Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Klaksonn and Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah

Today I noticed that Klaksonn (talk • contribs) recreated Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah and Template:User_Hezbollah (as Template:User_Hezbollah 2) for the fourth time (since April 2) today which I speedily deleted again. I blocked him for a week, only to relent because I was concerned that I may have overreacted since he hasn't of yet re-added it to his userpage. However, his downright hostility towards me (for example: he has previously accused me of being racist and having double standards merely because I was Australian) and other editors as well as total disregard for policy has exhausted my patience. Now that he has threatened to have me de-opped, I hereby ask other administrators to review his behaviour and send him a strong message that we will not continue to tolerate such inflammatory displays on user pages or his incivility. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You told him on the 2nd to take it to deletion review and not to recreate it. He did it anyway. He also seems quite incivil on the talk page. I don't feel you were in error anywhere on this one. IrishGuy ^talk 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Recreated category per "Likud Wikipedians", "Yisrael Beytenu Wikipedians", "Kadima Wikipedians" and so on.. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't recreate the category for the last time today, as you sadly claim. I recreated it weeks ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. I bet you knew that. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. You were asked to seek deletion review rather than constantly recreating. You chose to recreate anyway...while making personal attacks and calling Netsnipe a racist. IrishGuy ^talk 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above is a valid arguement. My rationale is very relevant. Other categories exist, I don't see why the one I created is inappropriate. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also see you're making it personal by trying to get me blocked for 3RR, reverting edits to an article I created. Very low. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

He just broke the 3RR rule. As I have reverted him, someone else should block him. He was warned, he did it anyway. IrishGuy ^talk 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I "making it personal"? I don't even know you. I read this report and looked at your edit history. IrishGuy ^talk 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it is 5 reverts now. IrishGuy ^talk 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts to an article I created. I have provided sources, one of which from an American governmental organization, saying IC is one of the finest educational insitutions in the world. I find it normal for this to provoke some jealousy. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule applies to all articles, whether or not you created them. --Iamunknown 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When one editor was about to break this rule, IrishGuy somehow intervened to get ME blocked for 3RR. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Klaksonn for thirty-six hours for edit-warring. Feel free to continue discussing the Hezbollah template matter, though. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It has also been the case that Klaksonn has been incivil to me in the past, committing a breach of WP:NPA by calling me a racist, and telling me to "Buzz off", after I nominated the template he has recreated, for the first time. Myself, Netsnipe and Klaksonn were in quite a heated debare which resulted in Netsnipe blocking Klaksonn for 24 hours.In this case, and bearing in mind this user has previously been blocked for longer, and warned to behave himself when he came back (which he obviously has NO intention of doing, I would ask these previous blocks to be taken into consideration and for the present 36 hour block to be severely extended. I see no other way of keeping this user under control. Thor Malmjursson 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all of Kalksonn's contributions are inappropriate. I don't think they warrant an indefblock yet. --Iamunknown 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for an indef, but surely his past incivility, bad manners, behaviour and downright disregard for rules and procedures should be enough to get him more than one and a half days "time out". Thor Malmjursson 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So why exactly is this category not allowed? The Behnam 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The initial reason the template and associated category were nominated (in the case of my nomination, for speedy (as devisive and inflammatory)) is that Hezbollah is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities. In my estimation, if someone were to create [[Category: Wikipedians who support Al-Qaeda]], [[Category:Wikipeidans who would like to be suicide bombers]], [[Category:Wikipedians who smoke dope]] or [[Category:Wikipedians with pedophilic tendencies]], they would all get the same treatment. The activity they support is illegal, and therefore could be devisive. Could also start a war with someone creating [[Category:Wikipedians who do not support Hezbollah]]. In short, devisive, inflammatory and plain wrong. Wikipedia is not a battleground! Thor Malmjursson 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though it is a slippery slope in both directions. If expressing support for Hezbollah is not acceptable, what political opinion statements are next? Why not scrap all of them anyway? They don't serve the project, but they can negatively affect it. True? The Behnam 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

False debate on it's face. This stuff comes up almost exclusively in regard to a couple of contentious geo-political problems. No one complains ' He has the i'm a democrat' userbox, or the GOP userbox, or the Labour party box. No, people complain when someone's got a terrorist group, and then people scream outrage because they secretly support that terrorist group too, but are smart enough to not advertise it. When it's pointed out that blowign up 3 year olds is generally reviled, they scream 'then get rid of all userboxes, you're repressing my freedom'. No, we're going with widespread consensus that 99% of userboxes are fine, and 1% need to be examined and possibly removed. the "I support suicide bombers who blame everything on jews instead of their own lack of self-accountability" Userboxes should be removed and deleted. The 'I support a major party in the politics of my own nation' boxes are fine. No one's complaining about the 'This user is a member of Fatah' Userbox; it's a legit party. (Is there such a box?) ThuranX 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's as naked a POV statement as I've ever heard. A terrorist isn't just someone you don't like. Established Zionist groups started out as blatantly terrorist organizations, for instance, and arguably much of what Israel still does is state terrorism -- the Israelis regularly blow up 3-year-old children too, use collective punishment, etc. In fact, the early Zionist groups in Palestine were often more blatantly terrorist than Hizb'Allah is now. Face it, you either allow people to profess faith for liberation movements, or you don't. I personally am against all poitical identification as very unencyclopedic -- the pursuit of knowledge should not be politicized any more than it already is by nature. But it seems to be popular on wikipedia, and tolerated. If it's tolerated for one, it must be tolerated for all. If this user has introduced this in a hostile fashion, that should not be tolerated, but the idea behind the addition of such a category is no different than any other political movement.Larry Dunn 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fatah is a legit party!? 68.248.83.41 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say it is about as 'legit' as Hamas. Perhaps Hamas is more legitimate from the perspective of political legitimacy, considering the vote. Oh wait, does 'legit' mean acceptable to Israel & friends? I suppose that Fatah is legitimate under that assumption. The Behnam 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More so than Hamas, which has lot more ties to terrorism than Fatah. Even Hamas is more legit than Hezbollah. Both have participated in free elections, both are starting to get major recognition as political parties, not terrorist groups. ThuranX 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was obviously being hostile and as such should be properly dealt with. However, with regards to the larger matter at hand, I have to disagree with some of the users above. Hezbollah is in fact represented in the Lebanese Parliament and as such it does not seem entirely inappropriate for users to believe that category's or infoboxes should be created in "support" or stating their membership in this organization.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, in respect of Klaksonn's behaviour, Hostile is to Understatement, as "Minor tremor" is to the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906! Thor Malmjursson 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Question one: how do userboxes supporting even relatively non-controversial political parties benefit the encyclopedia?
Question two: how much time is spent arguing over what does or does not cross the line into the unacceptable?
Of course, I'm not arguing for "fair treatment" of this userbox (userboxes don't have rights) which should be deleted either way. But it's time to delete them all. Not userfy, but delete and remove. If some users leave Wikipedia as a result…great. Experience shows that these are often the very same editors who causes other problems in the pursuit of these same opinions; those who are not will accept the removal of contentious material with grace and an eye towards moving forward.
Wikipedia is not a forum for self-expression, national, political, religious or otherwise. When new editors visit another editor's userpage and see it filled with that editor's opinions, they got the wrong idea, and who can blame them? It's our collective responsibility for allowing it.Proabivouac 04:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ban userboxes is your solution? Throw a hissy fit and get rid of userboxes. and then say 'well, anyone who goes wasn't worth keeping?' I think you'll find we'll lose hundreds of editors, who will see that as a major step towards thoroughly anonymizing their hobby. You will not just lose problem editors, you'll lose good editors who like that they can be themselves in their wikipedia presence while helping the project. Once Userboxes are gone, the next logical step will be the elimination of almost all text oon userpages, because someone will see identification of rival college enrollment as offensive, rival careers as belittling, and lists of on wiki accomplishments as elitist. We'll have to switch to numbered ID's, adn then we hit reducto ad nauseum. No one on this project (or nearly zero, there might be three or four odd ducks) wants to have a user number, and not name. Userboxes are fine in the vast majority, those supporting terrorist groups, pedophilia (also under discussion on AN/I), and other anti-social, often criminal behaviors need to go. This 'eliminate em all if I can't have my 'kill all the XYZ's' box is childish. ThuranX 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe you meant reductio ad absurdum? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but ... nauseum, absurdum... either way, the point's the same. Taken too far, everything gets stupid. (and probably sickeningly so.) thanks. ThuranX 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read my comment; I was specifically addressing userboxes supporting political parties. We can recognize three categories of userboxes: those which are helpful (e.g., identifying subject expertise, language fluency, admin status, etc.), those which are useless but benign (probably the majority,) and those which are useless and cause pointless strife. The third of these should be eliminated, because there is no compelling argument to keep them.Proabivouac 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the vitriol and insult throwing above, fact is that 1) userboxes are not the goal of the wikipedia project. 2) Editors are offended by userboxes saying that a user supports hezbollah, myself for one. I consider myself a moderate, and I consider myself to have an open mind in terms of userboxes. However, Hezbollah is on at least 6 country's designated terrorist organization lists. Hezbollah has a long and well-documented history of conducting terrorist acts. It is polemic, it is designed to incite and inflame, and it is offensive to me as Jewish editor, that someone would be allowed to have a userbox in support of a group that has advocated, quote: ""If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew." and "“if they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”" ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know, you're discriminating againt, um, his culture.Proabivouac 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see Hezbollah, a legitimate resistance movement, being compared to crackheads, pedophiles and actual terrorits, when someone like "Thor Malmjursson" is allowed to have a userpage this disturbingly repulsive. This is a sad day. ^Klak_Sonn^Talk 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Compared to actual terrorists.....you mean like the 6 countries that have designated either part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Or the European Parliment declaration 2 years ago that recognized "clear evidence" or "terrorist activities" by Hezbollah? Or the AMIA Bombing, the worst terrorist incident in Argentine history, carried out by Hezbollah? Sure. That's legitimate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, I come under attack... or rather, my choice of design does...Maybe it would be better if I blank my page. Thor Malmjursson 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We can argue here 'till the end of life on earth but saying that is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities is erroneous (read Hizbollah article) as one might argue the same thing about the U.S. administration. I followed User:Embargo's case for a long time and eventhough i blocked him for a 24h period (for relating his Hezbollah supporting userbox to Israeli massacres- according to him) i never supported admins' actions toward him forbiding him to use any userbox mentioning Hezbollah. If your motto, guys, is NPOV than apply it thru and be fair. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, I agree that userboxes supporting the U.S. administration, or any other political party, should be deleted.Proabivouac 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All controversial userboxes should be removed outright. Hizbollah is a great resistance organization which mitigates the terrorism committed by the IDF and similar organizations. Hizbollah also has charities and many other things. Not allowing someone to express admiration for Hizbollah is akin to not allowing a userbox that says "this user supports the red cross and UNICEF". All userboxes which say "This user supports Israel's right to exist" or any other similar polemic hate speech should be immediately removed, no questions asked.--Kirby♥time 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um...how exactly is "This user supports Israel's right to exist" hate speech? IrishGuy ^talk 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because it implicitly considers Palestinians, the true owners of the land, subhuman and not worthy of having their needs tended to.--Kirby♥time 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That sentence in no way calls anyone subhuman nor does it say Palestinians are not worthy of having their needs tended to. That sentence, your example, isn't even remotely hate speech. IrishGuy ^talk 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it as no different than someone with a userbox stating "This user supports segregation" or "This user supports Apartheid", both of which are unacceptable. Saying that "This User supports Israel's right to exist" is racist, derogatory, and not conducive to a positive editing atmosphere here on wikipedia.--Kirby♥time 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You think it is racist to support Israel's right to exist? That isn't even remotely racist. We actually have an article on racism maybe you should read it. IrishGuy ^talk 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very racist (along with the whole of zionism) because it favors Jews over other races. Also, it is very offensive that you say it is not racist. Zionism is racism, pure and simple. You ask me to read the racism article; that's funny, seeing how I was about to ask you to read it.--Kirby♥time 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead you link to an article with all manner of tags about the article not being neutral. Saying you support Israel's right to exist isn't racist. IrishGuy ^talk 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"--Kirby♥time 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice that you leave out the detail that it was revoked in 1991. IrishGuy ^talk 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so for 16 years, it is considered racism, and then suddenly, bloop! it's not racism anymore. Is this a joke? And ultimately, a substantial part of the world considers it a form of racism. Wikipedia should not cater to zionists.--Kirby♥time 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But getting back to the matter at hand, there are only SIX countries that consider Hizbollah a terrorist organization:

List of entities officially designating Hezbollah as "terrorist"

Entity	Part(s) designated as terrorist	Reference
United States	The entire organization Hezbollah
Canada	The entire organization Hezbollah
Israel	The entire organization Hezbollah
United Kingdom	The Hezbollah External Security Organization
Netherlands	The entire organization Hezbollah
Australia	The Hezbollah External Security Organization

Compare that to how many countries consider Zionism to be racism:

(25) Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen.

--Kirby♥time 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The UN rescinded the resolution with a vote of 111 to 25 (with 13 abstentions). Obviously, the majority of nations do not agree that Zionism is racism. Regardless, supporting Israel's right to exist isn't the same as being a zionist. IrishGuy ^talk 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And the majority of nations do not agree that Hizbollah is terrorist. Either allow them both, or deny them both. And supporting Israel's right to exist is a form of zionism. That's the whole thesis of zionism. That would be like saying "Saying that blacks are inferior isn't the same as being racist".--Kirby♥time 22:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You were earlier arguing that Zionism is the belief in the superiority of Jews. Supporting the existence of Israel isn't the same as believing in the superiority of Jews. IrishGuy ^talk 22:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's stupid. Name me a reason why a person would support the existence of Israel if they didn't think that Jews are superior.--Kirby♥time 23:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. This is, once again, beyond the point. Hizbollah and zionism are controversial, period, and users shouldn't be allowed to express their support for either because Wikipedia is not a battleground. I don't have anymore to say about this.--Kirby♥time 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A few points.

1. Zionism doesn't include the belief that Jews are racially superior. Members of any race can become Jews, and Jews are not defined by membership in a race, or a belief system for that matter. Being a Jew neither race nor religion; it is a tribal identity. You can be born into the tribe or join it, and membership in the tribe grants certain privileges. Zionism includes the belief that certain privileges pertaining to citizenship of Israel, the longed-for Jewish homeland, are to be granted to members of this tribe, and that Jews have an obligation as members to support its existence (and, if possible, be a resident there, even if his/her occupation involves being away more often than not). It has nothing to do with racial superiority or race at all. A Jew is a Jew if he/she is descended from a Jewish mother or goes through conversion (which among Jews is less about belief than assumption of obligations), no matter what his/her genetic background is, or whether he/she believes in one god, many gods, or no god at all. There are Arab Israelis and Arab Jews, Pagan Israelis and Pagan Jews, Jews of every race and theology, including atheism; and as long as their mother is/was Jewish or they properly converted, Zionist beliefs as to their rights and duties apply (according to the Zionists, of course).

