) without a single post on the talk page. I've protected (for one hour) and templated the heck out of the editors:
I ended up involved in this as I did some AIV; Mediclink had reported Wikiwiki892, whose talk page was then a redlink. Once I templated Mediclink with bad AIV; Mediclink templated Wikiwiki892 with a bv template, even though this is just a really active, unsourced, edit war about content on a very questionable article. I am going to do other things, and leave it to you wise folk to determine how to move forward about this. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Help with a page-move vandal[edit]

Resolved: The vandal has been blocked, and all moves reverted. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Dinkymusicinc[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indef by Mfield. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

User:HeMan5 on an extreme WP:POINT vandalism spree[edit]

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

See User_talk:HeMan5/Archive_12#March_2009 and Heman's edits to The Pretender (TV series). Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugh...he WP:3RR earlier over expanding these tables, then when explained to at length how wrong he was (and others from the TV project supported the table removal), started throwing a tantrum and claiming he was "done with this place" and wanted his account deleted and edits removed[3] Guess he decided to go around and undo his expansions and rip all tables out. Now technically, he's "correct" in that those tables don't belong in series articles if they are higher quality, however he is also not bothering to replace them with the proper prose summary either, and definitely doing it to be pointy and disruptive rather than seeking to actually improve any of the articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Make up your friggin' minds, do you want tables or not? This is unbelievable, I undue the 'damage' done to the article by inserting all these stupid tables and now I am being cited for vandalism- what kind of crapshow are you running here?? HeMan5 (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
REmoving them to try and make a point and without properly replacing them with the proper prose is not improving, nor do you appear to be doing it because you desire to "undue damage" but to be disruptive because you couldn't get your way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I left a note on the deleting admin's talk page regarding this ANI thread to ensure they were aware of the circumstances surrounding the user. Seems like RTV is not applicable to this user in this situation. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not aware of this issue when I deleted the talk page; I took it as a good faith request. I suppose my instinct at this point is to leave it deleted and let him go quietly. But I would be interested to hear what those with experience working with this editor think. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
But he isn't leaving. He just left me a message on my Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually that message was left yesterday, before his response here[4] No idea why it ended up with a March 24th time stamp.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kyle XY[edit]

Resolved: Page semiprotected Oren0 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I say semi-protection of the article is probably in order. According the article, they have all but said they will continue to add the link after accounts are blocked or use IP accounts....so let's keep them from using them and not lock the page up altogether. - NeutralHomerTalk • March 24, 2009 @ 07:11
I have semi'd the page. Just think, this may be the last time you ever have to ask for protection Smiley.png Oren0 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, he's better ask for it if he's an involved admin, but good luck on the RFA nevertheless. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the canvassing, I stuck a "general reply" to it up at Talk:Kyle XY. Hopefully it'll help defuse the situation. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on WP:NOR[edit]

Resolved: Protected for three days by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - further discussion should continue over at the talk page, not here. — neuro(talk)(review) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Note: Might want to take this up to WP:AN3. Cheers. I'mperator 14:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note the message that I left before CBM posted his message. [5]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've protected the page for 3 days - hopefully that will give everybody time to discuss. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, please note that it is odd that CBM is putting me in the same class as SlimVirgin. It was SlimVirgin who made the 3 reverts in 9 hours and hasn't discussed the issue in the relevant Talk page section for 17 days. Whereas I have had considerable discussions there, and I left her last revert stand voluntarily, when I had reverts left that wouldn't violate 3rr. I don't see how CBM couldn't have been aware of this, but if it was an oversight on his part, I can accept that he made an honest mistake if he admits it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
But it was you who continually tried to change policy, citing a consensus that didn't exist, and edit-warred to keep it in. Jayjg (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:ﻼﻻﻺﻹ[edit]

Resolved: User blocked indef. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

The username is a little awkward too... ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added a {{uw-english}} to his talk page, but as he's now threatening to destroy other editors' pages with arabic (?!) I'm not too hopeful. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Non-Latin user names are acceptable per Wikipedia:UN#Non-Latin usernames, assuming that they don't otherwise violate guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on. Block and be done with it - [6] vandalism only (and probably doesn't speak much english.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree, actually. I've reported to AIV, they can decide ;-) ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Indef'd, and Micron27 is right behind him. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Evenmoremotor repeatedly nominating pages for speedy deletion[edit]

