Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

New sockpuppets of VinceB

I would like to ask for an administrative intervention against two new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter VinceB (talk · contribs). Odbhss (talk · contribs) and Pannonia (talk · contribs) appeared after the last sockpuppets of VinceB (Norman84 (talk · contribs), The only sockpuppet of VinceB ever (talk · contribs), and 195.56.91.23 (talk · contribs)) were blocked. User:Juro requested a CheckUser, but the request was refused as unnecessary (as their behavior itself was a duck test[1]) and a direct administrative action was recommended instead.[2] Since VinceB is a prolific creator of sockpuppets, I would like also to ask a more general question what is the most efficient way to deal with them. Should we post them at WP:ANI or we need an answer from CheckUser each time? Thank you in advance Tankred 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An IP of VinceB's range and POV has just appeared.[3]. Since all the IPs of the range 195.56. have been proven to be sockpuppets of the banned VinceB so far, I would like to ask to block 195.56.224.252 (talk · contribs) as well. Tankred 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another evasion of a ban, with the same IP range and the same POV: [4] I suggest someone blocks 195.56.207.50 too. Well, if anyone finds this requests. Tankred 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A new one: 195.56.51.196.[5] Tankred 13:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been asked to post here. The fact that VinceB self-identified through an IP sockpuppet at my user page and asked other editors to run a checkuser certainly raises my eyebrow. At the very least that demonstrates he's watching the situation closely. In general, when a problem editor goes out of his or her way to solicit checkuser it's because they've set up some meatpuppets that they're certain will pass that test. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but this is bullshit. I do not set up any sock or meatpuppets. No need to. I do evase ban openly, when I'm around. :) I'm checking Tankred's, Juro's and PANONIAN's edits regularly, and I always find, when they lie, or abuse references [6]. These stupid accusations above are simply harassing other editors, and are good to hide my reports. WTF are you thinking abt me? BTW it is nice, you think I have that much power. LOL. If it would be, these reports were long ago initiated, almost in first edits. This is sad. LOL. --195.56.231.222 21:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Vince, I withdraw the offer I extended to you via e-mail. I don't do favors for people who insult me. Durova^Charge! 21:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning re: Homosexual agenda

This post is to complain about an administrator, User:Nandesuka. I have informed her on her talk page about this complaint.

Around a week ago, I added an unsourced statement to this article. A few days ago, it was deleted, and I made 4 reverts to this article during a 2-day period. I do not wish to discuss the content dispute here as I believe this is not the appropriate place. Nevertheless, explanations of the situation can be found on the talk pages of me, her, and the article in question.

A neutral observer, User:Orthologist, had this to say [7]:

Policy states that one should use common sense; as the information wasn't libellous or extraordinary, I tried to rephrase it and put it back in.

Then, yesterday, Nandesuka, who had no previous participation with this matter, issued this warning on my user talk page [8]:

If you continue the stale edit war on your admittedly unsourced statements on Homosexual agenda, I will block you for disruption. Please consider this your final warning.

I believe this warning to be improper. It violates policy at least in spirit to block over this, as it is long-established that this is not vandalism and that unilateral blocks are almost always appropriate only for simple vandalism.

Nandesuka has not meaningfully responded to my criticisms of her action.