2. Supporting Israel's right to exist isn't the same as Zionism. There are non-Zionists who support the existence of the presently-established State of Israel for various reasons, there were Zionists before its establishment, and if it were destroyed there would still be Zionists. Zionism is a movement to physically establish a Jewish homeland in what was once called the Land of Israel, especially as opposed to waiting until the coming of the Messiah (and that which shall occur then). The creation of the present State of Israel, as it is, where it is, is the closest those who consider themselves Zionists have acheived and/or been granted. For some, it's not quite what they were trying or praying for. But supporting its right to exist is not synonymous with "being a Zionist".

3. I'm not sure how I feel about a category concerning declared membership in either Hezbollah or Hamas, but I think "supports" is too vague, and impossible to verify in too many instances. Such labels can also too easily be slapped on someone as a perjorative, then sit there for weeks with a fact tag. Even a card-carrying member of a group may not "support" it; sometimes membership in a group or movement means survival under certain regimes. I think someone should both have declared AND demonstrated support for something before it can be asserted, especially if that thing is highly controversial. If some of you think Zionist is just as controversial, maybe someone shouldn't be called that without both declaration and demonstration either.

None of what I've said is meant to conflict with the issues of terrorism, legitimacy, hate speech, etc. They are just additional points for consideration. Rosencomet 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I find Kirbytime's allegations that supporting Israel amounts to hate speech grotesque (I'm very interested to learn how he can read my mind and my thoughts and reasonings as to WHY I support Israel, and I find his depiction of the IDF as terrorists, as I've worked in liaison with them, and they are far from "terrorist"). There is nothing legitimate or "resistance" about bombing a Jewish financial assistance building in Argentina, which Hezbollah did in the 90's? As I mentioned before, the EU parliament issued a declaration 2 years ago stating Hezbollah to have engaged in terrorist activities. It is on 6 states designated terrorist organization lists: It should be mentioned that those states make up a significant portion of the UN Security Council, and also, that not every nation maintains a DTO list (For instance, nearly all of the middle eastern states do not).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeanclauduc

Jeanclauduc (talk · contribs · block log) has stated that he's Jean-Claude Ducasse, CTO of MDS International [1]. He's been involved in edit warring in both MDS International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a company he's in legal disputes with, MDS America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His English appears to be poor, so someone fluent in French would be helpful in determining if he's even trying to understand the cautions and warnings he's received, and what he means by his many comments that make little sense. Language problems aside, he's repeatedly made legal threats against editors and Wikipedia [2] [3] [4] [5].

MDS International is currently full-protected, and there is a COI/N. Ronz 15:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that. But please guys keep calm and don't escalate the issue further. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy seems rightly pissed off at (what was) the contents of the article, which looked like a concerted smear campaign against the company, based on an anonymous attack site and original research. Though he is talking about lawyers, there are other editors whose edits are of concern. 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) and WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) seem to be making some troubling edits, as well as most of the warnings. It seems Jeanclauduc is not the only one with a conflict of interest. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While waiting for Jean Claude's response to my message, i share teh same opinion w/ zzuuzz. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if Jeanclauduc backs down and explains himself. The article is protected in a version that he should be happy with. --Ronz 17:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about the edits of WizardOfWor (talk · contribs) and 76.109.17.236 (talk · contribs) than those of Jean. I am not sure how much you are aware of the implication of the information posted at the article on wikipedia. But, i'll wait and see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought it was priority to get help with Jeanclauduc's legal threats and poor English. Sorry if my focus on him was inappropriate. --Ronz 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Hoping to hear from his concerns first as he's the claiming party. We'll deal w/ the rest later on. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help on this, Fayssal. It's a little hard to get to the root of this when both sides apparently have an agenda and I can't make heads or tails out of some of the statements. One other question: can you find a corresponding article on fr.wikipedia.org? I'm afraid that my high school French from 20 years ago did not get me very far. Kuru ^talk 01:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any article on MDS International in the French Wikipedia. EdJohnston 01:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing except the Tunisian political party Mouvement des Démocrates Socialistes. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

I received a message from User:Jeanclauduc but i needed some more clarifications. So probably i'll get answers this afternoon. I also contacted admin BD2412 who is an intellectual property lawyer to have his opinion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

72.19.4.235 (talk · contribs · block log) claims to be Kirk Kirkpatrick, CEO MDS America [6]. --Ronz 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All our attempted diplomacy, including the asisstance of French-speaking admin FayssalF, seem to have led to a further legal threat from Jean-Claude Ducasse, or a person claiming to be him. I have proposed to the other editors at Talk:MDS International that we nominate that article for deletion. The war between MDS America and MDS International should go take place in a courtroom somewhere, and not vex us any further here at Wikipedia. If the legal problems are ever solved, I'd favor recreating both articles. If you disagree, please join the discussion at Talk:MDS International. See also a report on MDS International at the conflict of interest noticeboard. EdJohnston 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

MDS International has been nominated for deletion here. On the theory that getting rid of the article eliminates the possibility of defaming this company, which is not highly notable in any case, and this may damp out the edit war between the COI partisans of MDS America and MDS International. EdJohnston 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rbj

User:Rbj has been chronically incivil and insulting toward anyone who disagrees with him at Talk:Intelligent design. This is after multiple recent warnings there and at his talk page and a block 1 month ago for personal attacks there. People at Talk ID are becoming exasperated and Rbj just doesn't seem to get it, so would some admins here take a look at his history and recent comments there and his talk page and take whatever action is warranted and that will get him to participate positively. Odd nature 21:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a careful look at the relevant edit history. The problem is that Rbj is strongly opinionated but also highly intelligent and committed to NPOV. He tends to lash out too strongly against those who disagree with him. The recent edit does not merit a block because, as Rbj defended himself, he attacked the opinion as "made-up" rather than attacking the person as a "liar", which he has done in the past. I'm not going to take action, but the most that could be done is a warning against personal attacks, including labeling opinions as POV, with a block to follow if the warning goes unheeded. YechielMan 02:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether he's actually committed to NPOV is not the issue (and neither is it a given), his civility is. He's been warned many times already and blocked once as well and is still is at it. Something more needs to be done please. Odd nature 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And he doesn't let up. Looks like his current target is User:Orangemarlin. But, since I won't touch him, and other admins seem uncertain, perhaps you should elaborate clearly on what it is you think needs to happen. — coelacan — 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a topic ban is in order here. Failing that, a 48 block seems justified since the 24 hour one didn't make an impression. Odd nature 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

neither do you let up. do the rules not apply to you, 151? r b-j 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is perennial. Doesn't seem to be related to the ID page, but this recent alteration of another's user page was pretty incivil. Over on Talk:ID, calling other editors' work "dog-shit" and brandishing the "you guys think your own shit don't stink" line again. And waving around the threat of meatpuppetry again. And calling another editors' arguments "bullshit". I didn't dig any further than that. No, he's not pleasant to work with. I've had too many disagreements with him in the past to step in, myself. I'm would not be able to act as a disinterested party. But I agree you shouldn't have to put up with this... — coelacan — 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coelacan, you again are not being honest. here is what i said: "you don't let reason and self-examination prevail so people like Gnixon or Morphh have to go get more editors from the outside to help push back this blatent POV editing" and then 151 (now know as Odd Nature) says: "so it doesn't matter how many meat puppets people like Gnixon or Morphh recruit from the outside" (which isn't even true, all Gnixon did is put it on a comment noticeboard for the Science and Religion projects which is getting a 3rd opinion) and now you falsely accuse me of soliciting or threatening meatpuppetry. is being untruthful of someone else considered by you to be civil? BTW, Coelacan has attacked me before (when he was an admin wannabe) and it was reversed by Jimbo. Coelacan does not have his nose clean. r b-j 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He's continuing to be incivil and attack others: [7][8][9] Would someone please make an effort here to get him to stop. Odd nature 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

boo-hoo-hoo, 151 would like to inject his POV into an article about a contentious topic without opposition. 151 would like to claim any opinion of his as fact and have that canonized into a Wikipedia article and wants no one to get in the way. he's not the only one. if he were, there wouldn't be much of a problem. i am frustrated with repeated misrepresentations of me, my positions, Wikipedia policy, and the facts, and have these guys hide being WP:CIVIL. they are not civil and to come here and call the kettle black is something akin to hypocrisy. r b-j 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

r-b-j, I strongly encourage you to take a more civil tone. What's it hurt? Why not try to work civilly with people? I asked Jimbo for a clarification myself at the time, and he very clearly stated that you aren't under any form of special protection. Just ease off the cursing, and quit accusing everyone that disagrees with you of every form of wrongdoing in the book. There is absolutely no need for this to end badly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

i never said, nor implied that i was ever under any special protection. i am saying that Coelacan is wrong regarding his previous experience with me. and that Jimbo has clearly repudiated him (do you need me to find the link?). what Coelacan did then is what he did here right now, he attributed some other person's action to me. at that time he accused me of leveling a legal threat against Wikipedia (and got me blocked indefinitely when i did nothing of the sort) and Jimbo said no way. that's all i said and meant to say. i do not invoke Jimbo as if he is my personal protector or anything, but regarding this thing with Coelacan, regarding User:Karmafist, and regarding my right to disappear (after Karma was banned, i decided to come back), Jimbo has acted completely correctly as i could see it and in all three cases, against either mistaken or abusive admins. r b-j 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a great idea for you to provide some diffs if you are going to drop the J-bomb on me. Jimbo said only that my interpretation of WP:NLT was faulty. That's it, a disagreement over the reading of policy, and nothing more. I don't know what you think you can milk from it. And the fact that I have not blocked you, despite my view that you have engaged in personal attacks again, means that I am acting well within the bounds of policy regarding an editor I've had past disputes with. Don't act like I'm not even allowed to talk about your behavior.

You, here, are not saying that you personally will go recruit meatpuppets, but you do appear to be saying that meatpuppetry will be necessary and that Gnixon or Morphh will have to do it, as a legitimate recourse. Encouraging other editors to use meatpuppets is not acceptable either. Vandalizing other another editor's user page when you are in a disagreement with them is well beyond incivil. And constantly cursing at other people when an article's talk page should be a diplomatic zone does nothing to resolve disputes, but it does drive other editors away. Can you recognize that your behaviour in these areas could be improved to your and everyone's benefit? ··coelacan 01:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

no, what Gnixon and/or Morphh was doing was broadening the opinion pool which started some movement in the direction of reform. you repeatedly mischaracterize it. that's a falsehood. you first level another falsehood about me, and then you do it about Gnixon and Morphh. stop doing it. misrepresenting people is uncivil. none of us were meatpuppeting nor advocating it. those are your words and you have no right associating them with any of us. it's like picking a fight. it is picking a fight and to do that while calling the kettle black is hypocritical. r b-j 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rbj, I've warned you repeatedly on your talk page to please calm down. If you persist at this, you're almost certainly going to get blocked for persistant and constant violation of WP:CIVIL. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel

• DRV discussion now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26. -- ChrisO 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request that another administrator review Jayjg's behaviour in this matter.