I'm not sure how to deal with this case because I believe this user's head is in the right place but the behavior is disruptive nonetheless. This user has been taking pages about criminals and nominating them for speedy deletion as attack pages in batches. Generally, these have been declined by various admins including myself, User:Ged UK, User:Valley2city, and others, though some have been deleted (questionably if you ask me but that's another conversation) as well. Multiple people have tried to reason with the user on their user talk page ([7] [8] [9]) but the user just deletes the notices and keeps on doing the same thing. This user has also been recently blocked for edit warring on the same topics as well. Any idea what can be done to discourage a user who is trying to keep the best interests of the project at heart but won't listen to reason? Oren0 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Allen Glick, Mickey Featherstone, Marat Balagula, they do like BLP nightmares. Mostly unsourced and full of random speculation. Just because people think they are criminals doesn't mean you get to ignore BLP. I might delete them myself if I cannot wipe them clean immediately. Sources are fine but actual policy says they should be removed immediately. AFD makes sense if he's willing to slow down but I really don't see a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what to make of this. I don't know whether or not to AGF in this situation. I've been monitoring many of these alleged Attack CSDs for days and we keep telling him that they clearly don't qualify. I invited him to submit to AfD but that G10 and prodding were not appropriate. The user is also removing sources he may not agree with. The worst is that he is removing and completely disregarding the hand-writen notices that have been placed on his talk page asking him to cease-and-desist. That and the edit-warring... I don't know if the user has a COI, but if this continues with a flagrant disregard to so many editors trying to reason with him without a response and instead continuing with the inappropriate CSDs, I suppose we should discuss a potential ban on mafia and mob-related topics. Valley2city 06:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Valley2city, can you show me examples? I think my explanation was a little more clear. If it an article has some sources, it's clearly not an attack page. However, just because articles are on mafia and the mob doesn't mean BLP gets to be ignored. I mean, Allen Glick was filled with source requests from February 2007. At some point, it's pretty reasonable to remove that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here is saying that being about criminals means the articles get a free pass. But at the same time being about criminals doesn't make the pages automatically attack pages either. Two of the ones I declined had citations to books which I have no access to, so I can't judge the veracity of the claims. But an article calling a mobster a mobster with a source isn't the type we speedy delete. As I explained to the user already, this is what AfD is for. The reason I've brought this here is because I don't believe the user wants to listen to reason and will continue filing these nominations and removing sources. Oren0 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll agree these aren't attack pages and aren't CSD nomination. He has stopped since Allen Glick so let's see on that front. Again, examples of sources he's removing? I see removals of FindAGrave but I don't know anything about that, so if there's a policy that it's considered reliable then he need to be told to stop that. Ganglandnews, Hollywoodmafia.com, Geocities all seem fine to remove. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There actually has been a lot of issue with some of his edits. He has gone through a lot of articles and converted books and publications listed as general references into further reading sections and then would remove a huge amount of the article as unsourced, which to me seems questionable. A lot of the articles needed inline citations rather than subverting the publications listed as sources. There has been a lot of edits that just go over the line in that way, starting with articles covering Israeli related mob articles and attempts to discuss this with him resulted in the 3 or 4 sections on his talk page with very long titles being plastered on any talk page where his edits were raised. It's been very messy and I had tried to discuss his editing with him only to mostly be rebuffed. I've been concerned with the seemingly single focus of his edits and some misinterpretation of policy in doing so. He did seem to finally learn some things, but there was an issue with retitling reference sections and then claiming the article is unreferenced. I spent a lot of hours looking at edits across a lot of pages and realized there is a singularity in his focus. He tends to use policy in a dogmatic, haphazard but not always appropriate way. The deletion nominations are just another incarnation of his doing that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on, you have to admit this is a little better than an admin unilaterally deleting pages under WP:IAR. =) People get on an idiotic policy focus and I wouldn't be shocked to find this is all really a big WP:POINT game with him. Besides, looking at his history, he's always been focused on these articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not complaining about the discussion. Yes, he has a single focus and I'm not defending him. I'm just glad he's finally caught someone else's attention. He did respond once to me [10] about the blog sites, though I had told him that was the one thing I had no problem with. If someone wants to take him under his or her wing, that would be fine. I don't care that much about mob articles and I don't see myself as a mentor! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my FireFox keeps crashing and I'm finding it difficult to get a word in before it crashes. With this I might be going to sleep (though that's not necessarilly the case). Of course we need to respect BLP, it is quite serious. Granted, he's right when he quotes WP:BLP, but articles that he has CSDed, such as Marat Balagula are not only not attacks but are significantly sourced for BLPs and he has no leg to stand on when he cries "speedy". You can check for other examples too, but most of the CSDs are not merited. Also he really needs to be more careful with 3rr this one wasn't caught. It's still 3rr! I agree with your latest statement on his talk page. It's a bit disconcerting that he is rapidfiring all of these speedies and needs to slow down. Pardon the pun but it's like the penultimate scene of The Godfather where all of the dons are taken out at once. He's been given plenty of warnings regarding the CSDs and has not heeded them. Valley2city 07:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Anything that might help, I'm all for. But this and this have been the usual response to attempted help on the user's talk page, and I'll be quite surprised if the current messages are treated differently. Oren0 (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I see but I have no problem with a block if he doesn't stop and recognize that people are serious about this. He's had a few chances to explain himself and listen and if he chooses not, we stop him and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we've all explained our actions numerous times with regard to declining speedies. He/she hasn't once replied with an explanation. I, and others, have assumed good faith several times, as they appear to be coming from a belief in the importance of BLP, but they are now disrupting the project. If I come across another inappropriate attack speedy, I will issue a short block. I will notify on their talk page. --GedUK  08:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The recent reduction of these articles to stubs is an acceptable temporary measure, but consideration should be given to restoring the material properly and carefully from the sources. DGG (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you but this experience in part underscores another problem of sourcing to books. I have no access to the books that were cited before Evenmoremotor turned them into "Further reading" so I have no real way to restore that information faithfully. Someone put work into these articles and I don't see why it should have to be redone if facts were previously accurately cited in books. Oren0 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

