User talk:Tramadul

Welcome!

Hello, Tramadul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Lizzie Velásquez. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tramadul, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Tramadul! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please do not mark any edits which change the content of articles minor, per WP:MINOR. a13ean (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that doing that suppresses them from cluttering up my own watchlistTramadul (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Paul Frampton. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You have been warned repeatedly at BLPN and at the article (talk page and edit summaries). Are you editing under any other accounts? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just invited you to open dialogue on the article talkpage.Tramadul (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have been discussing the article at its talk page. This notice is about your behavior as an editor, which is skirting several editor behavior guidelines, along with WP:BLP. First Light (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tramadul, you know very well that there is an active BLPN discussion, in addition to open threads at the article's talk page. Discuss issue there and stop disruptively editng the article. You have not answered if you are editing under other accounts? If so, which ones? 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mule (smuggling), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You need to immediately stop what appears to be your singular mission of destroying Paul Frampton's reputation, as you did once again with this edit at Mule (smuggling). You have been warned numerous times in the BLPN discussion, on the Frampton talk page, and in many edit summaries, about your highly inappropriate behavior. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed changed to a compromise wording there, really only because of the pitch and frequency of your denunciations directed at me. I'd like you to take a step back now. The BLP/N discussion is finalised and though you didn't get all your own way as a result of it we move on.Tramadul (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BLPN is far from "finalised" and the article is being watched very closely due to your pattern of very disruptive editing. You're heading for a ban. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate. Since you had some involvement with the Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of BLP

Additions like the one you just made to Mule (smuggling) is an extreme violation of WP:BLP. You have already been warned multiple times about this. You will be blocked if you continue in this manner. First Light (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. First Light (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I think that the good doctor was quite lenient in issuing only a three-day block. If I see you continuing the same behavior when your block is over, you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Gross violations of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy are something I take quite seriously, and your singular focus on smearing the subject is disturbing, to say the least. Horologium (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the same article, and categorised the same article, on matters that relate solely to physics. I've made efforts to correctly source the material about the muling hobby from a plethora of what's out there, relying most on English-language reportage by those who were actually at the trial and familiar with the exhibits and evidence at play there. This biosubj's own lawyers announced that he was 'schizoid' and the court's own experts resolved upon diagnosis of 'narcissistic personality'. It's all very public, and what he did to land himself in prison is also just as public. I want an accurate treatment of stakeholders all around: the PF syndicate members (including PF), Denise Milani, the case investigators, the judges, the lawyers, the journalists, the arrest witnesses, and such other witnesses as may exist.Tramadul (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tramadul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You've invited me into an ANI discussion, and then showed the poor form to not hear from me and then just decide to go ahead and make sure I can't be heard. This is remedied by unblock, during which time I'll have nothing to add on the subject of cocaine and something to add on the subject of what constitutes good referencing and good fact-checking in the articles I've put any effort into. I can come back and deal with this in the next 48 hours but right now. Other commitments intervene.Tramadul (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your comments here and elsewhere indicate that you don't understand and/or accept that you've done something wrong, including your continued referring to a fictitious 'PF syndicate' above (which is also a WP:BLP violation). The WP:OTHERSTUFF you've done doesn't change the fact that you have grossly flaunted WP:BLP and continue to insist that you've doing nothing wrong. In order to be unblocked, you have to acknowledge the behavior that led to the block and provide a good-faith reassurance that such behavior won't be repeated - "I won't add anything on the subject" is not an acknowledgement of the policy violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You had four hours to reply at AN/I and did not do so, yet appealed your block within minutes. I agree with Horologium (above) that you are extremely lucky that Drmies blocked you for only three days. I hope you will adhere to the sanctions and never edit the Frampton article again, add any content about him to any other articles, or commit any further BLP violations. [1] 76.189.111.2 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“

On Nov. 12, Frampton’s trial began in a small wood-paneled courtroom, where he sat before three judges. On exhibit in front of the judges was a collapsed black cloth suitcase with wheels wrapped in yellow cellophane.