Jayjg undid the actions of another administrator here, and imposed his own decision on the afd result. His actual decision may have been technically correct. However, I don't believe Jayjg should have been the person to close this afd, given his editing history on articles relating to Israel. CJCurrie 05:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you "merge" when the article is deleted, which would be a violation of the GFDL? hbdragon88 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it would be. --Iamunknown 05:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Even as such submission relative to the GFDL is often made, it's not, IMHO, as a matter of law, quite right. One may, of course, effect a page history merge, such that the revision history of the antecedent page may be safely deleted, but, as I recapitulated here, such merge is disfavored as exorbitantly time-consuming and generally unnecessary. The GFDL, though, does not require that a substantive revision history be kept; that is, a revision history that enumerates only those who are principal contributors but does not offer individual diffs to the contributions of each suffices (were the latter substantive history required for GFDL compliance, the transwiki of content from Wikipedia to, say, Wikibooks would be a bit unwieldy [or perhaps technically impossible]). It is only, AFAIK, for policy reasons—largely good ones, IMHO—that we proscribe merge-and-delete closures. (This comment is, of course, entirely irrelevant to the instant situation or, really, to anything we do here, but I think it necessary to point out that (I believe) that we are not compelled to do things as we do.) Joe 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posed a question for Jayjg at Doc's page, WjBscribe at Jayjg's page, maybe we should wait for further comments until we hear from em? --Iamunknown 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'd just noticed this myself and asked Jayjg to comment on it. It does seem very irregular. Better let him know that the matter has been raised here as well. WjBscribe 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has a long history of activism here with respect to Israeli issues. Fred Bauder 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• If the action was technically correct, a "tsk" is called for. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Upon whom? --Iamunknown 06:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well Jayjg's close cannot be correct because it goes against GDFL. We can't merge deleted content... WjBscribe 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I don't think Jayjg or Doc's close was correct, I don't see any consensus there on anything. Still, Doc closed it as he did, and isn't that what DRV's for, rather than to reverse the close unilaterally while calling it "nonsense"? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It should probably be taken to DRV, but as the delete/merge issue, the easy way to do handle that is to have it as a redirect with the edits in the history and then merge anything over. Still, this looks like it should go to DRV for now. I do have trouble seeing Doc's close given what the AfD looks like. JoshuaZ 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to be able to suggest that we wait to hear from both of them, but if we must I would suggest undeleting it and taking it to DRV, as that what should have been done had Jayjg not reversed Doc's actions. --Iamunknown 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sent to DRV. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Should it be history-only undeleted during the DRV? I'm not terribly comfortable doing that since I listed it, but it might be helpful for those commenting to be able to see history. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As was already noted, Jayjg was right to correct the mistake (I hope unintentional). If anyone, it is not he who needs to be admonished. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What mistake? Jayjg disagreed with the other admin and undid his decision. His decision might have been right or wrong (I have no idea since I have not reviewed the votes Given the discussion, it seems to me that the majority voted for merging the information to other articles-whether that majority formed a consensus needs more experience which I don't have). His decision I think was right and was done in complete good faith but he should have stated his point through DRV but it was not respectful. --Aminz 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see where it was noted and I strongly dispute the statement. I think it was plain wrong. --Iamunknown 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Note that it was marked as a "minor" change, too. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi fellows! I just restored the AfD back to Doc's closed version and the article as well, but I left the DRV header up there, so people visiting the article could comment. I've a problem though; I'm rather ignorant when it comes to templates and have no idea how to get the DRV header to reflect that the article is not, in fact, deleted. Any assistance on this would be both welcomed and appreciated! Thanks in advance! Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. (It's {{delrev}}, by the way.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. Thanks a lot to Seraphimblade for the help in getting the correct tag on the article! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the AFD result template to Talk:United States military aid to Israel. --Timeshifter 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I note many of the same editors who voted for "delete" of this article were involved in possibly illegally deleting another article about Israel. This one: Accusations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The closing admin comment on that page was "No consensus. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking. Jayjg has so messed up the naming and the redirecting of the article. The talk page is under a different name than the article name. See: Talk:Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Every attempt to stop the possibly illegal deletion of that article was reverted by the same tag-team crew of editors. I thought the problem was more a problem with the name. I thought "war crimes" was too strong for all the various alleged human rights violations. So I tried undeleting the article and changing the name to Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. But Jayjg again deleted the page, and redirected again to al-Aqsa Intifada. I have since decided that there are even better names. See my request for help at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict#Requests for NPOV help. Specific articles. Some possible names modeled after other article names. Names such as "Human rights in the Palestinian territories," or "Human rights under Israeli occupation," or "Human rights in Israeli-controlled territories" Tewfik initiated the AFD for the article. Same as for United States military aid to Israel. Jayjg backed up the deletion attempts on both articles. It now seems that both attempts at deletion violated wikipedia guidelines. Neither article had a consensus to delete. I personally think both articles are content forks, not POV forks. Both articles have too much material to be dealt with well in a few paragraphs in another article.--Timeshifter 09:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as an "illegal" deletion, only an improper one. I'm not going to pass judgment about whether the deletions you highlighted above were improper or not, but you're certainly right in saying that there are some very questionable things going on in the Arab-Israeli-related articles. As Fred Bauder rightly says, Jayjg has a long history of partisan activism in this area and it's not the first time he's acted in this way ([10]). A lot of the problems here appear to result from the activities of a clique of political activists; the same names come up over and over again. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's disappointing that some people appear to have taken a deletionist line on this. I've proposed a possible solution to the issue on DRV, which would establish a consistent series of articles on bilateral US military relations - see [11] for details. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been noted that Jayjg has a history of partisan activism in this area. The question is to what extent he is permitted to use his admin privilages to support his POV. Is reversing the closure of an already closed deletion debate permitted? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just note that some of the most bitter denunciations of Jayjg's preferred area of editing comes from (some of the) people who have been guilty of egregious POV-pushing in the same area themselves. My suggestion is that everyone in this thread just simmer down until Jay has had a chance to comment. I think that's fair to ask. IronDuke 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we Jay should explain his actions here. But I must point out that the only "bitter denunciations" I have seen here were the adhomeniam attacks in IronDuke's preceeding comment. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no ad hominem when no specific person is targeted. IronDuke is absolutely 100% correct: Quite a large number of the people who consistently attack Jayjg are people who have their own, opposing biases. And yet, of course, they are never wrong themselves, it's always "administrator abuse", or "illegal editing", or something or the other. It's always "jayjg is pushing his POV", never "Jayjg is reverting other's POV pushings". The fact is, Abu ali, you don't know whether Jayjg was using his admin privileges to support his POV or not: that is an assumption you are making, and as we're already discussing logical fallacy here, the assumption is ungrounded because you don't know what is going on in Jayjg's brain. Lets all just stop "assuming" things already, unless it's "good faith". That's the ONLY thing we should be assuming at the moment: it seems many of Jayjg's critics are forgetting that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more a question of Jayjg's judgment rather than his good faith. I don't doubt that Jayjg believed that he was acting in good faith. The real issue here is whether his actions were well judged. Let's confine the discussion to that issue, rather than straying into assumptions about his motives. -- ChrisO 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying: He believed he was acting in good faith, so therefore we should treat him in good faith. I'm only commenting as per above based on comments that don't treat him in good faith. I'm not touching the issue whether his actions were "well judged or not" because I frankly don't know enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've been away sleeping and working while all this blew up. I find the whole thing really quite baffling. I've asked jayig for an explanation of his actions: [12]. I most resent having my considered decision rolled back as 'nonsense' by a fellow. I'd have been happy to discuss the close with him and review any mistake I might have made. He only had to ask.--Doc^g 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think CJCurrie should have spoken to Jay before bringing it here, or better still, should have left it for Jayjg and Doc Glasgow to sort out between them. We should wait to hear what Jay has to say before throwing any more stones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm in discussing the issue publicly. It's preferable to let the community review this properly rather than rely on backroom deals. Nor should Jayjg's actions be off-limits to public discussion, particularly as this seems to be a recurrent pattern of behaviour on his part. There's no code of admin omertà and nor should there be. IMO, CJCurrie acted completely properly in bringing here. It's the best way of getting the input of people without axes to grind. -- ChrisO 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the sound of axes busily grinding that makes me say CJCurrie should have raised it with Jay directly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, there is an assumption of "back room deals". This should have been worked out between Doc and Jay first. Doesn't stop CJCurrie from bringing it up for public debate, but this is the Administrator noticeboard: this is not deletion review. CJCurrie was not personally harmed by an admin's action: he's got no standing to bring an "investigation" against Jayjg. CJCurrie's appropriate action was to bring this up at DRV, not here. The only person with standing to bring a complaint here is Doc, IMHO. If I'm not clear enough, let me be more so: if you have a problem with a deletion, you go to deletion review. That's what it is there for. Not here.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't much care what happens to the article (otherwise I'd be commenting in the DRV). But I don't think CJCurrie can be faulted for bringing this up here. Someone who disagreed with Doc's closing should take it to DRV, that's obvious. But Jayjg's overruling was so surprising that it's not obvious to take to DRV. It looks like the beginning of a wheel war, and that's a valid topic of discussion at ANI. I don't want to see users chastized for bringing up an issue that concerns them. It's not always obvious to every user what is the proper discussion area for every topic. Rather than saying someone has "no standing" to raise a topic, I'd rather users feel welcome to bring anything into the sunshine without being scolded for it. And I certainly don't accept the notion that only certain people can raise certain issues. — coelacan — 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well put coelacan!! I couldn't agree with you more. MetsFan76 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk pages communication can hardly be seen as "backroom deals," more like the first step. I also note that this article seems strikingly similar in many respects to the Military equipment of Israel entry I authored a few months ago (although, I do think there is room for a United States military aid to Israel one; maybe not in its current from, but as an encyclopedic subject). El_C 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ordinarily I'd agree, but there's too much POV-pushing, cliquery and outright bullying associated with Arab-Israeli topics on Wikipedia to make that approach a satisfactory one. This sort of thing seems to be a recurring, maybe even systemic, issue. In this particular case, admin powers appear to have been used in a brusque, unilateral and aggressive fashion in an immensely controversial topic area - not for the first time. No backroom deal is going to resolve the bad feeling that causes (it's not as if Doc was the only person involved - for the record, I'm wholly uninvolved in this incident). The only real solution here is for everyone (not just Jayjg) to de-escalate, act more thoughtfully and be restrained in using admin powers. Otherwise we're going to be back here yet again in the future with more of the same sort of complaints. -- ChrisO 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, do you really think it is appropriate to quote a misleadingly titled AN/I post which spends as much, if not more time discussing your alleged improper use of admin tools, in order to make whatever implication? It may not have been your intent, but it seems that this whole thing has gone in a "jump on Jay" direction, with much of the chorus resounding from those in content-disputes with Jay, or who are otherwise not speaking from the most neutral of positions. Tewfik^Talk 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may, but "jump on Jay"???? Jay's actions were completely out of line and he was called out on them. That's how it works for any other editor here. Why should Jay get treated any differently? MetsFan76 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. We're supposed to be accountable, after all. As I recall, Tewfik, didn't you call me out for my actions on AN/I a while back? That's how it works. -- ChrisO 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO, that seems to me to be the fault of the people involved with editing Arab-Israeli topics moreso than the administrators getting involved. I won't attempt to hide my POV on this: I believe that Israeli and Middle Eastern related articles are systemically attacked by certain editors pushing either a pro-Arab or anti-Israeli (depending on the article) POV. I also believe that when they are called out on their POV pushing by appropriate admin action, their immediate response is "This is just POV bias pushing by zionist admins trying to hate on Arabs." I've seen too many incidents where editors have been attacked and accused of things like "working for mossad" or being "cover ups for the Jews". Granted, there have been issues from the other direction as well, but much of this seems a case to me where you have a very loud, very vocal interest group pushing a POV, and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is biased, any admins involved are abusing their powers, etc. etc. It's disruptive, and now it is starting to find its way onto AN/I, which should be a bastion against such disruptive editing, and I'm sick of it. I'm not excusing anything that Jayjg may have done because I'm not that familiar with it, I'm just simply pointing out that you're right: there IS a systemic issue, and that all complaints against administrators in middle eastern topics, specifically arab-israeli topics, should be taken with a hefty grain of salt, and the claims advanced by editors on such topics be vetted before being assumed at face value. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree 100%. I don't think I'd disagree with a single word you've said, actually. But there's also a danger that admins involved in controversial topics can end up in a siege mentality and thinking that they're the last line of defence against a rabble of POV-pushers. I should know - I've been there myself as a veteran editor of Balkans articles, dealing with aggressive Serbian, Croatian, Albanian, Macedonian and Greek editors for nearly four years now. In the end, I came to believe that the way to deal with that sort of thing was to gain the trust of the mainstream editors on both sides by being fair, being willing to look at both sides of an argument, insisting on the use of reliable sources and being restrained in using admin tools (and deferring to other admins where it could be seen as improper for me to use my tools). It seems to have worked; I now get editors from the various sides regularly asking me for assistance in resolving issues. The bottom line is that one needs to build trust rather than stoke confrontation. -- ChrisO 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, SlimVirgin. I wish, however, that in the first place the conocerned administrator consulted the closing admin then, if the two were unable to reach an agreement and considered the disagreement based upon personal opinions but upon policy, taken it to DRV. --Iamunknown 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There should also be a United States military aid to Colombia, of course. El_C 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in my proposal at [13]. I've been trolling Jane's for relevant info and will have a go at creating US-Israel military relations as a prototype for a "US-<foo> military relations" series of articles covering a standardised range of topics including military aid. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this suggestion. -- ChrisO 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be very useful to have these sort of subarticles when the main -Relations article becomes too lengthy. El_C 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has responded here [14] and here [15] ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel-United States military relations

Following the AfD debate and DRV discussion on United States military aid to Israel, I've created Israel-United States military relations in an effort to resolve the outstanding issues. Key points:

• The new article has a wider scope, covering military relations in general, military aid, procurement, joint military activities and significant controversies.
• The article is intended to be the prototype for a series of x-United States military relations articles; I've written it around a template that can be used for any article of this type. See Talk:Israel-United States military relations for an explanation of the template.
• The article parallels the existing Israel-United States relations article as a spinout and expansion of the military relations aspects.
• All the content is referenced. :-) It's a combination of expanded relevant bits from Israel-United States relations, merged content from United States military aid to Israel and a substantial amount of new content, mostly from Jane's.

I've proposed a merger of United States military aid to Israel into Israel-United States military relations (although I should note that I've already merged everything I feel need to be merged).

Please take a look at the new article and leave comments on the talk page. -- ChrisO 10:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some sock puppet accusers are more equal than others

If I were to do this on someone else's talk page, I'd be banned. This editor? Above the wiki law judging from his/her posting history [16]. I'm not the first to get this sort of harassment on my talk pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperdown (talk • contribs)

Just a simple question I asked, based on your editing history. Your retort was as I expected.--MONGO 06:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That simple question is not generally tolerated from those of us who aren't playing ball with the corruption here. I'd be banned for it, you won't be. Checkuser me, and allow me the same leeway to request checkusers on editors who I know are sockpuppets without me being banned for doing so. Ain't gonna happen.Piperdown 06:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What corruption is that?--MONGO 07:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This question looks to me like it's a badly worded question, buit one which needs to be asked (in a nicer way). The wording What's your real account (the bold there I put in for emphissis) looks to me like an uncivil way to ask the question. Od Mishehu 07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the question, don't answer it. If you don't want questions like that, you should really attempt to be more like a new user, it isn't hard to do so. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow... the words being uttered here quite surprise me.... Apparently, it has become wrong for new wikipedians to know what they're doing. Some people actually DO READ all the rules and guidelines. Thats what they're there for. So that we don't get too many inexperienced people needing constant. A person who complied with guidelines and made himself familiar with policies before editing is now a sock puppet accusent? MONGO, you really shouldn't bang up people's edit history just to say they're a sock puppet. Has he been disruptive? Has he shown any signs of being disruptive? Try to be a bit more civil, and don't go up to random user accusing them of sock puppetry with no valid proof. Perhaps if you had asked the question in a more polite manner, such as... "Your knowledge of wikipedia, seems to be quite profound, as based on your first edit here. Any reason why?". Instead of instigating someone and spiting them for the response that you deem as inappropriate simply based on the phrasing of the question you asked them in the first place, remain civil, and don't BITE. Floria L 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPADE--MONGO 07:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Floria, I think Piperdown's remark above concerning "the corruption here" is indeed disruptive, as is this AN/I. MONGO was not WP:BITE, and neither was my comment here [17], one month ago and unrelated to MONGO's concerns. --Mantanmoreland 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Systematic wikilinking of years

Earthelemental99 (talk · contribs) is wikilinking all years in articles en masse, appearing to start from letter Z. While it was disputed area in the past, I believe that WP:DATE still discourages that practice. Should we take an action? Duja► 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing any other Bobblewik-like things? - David Gerard 10:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT, no. Just wikilinking every year in sight, including references, image captions etc. Duja► 11:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just rollback and warn whenever necessary. Sole year linking had previously been discussed (see various Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) archives), and while there isn't consensus to remove on sight, it became agreed they should only be relevant in the context (e.g. 2004 in sports). This is highly inconsistent with that, and is likely done by an unauthorized bot. Michaelas¹⁰ 11:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back and warned in mildest terms I managed to come upon. Huh, most of his previous activity was changing British spellings to American... Duja► 14:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Bobblewik was delinking years (and being rolled back). Thincat 13:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He's still doing it. JuJube 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He is still delinking years, but not enmasse. And why shouldn't he delink years if there is no context? David D. (Talk) 20:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He's not delinking years, he is linking them. JuJube 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

He/she is now reverting all the edits that Duja made. Strange. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back and warned in strongest possible terms. I'm sorry that it included a bit of collateral damage, but it's difficult to separate trees from the forest. Let someone please take an eye on him, as I won't be around during the next 5 days. Duja► 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tossed a 24 hours block, and will put an eye on him afterwards. It's getting ridiculous. Michaelas¹⁰ 09:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikignosis block for legal threat

Resolved

 – But question of disruption may remain DES ^(talk) 16:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked WikiGnosis (talk · contribs) for continuing to make legal threats. The latest was this edit which used a cutesy rhyming thing to try and get around the whole NLT issue. Specifically, the user had been repeatedly warned about legal threats (see his/her talk page, plus an item on Durova (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk) so he/she described a behavior someone was doing as "starts with L, rhymes with bible". I've read this as a legal threat, and invite scrutiny of the block. I've counseled the user on his/her talk page to review WP:NLT and appeal once he/she is willing to commit to abiding by WP:NLT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Good job. Chilling effects are bad. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon further review, the user had been going around deleting ANYTHING potentially critical claiming Jimbo Wales authorizes him to. This includes things that wouldn't even fall under the scope of WP:BLP. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For example [18] and [19]. Also, after checking some of his edits, I seem to recall having run across his name on AN/I before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The user doesn't appear to be interested in appealing the block, and has characterized being blocked for WP:NLT as a joke. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, status change, the user would now like to appeal the unblock. If anyone has a chance to check it out, it's here. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You block him for making legal threats and the one edit you provide is merely him asking questions? There is no way that edit is a legal threat. I fully agree that it is a "travesty of interpretation of "legal threats" rule". Having said that you really just need to provide more links to his edits because he is obviously a trouble maker, but if you are going to ban him at least make it so it can stick because that reason is pretty much a joke considering what he posted.--Dacium 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia "real" world. I have no desire to work within such a dysfunctional community." I denied based on that sentence. John Reaves (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You really need to go back on that. The reason he made that statement was because of the way he was banned. If we agree he didn't make legal threat, then he wouldn't have been banned and he probably wouldn't have felt that way. And what does that comment have to do with the ban he was contesting anyway?--Dacium 15:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be the two main "legal threats":

"I'm very confused about how things work on Wikipedia. It appears that it's okay to call other people names that are in no way "nice", but if someone mentions that this sort of behavior could be considered (I won't say the word, but it starts with the letter "L" and it rhymes with "Bible"), that is an "indef blockable" offense? Are you taking sides in the matter, and challenging only the after-the-fact "legal threats"? Or, have you been equal in counseling restraint among those who use inflammatory labels to malign other users?" (diff)

"The words "stalker", "terrorist", and "criminal" have been used above to describe Daniel Brandt. If these are true statements, why haven't law enforcement authorities been notified to prosecute Brandt on charges? If it's because these statements are untrue, then that's libel, folks. You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone, or conversely, you're not doing the world any favors by typing on Wikipedia while you should be contacting the FBI. Make up your minds." (diff)

I don't agree that these were legal threats, at least not as I understand the term "legal threats", any more than the Wikipedia policies against defamation or copyright violations are "legal threats", or than an admin's warning not to link to pirated "warez" or other blatant copyvios would be a "legal threat". A statement about the law, or about what actions break the law, is not a threat to sue or file charges; it says nothing about the writer's own intentions.