The warning is an attack on my honor and I request that it be withdrawn. The way, the truth, and the light 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a good warning to me - from a quick skim other editors had already discussed with you in detail why that information was unsuitable. Good move by that admin to stop a possible edit war. --Fredrick day 22:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is not meant to be about the content dispute itself. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You readded the same unsourced information about 10 times. That is edit warring. The warning wasn't abusive. IrishGuy ^talk 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted just 4 times after it was deleted, as I said above. For my justification see User talk:Nandesuka. The way, the truth, and the light 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Six times you added a link to Pederasty as well as the sentence It is commonly believed that the gay agenda will lead to the acceptance of pederasty. The other four times you merely added the sentence. IrishGuy ^talk 22:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believed that it was resolved as of Apr 23. I had not received any warnings, and 3 users had endorsed the information's inclusion. That is why I started my complaint with the Apr 27 deletion, after which I made only 4 reverts. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Who might these 3 users be? Based on the talk page, I am only seeing one, Orthologist. My point stands, 10 times you continued to add unsourced information (you even admitted that it was unsourced on the talk page) that was removed by others. How is that not edit warring? IrishGuy ^talk 22:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Two other users edited my statement without removing it, I was counting those in the 3. I did revert 10 times in all, but the two periods should be considered different incidents for the reason I gave above. The way, the truth, and the light 22:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. One added a citation tag, the other added a tag for weasel words. Neither of those actions would be termed "endorsements". IrishGuy ^talk 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you justify re-adding a statement you say yourself is unsourced? Complaining about an admin "attacking your honor" is not going to help you here. JuJube 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I have said twice now, this is not the place to discuss the disputed content. The way, the truth, and the light 22:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you're wasting our time. JuJube 22:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The place to discuss the content of the article is at the article's talk page, where I have just made another reply. The way, the truth, and the light 23:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. The warning was related to the content. If we are going to discuss the warning, then we have to discuss the content that led to the warning. If we cannot discuss the content, then we cannot discuss the warning, and this thread shall be closed. ··coelacan 23:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason for having policies is to distinguish arguments over process from arguments over content. I did describe here the actions leading up to the warning, and you are welcome to expand/comment on that. But we are not here to rehash all the argument that should be made on the article talk page. The way, the truth, and the light 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pedantic. Your complaint is that someone "attacked your honor" for warning you about edit warring against consensus. This could only be a valid complaint if you were not edit warring against consensus. It is already a long-established consensus on Wikipedia that if you are going to add contentious content to an article, it had better be well sourced. You added your unsourced original research and complained here about being warned for it. To investigate your complaint, we must decide whether the warning was a valid one, and the substance of the warning regards disputed content. So you can't divide the process from the content (which is why we have processes regarding content, by the way). In any case, no one here seems to agree with you that we must evaluate this on your terms. I suspect that if I haven't made myself clear to you yet, there's no point in explaining further. ··coelacan 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Edit warring' is a pejorative term and I prefer to avoid such terms if possible. I never intended to keep reverting forever, and indeed was about to stop when given the warning, as I saw that it wasn't getting anywhere at the time. As far as process versus content, Wikipedia can keep the peace only by dividing the two. It's true that we are having this discussion because of the content, but I never attempted to defend it on this thread. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, comment aimed at TW,TT,ATL) Yet it was still unsourced. You were edit warring, adding something that could be deemed to be libellous, and not providing sources. That is disruption. The warning was fair- the fact that the editor was uninvolved is a good sign they were not biased in the matter; it would not be good practice to warn someone which whom you were, at that time, in a content dispute with. J Milburn 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One has to wonder if anybody who uses the handle "The way, the truth, and the light" could ever be anything but contentious. Corvus cornix 22:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have now blocked TWTTATL for disruption, specifically for his repeated editing of other user's comments on the talk page. Diffs are on the block notice on his talk page. Nandesuka 02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I endorse this block. If someone disagrees with someone else's edits on a talk page, they should rebut them, not remove them. When the edits are links regarding the editor in question's previous disruptive behavior, that's even more reason not to remove them. And then revert warring over it? Yes, if a block is what it takes to stop that, then block. ··coelacan 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove edits on the talk page, only edit them without changing the meaning. Please don't make assumptions about whay you don't know yourself. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you did remove content: see here. You were removing evidence that you blanked warnings. IrishGuy ^talk 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As I explained somewhere else, I was not removing evidence because I admitted that I had done it in the next reply. The way, the truth, and the light 03:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good block too, she's shown herself to be perfectly willing to waste admin's time on silly nonsense like protecting her honor (I suspect this person's a female... gut feeling). I really don't think anything good's going to come out of this. JuJube 06:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am male. I would much prefer to be left alone, rather than 'waste admins' time'. Finally, the main part of your post says that complaining about admin actions warrants a block. No comment is needed there. The way, the truth, and the light 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good block, clear disruption after disruptive edit-warring. I would suggest that User:The way, the truth, and the light stays away from Homosexual agenda, because at the moment he's is adding nothing constructive to the article in question, nor to the talk page. Moreschi ^Talk 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4

Without trying to cause a conflict on the above dispute, the above page is still fully protected on grounds of a dispute, with the discussion here now closed, where are people supposed to discuss? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion is over? --Cyde Weys 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Any further issues can be resolved on the user talk pages, or an application for unprotection can be made. --Tony Sidaway 23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss my deletion of the RfC on my talk page. El_C 23:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I fully support deletion, but what's the point in keeping it undeleted if it's protected? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I've always kept the talk pages of deleted RfCs intact and I see no compelling reason to change that practice now. El_C 23:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well might I suggest removing the disputed template from the top? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following that. El_C 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So where is this dispute settled? Don't say in userspace because that's not what the tag suggest. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's just how the tag is designed. I can modify it if it's really important to you. Anyway, the point of having it undeleted even if it is protected (which happned after undeletion) is that it can still be read by non-admins. El_C 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm really not that bothered to be honest, but it just seams a bit stupid to have a template on the page saying it's disputed with no-where to go to settle the dispute. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I modified it to read something more generic. Hope that helps. El_C 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for clarifying the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to post to that page as well, but I realised my comment was more about RfCs in general, so I posted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Incidentially, while reading up on all this, I came across this, which seems to raise an important point. Where is the dividing line between blocking vandals and biting newcomers who carry out test edits? The issues of cool-off blocks (bad) and blocking test-edit 'vandals' (bad) should be made clearer, or rather it should be made clearer that those who disagree with those assessments shouldn't carry out such blocks regardeless. Having said that, it did seem to cool the situation down, and I applaud those who were blocked but didn't get upset. One day, not having a block on your block log will be seen as a sign of not having been around long enough to get an unfair block or two! :-) Carcharoth 14:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comments. The former is the talk page I meant to link above (I've now corrected it), and the latter is a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Peer review. Seems confusing and might be to do with an earlier page move. Should the pural "requests" talk page redirect be pointed back to the singular "request" talk page? Carcharoth 16:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you having a conversation with yourself? I love those. El_C 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Who, me? Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he means me! Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What, are you sure? Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm confused now! Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, I've explained everything in the edit summary! Carcharoth 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comments is now re-redirected to Wikipedia_talk:Requests for comment. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A three-and-a-half year old mystery spotted by my typo is now solved. As this is the only "Kelly Martin" thread on ANI that seems to be still open, I suggest someone archive it quick! I suggest a puce shade of mauve. :-) Carcharoth 00:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, A Puce Shade of Mauve, the famous unwritten Travis McGee novel! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Legitimate link was reverted by a bot