Resolved: EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't know how else that could be interpreted. I think a polite pointing to NLT in the form of a block would be in order. Not doing so myself just yet, I'll let some others comment. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is definitely a legal threat. Reyk YO! 21:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
He says he'll report it to the WMF lawyers, rather than take legal action himself. --Tango (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Tango, this does not appear to be a legal threat. –xeno (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The reasons people are blocked under the No Legal Threats policy are:
  • It reduces scope for escalation of a bad situation,
  • It reduces stress and administrative burden on the wiki,
  • It reduces disruption to articles and the editorial environment,
  • It prevents the difficult situation where a person is both seeking to be collaborative partner and also setting themselves up as litigious adversary (in general those two roles are mutually exclusive).
and in my opinion all four apply here. Threatening to use your personal influence to turn the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers against an editor to frighten that editor away from making certain edits is just as bad as threatening to use your own lawyers for that purpose, if not worse, and should be dealt with the same way. Reyk YO! 22:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The CEO of a German company is hiding out in the USA? Hmmmmm ....... [11]. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    eh, in this economy, you can never be too careful. –xeno (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the user is trying to gain an upper hand in the discussion (whether intended or unintended) by going to the lawyers from the WMF—people he may or may not know. He might be doing that to establish contact with his lawyers in an attempt of taking legal action. Hence, I think this goes against NLT, and a block should be placed per convention until this issue be resolved or he retracts. MuZemike 22:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No, the user is not going to gain an upper hand in the discussion and he's not hiding out in the US...lol (your economy is even worse than ours in Germany). For clarification: we stay in touch with WMF layers and I have alked to one of them several times about the priciples of the wikipedia and about notability etc. I guess they will pass my informations over to WM board just to make sure, that the quality of the wikipedia will be kept on a high level, which is not the case, when articles like the one in question will be kept. Is that a satisfying explanation for everybody? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.93.8 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not wish you to reveal any information you do not wish to, but the thought still occurs that the Chief executive officer of Infochannel Germany, per previous assertion [12], is both unlikely to have an IP that resolves to Missouri and probably unlikely to use the phrase "lol". Just my two pence when it comes to economy... Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
that is, unless we've recently sold Missouri to cover part of the national debt. see Louisiana Purchase... --Ludwigs2 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
To the IP: Which member of the Foundation legal team did you interact with? Daniel (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Who cares? He's bullying whether he's lying or if he's telling the truth. Block him until he promises to desist from what could be a chilling tactic to some editors (wouldn't be to me -- it's pretty laughable -- but it might be to some).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would love to know why the first edit of an IP would be stern assertion on an AfD discussion as well. There's nothing about the discussion that remotely involves legality. Its about whether a subject is notable or not. No laws have been broken and a decision making process is again underway on the merits of the article. That process itself is being disrespected and that disrespect and abuse should not be tolerated. The AfD is a mess as a result of all this puppetry. Mfield (Oi!) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, after the comment made at me (I'm guessing as it wasn't threaded at me), I call bullshit. MuZemike 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Because it is not a legal threat. Stating in an AFD that an editor will take this to the lawyers of the Wikimedia foundation does not constitute a legal threat. Do we block IP's who wish to escalate to OTRS? No. Do we block IP's who wish to escalate to ARBCOM? No. Do we block IP's who state they will get their own lawyers involved? Yes. That eventuality has not happened here. Pedro :  Chat  00:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I see. Yet it appears to be an attempt at intimidation of other editors. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah; if someone isn't careful, he'll type mean things at you. (Rolling-eye smiley and all that.) HalfShadow 00:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Some of us are immune to mean things. We get innoculated by a treatment called "RfA". :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The anon IP has been alerted to WP:NLT and has clarified that they were not intending a legal threat.[13] That resolves my initial request, thanks for everyone's assistance and comments. I find the rest of the IP's claims unlikely, but that's just my opinion - if a German CEO temporarily in residence in Missouri wants to discuss an obscure AfD debate with friends who coincidentally are WMF lawyers, he's perfectly entitled to. :) Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat?[edit]

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

check the IP to see if they have another account (it looks similar to one I saw a while ago).  rdunnPLIB  09:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It's a Canadian IP (Ontario), no other edits. If someone is willing to contact the authorities, please either contact me or any checkuser (the IP is in the CU logs). -- lucasbfr talk 10:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

turkish nationalism.[edit]

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

I believe the motive of User:211.179.112.62 is to oppose what he sees as Korean nationalism on the part of User:Tnaniua, rather than to promote Turkish nationalism. This is part of a content dispute at Developed country regarding the inclusion of the CIA list which has been running intermittently since March 13, involving various named editors and IPs. Spacepotato (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
We removed a CIA list on 13:08, 6 March 2009. but 78.40.231.225 start doing vandalism (08:19, 13 March 2009). --Tnaniua (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Rjecina again[edit]

Resolved: 1 year community ban enacted by Fut. Perf.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alright, I need an outsider's perspective. I'm close to a indefinite WP:ARBMAC block and moving on. User:Rjecina is a popular fellow here, but I really don't think having this user around is more productive than just drama-producing. Assuming good faith just doesn't seem to be an option.