See also User talk:Chairboy#WikiGnosis block. -- Not trying to "wikilawyer", Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NLT#Legal complaints: A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".

Apply this to the above texts by WikiGnosis. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

View WikiGnosis's contributions. Nearly half of his entire contribution set says "Removing negative material per Jimbo Wales": misapplying the WP:BLP policy to remove ANY negative material, sometimes material that's not even negative (For instance, a person having cancer is apparently negative to him, as is a football player owning a restaurant after retiring from football). The argument that these statements are tantamount to libel, consistent with his prior accusation of libel, and disruptive editing, warrants a legal threat block. I close with a reiteration of one of his statements You're not doing Wikipedia any favors by libeling someone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 11:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate in turn, Swatjester: "A polite, coherent complaint [...] is not a 'legal threat'". Stating that one is deleting material from an article about a living person (not oneself), because it was defamatory to the subject, is giving a reason in line with WP:BLP, a policy we have from Jimbo and the WMF legal counsel -- and citing that reason is not a "legal threat". If the concern's misplaced in a particular case, that's an error, but still not a threat. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has now accused the admin who reviewed and denied the unblock request of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point in this edit. This does not seem to be an editor operating in good faith, Ben. In regards to your concerns above, accusing someone of libel (which this user _has_ done) is a direct legal threat. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously don't know why it isn't clear to you that neither of those posts is a legal threat. Accusing someone of libel is not a legal threat, it is at best a personal attack. If he said he was going to take legal action, sue etc. then it would be a legal threat but what he said clearly isn't.--Dacium 15:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for violating WP:NLT when, as far as he (or I or some others) could see, he hadn't violated it. He has responded with comments including: "I hope that this page becomes the laughing-stock of the non-Wikipedia 'real' world" and referring to this as "a dysfunctional community." His response has been cited back to him as the reason for declining an unblock. I think he's got a justified complaint. Following WP:BLP should not be a blockable offense, he had not violated WP:NLT (as the quoted sentence makes explicit), and to keep him blocked because he thinks the block's reasoning laughable (or Wikipedia dysfunctional) seems a bit pointy to me as well. Criticism of Wikipedia, its admins, or their actions is not good reason to keep someone blocked, and issuing blocks or declining unblocks for bad reasons seems to me capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive of the trust which is the foundation of any voluntary community. I myself find this incident terribly disappointing. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With the utmost respect, your disappointment is secondary to our responsibility to protect editors from legal threats. You and I disagree on whether or not repeated accusations to the effect of "you are libeling" is a legal threat, but to characterize that as a capricious, irresponsible, and disruptive seems to be going a bit over the top. The block is not because he's critical, it's because he's made repeated oblique legal threats, something that is not tolerated. I believe you've constructed a straw man argument by suggesting that criticism of admins is why he was blocked, and I hope you'll reconsider. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that WikiGnosis has been "polite" or "coherent", but I don't see that he's made any legal threats either. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. The post in question may have been trolling but I don't see a legal threat. Saying "these statements may be libelous" is no a de facto legal threat- particularly as you can't sue for the libel of someone else. I think we need to be a bit sharper on identifying legal threats, "I will sue you", "I am thinking of suing you", "withdraw that comment or I will sue you", "I am taking legal advice" type comments may all be legal threats. But I'm not convinced a legal threat was made here. In particular WikiGnosis seems to have valid concerns about the thread he refers to- Daniel Brandt (a real, living person, whatever Wikipedians may think of him) was described with very strong labels and had actions attributed to him that were in fact done by third parties. Advice to be cautious was appropriate. That said, I am unfamiliar with WikiGnosis- if he's generally around to cause trouble and has a history of trolling, I'm fine with the block. But I see no legal threat- covert or otherwise. WjBscribe 16:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll unblock. If the user is trolling, I'd prefer a separate block that reflects that, but consensus seems to be leaning towards the text in question not being a legal threat. I appreciate the feedback, folks. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the aboe quotes are legal threats. i have seen others say things like "If you add that satemtn to the articel it is libel" and no one calls it a leagal threat. it my be uncivil, it may be impolite, and it may be disruptive. I haven't reviewed WikiGnosis's contributions in detail. From the above descriptions, a case could be made that he is editing disruptively. But I simply fot see "You are libeling person X" or even 'You are libeling me" as a legal threat, unless there is at least an implication of "and I will sue if you don't stop". Saying that soemone else might take legal action is not IMO a leagel threat, at least unless there is an implication that the parson saying (writing) this will urge the third party to do so. I think that the blocks for violation of WP:NLT should be lifted. if anyone wants to argue for a block for disruption, or other improiper actions, that will be another discussion, or perhaps an RFC might be the way to go. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I now see at least three editors who don't think this block is warrented, at least not for the reason given. I urge the blocking admin to undo the block, before someone else does. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already unblocked, you may have missed my 16:08 message above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did miss it, but I've seen it now. The matter is over for me, unless you want my assistance in dealing with trolling or disruption on the part of this user, which i will provide if you wish. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note another discussion below, different people, identical issue: #Legal threat from User:Kelly Martin. Do we need to hold a workshop on what does or does not constitute a legal threat? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless, Wikignosis should be blocked for disruptive editing: if the legal threat block is lifted, I will lay a temp reblock for disruptive editing (indef would not be called for, though longer than normal would be appropriate given the user's history of being brought up here). By the way, I'm sure this workshop would go over the concept of a chilling effect, no? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, the block was lifted by the blocking admin. And now you've blocked him again. I think this was somewhat premature; WikiGnosis hasn't been the most civil of users, but you have to remember that he was mistakenly blocked as a sockpuppet of JB196. I don't really see the reason for this block. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A one-week block for civility? After being blocked indefinitely? I'm afraid we are going to effectively run off WikiGnosis and, while my interaction with the editor has not been the best, I don't want that to happen. Other users are much less civil and don't get a one-week block. I don't endorse it. --Iamunknown 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, can I possibly be reading you right? You're blocking him now for issues prior to the block that was just lifted, not for anything he's done since that block? How is that preventative and not punitive? How do you know what he has or has not learned from the experience of the first block? I don't think this is how blocks are supposed to be used. It's quite possible someone could go through all our histories to find some flaw in our past behavior that we were never blocked for back then, and block us for it now, but that too would be punitive not preventative -- it wouldn't be directed at stopping present misbehavior. Neither is the block you've just imposed. You've pointed to no present misbehavior which must be stopped. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

To a point where we run off WikiGnosis? It's reality check time: WikiGnosis is a classic instance of disruptive editing. I lifted an indef block on this probable JB196 sockpuppet/meatpuppet as a gesture of good faith because this editor claimed to want to participate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination. Instead of going there the user immediately came to my user page with a rude post, then followed up with resumption of the account's old borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation and insulted the project when another sysop reblocked. This account's main contribution to the project has been to misapply WP:BLP. New users don't behave this way. This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned. Durova^Charge! 22:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The "JB196 sockpuppet" accusation was retracted. If you want to revisit that issue, or make a new accusation, please present new evidence. In any case, that was not the basis offered for the present block.

"borderline legal threat language about the Daniel Brandt situation" -- the two passages discussed held no such threat; they made a valid point about accusations of crime ("stalker", "terrorist", "criminal") against a living person, that if false these are defamatory and in violation of WP:BLP. As WP:NLT#Legal complaints states explicitly, such a complaint is not a "legal threat". And why are we revisiting this issue, when this too was retracted?

"This is obviously a returning sockpuppet of someone who's already banned." This may be obvious to you; it is not obvious to me. In the absence of some clear showing, let's consider this username's edits on their own merit, shall we? WP:BLP is supposed to be followed, and this user appears to be trying to do that. If he's doing it wrong, then show him where and how he's doing it wrong. Simply blocking him for trying to discourage defamation seems to me a very bad public message to send. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put this through WP:RFCU. Durova^Charge! 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ben: the original block was for the legal threat. There would have been an overlapping block for disruptive editing, however I chose not to issue it because of Naconkantari's block. Since the legal threat issue was nullified, that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited, and the 1 week block is preventative, to stop any more misapplications of BLP and other disruptive edits. By simply removing the legal threat block and not addressing the disruptive editing issue, you're basically giving him a free pass to continue being disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Naconkantari's block" ? The only blocks on this user were by Durova, Chairboy, and you.

  "that does not change at all the fact he disruptively edited" -- Please specify, as you haven't yet done so here or on the user's talk page. Note Akhilleus's attempts below to guess what you're referring to; I have had no better luck.

  "misapplications of BLP" -- How and where has this user misapplied BLP? On his talk page he argues compellingly that in specific instances he properly applied BLP (and Jimbo's comment "This is exactly the kind of negative information without valid sources that I am strongly encouraging people to remove on sight."). But if he's mistaken in how to apply policy, perhaps you could begin by explaining his error to him, then (if he continues) warning him, before proceeding to a block. Frankly, I'd like you to explain his error to me too, because I seem to have made the same error in reading WP:BLP and Jimbo's comments, so this user's edits not only seem good-faith to me, but also well-based in policy (and journalistic ethics). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be troublesome about this, but I'm still having trouble understanding the block. If "disruptive editing" means WikiGnosis' behavior after getting blocked on Apr. 19, it's natural to be irritated after being misidentified as a sock. If, on the other hand, the block is for his edits on Mar 31, when he deleted a bunch of material on BLP grounds, I have trouble seeing what the problem is. First of all, that was a month ago. Second, I'm not sure those edits qualify as "disruptive"--WikiGnosis' edit summaries are odd, but he is removing unsourced material, some of which is arguably negative or controversial--such as this edit, for example. At any rate, I don't see any discussion or warnings on WikiGnosis' talk page about those edits, and aside from one more edit on Apr. 19 I don't see that he's done any more BLP edits. So it's hard to say that WikiGnosis was about to go on a rampage.

Now, if you think he's a sock of a banned user here to troll us, I'd say either figure out who the sockmaster is, and block him on those grounds, or just wait for the checkuser to come in: WP:RFCU page on "MyWikiBiz". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:CINEGroup

I just blocked him for 24 hours for WP:3RR violations on Walther P22. But as he has already accused me of being involved in the editing dispute (I am not) and wikistalking I thought I'd bring it here for review. The diffs for the 3RR violation are on his talk page. I'll be honest, this kid is getting on my last nerve. Dina 18:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=112994770

BTW, that post was made by an anon user, who later went by 69.132.199.100 or CineWorld. Notice anything similar? Addendum: 69.132.199.100 was blocked for 6 months by NewYorkBrad. --Ispy1981 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Supporting the block and counting. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has since made it to my user talk page somehow, for any of you who are watching, you may want to weigh in there (I'm resigning myself to a few days of my usertalk page being a public forum for this incident).⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told this was here, you will see my ip address is not that ip address (69.132.199.100) or anywhere near it. Thanks though ISpy, i don't know what led you here other then the fact that you have added information to wikipedia articles before that I have reverted and it's been upheld by others. CINEGroup 04:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Say wha? I looked at your talk page. No one mentioned anything about this page on there. Also, which of my edits have you reverted. Or am I a sockpuppet, too?

--Ispy1981 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you don't know how to look at edits in wikipedia, and no, your not going to try and drag me into another edit war with you. CINEGroup 08:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

CINEGroup may be referring to Leebo's remark at User talk:CINEGroup, "I've asked for administrator assistance at WP:ANI in moving your talk page back to where it belongs." That says WP:ANI is here, though it doesn't mention this particular dispute. Note: given the accidental move of the page to Usertalk:CINEGroup, I think these may be the mistakes of a new user (account created 17 April 2007).

Apologies to CINEGroup, I have done some format-fixing on his reply above: (1) removed his full quote of Ispy1981's comment, since the original was already immediately above it; (2) removed the blank space preceding his reply, since that "coded" his text. Further indications of a new user. Please don't bite him. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppet theatre

Currently, there is a push on by several editors to include mention of an album by Lee Nysted in the article on Matt Walker (drummer), who purportedly played on said album. This is a continuation of a situation begun at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lee Nysted Experience, during which Mr. Nysted, backed up by several other editors, attempted to argue that through virtue of a large presence on Google , he and his music were notable and should be included in the encyclopedia. At the time, it was noted that a lot of places sell the album, there are many mentions of it on sites that generally allow user-submitted information (much of which involved a press release), and various other techniques that, IMO, looked a lot like search-engine result inflation. (Links such as this, where mention of a song and links to Nysted’s album can be found in the comments section of an unrelated blog, for example.)

The AFD led to a checkuser case, discussed at AN, which came back with a positive result. He and several socks were blocked, but Nysted then went on and was unblocked with a promise to behave himself. He then went on and started a short campaign against the CheckUser system, discussed again at AN, that resulted, in early March, with his being indef-blocked once again.

Now, we have several users who have surfaced and are trying to get Nysted’s album noted on the aforementioned Matt Walker’s page. These users, notably including 67.186.123.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 63.93.197.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and 12.35.96.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – two of which resolve to A.G. Edwards, an investment firm that Nysted has previously claimed association with (and, in fact, I’ve managed to find correlating evidence to, on the second page of this PDF). 67.186.123.21 (which resolves to Lake Forest, IL) has signed at various times as “WebmasterSD,” who has now registered an account. A look through the discussion at Talk:Matt Walker (drummer) will give an indication of how this discussion has gone. The editors and IPs have argued that a discography should not be concerned with notability (despite the disc not being mentioned on Walker’s own page, according to one editor), have declared editors who have previously interacted with Nysted as not being neutral and failed to assume good faith, have suggested that all the editors against Nysted are part of some mysterious MySpace cabal, and generally conducted themselves much as Nysted and his supporters have in the past (as indicated in this deleted rant. WebmasterSD has also commented numerous times that he “practices law in Illinois,” which I suggest is an attempt at a chilling effect on the discussion.

Previous ANI discussions of this current wave are here and here.