The article Age_of_Conan:_Hyborian_Adventures has an out-of-date link to a guild website (guild is "The Hand of Set"). I updated the link, creating this article version. Then the well-meaning User:Shadowbot thought it was spam and reverted it, creating this article version. I received a message telling me the link was removed because it matched a rule "invisionfree\.com" but that site is hosting the bona fide, current, active website for the guild, a guild that has been listed in & linked from the article since September 2006. Thank you for your time. 67.165.120.204 05:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is spam, and none of those sites are notable or worthy of mention. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the game is not even in open beta....signups just went out less than a month ago. There is no need for a listing of "guilds"....every game has them, few if any are nearly a sliver of the notability threshold for inclusion. And certainly not before the game is even released, or even in beta. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Allowing guild/clan listings in game articles would open the floodgates to all sorts of spam. Some games have thousands of such groups. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See AN/I complaint against me WAY down on the page regarding this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible death threat

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted User:219.95.37.175 twice today at Womanizer. 219.95.37.175 then made an edit which included "Remove will die" [9] as a wikilink. I also reverted that edit. There is no article and only a single unrelated Google hit on "Remove will die". PrimeHunter 17:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a death threat, it's just adding nonsense into the article, I'll warn the user. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you live in Malaysia... and I agree with Ryan, this is just silly vandalism.--Isotope23 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would wanr, but he's been blocked.... I'll speak to the blocking admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Since their vandalism kept getting removed and then they added it, I interpreted it as a threat and blocked 31 hours. —dgies^t_c 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not assume our editors dont live in Malaysia but I agree that such an edit should be ignored/treated as simple vandalism, SqueakBox 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think a warning would have been more than sufficient. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I treated it as a (admittedly improbable) threat because they kept making the same vandalism and having it removed, so it was clearly directed at the person removing vandalism. I was under the impression threats are to be treated very seriously. If you think it was overly harsh you can unblock/warn. —dgies^t_c 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the block was fine; I'm not a big fan of warning for the sake of having warned a user. It's obvious they had vandalism on their mind, and so AGF goes right out the window. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that we should have a zero tolerance toward death threats. This may not be a clear threat but we should be sending a message that says death threats (however they are stated) will not be tolerated. It's s little funny and editor can get blocked faster for making a legal threat then by making a death threat. RxS 17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree, we don't just block IP address's for vandalism when they haven't been warned, especially when it was simple nonsense that was being added, not a threat. I'm not unblocking, but I'm not happy about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks like a poor-English version of "If you remove this again I will kill you". —dgies^t_c 17:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how you got that from; Victor the Great (Remove will die) - somebody must have some really bad english problems. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well not everyone speaks English, SqueakBox 17:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in Malaysia and I'm not worried about my safety. More details: I reverted two additions [10][11] of "[[Victor]] (''[[ Victor the Great ]]'')". My second edit summary was "Listings should have an article". The user then added "[[Victor the Great]] (''[[Remove will die]]'')" instead.[12] It seems impossible to me that the user thinks there is or should be such an article on a non-existant phrase, so it looked like a (strangely formatted) threat to me. A 31-hour block is OK for me. PrimeHunter 17:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I still see no death threat, I'm not going to be on the computer for a while so I guess I'll be getting shot down for my stance! The guy was adding nonsense into the article and that was it, something which most probably a warning would have dealt with, but I notice that despite 4 revisions throughout the day, not a single warning was given. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, generally speaking I don't think we should be forced to warn people about death threats before a block (or threats that could be interpreted as death threats). That goes beyond simple vandalism. If, after getting blocked, the editor wants to clarify his remarks then fine. But death threats should never ever be accepted (just as legal threats are not accepted). I agree that a warning sequence needs to be followed in the case of simple vandalism. RxS 18:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that death threats shouldn't result in an immediate block, I agree they should, what I'm saying is, this wasn't a death threat, it was simple vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That's why I put in "threats that could be interpreted as death threats". This seems to qualify as several editors saw it as a possible death threat. If his less than perfect command of English got in the way of his real message, he can explain himself more fully on his talk page. I'm not trying to focus only on this block, I'm trying to make a more general point about these kinds of threats...this just happened to catch my eye. In general, I think we need a zero tolerance policy toward someone threatening an editor. You make what could be interpreted as a death threat, you get blocked. You can explain on your talk page if you'd like, and the blocking admin can bring it here for discussion...but we shouldn't accept any threats of this kind. RxS 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Another IP, User:60.49.108.42 (whose only other edit is about Malaysia) has now added "[[Vicotr The Great]] (''[[!!You Remove You Die!!]]'')".[13] My revert edit summary before that said "Was that edit a death threat against me?)".[14] This looks like the answer. I have reverted for the 4th time today. I assume that's allowed here. PrimeHunter 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp says the two IP's are to:

219.95.37.175: MALAYSIA, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR, ADSL-STREAMYX-TMNET

60.49.108.42: MALAYSIA, WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN, KUALA LUMPUR, TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD

Combined with the huge similarity in edits and the second IP being used after the first was blocked, it looks like the same person to me. PrimeHunter 20:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Any action or comments on 60.49.108.42? English is my second language but writing "!!You Remove You Die!!" at something I had removed 3 times sounds like a threat. PrimeHunter 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Having known Malaysia, it sounds a lot like Manglish - Malaysian slang. x42bn6 Talk 14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking; this block seems fine. I would have likely done the exact same thing. El_C 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitic behavior from an editor

I have always vowed to never filed a complaint here (editorial comment), but I need to do it now. In all of my edits, I use G_d as the form to use. Please see Names of God in Judaism#In English. I have had two discussions about this topic on my user talk page User talk:Orangemarlin#Spellings and User talk:Orangemarlin/Religion 2#Personal editing with the Name. It's a personal belief that many Jews follow, even though there is a technical point about using the name on a computer screen.