Frampton’s long-held defense — that he was duped because he had a childlike understanding of the ways of the world — began to unravel. The prosecutor opened his cross-examination of Frampton by citing a text message retrieved from Frampton’s confiscated cellphone. “On Jan. 22 at 9:46 a.m.,” he said, “you wrote from Ezeiza airport to the person you understood to be Denise Milani: ‘Was worried only about sniffer dogs but more.’ ” As his interrogation of Frampton continued, he read other text messages sent from Frampton’s phone. One at 9:52 a.m.: “Need to know if your loyalty is with the bad guy-agent & bolivian friends — or good guy, your husband?” And another at 9:56 a.m.: “SIRU” — the Hotel Siru, where they were planning to meet in Brussels — “IS AMBUSH.” 10:14 a.m.: “Your naivety is bad for me, us. This is millions. NO SIRU, OK?” At 11:19 a.m., Frampton sent Milani an e-mail: “This stuff is worth nothing in Bolivia, but $Ms in Europe. You meet me at the airport and we do not go near the hotel the ‘agent’ suggested. Stay at another hotel.” At 11:47 a.m., there was another text message: “Monday arrival changed. You must not tell the coca-goons.” At 12:16 p.m., he wrote: “WHY ARE YOU IGNORING ME? AT THIS LAST MOMENT. WE DID NOT DECIDE HOW TO MEET TOMORROW IN BRUSSELS AND KEEP COCA & LIVES. AT SIRU WE MAY LOSE BOTH!!” At 1:06: “We may do cool 1,000,000.”

Frampton explained to the judges that these messages were jokes. He’d made them up because of Dixon’s earlier warnings about drugs. “I was trying to keep Denise amused. I had already decided to fly back to North Carolina.” But even taking Frampton’s peculiar brand of humor into account, it was hard to understand why he would have taken the joke so far. He sent 30 messages like this, with specific details that made it seem as if he were referring to a real situation, a considered plan, not fabricating a story on the spot.^[1]

”

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tramadul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

From the above it is not made clear that there are other knowing collaborators who formed a conspiracy to traffick the cocaine with biosubj Frampton. It is only Paul Frampton who has been found responsible for that. With apology I retract the use of the term 'syndicate' and I retract those implications that his Bolivian contact(s) or Belgian contact(s) or any person whatsoever other than him had any knowing involvement in the crime of cocaine trafficking which is referred to. The findings only extend to proving this biosubj has acted alone to attempt to perpetrate the cocaine-related offence(s) in Argentina involving a stated intention to send it through Peru and on to Brussels for something to do with "cool 1,000,000". I undertake to make required rectification and amendments in regard to this, and to adhere to information varying from this only in the case where such information can be reliable sourced. Requesting unblock.Tramadul (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm afraid this request does more to convince me you're determined to add your The Official Truth version of negative content about Frampton than it does to convince me that you understand why your approach to this matter is problematic. We take WP:BLP very seriously here, and we're looking for more indication that you understand how we use sources and resist drawing conclusions before we'll be comfortable unblocking you, which you haven't provided so far. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tramdul obviously still does not get it based on all his comments after the block including, in particular, this one: "I undertake to make required rectification and amendments in regard to this". I think someone needs to make it abundantly clear to him that he not only has been temporarily blocked from editing, but also has been permanently banned from editing Paul Frampton or adding any content about him to any other articles.[2] Tramadul is amazingly fortunate that Drmies didn't block him for a much longer period of time. In fact, based on the gigantic number of inappropriate edits (in the dozens), his blatant disregard of numerous warnings, and his complete failure to accept what the admins here have been telling him, I feel that an indefinite block is now warranted. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tramadul, I've been reading over these requests. I am not going to indef-block you at this point, but I will do that the moment you a. return to the Frampton article (even if it's to correct a punctuation error) b. commit another BLP violation. If I were you, I'd spend the remaining time of your block reading over our BLP policy, which is linked seven times on this talk page and which you obviously have not read. Well, maybe you have, but now you need to internalize it. You may be wanting to right great wrongs, but this is not the place for it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected days ago, Tramadul is one of many socks. Now I know why he always ignored when he was asked several times how many accounts he was using. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/the-professor-the-bikini-model-and-the-suitcase-full-of-trouble.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 From NYT coverage of the Frampton cocaine smuggling trial

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/magazine/the-professor-the-bikini-model-and-the-suitcase-full-of-trouble.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 From NYT coverage of the Frampton cocaine smuggling trial

[1]