I bring this to the attention of the noticeboard because, while I have just filed a checkuser request, I suspect it may come back inconclusive because of the company IPs involved. It may require an uninvolved admin or two to look through the evidence as to whether this is in fact sock/meatpuppetry and to make some decisions regarding how to deal with the editors involved. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I too would urge at least a couple of admins to look into this as well, preferably some who have no previous interaction with Nysted or related content. I've been dealing with this since yesterday and apparently the fact that I previously had interaction with Nysted (lifted an autoblock; discussed AFD canvassing by another editor related to Mario Party articles), semi-protected the article, and opened an RFC makes me not an objective party here. I'd welcome another set of eyes here and review of my actions at Matt Walker (drummer) if need be.--Isotope23 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's more going on than meets the eye, this seems like nothing more complicated than self-promotion and block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right... it's not complicated (the A.G. Edwards IPs are at the very least clear meatpuppetry and quite possibly block evasion as well; the other IP editor quite likely knows Nysted), but given the fact that it is being claimed that I'm not objective and that I have some sort of axe to grind here I'd appreciate another admin taking a look and taking whatever action they feel is appropriate.--Isotope23 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked WebmasterSD and given the IPs 24 hour blocks. They're all sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Nysted, and since he's been indef blocked already, this is block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick work. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, good call. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, error please? Except for one critical error in your case and in your judgment call here: People from around the world are buying and listening to music created by Nysted and Walker (286,000 so far.) Now Nysted is releasing a second album (soon.) Will you continue to block evidence of notable people playing together on albums because you feel a need to do it "for the doing it sake?" You are all involved and all have distinct bias as to the way you think. Even in the face of reality, you choose to live in a vacuum. Block the world? Hardly. All of us, in the entertainment industry, have access to unlimited IP sites and proxies. It might be wise to negotiate as it says in the policy guidelines before congratulations are in order?

By the way? Nysted is in Aruba. I doubt if he has actually ever seen any of this. That is irony isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.123.21 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

If Nysted actually gets some press that indicates he's worth being included as a notable musician, as determined under the WP:MUSIC guidelines, then hey, good stuff. If he wants to get some press, he should play some gigs, get some reviews, and build interest that way. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Feeding Trolls via defcon Template

I am posting this here to get some community input on this. I know there is no oiffical policy preventing naming specific disruptive editors in the DEFCON meter, but I find it in bad taste. I have asked editors to not do so, however several of them believe it appropriate to add the specific vandals name to the highly visible DEFCON meter. My arguments against it are 1.) the defcon meter is highly visible, so chances the vandal will know he is getting attention are high. 2.) just egging the vandal on with "notoriety" will not encourage them to quit. I however am posting this question here to get some community input. If the community deems it appropriate to include specific vandal names in the template, then I will drop the matter. Until then, I believe it will cause more trouble than good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in the spirit of WP:DENY. I mean, the best option would be to just delete the thing, but unfortunately people like it. – Steel 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I sort of like the Defcon template in general, but I agree, individual vandals should never be named on it. Dina 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chrislk02 ..denying them is the best answer and we dont want to motivate the vandals, the names of vandals shouldn't be added to the Defcon..--Cometstyles 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support the deletion of the DEFCON templates.↔NMajdan•talk 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am getting to that point. When it gets elevated to level 1 or 2 because of socks, or vandals, that just empowers them. However, it is highly debated and I doubt it would pass a TFD. All I am asking is for input on never including specific vandal names. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should never use vandal's names on the defcon template. It does more good then harm normally, but when you add in names that opens up a can of worms.--Wizardman 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support an MFD on the defcon templates, although I'm aware the likely result is "no consensus". But I think that we can muster a consensus that particular vandals should not be named. That can only make things worse. — coelacan — 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we should add specific usernames to the defcon, however Real96 left a message their saying about disruptive socks causing trouble and it was then at level 2, that was appropriate but I dont think it is necessary to specify certain names.Tellyaddict 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Wdefcon}} getting deleted won't be happening (it was just speedily deleted and then restored, with a big brouhaha about it, the other day). I don't think that its mere existence goes against WP:DENY, but naming them most certainly does. 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, it shouldn't have been speedied. I don't think that precludes an MFD discussion though. — coelacan — 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's silly to send it through TfD again; it's already survived four times. As near as I can tell, arguments for its deletion range in variety from "I don't like it" to unfounded speculation that the vandals are actually coordinating their attacks because of the template. At most, we'll get another "no consensus" result. I think we've all got better things to do with our time. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Chris. I've seen this in action recently with a high-profile sock and, yes, WP:DENY works. Naming them only empowers and encourages them - Alison ☺ 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take this discussion to the talk page. We are NOT discussing this silly thing here. Unless you want an administrator to delete it, this has nothing to do with admins.--Doc^g 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be up for deleting the whole thing, but agree that naming individuals on it is definitely a bad idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that template talk:wdefcon is the place for this discussion now. ^☈coelacan 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The only reason I brought it up here is I had users question my serious requests that they not post vandal names on the thing. I wanted to make sure that i was making the right request, and wanted some input from other editors and administrators. I am fairly sure had I posted this on the defcon talk page I would have gotten minimal input from editors experienced in dealing with trolls. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, I agree. I was just noting that Doc had a good point; I and other editors had started to move the discussion toward deletion, but this really isn't the place for that. ··coelacan 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• Whilst I appreciate the sentiment and support the removal of names from the template, I don't think half measures are appropriate here. Let's just delete the silly thing. It's an attractive nuisance and we're fools for hosting it and permitted it to be maintained. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic soapboxing and disruption by User:The Anonymous One

User:The Anonymous One has been here a short time and has accumulated an impressive collection of admonitions and "final" warnings from myself and a plethora of other editors.

His general modus operandi is to post anti-Catholic soapboxing comments on the Humanities Ref Desk. He has also along the way managed to insult Islam too (see my warning on his talk page).

His responses to my warnings clearly indicates that this user cannot see that his editing is disruptive or offensive, rendering the chances of improvement of behaviour minimal.

I have suggested to him that he does not post on any religious topic, as he's incapable of avoiding giving offence, but he has ignored this and, indeed, reposted deleted objectionable posts about Catholicism on the Ref Desk.

Admin attention will be gratefully welcomed. --Dweller 08:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with Dweller. As I have said repeatedly, the questions posed by this user are incidental to the manifesto he pursues at quite tedious length, usually on the Humanities Desk. It is soapboxing of the worst kind. Clio the Muse 08:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the above, this comment [20] was particularly offensive.--Mantanmoreland 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

please review this block

All that is a problem, and I've no doubt that the user is past the point of WP:POINT. What bothers me even more is the injection of original research into articles, and I warned them for this back on the 16th. I've now blocked for 31 hours for repeated NOR violation, specifically citing end times. Please review this block, and feel free to undo or adjust it if I am afk and not answering. ··coelacan 08:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block (obviously). I'll be happy to continue keeping an eye on this user if/when he returns. --Dweller 11:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support this block. I spent a long time reading through this user's contributions (so-called), and it's really quite a body of bad work with bad intentions. --TotoBaggins 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support the block: The fellow attempts to tie up the Reference Desks with polemics, and he inserts polemics into article? Oh, this is not good and not a good sign for a productive wiki-life at all. Utgard Loki 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that he's simply asking a question rather than directly insulting Catholics. Maybe he's a Catholic himself who wants to know how to refute arguments made against the Catholic faith? --BlarghHgralb 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, the questions should have been phrased accordingly. There are ways to taunt and to offend religious feelings without "directly insulting" readers. Whether the user in question is Catholic himself doesn't change anything. One way of adding insult to injury is to stubbornly and repeatedly ask taunting questions on the same denomination of faith (we've seen this happen to various beliefs at the reference desk), questions based on false premises, questions alluding to what would be directly insulting. Queries of this kind are usually given a decent amount of WP:AGF at first, but when the same registered user (with dubious editing history in general) taunts us over and over again, it is seen and felt as disruption.---Sluzzelin talk 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't blocked for the Reference Desk disruption, which I have not really evaluated, but only for the WP:NOR violation in article space. ··coelacan 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Daniel Lyons stub.

The user Socal dan2000 - Talk - contribs - keeps adding nonsense - to the Daniel Lyons Stub. SO far I reverted his edits twice and I am wary that a third edit would break the 3RR rule. I have also added three warnings too his talk page. In his edit summary(s) he claims he is Daniel Lyons (the author) - if he is then he is not following the guidlines in WP:AUTO. However I strongly suspect that he isn't Daniel Lyons the author - and just someone else called Daniel Lyons. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 09:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted his third 'R'. Anchoress 09:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clear nonsense/vanalism with WP:BLP issues thrown in. 3RR does not apply here. Go to it!--Doc^g 09:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Clarification Doc - Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

DRV sockery

There's been quite the flood of new accounts posting to this DRV in the last few hours. Something to keep an eye on. WarpstarRider 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. They've been clearly identified and I seriously doubt the closing admin will pay them any attention. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusing...

Sgthenno (talk · contribs), 63336AQA (talk · contribs), and 217.205.250.160. Is it just me or is something really weird going on in here...? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bunch of school kids being stupid by the look of it.--Dacium 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the user's only contributions to date have been editing that page for spamvertising purposes, with nothing else to the project, it's pretty blatant and inappropriate for the User namespace. I've speedied that page per CSD G11. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Baronetcies articles

Sockpuppetry on Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet AfD

David Lauder has just !voted on this AfD, despite earlier !voting from IP 81.151.246.175. This IP has previously edited the Morham article, and the only other contributors to that article were David Lauder and a bot. The IP is a British Telecom in the London area, as can be seen here. David Lauder uses a British Telecom IP, as can be seen here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I deny this bonkers charge. I live in Scotland and if you look at the map shown for the location of one of the IP addresses you will see they suggest the stretch of coastline between Edinburgh and Newcastle! (Second last pointer, above). I have no doubt British Telecom service more people than myself and on similar IPs; and probably they have a central server. Yes, I set up the article on Morham and I am pleased indeed that someone has added something intelligent to it. Must it always be me? The complainant is a very consistant supporter of User:Vintagekits, and my personal feeling is that these people do not act at all in WP:Good faith. If they really have a seriously worthwhile complaint about the vast amount of effort I have contributed to Wikipedia I would be interested to see it. But I do not see going around making every attempt to eliminate from Wikipedia those they have taken a dislike to as a legitimate occupation. My work and any comments is there for all to see and evaluate. David Lauder 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's more evidence to prove your use of IPs to try and !votestack in discussions. How about this one in another AfD you were involved in? Or how about this one in a discussion involving honorific prefixes you were involved in? There's also another edit from that IP pushing the POV you're always trying to push.

I assume it's just coincidence that the IP edited Morham, an article that's only ever been edited by you and a bot? I assume it's just coincidence that the IP supported the retention of the article about your close friend User:Kittybrewster? The duck test says otherwise. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the evidence does appear fairly conclusive that you voted twice in that AFD, David Lauder. I would counsel you not to do so again. In fact, I'd recommend that everyone involved be on their best behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now looked again at this and the BT evidence shows that the posts to which you refer could have been made by anyone within their 81.128.0.0 to 81.159.255.255 ranges. I have no interest in the other subjects which are associated with the "fairly conculsive evidence" you refer to.David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

David, please note that Matthew Brown (User:Morven), who commented above, is a member of the arbitration committee and has checkuser access, meaning he can examine the server logs to determine which IPs you have edited from while logged in to your account. Unless he wishes to clarify that he was speaking as an ordinary editor and looking only at the comments in this thread, I believe it is safe to assume that the "evidence" to which he refers is the checkuser report of your recent contributions. I don't care whether you admit what you have been caught doing, or just go away quietly. However, people are watching, and if you do this again you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Thatcher131 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there conclusive evidence somewhere of me actually being disruptive on Wikipedia? David Lauder 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came across this worrying edit.[21] The editor who actually made the edit defended himself by saying that it was a hurried cut and paste, but I notice there was time to change the target's name. I feel this is sufficent to initaite an RfCU. -Will Beback · † · 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

But who was this edit by? I assume you are not blaming me?David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was the result of a checkuser showing it to be very likely indeed that the IP edits and David Lauder (talk · contribs) edits before and after the IP edits were from the same person. I would note that there has been much in the way of dubious behavior during this AFD from other users as well. I'd encourage all users to keep behaviour civil and avoid sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, encouraging your friends to come vote, harassing other contributors, etc etc. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the contribs of Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) bears some examination. He appears to be quite forthright in opinions and have a particular dislike for kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See, for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/A-class review/Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet. --kingboyk 13:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• He already has a proven sockpuppet- User:DownDaRoad- this account is blocked indefinitely. Astrotrain 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. I am almost flattered to be the subject of so much passion. But I have initiated (I hope) a request for an IPCheck at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Vintagekits. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • After having found one instance of sockpuppeting on this AFD, I'd checked pretty much everyone else. Nobody else is doing it in such a blatant way. However, a lot of new accounts or long-dormant accounts have contributed; I suspect a call to action on an external site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up

I would draw to your attention the developing scenario whereby User:Vintagekits and his chum 303 are leading the pack in a variety of attacks against User:Kittybrewster who is a gentleman and a scholar and has contributed countless hours of industry to Wikipedia. Regardless of Kittybrewster's obvious standing in the world, the Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet article has now been put up for deletion: in my opinion a clear exercise in spite. (See [[22]]) Those who support the article are sneered and jeered at. David Lauder 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out the obvious sockpuppetry, like when you !voted twice yesterday David. As for the countless hours of industry contributed to Wikipedia, see WP:COIN. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Unproved, and irelevant to my complaint. I am concerned that you deride the efforts of others. Sir William has always declared anything under WP:COIN. David Lauder 11:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you see WP:COIN you'll see that's not true. Perhaps I should also mention User:Counter-revolutionary, who was made personal attacks against a number of people commenting on the AfD? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please address your own activities here. David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of addressing your attempt at mudslinging given you have provided absolutely no evidence. This is not the first time you have tried such a tactic against an editor, for example see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no limits to complaints on these noticeboards as far as I know. I have given an exceptional example in one AfD. Another is the AfD on the Auditor of the Exchequer in Scotland, Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). Any administrator taking a few minutes to look at these two AfD's alone will get a very clear taste of what you are about. David Lauder 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that related issues are also being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Arbuthnot_family__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D. (It would appear that the discussion there is rather more constructive, btw). --kingboyk 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Novosoft Handy Backup

If anyone has a minute, I'd like for someone else to take a look at the Novosoft Handy Backup page. An anonymous user showed up today and changed the address from handybackup.com to handybackup.net. These are two different companies. As far as I've been able to tell, the company that uses handybackup.com was the original company, and the company that uses handybackup.net is a company that pirated the original software and design and is selling it as its own. The anon's first edit was to blank the talk page...which had also mentioned the difference between the two companies. I know I could still change the address back again without violating 3rr, but I'd like someone else to look into it in case the information I've found about these companies is incorrect. --OnoremDil 11:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess that's one way to take care of it. Thanks. --OnoremDil 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User juggling accounts/IP address to evade 3RR

After I warned 202.169.207.211 (talk · contribs) that they were close to violating 3RR in Talk:The Edge (radio station), ([23] [24]), I noticed that Asasinz (talk · contribs) reverted my edit ([25]). And then I received a warning from Bhowden (talk · contribs) on my talk page ([26]).

It's more than odd that three users were working to preserve a nonsense edit and appears to be a case of a user sockpuppeting to get around 3RR. For further evidence:

• [27] by Bhowden (talk · contribs)
• [28] by Asasinz (talk · contribs)
• [29] by 202.169.220.108 (talk · contribs) (same IP range, and edit summary pretty much in the same language as this edit.)