Today I was informed by dave souza that a mass change had occurred with the use of my name by r b-j. We both informed him of this situation here and [15]. r b-j has a significant history of uncivil remarks (which can be documented, but that isn't the point for this notice) towards me and others. I'm sure you can find a few diffs where I did not respond nicely to his comments, but once again, that's not the point. I believe that this editor needs to be reprimanded for what I consider to be borderline anti-semitism. Orangemarlin 19:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read his response, and you want him reprimanded? Surely there's something to be said for hearing the other person's side, no? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not Jewish, but I think we can assume good faith here and guess that this editor just wanted to make your comments a little clearer. A polite request to not edit others' comments should be enough, in my opinion. J Milburn 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't been aware of that practice, until now. Probably better to use the full spelling in mainspace, but in talkspace, I'd have to agree that one should have a good reason when editing comments from other editors. That said, I don't think rbj's had a chance to respond to this, yet -- no need to get everybody alarmed unless this sort of thing becomes a pattern, unless there's something I'm missing? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think editors should always be very cautious about editing others' talk page contributions. This goes doubly for editing the comments of anyone you have a dispute with or have had. R-b-j should know better and probably does. Let's see what he says in his defense. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Well, I evidently didn't appreciate how sensitive this is. He's undone the edits as I suggested, but far from apologising or giving any reason for his action, he's made accusations that others did something similar to himself in the past[16], and has been advised to offer apologies instead of escalating the incident.[17]. ... dave souza, talk 11:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

r b-j has now responded. An aggressive and unrepentant defence. .. dave souza, talk 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a new low for Rbj - saying that he doesn't believe OrangeMarlin's claim that it was religiously offensive? Wow. I am reminded of Benapgar (talk · contribs)...similar type of incivility, albeit with a better-informed sense of content. Guettarda 18:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After he responded to a "why" with a blanket accusation at no one in particular, accusing others of changing his posts and lying[18] I suggested he apologise to Orangemarlin and not escalate, and if he had a complaint about others altering his posts he should post a dif.[19] His response was to ignore the suggestion to apologise and ignore my request for diffs, and instead to accuse me of lying (his words were "stretching the tr_th"[20] - the underscore in "truth" I can take only as yet another deliberate trolling insult at Orangemarlins' preferred "G_d", his rude edits of which is what started it all. I try to AGF, often beyond what is generally considered reasonable, but this is well beyond anything remotely acceptable. I try to help and I'm accused of lying, and in the same breath he yet agains taunts and insults Orangemarlin, this after several editors have suggested, with varying degrees of emphasis, that he owes Orangemarlin an apology? It is community ban time, this user has always been disruptive, argumentative and hostile, with no constructive contributions that I can recall, and I cannot any longer view this situation as anything other than deliberate, hateful anti-semitism towards Orangemarlin and general nastiness towards everyone else. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC)I'm jewish, (not an admin, but i watch here regularly and kibbitz a bit), and I've experienced this before, but not on Wikipedia. Many jews observe this, even if they're not regular shabbos synagogue-goers. It's a fairly traditional behavior, but it's also a reasonably obscure one. When explained, most non-jews apologize, shrug it off, and move on, and most jews do the same. Ultimately, the jew knows he was observant of the tradition, and that someone else, who happened to be ignorant of the idea, did the changing. The jew has done nothign 'wrong', and really, most jews assume the other person hasn't done something 'wrong', but just needs to have it explained. The fact that Rb-j didn't apologize or concede ignorance of the tradition, but immediately dug in seems far more evidence of incivility than his initial action, which could be seen as a member of another faith showing their version of respect, and not someone acting against another faith's show of respect. One observer's opinion. ThuranX 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is where I was, until he responded so hatefully, with the "tr_th" which can only be a snotty dig. There is no other way to view it. And I was asking for difs so I could right any wrongs which might have been done him! Nope, I'm all out of AGF for this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. He's now complaining about the block JoshuaZ gave him, using the premise that the editor isn't actually observantly jewish enough for his objection tothe change to count as offensive. ThuranX 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is "anti-semitic" but seems to be clearly deliberately antagonistic behavior. I'm blocking RBJ for 24 hours for incivility and grossly disruptive behavior. JoshuaZ 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, consider this: If I were white, and I knew another editor were black, and I started saying "nigger" and "darkie" it really wouldn't matter if I, personally, were actually racist or if I were doing it just to be a dick. The words themselves are bigoted and racist. Same applies here. He's being anti-semitic, whether or not he personally is anti-semitic, and if he's just doing it to be a dick it doesn't change his actions. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