Discussion don't seem to go further in logic than I don't like this book because he doesn't seem to understand as much as I do versus this idiotic cherry picking. POV-pushing I can understand, aggressive POV-pushing I can deal with, but I wonder if this drama is really desired here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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. henriktalk 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. --AniMatetalk 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 [15], 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. EyeSerenetalk 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 [16] edit, yesterday, he broke several of these rules. I also note how in this [17] edit (linked to in Ricky's first posting above) he fails to make any sense at all; the point he's trying to make is totally opaque to me. It's a pity, but he seems really unable to communicate meaningfully about what he's doing here. Fut.Perf. 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Out of order, but actually in this edit, he's saying that Squash is lying about what the sources he's citing and wants him topic-banned but Rjecina is acknowledging that in this this edit, the language "The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy" he's replaced it with are a direct copyright violation. His basis for the source lying claim is I guess argued here which looks like basically "I've cherry-picked some bits and pieces of language and I won't accept both views so you're obviously lying", which seems to follow a pattern of personal attacks against anyone who offers a differing opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Another note on Rjecina's attempted topic bans, in my RfA he tried to say that should I become an administrator "that future administrators from Balkan end involvement in Yugoslav related disputes". Despite the fact that I'm from the US, my sense of what he was trying to say is that should I become an administrator I should no longer be allowed to edit in the same areas as I previously had been. These disingenuous attempts to keep others with opposing views from editing articles is extremely problematic, and seem to go hand in hand with his constant sockpuppet accusations and accusations of stalking. AniMatetalk 03:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I just saw that and wished I had noticed that before. Also, I don't know who added it but the image and caption added here was probably the funniest thing I've seen here: "Not every user disagreeing with you is a sockpuppet of an evil person. Some of them are legit users that just happen to pass by." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban per Fut.Perf. Upon reaching a certain level, incompetence becomes disruption.  Sandstein  14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban - I've read previous AN/ANI threads about Rjecina; we've given him ample opportunity to reform his behavior. If he's not going to take up on our good faith OR heed to restrictions, then a community ban is the only remaining road I can see. Enough of his incivility and POV pushing. Dyl@n620 18:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban As noted, I am involved, though I would have no objections to Rjecina returning with enforced mentoring and the restrictions enacted by Fut.Perf. in place. AniMatetalk 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have suggested to Rjecina to comment here and will wait until morning my time to decide what to do. That looks to be within his normal editing period (and he's already been notified generally about this discussion). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ban - Uninvolved non-admin speaking here. I don't know how many times I have seen this user with their grossly uncivil unfounded accusations on this board, but enough is enough. The user has shown he/she can't change their behavior. Why let them continue to do it.— dαlus Contribs 09:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Ban - per Future Perfect. I think enough time has gone by to see that waiting longer for Rjecina to straighten out his behavior will not be productive. When Rjecina responded to the concerns in this thread with a rambling and hard-to-understand rebuttal (below) it did not help his cause. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Let as see situation....

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

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

  • 3) This point is for me funny. During editorial dispute in which "NPOV" administrator is involved I have discovered that another user has added false statement or in another words: statement is saying 1 thing and source is telling something different. Source is telling:"The events surrounding the union of Croatia and Hungary are the source of a major historical controversy". User has writen:"The concept of Croatia in personal union with Hungary is a source of a major historical controvers". Maybe because of my poor english this 2 statements are very, very different. In my naive thinking I have shown this to "NPOV" administrator which ulmost never look sources during disputes. My naive thinking has been to show difference between source and statement in article and expected that administrator will change my statement which is having copyright problem.

Can somebody understand my surprise with discovery that administrator during next 48 hours has been without free time to remove copyright violation from article, but with enough free time to start banning action ?????

This is not first but around number 10 attack with wrong or in best case scenario questionable reasons by Ricky against my edits: Block or ban try of March 9, dispute about Holocaust Template. First he has voted on talk page against me. When I have shown that his vote is inconsistent with his earlier decision he has changed his earlier decision so that his vote against me is staying. For the end we are having my user page "problem". On user page he has noticed Template:User Republika Srpska and started deletion demand. After vote has been against him, he has never explained why this template need to be deleted, but not for example template which is supporting independence of Palestine and he has only withdrawn nomination [[19]]. This are "only" 3 examples from March 2009 and all this his "mistakes" has started in September 2008 [20]. Can somebody explain me if actions of administrator in question has been part of problem or part of solution ?