At the very least, the user needs to stop the sockpuppetry. Ytny (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Clohnyn

Does anyone disagree with me if I say that I believe that Clohnyn (talk · contribs) is a sock related to Encyclopedia Dramatica? The first contributions were to nominate Wookiepedia for deletion, comparing it to ED as a rationale. Another AFD nomination of (here) was a vicious attack on the subject. User has not been warned yet, but the editing pattern does not look typical for a newbie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and closed the AFD debates, as it was clear that this account's only purpose was to cause disruption. Revert me if anyone thinks I'm wrong. I'll block the account in a minute; a review would be much appreciated. (It hasn't edited in a while, though.) Sean William 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support block- tendentious editing at best, trolling at worse. But why do we have an article about Wookieepedia? WjBscribe 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think its crazy harsh. Some someone AFD's two articles, does a few minor edits, result is instant ban? Why not just warn him for disruptive AFD'ing if you think they are obvious keeps. If you actually think this is werth a ban why are you not checkuser to find the other accounts and boot them aswell - i think because the ban wouldn't stick at all because its almost baseless. Having said that you probably did the right thing, unless he contests. --Dacium 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Support ban, this stuff happens all the time. Yawn. 75.62.7.22 15:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He looks like a sockpuppet of a nice chap I met last week. Support block. – Steel 15:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User: Moomoo24

This person was given a final warning before. Today he vandalized the page for Kenny McCormick, as you can see here. Tweeks Coffee 15:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandal only account. WP:AIAV is a good place to get quick action on something like this. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Kelly Martin

I'm archiving this - there's no constructive edits being made here now. -- Nick ^t 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In a recent RFA discussion, Kelly Martin made a clear legal threat against Lankybugger: "Please refrain from using false information in an attempt to defame the character of other editors; such acts are potentially illegal and certainly uncivil. You would be well-advised to ensure that the facts fit your rhetoric before spouting it forth next time." [30] Note that "illegal" was wikilinked to our article on "libel." As a former administrator, Kelly Martin knows full well that this is unacceptable behavior. According to our policy, "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." Crotalus horridus 16:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see a "legal threat" here, just an informative notice about legal issues. - Crockspot 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat- she doesn't say she proposes to take any action. It does demonstrate a complete misunderstanding by her of the law of defamation, but that's another matter. In her place I would just have called Lankybugger's post wrong as I have seen her support candidates on a number of occasions. WjBscribe 16:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If she had called Lankybugger's post wrong and pointed this out civilly, citing examples, that would have been perfectly acceptable. You're correct that it "demonstrate[s] a complete misunderstanding by her of the law of defamation" (not all false statements are libel or slander; they have to fall into certain categories, and this doesn't), but it generally doesn't matter if a legal threat has any merit or not, just that it was issued. If Daniel Brandt had made a statement of similar tone and similar ignorance of the actual law, no one would hesitate in declaring it a clear legal threat. We should expect higher, not lower, standards of long-time editors. Crotalus horridus 16:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that if it were anybody else they would get at least a severe talking to. --kingboyk 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving Kelly Martin notice of this discussion. Newyorkbrad 16:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note (and i am sure my opinion on this matter has little merit due to my previous run ins with Kelly), she also, when referring to lanky bugger said, "I do not consider further discussion with the likes of you worthy of my time or attention. Kindly do not defile my talk page with your presence again." and removed his comments called as trolling. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything else notwithstanding, merely linking "illegal" to libel does not ipso facto connstitute a legal threat. A legal threat would have been "such acts are potentially illegal and I will take appropriate action to redress that illegality" or something along those lines. -- Avi 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Saying something is illegal isn't the same as making a legal threat. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've recently discussed this on another forum, and I agree with everyone else - it's not a legal threat to call something libel, if that were the case then we wouldn't be able to handle any BLP complaints on-wiki. Put another way: calling it libel would not be a legal threat, and libel is illegal, so calling it illegal is not a legal threat. Saying she would sue you over it, however, WOULD be a legal threat. The difference? One is a statement that usually means they are trying to help - "This stairway in your store is unsafe and could cause legal problems!" The other is a statement of malice - "I am going to sue you because this stairway is unsafe." I might thank the first person - - and throw the second person out of my store until such time as they are not a legal threat to me. --Golbez 16:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't say it any better. It's routine to comment on one's thoughts of legality-- it's unacceptable to threaten legal action. alphachimp 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear K.Martin's positionon this before giving any opinion. CMummert · talk 16:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above that this doesn't constitute a legal threat. That said, some of the shenanigans going on at WP:RFA right now are starting to get a bit ridiculous.--Isotope23 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't we just give Crotalus notice of the community policy that editors should avoid acting like a silly sausage? If he escalates this, his general probation can be invoked. --Tony Sidaway 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with croatalus concern, and think discounting it because he had a previous arbitration case is innapropriate. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to build an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin is here to cause trouble for other editors; of her last 500 edits, only a handful are to actual articles, and most of these are minor; her primary activity is arguing with other people on noticeboards and policy pages. I was under the impression that building an encyclopedia was what we were here for, not threatening other users. *** Crotalus *** 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that way file an RFC. I have to say I was tempted to do so myself but concluded it wouldn't be worth the trouble. --kingboyk 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the statement was a legal threat, but it does seem like it intended to intimidate. Kelly should have responded in a more constructive manner. ChazBeckett 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is not a legal threat. It is uncivil in my opnion, and it may be incorrect (I havent't reveiwed the exchange enough to see if the satement is even arguably lible), but such a statement, accurate or not, polite or not, is not a legal therat unless there is an explicit or clearly implied threat to take legal action. Just as saying 'Posting page X is violation of copyright law" is not a leagal threat, but saying "Delete page X or you'll hear from my lawyer" is. DES ^(talk) 16:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to see here? What's the fuss? Can't we point out libel any more? --Doc^g 16:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Kelly handled a clearly false and libellous personal attack in an appropriate manner. Another editor came here to try to get her blocked, on false pretenses, for doing making legal threats. That editor is on general probation and would do well to avoid such activities (and that's a threat). --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You may not be aware of how substantially American libel law differs from British libel law. Under American law (which is all that matters on en:Wikipedia), any libel claim would be dismissed immediately as frivolous. Furthermore, we have an approved procedure for removing actionable libel, and threatening other users is not included there. I also consider it highly inappropriate to use general probation as a club to win arguments. Are you trying to drive me back off of Wikipedia? This discussion is starting to lean me in that direction. I'm starting to get the impression that who you are is more important than what you do when it comes to administrative sanctions. Kelly Martin is the nobility so she can break any rule in the book; I'm just a peon (and on probation!) so I can't even follow the rules without censure. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was supposed to have only one God King and otherwise operate in an egalitarian fashion. Apparently, I was wrong. *** Crotalus *** 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly's comments below that this is a storm in a teacup. However, labelling what were possibly uncivil and mistaken comments by Lankybugger as a "libellous personal attack" is a gross misrepresentation of what occurred, regardless of the motives of the editor who raised the issue here. Will (aka Wimt) 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. It's not a legal threat. It was merely a statement that making false statements about other Wikipedians is potentially actionable as libel, and in any case quite uncivil (which I hope everyone here agrees with). The circumstances under which such statements would actually be actionable as libel are likely limited, but as I am aware of at least one case where a Wikipedian did in fact make false and defamatory statements about another Wikipedian in a manner which may actually be actionable libel per se, the statement is not categorically false, as some here have asserted. In any case, I certainly did not threaten to sue anyone. Only someone who already had an axe to grind would interpret my comments as a legal threat. I consider this discussion to be a waste of my time, and I will not dignify it with further commentary. Stop wasting everyone's time with crap like this and go write an encyclopedia already. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to second Kelly's points here...this looks like much to do about nothing.--MONGO 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it is necessary to say that something is "potentially actionable" except to intimidate with the possibility of such action. It's similar to but not as severe as the classic "Its possible that you might fall and break your leg when you walk outside this morning." I don't think there is any need for admin action here, and I'm not following that RFA, but it does appear that K. Martin could easily be more civil. CMummert · talk 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it would have been much better had Kelly said something along the lines of "That's not true. See this diff." Would have avoided the whole mess and still made it clear that false statement were being made. ChazBeckett 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do not consider the comment I was responding to in the original context to be actionable libel. It is, however, false and defamatory, and I believe such comments are prohibited by Wikipedia's civility policies. The editor in question proceeded to argue on my talk page that he was entitled to use lies for rhetorical purpose in community discussions, at which point I informed him that I wanted no further truck with him (and have removed all subsequent communications from him unanswered). I take lying very seriously, and wish that the Wikipedia community felt the same way. Unfortunately, it does seem that prevarication for political effect is accepted practice here. Truly, a sad thing. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Lying about someone is potentially libelous. If you're temporarily unaware enough of your surroundings to need to be told this, then you're not bright enough to edit Wikipedia. If you're temporarily unaware enough of your surroundings to need to be told this and then complain to WP:ANI, then you're too querulous to edit Wikipedia. However, I do hope all these conditions are temporary and you can get on with the claimed encyclopedia writing rather than trying to blacken past adversaries' names on WP:ANI in a ludicrously trivial manner. And enabling behaviour toward such trivial querulousness is a waste of everyone's time. Newyorkbrad, I'm looking at you - David Gerard 16:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please provide me with a list of which editors the rules don't apply to? Obviously we all know that's true of Jimbo, and I guess that's OK, since he did found the place. But what other editors have carte blanche to violate WP:CIVIL on a routine basis? David, Tony, Kelly... any others? If some people have a privileged position on Wikipedia, I'd at least like to know who they are. *** Crotalus *** 17:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

since no one seems to be pointing out the elephant in the room, the similarities between this discussion and the WikiGnosis discussion should be pointed out. Neither user did anything wrong and it seems to be a laughably broad interpretation of no legal threats. hombre de haha 16:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That does look worryingly similar. And the guy was blocked. Yikes! --Tony Sidaway 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There does seem to be the tendency that the same sorts of statements get considered "legal threats" when made by somebody who's disliked, but not if made by somebody who's liked. *Dan T.* 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible block for 212.101.17.44

Hi, I am having an issue on the Yoseikan Budo article. A user at this IP address is continuously deleting a link, due to what the major editor of the article, User:Mateo2006, and I believe to be a political conflict the user has with the organisation who's link they are deleting. The assumption is that they are an ex member of the organisation, or just unhappy that other Yoseikan Budo organisation exists. Either way it is purely subjective and they are expressing their own opinion by deleting the link. The link they are deleting clearly belongs on the page, for example, if you do a Google search for Yoseikan Budo, it is the first entry! Regards, Grahamwild 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I will warn him to steer clear of WP:3RR. He's used up his three reverts, so if he does it again, you can consider reporting it to WP:AN3 (notwithstanding the fact that 24 hours have passed). I hope this solves the problem. YechielMan 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the best thing is I am learning things about wiki through this process. Regards, Grahamwild 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Being the subject of a discussion on this page is not a punishment

This is a general response to comments I have seen this past week by several editors; I don't think it's necessary to provide diffs, and I don't want to single any one editor out from the rest.

I have noticed lately that more and more people speak as if starting a discussion about a user on this page is some sort of disciplinary action in itself, even if no block or other admin action is ever taken. I disagree. Posting to AN/I is the right thing to do if you feel a wider discussion of an incident is warranted and the potential need for admin tools is not so remote that discussion here is pointless. It's especially useful if direct communication with an editor has broken down. Being discussed here does not reflect poorly on an editor, and if their conduct has been appropriate it is common to see others come to their defense.

In the end, admin action is warranted only in a minority of the situations discussed on this page, but the discussion is helpful in most of them. The editor who is being discussed can learn whether their actions have consensus, and the person posting a complaint can find out if nobody else agrees with them. CMummert · talk 17:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Although it helps to realise that most of the complaints about people here are groundless, and to try to distinguish one's complaint in a manner that it will be taken seriously - this page is huge as is, and it's easy to get lost in the noise - David Gerard 17:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

True, it is not a punishment yet ... but that is an interesting idea. "As punishment for your misdeeds, you must read WP:AN/I. Two archives' worth should do it." I think it would fit somewhere between an administrative warning and outright ban. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I see many discussions on this page that should be handled through our established dispute resolution processes. I think it would be better if we encouraged editors to avoid notices here about anything except actionable disruption (giving examples), and to seek to resolve their differences without running to the admins. --Tony Sidaway 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather people come here to ask for help when it's a simple issue, than for people to avoid coming when it's a complicated issue. Let's not discourage people from posting here: there's enough manpower to deal with everything. YechielMan 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for saying that, YechielMan. Better for us to hear it than not. Encourage more use of the {{resolved}} tag to let other admins know when something's wrapped up, and the volume won't seem like as big a deal. ··coelacan 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Natalie 03:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Bus stop and content relating to Bob Dylan

If this is the wrong place to post this, my apologies. The above user has been blocked for violating the three-revert rule at least twice now for removing content relating to the comparatively-well documented Christian conversion of Bob Dylan. He has used such statements as "Christians consider it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christ" in his edit summary to his 04:02 25 April 2007 edit to Talk:Bob Dylan, and has given elsewhere his reason for such edits as ensuring "[h]is (Bob Dylan's) Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window." All this for the addition of a few comments regarding Dylan's Christian conversion, which has been documented in such sources as the New York Times and Encyclopedia Britannica. Given this user's history of such action, I was wondering if it might be possible to bar him/her from editing the Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and possibly List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians pages, as they seem to be the ones where the content s/he objects to is contained, and let him continue to edit the remainder of wikipedia which doesn't have this content he seems to find so much difficulty with. John Carter 17:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll be wanting that Community Noticeboard thingy - WP:CN I think. -- Nick ^t 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdistan

• 88.239.85.185 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

User has made a legal threat and hence violated Wikipedia:No legal threats. Admin intervention is requested. -- Cat ^chi? 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked a half hour before you made this notice. Maybe 31 hours is a bit short, but it is an IP. --Golbez 18:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That's just silly vandalism. Cat, use WP:AIV in such cases.--Doc^g 18:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, I was concerned of a Wikipedia:No legal threats violation and wanted a second opinion which I got. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wizofdahood = vandal only

Wizofdahood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see own user page edit. Andy Mabbett 18:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I forwarded this to WP:AIV, which has a backlog 20 names long now. YechielMan 18:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. User WP:AIV for such things.--Doc^g 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user making silly threats

Resolved

• An anonymous user is making posts to the talk pages of Dragon Ball Z and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga saying that he'll delete all anime and manga articles in three days unless his demands are met. Looks like slightly-more-ballsy-than-usual trolling, but it's worth keeping an eye on. JuJube 18:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the trolling on Dragon Ball Z, but left it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga since some editors had already commented there. I've warned the IP about trolling as well.--Isotope23 19:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Now he's taken it upon his own authority to revoke User:GunnarRene's Barnstar because he has a mean stupid doo doo head. Funny is funny, but disruptive is disruptive. JuJube 19:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The user was blocked for ten days. IrishGuy ^talk 19:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

206.219.74.132: Ongoing Vandalism

An anonymous user at IP address 206.219.74.132 has been vandalizing pages for several months but has yet to be blocked. I think it might be time. C1k3 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== User:BiH ==

BiH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has continually damaging the work of others by removing reliable source, ignoring warning and leaving strange summary of editing. It seems that user edits articles based on his subjective opinions and not reliable source. Could someone please handle this? Graciella 19:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

From Thatcher131 to Mattisse - is this a fair AGF proposal? Request feedback please!