RBJ has objected to my block and claimed that I'm "full of crap". He has however raised what may be legitimate objections to his block. I would appreciate if someone would take a look over at his talk page and maybe comment here whether he should be unblocked. My feeling is no. JoshuaZ 02:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't bothered to put an unblock request on his talk page. And he has continued his flame-war like posts, his latest being to yet again basically (boiled down) say Orangemarlin is full of crap, the administrators here are crap, and invites you to kiss his ass. Not really seeing any reason to unblock. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Extreme POV pushing

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 has just removed Category:Terrorism from the Proxy bomb article, then replaced it with two dubious categories, one of which does not exist. Nobody operating from a neutral point of view could possibly say that forcing an innocent member of the public to become a suicide bomber is not a terrorist act, and it certainly isn't the act of a "freedom fighter". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To her credit she has self revert the "freedom fighter" cat.--Vintagekits 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only because the category doesn't exist. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly.--Vintagekits 19:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And it continues. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have conceded on the category because I was technically wrong. Not conceding the POV; but that's for another day. Basically my stance is that NPOV across and between articles is as, or more, important to the credibility of Wiki than NPOV within a single article. (Sarah777 20:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC))

2 articles in need of semi-protection due to homophobic and/or scatalogical vandalism

Resolved

 – Resolved for now? I'll see if I can help keep an eye on these. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two articles that I watch are very frequent subjects of scatalogical vandalism and/or homophobic vandalism. Thos articles are: Fudge and Jim Jones. I bvelieve that semi-protecting the pages against new users and users with accounts not older than 4 days will suffice. most of the vandalism coomes from unregistered users. It seems like every day someone vandlaizes the Fudge article and at least a few times a week with Jim Jones. Frequent reverts make it hard to do any real editing on these articles. ThanksLiPollis 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for page protection should really be made at WP:RFPP, where there will likely be a quicker response. Will (aka Wimt) 20:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at both articles, and there appears to be not enough recent history to warrant semi-protecting those two articles. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. If you say so. I hereby refuse to revert any more unconstructive edits to those articles- let somebody else take up the cause. I'm tired.LiPollis 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD#Muslix64.27s exploit

Over all the hype, why put the wikimedia foundation in any trouble? No body knows IF the number has an legal value or not. EFF anyone? Cyb3r01dX 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that someone is determined to post this DRM Key here on wikipedia, and keeps recreating an article, that I won't link to because that would require typing out the DRM key, and as of their last attempt to recreate it, created a username that was the same as the Key. That page needs to be deleted, but it can't be salted, since that would require the DRM key to be listed somewhere on wikipedia. Are there any options to deal with this other than repeatedly redeleting the article in question? And by article in question I of course mean the one I can't link to, not the one linked in the title of this thread. Not to mention, the content of the "article" is visible in the deletion log, showing the complete key, is there some sort of oversight that could deal with this? Speaking of which, it should probably be oversighted out of HD DVD--VectorPotential^Talk 22:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A number alone probably doesn't violate the DMCA, so salting isn't an issue. A number with instructions on how to use it might not be so good. There's already a thread going on at WP:AN#HD-DVD_decryption_key. We need someone who knows what they're talking about to settle this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice the AN thread--VectorPotential^Talk 22:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We've been salting pages titled with the number so far, so I've added done these ones too. Not an ideal solution though... WjB scribe 22:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a way to keep google from caching certain pages, such as Wikipedia:Protected titles and its various subpages--VectorPotential^Talk 22:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is. Files listed on Robots.txt by the Developers aren't google cached. It may be worth making a request to include all our lists of protected pages (if they aren't already) though I suspect they have a fairly low google profile. WjB scribe 22:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Some context: this info is (reportedly) an important master key used by AACS, in this case to protect HD-DVD disks. Having been discovered a while ago, it appears that the industry association which operates AACS has been sending DMCA notices to blogs either hosting that number or linking to the forum posts which report its extraction. Reports of this have in turn reached popular technology websites including Digg, Slashdot, and Boing Boing. There some posters are reposting the key, and others are in general encouraging a general guerilla/disobedience campaign, advocating the information be so widely disseminated that it can't be removed everywhere. Digg and BoingBoing report having received legal notices themselves, and posts containing the key have been featured on (and quickly erased) on Digg several times. Posts on Slashdot and Digg advocate Wikipedia as a suitable target for this campaign. The page VectorPotential reports is the tip of the iceberg - the key appears to be present on several pages. An article named for the number has been created and destroyed and recreated today (it's presently a redir to HD-DVD) and some of the contributors who have added it in various (logical, DVD-related) places have also spammed it onto unrelated pages too. There's every liklihood that subtler individuals will have posted the key into more places, hoping its being unnoticed will assist its dissemination to Wikipedia mirrors. I expect this behaviour to repeat over the next 18 hours or so (generally the hot period associated with a Slashdot story). I guess it's rather ironic that I can't (well, won't) link to the offending articles or user contribs and can't actually tell you the number so you can go search for it. I expect WP:OFFICE will shortly be receiving a complaint from the AACS people, so I imagine a rather extensive clusterfuck is about to ensue. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Full agreement with your last comment. Can the variations be salted as protected redirects, to strike the proper balance between information and legality? -- nae'blis 22:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Any redirects would show up in Special:Whatlinkshere/HD DVD, and would probably be conspicuous. — tregoweth (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but protected redirects contain the minimum of information necessary to prevent further pages being created with the illegal information. Therefore it would seem to me that they constitute a 'good faith' effort to abide by AACS' requests, and Special:Whatlinkshere is a nigh-unavoidable feature of the software that only some users will be aware of. It is not our job to prevent information in all forms, though we can try to perform reasonable actions. -- nae'blis 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Do we remove any information that random individuals complain about? Of course not. We remove illegal content or libel. Neither is the case here. We don't simply comply because the AACS requests it. If WP:OFFICE requests it, that's different, of course. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 01:06Z