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

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

For the end

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

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

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

Only my guilt is incivility writed in time when I have been frustrated and penalty for this can't be banning ! --Rjecina (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who said that I am not from Hungary, not Ricky.[21] Your statement is full of misrepresentations. --Bizso (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Bizso, might I suggest that you stay far, far away from this? Your issues with Rjecina are well-known, and there is no need to generate further drama here. //roux   18:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I acknowledge that I'm an involved editor. I just wanted to point out an inconsistency, that's all. No further drama here.--Bizso (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't mean to sound like a DICK but this statement by Rjecina really seems to be indicative of the problem being discussed. The crux of the issue that has resulted in the suggestion that he be banned has to do with the attitude that he's in the right and that all complaints made against him are either unfounded or made in bad faith. The community does have a legitimate complaint against Rjecina's contributions and it is highly unlikely that any of those concerns will be alleviated if his attitude stays the same and he refuses to open himself up to criticism, constructive or otherwise. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Even if he were the most polite editor in wikipedia, if that's the way he normally writes then he needs to take some time off and improve his English. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Some clarification about the "falsified" sentence. As in ALL Wikipedia articles, I included the article's title, "Croatia in personal union with Hungary" in the first sentence as a layout change.
After we started a — still ongoing — debate over renaming the article, I indicated that the article's title is a temporary solution as the present title seems to be wrong or at least POV. Rjecina knew about this as he participated in that discussion.
The author of that book doesn't take a stand, simply presents the Croatian version on one hand, and the Hungarian and Serbian points of view on the other hand. As the article's title had been moved to personal union from simply "union" without discussion, it reflected the Croatian point of view. I added that description in the lead based on what the reference says, though not as a word-for-word citation.
I also have to add the lead should reflect what all the references say, not just one. Some reliable sources simply say "Croatia became part of Hungary", "Croatia was conquered" etc.
To sum it up, I didn't understand R.'s outrage, especially the removal of that part:

while Hungarian and Serbian historians insist that Croatia was conquered.[1] The significance of the debate lies in the Croatian claim to an unbroken heritage of historical statehood which is clearly compromised by the other claim.[1]

in the middle of the outrage. Squash Racket (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's probably better to put this to rest at this point. Fut.Perf. 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks Future. Squash, let us continue this at the article talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Meowy making personal attacks[edit]

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

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

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

I have notified Meowy of this thread. Cardamon (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Tealwisp has been making threats on editors' talk pages, like here User_talk:Onlyoneanswer. "Threats" is the correct word to use because Tealwisp is not an administrator and has no actual powers to carry out what his "Only Warning" posting suggests he is able to do, nor has any authority to decide what is "disruptive conduct". These warnings do seem to me to be attempts to bully editors into silence or compliance (which is why I removed the "warning" from my talk page), this is not something a mediator should be doing. Everything I have said about Tealwisp's mediation actions regarding the Mehmet Talat article is justified. He HAS been pandering to (in the British sense of the word, i.e. giving unjustfied attention to and encouragement to) Ibrahim4048 by engaging in an invalid "mediation" process. The process was invalid because the matter in question (Ibrahim4048's assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not happen) is not a matter for mediation and, anyway, is off-topic for a minor article that is not directly about the Armenian Genocide. There are 19 pages of talk on the Armenian Genocide article, an article which in the past has been subject to a lot of disruption. That disruption has mostly vanished because all the contentious points have been argued about to exhaustion in the talk page and it has become settled that the word "alleged" should not be applied to the Armenian Genocide. Tealwisp however, thinks he can ignore all that and present something that contradicts that hard-fought consensus. A good mediator should be able to tell involved parties which of their demands can reasonably be met. Tealwisp should have told Ibrahim4048 at the outset that his demand to term the Armenian Genocide an "alleged" event was not an attainable demand.
BTW, I was unaware that the word "pandering" has an alternative meaning in American culture, so I would be willing to change the talk page subheading and remove it. I have now done that. Meowy 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is an example of Tealwisp's introduction of genocide-denialist propaganda into the article at the behest of Ibrahim4048. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmed_Talat&diff=278291530&oldid=278251367 He replaces "Armenian Genocide" with "forced relocation" and then writes "relocation resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Armenians". Those words could be straight out of a propaganda work published by the Turkish State. The "deaths of many thousands" was actually, at minimal estimates, the death of over a million people, and, as the Armenian Genocide article explains, there was no "forced relocation", there were "massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees". Meowy 20:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I also see that that Tealwisp has been alleging http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASeraphimblade&diff=278991714&oldid=277758144 that I have been using a sockpuppet. The checkuser process is clear and easy, yet rather than going that route, he makes an unsubstantiated (and completely false) allegation. Meowy 20:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I take significant offense at being called a propagandist. I made the edit only after no one objected, and it was designed as a super-neutral compromise. Also, I am not a genocide denier, I took the case because I don't have a particular opinion on the genocide, and I was therefore neutral. Tealwisp (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Where did I call you a propagandist? Where did I call you a genocide-denier? I wrote that you added the objectionable content "at the behest of Ibrahim4048". If you had had an opinion, you would have known how objectionable it was. Knowing about something doesn't make someone biased - knowledge actually prevents bias! Meowy 00:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