The letter in its entirety, published with Thatcher's permission was sent to me by him to settle Jefferson Anderson's and Rosencoment's disquiet. I want to know if this is fair proposal. I admit I am hard to deal with at times, but I do not lie and I am an excellent editor with over 18,000 mainspace edits in less than a year -- no bots but real edits. If I accept his offer, I will be abandon my ediing history:

Mattisse, I have to ask you to do something which may be very difficult, and that is to drop your pursuit of old grudges and move forward without them.

First, in looking over your history, I don't think you have been entirely honest about your background here. You state repeatedly that you only had sockpuppet problems at the very beginning and they were your grandchildren. That accounts for User:Teek and so forth in July. But it does not account for the sockpuppets uncovered by Rdsmith4 in September as noted on your talk page. You did not object, that I can find, and you apparently worked out an unblock arrangement with Rdsmith by e-mail. These accounts were used in a disruptive manner in the Starwood matter.

Second, I am concerned that your recent behavior is more of the same. User:BackMaun was suspected as a sockpuppet of yours based on behavior. A recent checkuser shows that you don't. However, the IP pattern indicates that you use a cable modem from one computer, and BackMaun and some other sockpuppets use a dial-up connection from a different computer but in the same city. One explanation is it is completely a coincidence that you live in the same city as someone with enmity toward Jefferson Anderson. Another explanation is that you have a new PC but kept your old one, and figured out how to keep the two sides of your editing separated. With the additional evidence that in February you and BackMaun used the same IP sometimes, I'm afraid the sockpuppet argument looks stronger than the coincidence argument.

At this point I want to acknowledge that you had the misfortune to run into Hanuman Das, who was not only abusive, but a clever enough user of sockpuppets that it took a long time before he got caught. Unfortunately, you answered sockpuppet use with sockpuppet use in September, and got caught first. This is definitely a case of two wrongs don't make a right; but also please appreciate that Hanuman Das has been indefinitely banned and you were given a second chance.

Also, you need to understand that Jefferson Anderson was never shown to be related to Hanuman Das and socks. There was a lot of confusion at the time of the Starwood matter, and Anderson was abusive toward you as well as Paul Pigman and Kathryn NicDhàna and did use the sockpuppet Frater Xyzzy, but he does not appear to be related to Hanuman/Ekajati et al. By blocking Frater but allowing Anderson to edit, he has also been given a second chance. (He was allowed off the Starwood case not because he did no wrong, but because his abuse was directed at Paul and Kathryn over Celtic Paganism, and seemed to be a separate abuse issue from Hanuman's abuse of them and you over Starwood.)

I also want to acknowledge that many of the normal wikipedia assistance systems broke down in your case. The AMA was not very effective as your advocate, and Jefferson Anderson's advocate was thinking more like a personal lawyer (to get Anderson off the hook no matter what he actually did) rather than acitng with the best interests of wikipedia in mind. This is a recurring problem with the AMA, and is an effective argument that almost got the AMA deleted. Perhaps they will be able to reform, perhaps not. The bottom line is that they are untrained volunteers, they are under no obligation (other than their own moral compass) to take a case or to finish what they started, and there is (as yet) no apparent method to ask ineffective advocates to leave the organization. It is unfortunate that your negative experience with Hanuman was compounded by ineffective AMA assistance.

Now, to move forward, there are two possibilities.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are not related at all to BackMaun. I'm afraid, then, that you have the misfortune of living in the same city as someone with a deep grudge against Jefferson Anderson, and there will always be suspicions against you, not only by Rosencomet but by others with no involvement in neopaganism-related articles. If you want to continue editing as Mattisse, you will have to let go of your past hurts and grudges. Your obvious hostility toward Rosencomet and Jefferson Anderson only fuels suspicion that new accounts which attack them are your sockpuppets. Eventually, no amount of negative checkuser data will be able to override the presumption that "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck." You will have to let go of your negative emotions and demonstrate by your actions and edits that you have moved on. Certainly you should not ignore new abuse by Rosencomet or Jefferson Anderson, but forgive, or at least ignore, past problems, as you would like your past problems to be forgiven or ignored.

Or, you could abandon the Mattisse acount while it is still in good standing and open a new account, like Jefferson Anderson claims to have done. Edit some other articles for a while, and if you eventually return to articles edited by Rosencomet, or someone who you suspect is the former Jefferson Anderson, then treat them with the respect you would treat any other editor.

If, on the other hand, you are responsible for BackMaun, then it is even more important for you to stop targeting his contributions and let go of your old grudge. This is probably your last chance, and if you continue to act out against Rosencomet or Anderson's new account, you will end up being banned as a disruptive editor. Please understand that I am not asking you to tolerate new abuse, but you can't respond to abuse with abuse, and you need to put old abuse behind you and not make it the basis for current action. You may want to try mentorship, or an informal buddy system of some kind so you have someone to share your concerns with who can help you decide what action to take when you get into conflict.

I hope these comments are helpful. I am going to ask Rosencomet to stay away from you for a week, as a show of good faith, to see how you intend to respond and move forward. Anderson has already declared an intention to stay away as well. This should give you some breathing room to decide how to proceed.

Thatcher131

Comments from Mattisse

• I am not interested in editing neopagan articles and neve have been. My original concern was the link spam butg I abandoned that and since early fall of 2006 have not to my knowledge edited a neopagan article. My real interest is in writing and copy editing.

• I would be giving up an excellent editing history of article creation and copy writing with over 22,000 edits since last May when I started on Wikipedia and Jefferson Anderson would be giving up about a month's worth of edit wars.

• I have never been uncivil or rude to Rosencomet. Rather I have made some apologetic posts as well as some light hearted posts to him.

• I cannot fathom why anyone would think that I am obsessed with neopagan articles and need to "restrain" myself from editing them. I have no interest in them and do not edit the same articles as Rosencoment.

• Reasons for some animosity I might feel for Jefferson Anderson:
• Suspected sock puppets/Jefferson Anderson Suspected sock puppets

Additional information

-- Organised sockpuppet ring focused on this page and offshoots (among others) --

User:Ekajati -- (It is suspected that this User:Ekajati has used one or more accounts abusively.See list of confirmed sockpuppets and has been banned from Wikipedia indefinately,)

These sockpuppets include frequent commentors on this page: User:Ekajati, User:Hanuman Das and User:999. This was discovered during ths Starwood Arbitration.

See

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Workshop
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Proposed decision

Sincerely, Mattisse

• See also Sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.2FStarwood

Please give me real feedback. I know I am not perfect but I do try very hard to do good -- although slipping up at times. I do not want to leave Wikipedia!

Sincerely, Mattisse 17:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131 is an excellent editor, admin, and arbcom clerk, and knows precisely what he is talking about. Don't fixate on the "new account" suggestion; I strongly support his first suggestion, of letting go of past grudges and moving on. If you're not interested in the articles themselves, just concerned about spam - leave the articles alone, and let someone else worry about the spam. Really, there are over 200 participants in WikiProject Spam, over 1000 administrators, thousands upon thousands of well meaning editors. If any one aspect of the Wikipedia is causing such a problem, let it go, the Wikipedia will not collapse. Honest. There are many other places you can help equally well, that hopefully won't lead you to abandoning the project, or even your account. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC) By the way, I'm not up on the whole problem, and of course can't look into your heart and know about whether you are bearing grudges or not, but I looked at your recent mainspace contributions, and when a long time contributor makes edits like this, there is something seriously wrong. If you can take a few steps back and drink a nice cup of tea, that would be very good. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have several things to say, and will try not to take too much space. First, in answer to the question posed: yes, this is a fair proposal. It is incredible that Mattisse seems unable to read the first, and presumably Thatcher's preferred, proposal to Mattisse, to: "let go of your past hurts and grudges", "let go of your negative emotions and demonstrate by your actions and edits that you have moved on", and "forgive, or at least ignore, past problems, as you would like your past problems to be forgiven or ignored".

We've heard this advice before; it's as old as the written word and human wisdom itself. But it seems to be something Mattisse will not even consider. On the contrary, she has spent yesterday and today in great part tagging the names of individuals who were blocked over two months ago with unsigned sockpuppet tags in IMO a provocative manner, filling User:Thatcher131 and User:Fred Bauder's talk pages with some of the most disrespectful and uncivil language I've seen in Wikipedia (especially in speaking with administrators and arbitrators), and ramping up to this misplaced complaint. (I say misplaced, because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the stated purposes at the top of this page.) Some of that material is posted below; "letting go", I'm afraid, is not part of Mattisse's plans.

Nor is taking responsibility for her actions. She has not accepted responsibility for a single one of the eighteen known sockpuppets attributed to her that operated from May 2006 until they were blocked in September 2006. She has never stated flatly that she has no connection to User:BackMaun, User:Alien666, or User:RasputinJSvengali though asked to repeatedly, but just insists she's insulted at the suggestion, in spite of the evidence Thatcher discusses in the e-mail that I am thankful she has published publically above. She and her socks have made dozens and dozens of edits to the same articles I have created or substantially contributed to (mostly related to Neo-Paganism, consciousness exploration, and world music) beginning hardly a week after I began editing in August, and stalked both my contributions and Jefferson Anderson's, even created fake articles and attributed them to me, yet still insists she has no interest in them and does not edit them. She has insulted me and Jefferson Anderson repeatedly, along with Fred Bauder and SilkTork and others, yet still insists she has never been uncivil or rude. A review of her posts over the last few days on User Talk:Fred Bauder and User Talk:Thatcher131 will settle that (for my part, I'm not crazy about lines like "reducing me to Rosencomet's level").

Thatcher has exercised, in my opinion, the patience of a saint. Had I the ability, I would have blocked Mattisse long ago, especially in light of the fact that User:Ekajati was blocked indefinitly for similar and less extensive behavior. At least a temporary block for incivility would have been in order. But Thatcher chose to keep trying, on and off Wiki, with compromise proposals to everyone involved, at the expense I'm sure of hours and hours of thought, work, and stress. If he made any mistake, it was in suggesting the second solution; what value to Wikipedia would there be to encourage User:Mattisse to continue this behavior under a different alias? His hopes that a fresh start might be accompanied by a better attitude shows more faith in human nature than I can muster in this case. Rosencomet 22:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And I'd say that as one of the prime antagonists and a relentless self-promoter whose mass spamming of your own sites essentially kicked off this mess in your zeal to continue, Rosencomet, you're in no moral position to be passing judgment or dishing out advice here. You ought to follow the advice you so blandly gave in your first paragraph to passive-aggressively continue to get your licks in. --Calton | Talk 22:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with sockpuppetry that began in May of 2006, three months before I first edited? What does it have to do with User:BackMaun, User:Alien666, and User:RasputinJSvengali's stalking, vandalism, and bad-mouthing for the past month? What does it have to do with User:Thatcher131's e-mail, or his suggestions, or User:Mattisse's responses? Are you saying Thatcher131 isn't an excellent editor, or that his advise in the e-mail above isn't civil, well-meaning, and sensible? I mean, she could always just not have taken his advice, said "thanks, but I've decided to go a different way". Should she really have reacted the way she did on his talk page?

Or are you just here to "get in your licks" with me, and do a little of your own "passing judgment". Rosencomet 02:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh give it a rest please Rosencomet. The reason why people keep trying to persuade Matisse to continue editing is because she was a great editor on many subjects who had threats of violence posted on her talk page some time ago by someone who claimed to be a neo-pagan, simply for challenging the notability of what looked like vanity articles about neo-paganism. The exact wording from one of your co-editors to a 66 year old woman who had worked very hard on wikipedia was;

Go fuck youself up the ass with a straight-razor. You are intentionally attacking the articles of pagans, FUCK OFF.

Matisse, being a rather more delicate flower than most editors, took this rather badly. This disgraceful editor is still at large by the way. I believe those who persisted in pushing her around are responsible for this unfortunate situation. Very sad.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You two make my point. We're talking about what is happening now, and what Mattisse is accusing Thatcher of. You are bringing up something an editor who was blocked two months ago said on November 9th last year[31], something I never said anything like, and throwing it up in my face, and bringing up issues of religious differences which no one else has discussed here. You are being thoroughly uncivil by calling me a "relentless self-promoter", using terms like "blandly" and "passively-agressively", and not commenting on the issue at hand.

I didn't bring this accusation of Thatcher to this page, I haven't been filling abitrators' pages with insults and disrespect (have you even read that stuff?), and I haven't been visiting any of Mattisses articles posting insulting material or messing with her editing. She is the one who keeps provoking others and keeping this stuff going. I've been hard pressed just to ask editors to check if harassers like User:BackMaun, User:RasputinJSvengali and User:Alien666 are sockpuppets, which they were. (Do you care if they were really Mattisse, or if they were, would you say "so what, serves him right, the big self-promoter"?) I realize you are "on her side" and therefor against me, but I don't want to be on a "side" of any conflict. I've never chased her to do anything to her; she has stalked me, used sockpuppets against me, faked articles and blamed them on me, and rallied other editors against me. No one is stalking her or interfering with her editing, and someone was stalking me and Jefferson Anderson for several weeks and causing us problems.