That's the point; some people with a lot of money say that the number is illegal, under the DMCA, and they're happy to use their money to back that point up. Dan Beale 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) I've had to protect Talk:HD DVD; anyone have any better ideas? — tregoweth (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How about stop misusing admin powers. There's no reason to protect a talk page, ever, except in cases of involvement by WP:OFFICE or temporarily to clean up vandalism or libel. We have no reason to self-censor unless WP:OFFICE gets involved. Until then, stop assuming the worst. This is very anti-wiki, especially on the talk page. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-01 23:44Z

There are absolutely good reasons to protect talk pages. Illegal material posted to them repeatedly would qualify in my book. -- nae'blis 23:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true, but that is not the case here. — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 01:03Z

Looks to me like the key was being added by anonymous users. Wouldn't semi-protection be sufficient in this case? *** Crotalus *** 23:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It was added a number of times when the article was semi-protected. — tregoweth (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing illegal about the string of characters. Do you agree? — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 01:12Z

Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. I believe you know very well that's not the context of what was on the talk page in question. Since that sequence has the clever "S/5" substitution, your own intentions are somewhat suspect here. -- nae'blis 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Clever? You mean trivial. How many strings are we no longer allowed to write because they may be "cleverly" too close in some way to the one you claim is unspeakable (for what reasons? the string is not illegal. disseminating it is not illegal. only using it to copy DVDs is illegal) — BRIAN 0918 • 2007-05-02 03:45Z

You're free to use your domain to disseminate the string of characters, and to use your money to defend your right to do so. I'm told that the DMCA makes it illegal to distribute information to break copy protection. This key seems to be part of that information. Dan Beale 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a version of the "guns don't kill people..." argument: "typing a string of numbers and letters isn't illegal, but using it to break hd dvd is"218.215.0.134 04:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block against "industry association that operates AACS" based on WP:NLT. Oh wait, they already don't edit here. In this case, m:avoid copyright paranoia and recognize the censorship attempt for what it is. Let the Foundation office decide how to deal with the legal stuff. Follow the office's instructions if they issue some. If they don't, then quit the amateur lawyering and and decide whether to include the number in the article based on normal editorial criteria of whether it is encyclopedic or not, as with the Muhammad cartoons. To the office: for this and many other reasons, consider pulling the servers out of Florida and putting them in California or some other state with a good anti-SLAPP statute. Please also report any interesting developments to the Chilling Effects clearinghouse. 75.62.7.22 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the policies, copyright infringement (even alleged) is not allowed because it "threatens our objective to build a truly free encyclopedia that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal problems." Pizzachicken 06:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Even alleged??!!! Are you kidding? Anyone can censor the entire encyclopedia by alleging infringement? Be real, we have to carry out office directives but on this matter we haven't gotten one, maybe for good reason. If it does become necessary to block that hex number, patching the spam blacklist MediaWiki code to prevent saving edits containing the number may ease on some whack-a-mole. But the whole situation is extremely offensive and I hope that the office is on the phone with the EFF about its options. 75.62.7.22 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely baffled as to why we aren't forcing the Foundation with respect to this issue. If they are not prepared to step in and tell us conclusively whether or not we should include the data on Wikipedia, we should be forcing their hand. This is a very important editorial decision that cannot be made until the Foundation tells us something critical. theProject 06:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The office and its lawyers are almost certainly studying their options. Let's assume that they know what they're doing. We can cheer ourselves up with the thought that the longer the office makes us wait, the more consideration they're probably giving to the possibility of coming out swinging.