If you just read through the mediation page you will see what the discussion is and also what wrongs have been done. You have to take the time to read through the mediation prcess to understand it. Tealwisp didn't make that change [22] because he denied the genocide but as a mediator tried to avoid the dispute between me and the others by only using undisputed facts in the article. Maybe it was not the right solution because some information was lost, but it was done in good faith. I have had my disagreements with tealwisp but I think meowy's accusations and behavior towards tealwisp is wrong. He just picked the wrong dispute to mediate. The armenian genocide is a big and difficult dispute and should come before a board so that at least consensus should come whether in articles where the genocide is mentioned the disputed character (alleged or other construction) of it should be given or (if wikipedia decides the genocide is an established fact) that it should be represented as a fact. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibrahim4048, you now say "I never said that the genocide didn't happen", but here, [[23]], on the 5th March, back at the start of all this, you wrote "I am challenging the genocide's authenticity". Meowy 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "I am challenging the genocide's authenticity" was not meant to express that I deny the genocide but to express doubts about it and rejecting the representation of the genocide as an established fact. It doesn't mean that I am aiming to get denial of the genocide on wikipedia. I simply want that the other view is also represented because I believe the deniers and doubters have some good arguments and that it is not such an absurd minority view. You guys say that we turks are indoctrinated from childhood but the same thing goes for europeans and americans. You keep going on and on to try to potray me as a POV warrior and prove that I am doing this in bad faith but I hope people will eventually see that you are the one that wants to push your POV. I realize that most of my edits are on the mehmed talat article but that's not so strange since I walked into it when I was just beginning to edit and got dragged into this discussion. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim4048's comments are rather amusing and it's ironic that he is crying foul over the fact that Meowy as well as others are not allowing him to insert his absurd propaganda on the Armenian Genocide page. His sole contributions to the Wikipedia articles have been to distort the historical nature of the Armenian Genocide. It's even more astonishing that Wikipedia admins and mediators have indulged his ill-intentioned edits and allowed him to soapbox for so long. He should understand that Wikipedia has absolutely no obligation kowtow the line of the Republic of Turkey, where the denial of the Armenian Genocide is inculcated among children from a very young age. Numerous users (such as Kansas Bear) have already pointed out and introduced reliable sources demonstrating the AG's historical validity. Would anyone consistently allow the same alteration of vocabulary to be used on the Holocaust article just because some denialist thinks that the Jews did not suffer a genocide. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

"you simply do not offer equal or undue weight to fringe and denialist stances"
This should be tattooed – nay, chiseled – into the foreheads of hundreds of WP editors, in reverse type so that they are reminded every morning when they look at themselves in the mirror.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I also want to say that I don't doubt there is good faith behind Tealwisp's mediation efforts (opinion withdrawn; in the light of recent comments made by Tealwisp I now have some doubts. He has been encouraging Ibrahim4048 to continue with his disruptions, it's like a fireman starting his own fires) - but the result of those efforts have not been good so far. Mediation is always going to be a thankless task - I don't know why anyone would want to do it (unless it is a way of proving suitability for being an administrator) - but using it for fringe-theory issues will just make the thanklessness even worse. Meowy 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll save the content comments for appropriate space, but I'd like to say that I don't intend to pursue any kind of ramification for sockpuppeteering, I only wanted to say that I had a hunch. No offense meant. Furthermore, I try to mediate so that the committee is less busy, and because I think it can be a far more satisfying way to resolve a dispute, not just to become an administrator. Tealwisp (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

IP Address 195.74.144.129[edit]

Alterations to articles.

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

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

Many thanks in advance for your assistance.

  • 19:14, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Paul Heaton ‎
  • 16:32, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Adventures of Stephen Brown ‎
  • 16:00, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Adventures of Stephen Brown ‎
  • 15:26, 17 February 2009 (hist) (diff) Stephen Brown (athlete) ‎ (top) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.201.81 (talk)
Those five-week-old edits were the last (and only) edits made by that IP. The IP was warned about their edits, stopped a while afterwards and hasn't edited since What admin action are you looking for? Tonywalton Talk 10:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the article was vandalised, and the vandalism has been reverted. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected User:Fredrick day sock[edit]

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

  • Please note this new account's userpage: [24]. Now, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day. Please note the supporting evidence presented in the second request from the top. As you can see practically all of Fredrick day's sock accounts have started out with their first edits by having "hi" on their userpages.
  • One of the major signs of Fredrick day socks is spamming pages with "cruft" things. In fact, one of Fredrick day's socks was even called "User:Killerofcruft". This new account's edits have focused almost entirely and right off the bat on editing Wikipedia:Listcruft and then spamming the essay to various guideline pages.