You have every right to like Mattisse, but let's keep it clear who has been causing conflicts and who has just been reacting to them. I would be more than happy if Mattisse (and the mysterious sockpuppets) simply stopped talking about me, stopped messing with my edits (often in nonsensical, clearly vandalizing ways), and stopped rallying people to wage some kind of battle against other editors and arbitrators[32], and we could all breathe a sigh of relief and go about the business of contributing to the encyclopedia. And I don't care if it angers you that I present myself as someone who has done her no harm but been harassed by her for months, because that's the truth. I had every right to ask for help to stop BackMaun, Alien666 and RasputinJSvengali, and every reason to suspect that Mattisse might be involved and ask for it to be looked into. And in my opinion, whatever her age or parental status, no matter how prolific an editor she is, she should be subject to the very same rules of operation, decorum and civility as the rest of us. If she can't or won't stop instigating battles and harassing others, she should be asked to leave as others have been. Fair is fair. Rosencomet 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what do you mean "still at large"? Rosencomet 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest please User:Rosencomet. I know exactly what went on and who said what, before she came across your group, and after. And my council and opinion remains unchanged. This issue has ended so your monologues about Matisse, which serve no purpose I can see, should cease now. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If she can't or won't stop instigating battles and harassing others, she should be asked to leave as others have been. Fair is fair. "Mr Kettle? Mr Pot is on line 4. He says you're black." In other words, perhaps you should have taken your own advice before coming here. --Calton | Talk 11:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia harrassment at John Robinson

Don't know if this has been reported or not, but over at John Robinson, there seems to be a rather wild edit-war that's been continuing off-and-on for at least a couple months. Briefly put, it seems that certain users are trying to get a Wikipedia editor (User:Hephaestos) added to the disambig page, along with his full name and photo. To me, this seems incredibly counter to Wikipedia policies. The users so far that I've noticed on the history page who are reverting to the link-and-picture version are: 165.155.200.144 (twice), Charles Montgomery (twice), and Brent Harding. For an example diff, see here --Action Jackson IV 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the IP is Mike Garcia avoiding his block. This edit illustrates that fact. IrishGuy ^talk 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Account Devoshane77 used purely for Vandalism

Resolved··coelacan 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the account Devoshane77 ^{Talk, Contribs} is being used purely for vandalism. I first spotted the problem when editing Seth MacFarlane. I went to his talk page to add {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} and noticed a comment about his edits on Jar Jar Binks that appeared to be vandalism. I reviewed his other contributions (reverting where appropiate) and they all appeared to be vandalism. I have got up to the stage where he has recieved 4 warnings on his talk page. He has also vandalised my talk page which I have reverted. -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please make a report at WP:AIV for this kind of thing in the future. ··coelacan 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do - and thanks for the feedback on my talk page -- Rehnn83 ^Talk 21:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Michaelbusch (talk · contribs) on Wolf 359

The above user removed a good image from Celestia that had the star with the disturbing edit summery of "No Celestia!". - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I over-reacted, but there have been a large number of cases of editors posting Celestia renderings in place of less pretty, but scientifically valid, images (in this case, a star chart). Celestia is a good plotting utility, but nothing else. That said, Patricknoddy's reaction seems somewhat extreme to me. I am confused. I do not understand why removing inaccuracy is a bad thing. Michaelbusch 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't inaccurate. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the point of this thread. – Steel 21:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is the Michaelbusch removed a really good photo of Wolf 359 from the article under the basis that it was from a "inaccurate" program. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And what do you expect admins to do? Try the talk page of the article in question. - auburnpilot talk 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Side note: let's not forget the WP:3RR. - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Patricknoddy has reverted four times in short order, and as the content he was reverting was clearly not vandalism I have blocked him for 24 hours per WP:3RR. Michaelbusch has reverted only three times, so is not blocked. Michaelbusch's conduct is little better than Patricknoddy's; his edit warring over this trivial matter, and the silly "No Celestia!" edit summary, does not paint him in a favourable light. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't provide any educational value. The star chart provides the star's position in the sky. The celestia image... looks pretty? There's nothing to indicate that it's accurate besides your word, and the star texture is simply a generic one applied to many stars by the program. There is also nothing indicating what the background stars are or what direction the viewport is pointing towards, which would be the only educational value in it. In any case, it's a content dispute, and should be taken to WP:DR, not here. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems Patricknoddy has been blocked for 3RR. This has been a productive thread after all. – Steel 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned. There was something for admins to do...good block by Finlay McWalter. - auburnpilot talk 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re. "I am confused". There's nothing wrong with removing inaccuracy, but unlike reverting vandalism, a degree of courtesy doesn't hurt. The summary "No Celestia!" isn't meaningful unless there was a published policy of same (to which you could then link.) I happen to agree in this case with the removal, and in general you seem to be doing an amazing job at cleaning stuff out (your rate of contribs is startling, are you a bot? ;-), but sometimes you may be overhasty (eg your Gliese 876 d edit removed something that seems neither redundant nor incorrect. Did you fact check first?). If you'd expanded your explanation of why you pulled the Celestia image, the revert war with Patricknoddy might have been avoided. (Or not, some people are like that.) AJWM 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:DDRG and Asahi Shimbun

There was an earlier discussion about DDRG's edits to this article, but I'm not sure where it is. In any case, the end result of talk page discussion was that DDRG would find more sources to support his changes, as there were concerns about reliability. No new sources were ever forthcoming, but he has begun reverting back to his version again, claiming false consensus, or simply undoing revisions. He's also gaming 3RR to boot. MSJapan 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

While he has just violated 3RR, I still feel that this situation requires outside intervention in order to effect any sort of long-term solution. MSJapan 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Checking the time stamps, you seem to have violated 3RR [33] --JJay 03:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Gere

There is an ongoing dispute at the entry on Richard Gere. The question is whether to include false accusations about Mr Gere's sexual behaviour. Those favouring inclusion argue that the false rumour has achieved the status of "urban legend" and is therefore notable. Those opposing inclusion argue that false accusations violate WP:BLP, that the material is not notable in relation to Gere (who has never made mention of the accusations), that including the material is insensitive, and that the material is non-encyclopaedic. Editors who wish to include this material cannot see how this material is insensitive or violates BLP. Intervention from administrators may be necessary to prevent further BLP violations. FNMF 22:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is a rather more suitable venue than this for discussing WP:BLP matters. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Battman14

This user has used profanity towards me after warning this user that repetitive vandalism of WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 is not appreciated, and could lead to being blocked. His response was "Fuck U A$$HOLE". This will remain on my talk page for a few days before I remove it. Socby19 22:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Socby19

Warned, report here or WP:AIV if they continue. —dgies^t_c 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A67 (talk · contribs)

This editor has been continuously uploading images without sources, and has been restoring images removed by OrphanBot and by me. I have politely tried to warn them, but they continue alas.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A67 blocked for a week. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Examples

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• [41]
• [42]
• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

need a block review on 3RR with possible BLP implication

Please look at User talk:RolandR#Steven Plaut. I blocked for 3RR, but the user says there was a BLP exemption. ··coelacan 01:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for his edits to be considered exempt under BLP. BLP doesn't mean "I can revert anytime I want on a living person's bio", it means you can remove unsourced or poorly-sourced information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

TyrusThomas4lyf (talk · contribs)

User has been continually uncivil and has been given several warnings. It's somewhat confusing as he has more than one username, although perhaps not dishonestly. See here. After I gave him several more warnings he made this comment attacking Myasuda on my archives (he thought it was my talk page:[47]). Quadzilla99 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• This whole page is kind of a disgrace — Talk:List of National Basketball Association top individual scoring season averages. Quadzilla99 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen

I am unblocking Gen. von Klinkerhoffen. He was originally blocked and given a community banned. Basically he socked after his main account was blocked indef. He received no prior blocks, and understands that what got him blocked is wrong. (see his talk page). Basically upon talking to him I unprotected his user talk page to allow him to make his case, and I feel that he understands. Heck go see the article that he wrote on his talk page. In any case we have little to lose and much to gain. I feel that he has shown good faith, especially when he wrote that article. As a result I am going to unblock him, and see how things go :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to see how this plays out. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not take it back to the community sanction noticeboard? I'm not at all happy with one administrator unilaterally overturning a community ban without discussion. --ElKevbo 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Community bans are not done by trial. This notice is quite sufficient. If you have some actual objection on the merits, please do state it. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow,I'm not sure about this, considering how agressively he didn't get it, I saw several reports across ANI and eventually to CN. Hopefully he realizes that he's on a very short leash. SirFozzie 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll relist immediately at CN if this goes through. Nardman1 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It started on his talk page were I also endorsed the possibility of an unblock. He had an {{unblock}} up for a day or two and no one else commented. He even took it upon himself to create an article on his talk page, thus furthering the notion that he had reformed and understood his mistakes. John Reaves (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "goes through"? He's already unblocked. John Reaves (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So I see. This unblock violates official Wikipedia policy. It clearly states only the Arbcom may review these bans. I'm going to relist at CN. Nardman1 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any provision that states that the community is not allowed to review its own community bans. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the issue is that the community didn't review the ban - a handful of administrators did so. If administrators are going to ignore community bans, then please do away with the charade so we all know where we stand. --ElKevbo 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? You'd rather have the handful of editors at WP:CN review the ban and then it would be okay? I didn't know that the few editors at WP:CN constituted "the community" any more than the administrators monitoring WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 06:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nardman1 and ElKevbo are misunderstanding the nature of community bans. See WP:BAN#Community_ban. The unblock is legitimate (whether it's well-advised is a different question) and is not based on "ignoring" the ban but rather on the unblocker seeing reasonable hope that the block is no longer needed. So, see how it goes. 75.62.7.22 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that section is about appeals by the banned user if no one will unblock him. Here, he is unblocked, so he does not need to appeal. —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) While I STRONGLY disagree with the unblock, in form and content, I don't think you're going to find an admin willing to reblock him based on community discussion without further misbehavior and start a wheel war. SirFozzie 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to make the point clear, if he does any trolling at all, feel free to re-block. I did this out of the hope that he might improve, and learn from his mistakes. If he does not I have no qualms whatsoever with anyone including ryulong (the guy who did the original unblock) with reblocking him. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 07:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed sorting out moved user talk pages

Resolved

User:CINEGroup has moved his talk page all around, into mainspace and back, and now it resides at Usertalk:CINEGroup (an article in mainspace). Some of the redirects created have been tagged for speedy deletion, but could an admin take a look and try to put it back in the right spot? I'd ask CINEGroup, but it's hard to know where he's going to look for messages. Leebo ^T/C 04:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back and merged the histories. Looks like it was an accident. John Reaves (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the pages and taking care of that. Leebo ^T/C 04:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I Can

request for removal of historical inaccuracies section and protection of article "I Can (Nas Song)"

Could you provide some diffs? Or consider {{sofixit}}. John Reaves (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Help appreciated with a new editor

User:Frjohnwhiteford, apparently the pastor at St. Jonah Orthodox Church, in Spring, Texas has got his shorts in a twist about Template:Dominionism, a perennial magnet for the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such. He's well past 3RR there and has been warned already.

The greater problem is he previously indicated a his wish to make a WP:POINT, and now has carried through with the threat: [48] This change is simple vandalism to make a WP:POINT, considering the People's Republic is avowedly atheist. Frjohnwhiteford has already been warned about violating WP:POINT [49]. Since I'm involved in the debate over content I cannot take administrative action like a firm warning, or even revert the vandalism to the template, but someone will need to. Will someone here help out please. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way wish to defend the activities of this editor, who clearly seems to have crossed the line into vandalism. However, I think there are serious BLP concerns with adding people's names to a "Dominionism" navigation box, template, or category if they do not self-identify as such. Some of the names are relatively uncontroversial — e.g. Rushdoony — but have Dobson et al. ever called themselves Dominionists? If not, the inclusion of Dobson and not of other prominent Religious Right figures (e.g. Robertson and Falwell seems arbitrary and problematic. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That template has serious NPOV and ownership issues; all I ask is that neutral parties read over the talk page and judge for themselves if all is as it should be. - Merzbow 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hostile editor at Creation-evolution controversy

User_talk:Hrafn42 is engaged in disruptive edit warring at the creation-evolution controversy article, At 05:20, 28 April 2007 I responded to some of his concerns, but before I could make the changes I promised, he deleted the disputed text at 05:24, 28 April 2007. This started as I was adding content with Hrafn42's this wholesale replacement, at 03:39, 28 April 2007, which does not seem to be assuming good faith. I reverted his change here, with the comment "Work in progress, please read the sources before deleting other contributor's material". In addition to a very shrill tone on my talk page and the Creation-Evolution controversy talk page, he has resorted to adding uncited material here.

Clearly, User_talk:Hrafn42 is engaging in disruptive editing, doesn't seem to be assuming good faith, and has an increasingly shrill tone. I am not sure what you can do about this, but please do something so I can continue my contributions to the Creation-evolution controversy article. Thanks. ImprobabilityDrive 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The sort of behavior from Hrafn42 is totally unacceptable and has gone on way, way too long. Why was this brought here earlier? Letting disruption get to this stage only makes things worse and drives aways productive editors. I've issued a Hrafn42 a warning and if he is still at over the next few days when I check in then I think a block to get his attention would be in order. FeloniousMonk 05:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Hrafn42 is still at it on the creation-evolution controversy page, despite this warning from User:FeloniousMonk at 05:57, 28 April 2007.

For example, this this edit at 06:07, 28 April 2007 and edit occurred at 06:21, 28 April 2007. This is a new section that I added and it is diffucult to touch up while User_talk:Hrafn42 is continuing to work on it after he has been warned. Thanks for your help. ImprobabilityDrive 06:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my eariler warning to Hrafn42. Looking deeper into the issue at that article I'm less convinced that this isn't a simple content dispute, not a behavioral issue. ImprobabilityDrive is just going to have to accept that content he creates is going to be edited. Mercilessly. FeloniousMonk 06:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, he is removing cited material that accurately refelects the references. And he is choosing to cause choas on a section. Is this really "just a content dispute?" Thanks again for your attention, I am sorry you reversed your earlier warning, though. ImprobabilityDrive 07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

In light of the recent protection to WP:NPA and the edit war going on, I have added {{disputedtag}} to the section Linking to attack sites. To me this tag seems rather obvious from the discussion; this section is heavily disputed. --Chris (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that section is disputed, but there's no need to bring this here... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you all know since this seems to be a hot topic and I'm going off-wiki for the night. --Chris (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User page of User:Kuban kazak

Links "FASCIST PIGS" to Estonians. Administrator intervention requested. DLX 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted, left a note for the user. Probably the end of it. ··coelacan 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. DLX 08:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak (talk · contribs) and Sexuality articles

User:Bosniak has made some strange edits to sexuality related articles - see here, here, and here. I just wanted to clear up whether or not these edits are tantamount to trolling or vandalism. Ivan Kricancic 07:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit #1 i'm not sure on, Edit #2 i've reverted requiring a cite before it gets reincluded, Edit #3 is a personal opinion stated on a talk page and is perfectly acceptable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request block on IP 121.247.253.70

Please see Special:Contributions/121.247.253.70 The edit summaries itself are abusive This Ip should be blocked for a week or so to get this abusive person to his senses. Page protection required. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Turns out IPs arent the same every time. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous editor is the permblocked Vishal1976. He tends to vent his frustration from time to time. There is no point in blocking this IP. This user uses a number of IPs to vandalise. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 08:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not puting the list of articles These are the articles :

• Khandoba
• Maratha

I will leave it to the two users to ask for PP if they want but for now ill just list it here:

• User_talk:Venu62
• User_talk:Mel_Etitis --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

misbehaving bot

User:VoABot II is accusing me of edits done by someone else. See User talk:Tauʻolunga and Box Fruit. This bot should be disabled until debugged. --Tauʻolunga 08:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the bot's last 50 edits, it seemed to be an isolated incident. Just delete the warning on the talk. You could ask Voice of All for some help, but disabling this bot will be premature. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just looking at one of the most recent contribs, and the bot seems to be doing something wrong...Maybe disabling it won't be a bad idea. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another misbehaving bot: User:MessedRobot is putting Wikiproject Computing tags on the talk pages of various military-related articles. Someone left a message on the ownwer's talk page, but the bot is continuing, so I guess it's running unattended: Special:Contributions/MessedRobot. It doesn't have a big red stop button, should an admin block it? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:MessedRobot. Any other admin feel free to unblock once the problem is resovled. --Chris (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone quickly fix Steven Gerrard?

Hi, I just noticed that the Steven Gerrard article has been vandalised in such a way that I cannot easily repair it. User:Awoogaga moved Steven Gerrard to Diving rat face, but as the article now exists as a redirect page, I cannot move it back. Cheers, aLii 09:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Infact, could Fat Lampard also be moved back to Frank Lampard, and Boring F.C. be deleted please. aLii 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that, I've fixed those OK myself, and put the redirects up for speedy deletion. I can't fix the Gerrard page because some anon has edited the redirect page since it was created by the vandal I think, aLii 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Freakofnurture fixed that already. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV

Can someone go and clear the reports on AIV? There's reports from 6 hours ago.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

cleared - Alison ☺ 10:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)