There seems to be another issue here too--the code isn't just being deleted, any mention of the code and the issues surrounding it are being deleted despite it being patently obvious that it's encyclopedic at this point. If getting tens of thousands of hits on Google in just a few days, major posts in major sites/blogs, an official announcement from Digg.com and numerous people becoming aware of it don't make it verifiable, reliable and notable, then I don't know what it is. For the time being, I think at the very least, they should allow a description of the issue--which I've seen deleted wholesale from at least one article. If you want to protect it for the time being until there is official word on the issue of the code itself, FINE, but at least post the text people have recommended be posted on the talk pages that describe the issue. -Nathan J. Yoder 07:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the issues surrounding this are probably justifiably notable enough for inclusion. However, the key itself has no business here. It's nothing more than trivia from an encyclopedic standpoint and it's trivia that can realistically invoke the ire of a highly litigious organization that would be nice to avoid. It may be wise to let things cool off a bit before putting discussions of the topic into articles. This whole issue is recentism to the extreme, and the "Internet ADHD effect" will likely kick in within a few days. -- mattb 07:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether the key is encyclopedic is an editorial decision; whether it's legal to publish is up to the courts to decide; whether wikipedia must censor it because it might be illegal to publish it is up to the office. It's certainly not trivia or else the AACS lawyers wouldn't be going berserk trying to suppress it. It's part of the workings of an HD DVD decrypter and as such, documenting it is like documenting the workings of a printing press in a country where printing presses are illegal. If we document how printing presses work and someone uses the info to build an illegal one in their country, we might consider that a good thing. That is why we help Chinese users route around the Chinese government blocks against Wikipedia for including the Falun Gong article, for example. And, even if HD DVD decrypters are illegal in the US, the information can probably still be used to build legal decrypters in countries where the lawmaking process isn't as corrupt as it is in the US. 75.62.7.22 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Who has been removing it? A mention in the AACS article is warranted. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in various articles already, including Streisand effect, which also got keyspammed (I just removed it - again!). I've no issues with the mention of the incident, but I do with publishing the keys for the reasons SJ mentions below - Alison ☺ 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh guys: Universal v. Reimerdes. Though that's outside Wikipedia's circuit, we should not include the code itself, nor link to anywhere that does. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record: 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(1)(A)(2 a.k.a. the DMCA Title II (OCILLA) safe harbor clause. Which states, in summary: Wikipedia is granted safe harbor immunity from DMCA litigation, if we do not allow the HD-DVD key if we have reason to suspect it might be a violation.

in whole: "A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider — " ...does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;"...in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or "upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;" ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't see a (good) reason, why this code should not be included in wikipedia.org (for example as a redirect) with more than 300000 google hits nobody can claim that this is a trade secret anymore. And I doubt, that a mere number is copyright able. --LN2 10:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD encryption key controversy has been created. Please keep an eye on this page also. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had to semi-protect the article after 192.55.4.36 (talk • contribs) inserted it into the article (revisions now deleted), though he's now using edit summaries to publish the key. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question, if an article is about the news worthy event of the leak of the key, can't we use the key in a fair use capacity? (get ready for tomatoes to be thrown at him) ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User pages

What to do with userpages that include the key? I just stumbled on User:MarSch who included the key in al kinds of obsfucated forms on the page and the edit summaries in order to defeat searches and such. --Edokter (Talk) 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the HD-DVD key from his userpage and warned him regarding WP:POINT while we await WP:OFFICE clarification. --  Netsnipe   ►  16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He's still posting it elsewhere. Full agreement that this is a POINT. Pagrashtak 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Those posts were prior to my warning. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed it was new since it the key hadn't been removed. Pagrashtak 17:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Signatures

[21]. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - that there user was blocked earlier though. Will (aka Wimt) 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Asgardian

The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian. Most recently, he has taken to haranguing [22] an editor who tried to step in to mediate a dispute over the article Whizzer. If this were the first incident, it might be worth trying to mediate. However, he has been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard before. Since that time, he has been blocked twice, [23] once for violating 3RR and once for edit warring. Moreover, he has engaged in edit wars over several articles: Absorbing Man, Avengers (comics), Basilisk (comics) [24], Black Bolt [25], Celestial (comics) [26], Dark Gods (Marvel Comics) [27], Eternity (comics) [28], Gladiator (Shi'ar) [29], Hyperion (comics) [30], Living Tribunal (as 203.46.189.91) [31], Man Beast [32], Mephisto (comics) [33], Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) [34], Odin (Marvel Comics) [35], Perrikus [36], Quicksilver (comics) (once as 211.29.188.167) [37], Speed Demon [38], Thanos [39], Wonder Man (as 203.46.189.91) [40], and Wrecker (comics) [41].

Asgardian seems not to understand Wikipedia's concept of article ownership [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49], even while telling other editors that they don't own the articles. [50] [51] He frequently claims that his work is superior [52] [53] [54] [55] and denigrates the work of others. [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] He often tells other editors that they need to "read the books" [66] [67] [68] [69] and that their edits are "non-thinking". [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] He asks others to be civil [75], but can't abide by that rule himself. [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] He is fond of calling posters with whom he does not agree by the derogatory term "fanboy". [86] [87] Another time, he accused someone whom he couldn't get along with of having a "cosmic fetish". [88] When he doesn't agree with choices made by other editors, he accuses them of vandalism. [89] [90] [91] More often than not, he prefers to blank his talk page, rather than respond to criticism there. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] He is willing to carry on an edit war just "for the sake of it". [97] When action is taken against him, he accuses his critics of "jumping the gun". [98] [99] [100] In truth, this has been ongoing since his first arrival here in September 2006; I don't see anything expedient or hurried in the handling of this situation. Ultimately, I do not believe that his contributions outweigh his unwillingness to build consensus and work collaboratively. He's had four months to change his behaviour since the last time this was brought to this noticeboard, but I don't see a substantial improvement. --GentlemanGhost 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate for user conduct RFC than this noticeboard. At least, I think it's more likely that you'll get responses there. I have no comment on the merit of this request, as I have not read the the links posted above. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. I was not familiar with the user conduct RFC. This is where the issue was reported last time, so I followed suit. Would it be better to move it there now or to let things play out? --GentlemanGhost 11:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jersyko. Some edits aren't bad, (some edits to Odin were actually RVs of vandalism, and Galactus), some are, his summaries and talk page behavior should be addressed. IT'd be far better to tlak to him first, then go from there. (IANAnAdmin.)ThuranX 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for injecting some common sense into what appears to be an out-of-left-field argument based on assumptions and massive generalisations. The opening statement:

The members of WikiProject Comics have a thorn in our side and his name is Asgardian. - is dramatic, emotive and immediately indicates that the poster cannot be objective.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, he has taken to haranguing [101] an editor who tried to step in to mediate a dispute over the article Whizzer.