Given that this concerns a banned user with a seriously problematic edit history, I strongly urge a checkuser familiar with this editor to take a look. I will notify involved parties of this thread momentarily. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This report might be better handled if filed at WP:SPI. Big Bird (talkcontribs) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have filed checkuser requests before, but not reports there; if someone can help, it would be appreciated. Also, while this may be after the checkuser evidence unless the previous checkusers kept records, I strongly suspect this account meets the WP:DUCK if nothing else. . The "hi" as first edit followed by calling things "cruft" is consistent with other blocked socks of his, such as [25]. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Well, everything FD says should be taken very carefully. He has, before, thought he was logged in and wasn't, thus revealing his IP. But he's also, possibly deliberately, set up decoys, traps, and his frequent goal -- or at least effect -- has been to get editors fighting with each other. If Fredrick day has "returned to normal editing," I'm not terribly exercised about it. I'm only concerned with disruption. We have, here, prima facie evidence that 102.52.132.149 is indeed Fredrick day. I'll take a look at the registered editor, but, unless that editor is being disruptive, I'm disinclined to make a witch hunt out of it. It was FD's claim that this is what I was doing, but I never was. He practically had to grab me by the collar and shake me to get me to file an SSP and checkuser report for Allemandtando, nee Killerofcruft. Who was pretty disruptive! --Abd (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That IP account made a reply to you over six months, so I guess it's the same person? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Okay, my opinion. Could be Fred. This is not a a new user, registers and immediately dives into WP space, uses HotCat, concerned about "cruft," yes. The IP is quite certainly Fred, that specific IP has been used by Fred before. It is possible that it is used by other persons (i.e, as with cell phone access or the like: the IP belongs to Orange). Look at the block log: [26] Now, who did the admin assist? A guess: [27]. Fascinating. Yawn. A Nobody, if you'd like to take this to WP:SSP, let me know and I'll comment there. You should know about Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, which has a listing of identified or suspected IPs. That can be useful. By the way, some Fred socks immediately kicked over anthills, were immediately noticed, and still managed to maintain disruption for a long time. FD was quite popular among "cruft-killers" who weren't so bold as to use that title, but loved the idea. "I destroy what you love." It's a formula for turning Wikipedia into a battleground, which seemed to be his goal. Ntoo2B hasn't been seriously disruptive, if disruptive at all, so it's no emergency, please be civil and avoid unnecessary roughness. Why was the new user connected with the IP address? --Abd (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been a part of some very weird behavior. Fredrick day is known to be able to simultaneously -- or rapidly -- switch between IP addresses, he probably uses multiple computers and multiple monitors to partition accounts. Take a look at [28], at the rapid IP switching in the most recent edits to this user page, which is itself quite odd. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I may be in over my head here, but there are two explanations I see for the IP behavior at the user page above. One is that this is a cell phone or some access which uses a short IP range and which assigns the IP per message. Is that done? In which case most of those edits aren't Fred. The other is that they are all Fred. Certainly they are all the same user editing that user page that day. I'm looking further. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I've seen rapid IP switching in a small range like that before from a user editing with a mobile device. This is one of the reasons why blocking a single IP in such a range can hit multiple users - they edit once, there's no problem, then they switch IPs and hit a block. Especially problematic if it's hardblocked. That range of addresses seems to service a large range of Orange mobile users. Black Kite 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes - orange only use a quite short range for their mobile gateway, so multiple users can appear to be using the same IP and a single editor can rotate around a small number of IP addresses. I would guess that *some* are this FD but others are just random editors, he's get a different IP in the range everytime he logs on. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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

 Possible 193.35.132.149 (talk · contribs) = Frederick day (talk · contribs) as same range but this is a dynamic IP range, so use care in blocking this IP
 Confirmed Ntoo2B (talk · contribs) = SuperBB12 (talk · contribs) = Tweevan55 (talk · contribs) = Trenlotari (talk · contribs) = Loggibbi (talk · contribs) = Tacqtrioni (talk · contribs) = Trinity54 (talk · contribs) = Bontri46 (talk · contribs) = Sendabrin (talk · contribs) = Sotenburger (talk · contribs) = Tromanion (talk · contribs) = Beeline-Dozer (talk · contribs) = GRBeetonova (talk · contribs) = Grapetrau (talk · contribs) = Tremnai55 (talk · contribs) = Dragonivich65 (talk · contribs) = Greotrau (talk · contribs) = Trenoty (talk · contribs) = Grawtoe (talk · contribs) = Tolokomi (talk · contribs) = 58Extraten (talk · contribs) = Lithenium (talk · contribs) = Propren40 (talk · contribs) = Beautromp12 (talk · contribs) = Hatherington (talk · contribs), blocked all named confirmed users indef, blocked underlying IP also-for a month. Tagged User:Hatherington as master since the oldest. Anyone interested in this should look at how sequentially these socks and their start/stop dates match up. RlevseTalk 23:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the check; not who I suspected...but I knew something was up and the results are even more extensive than I would have guessed. Will have to check to see if there has been any vote stacking or anything. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's the chronology of account creation for the 25 confirmed accounts:
Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Social Network[edit]

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

Prince Of All Saiyans, WaltDaMan, Clw182, and Harasturner have all continued to chat after level 3 or 4 warnings, while O.Stroud hasn't since a level 1. Prince Of All Saiyans has previously been blocked for this; WaltDaMan has, too. The only one that I can see that has many non-talk page edits is Harasturner, although I did not look very close. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I've indefblocked Prince Of All Saiyans and WaltDaMan (POAS didn't have a previous block, but I found almost no useful article edits and they have been previously warned). Unfortunately I'll be unexpectedly afk for the next hour or so, so if someone wants to look at the rest... If not not, I'll see to it when I get back. EyeSerenetalk 14:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick response. Sorry about PoaS not having a previous block, I must have looked at the wrong tab or something. Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 14:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
      • No worries, I do that all the time (too many tabs open at once :P). I've also indeffed Harasturner per previous warnings (their removing the last to reconfigure their talk-page back into chat-sections was a good indication of how much notice they'd taken). As new users with no previous warnings, I've left notes for Clw182 and O.Stroud; hopefully they'll get the message. Thanks for your report ;) EyeSerenetalk 15:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I actually had warned Clw182 4 previous times ([29], [30], [31], [32]). It's hard to keep up with due to all of the blanking and the long revision history because of the chatting. Hopefully, they'll get the message. Cheers and thanks again! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that Prince of All Saiyans, and Harastruner are removing block notices after they were blocked. Could those talk pages be prevented from editing? Momusufan (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with removing block notices. --OnoremDil 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

They have a right to request unblock via their talkpage. If, however, they choose to continue to use the Talkpage as a social networking page - the reason they were blocked in the first place - then yes, the first time they do it, the page should be locked. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a need for protection unless they abuse them by continuing to chat. And please stop reverting the users if they remove the notices. --OnoremDil 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
looks like Harastruner is still not listening, had to revert her edits again. And sorry for restoring the block notices Momusufan (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And I've reverted your revert. Asking for clarification on why they were blocked is not continuing to use their page as a social network. --OnoremDil 17:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I've removed the headers per WP:BOLD and left a polite message. Hopefully I, as a "fresh person" in the dispute, might get through. I wouldn't bother removing them again if he re-adds them, though, just block if he actually uses them for anything! ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 17:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks all for the assists! Apologies Apparition11, you're right that Clw182 was warned, but the account was only created yesterday so there's no long-term pattern of abuse - I thought they deserved the benefit of the doubt. Momusufan, we regard a user blanking a message as confirmation that it's been seen and understood, so it's not normally a problem if they do that (and it's still there in the page history for anyone to see). No problem though ;) I've got their talk-pages watchlisted, and they'll be locked down if the chatting resumes. EyeSerenetalk 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Hopefully it's enough for Clw182 to get the message. I'm hoping the others will, too, and will post an unblock request promising to stop (and follow through). PoaS and Harasturner are now replying to people not in their network instead of simply blanking, which could be a good sign. I'm not holding my breath, but I'll keep my fingers crossed :) Thanks for everything! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. There's one unblock request up now; as long as they're monitored for a while, I'd be inclined to grant it and see how things go, but we'll see what the reviewing admin thinks. EyeSerenetalk 18:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Username possibly outing an admin's real life identity[edit]

Resolved: Username indef blocked by Bongwarrior. Tonywalton Talk 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Reported at WP:UAA Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this a new policy that I wasn't aware of, and does it mean I have to change my username? Tonywalton Talk 15:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Just change your real name and you are within policy. --64.85.214.236 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)--64.85.214.236 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the problem was that the username was created by someone who is not the admin in question, and appeared to be an attempt to "out" the admin. Making your user name the same as your real name is not, as far as I know, a problem at all. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And there was me filling in deed poll forms to change my name to 127.0.0.1. Since the username in question has ben blocked I'm marking this as "resolved". Tonywalton Talk 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Knives87 possibly disruptive account[edit]

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

Resolved: Blocked, clearly not here to enhance the encyclopedia experience.

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

Admins and others, please note that after this section was placed, Knives87 blanked it and replaced the content with the word "nigger". I suggest a block is appropriate to prevent further disruption. Doc Tropics 16:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Just block per [34] and this [35]. Clear sock of someone, here only for disruption.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

National Council of La Raza protected - need version review[edit]

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

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

I just left a note about this on your talk page. The IP who left the most recent version is clearly pushing an outrageous point of view, if not outright vandalizing the article. I have no problem in principle to protecting the article, but the version you protected isn't just the wrong version, its wrong to the point of being defamatory. I know this isn't technically a WP:BLP, but under the "do no harm" principle, can we at least go back to the sourced, neutrally worded version and not the one whose lead is nothing but inflamatory political screed? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Just to explain that - I was right at the end of a long day and had to log off soon, and though I tended to feel as you and will Beback did about the content