Not true at all. If GG had actually looked at the History, he would see we have been working to better the article. What I objected to - and still object to - is the condescending language Tenebrae has been using. Talking of improving my writing skills when I have rewritten many, many articles full of POV, spelling mistakes and other Wikipedia faux pas is of course going to nettle. Tenebrae needs to work on how he delivers the message. Admittedly, in electronic form it can be hard to read the "tone" but in general it has been condescending. This he needs to work on. Not what he says but how it is said.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If this were the first incident, it might be worth trying to mediate. However, he has been reported to the Administrators' noticeboard before. Since that time, he has been blocked twice, [102] once for violating 3RR and once for edit warring.

Two of those incidents - one occurring just recently and questioned by another poster - were erroneous. Another was inexperience. Look at the learning curve and how many articles have been improved since.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Moreover, he has engaged in edit wars over several articles: Absorbing Man, Avengers (comics), Basilisk (comics) [103], Black Bolt [104], Celestial (comics) [105], Dark Gods (Marvel Comics) [106], Eternity (comics) [107], Gladiator (Shi'ar) [108], Hyperion (comics) [109], Living Tribunal (as 203.46.189.91) [110], Man Beast [111], Mephisto (comics) [112], Mjolnir (Marvel Comics) [113], Odin (Marvel Comics) [114], Perrikus [115], Quicksilver (comics) (once as 211.29.188.167) [116], Speed Demon [117], Thanos [118], Wonder Man (as 203.46.189.91) [119], and Wrecker (comics) [120]. What is the point of this? GG and many other posters have also engaged in these so-called "edit wars". If GG took the time to check the Histories, he would see that many of these articles have been polished and left as is for MONTHS, with only the smallest of correctional edits. MONTHS. Further to this, the articles have ALL been improved substantially since the time of editing. I don't expect everyone to be a comic buff, but articles such as Odin, Thanos etc. were truly terrible. I spent DAYS sourcing and then citing and referecing histories for characters that simply wasn't there. No one else came forward to do this.

I also note that GG has included a sock puppet claim, which was proven to be unfounded. Given the length of time I worked on some of these articles, the computer timed out. Again, an unnecessary mention.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian seems not to understand Wikipedia's concept of article ownership [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128], even while telling other editors that they don't own the articles. [129] [130] He frequently claims that his work is superior [131] [132] [133] [134] and denigrates the work of others. [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] He often tells other editors that they need to "read the books" [145] [146] [147] [148] and that their edits are "non-thinking". [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] He asks others to be civil [154], but can't abide by that rule himself. [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164]

The flaw in the logic is that once again GG has not checked Histories. Thanos is a good example. I do not own the article, but I believe it fair to try and stop someone flooding it with inappropriate images. This is the same thing that I was working on GG WITH on the article for the character Zzzax before he decided to report this.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He is fond of calling posters with whom he does not agree by the derogatory term "fanboy". [165] [166]

Over a year ago. Doczilla and I now have a good relationship. He INVITED me to participate in a discussion recently...

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another time, he accused someone whom he couldn't get along with of having a "cosmic fetish". [167]

Hardly earth-shaking. His Edit History would seem to suggest this anyway, as the poster focuses on almost nothing else. That's odd.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

When he doesn't agree with choices made by other editors, he accuses them of vandalism. [168] [169] [170]

It is only GG's opinion that it was not.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More often than not, he prefers to blank his talk page, rather than respond to criticism there. [171] [172] [173] [174] [175]

Once again, there is NO official mandate that a Talk Page be archived or kept. If it changes, so be it. Frankly, that's none of GG's business.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He is willing to carry on an edit war just "for the sake of it". [176] When action is taken against him, he accuses his critics of "jumping the gun". [177] [178] [179]

Has GG even read the Talk Page for Galactus and the consensus reached?

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In truth, this has been ongoing since his first arrival here in September 2006; I don't see anything expedient or hurried in the handling of this situation. Ultimately, I do not believe that his contributions outweigh his unwillingness to build consensus and work collaboratively. He's had four months to change his behaviour since the last time this was brought to this noticeboard, but I don't see a substantial improvement. --GentlemanGhost 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some massive and condescending generalisations. I suspect that GG and other parties may feel a tad intimidated by my level of comic knowledge, as once again it is true that I have brought many sub-standard articles with POV, spelling mistakes and missing/incorrect information (eg. Odin, Thanos, Hyperion) up to an acceptable standard. I've yet to see another poster perform accruate rewrites on this scale. As for working with others, if GG had again thought to check, many of Tenebrae and others edits have been incorporated. Not everything, as there is still a degree of POV etc that has to be ironed out, but articles such as the Whizzer hardly reflect an edit war.

To conclude, this is unnecessary and frankly, baffling.

Asgardian 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, having just checked some of GG's supposed "proof", he is reaching at straws. In the case of the Absorbing Man, it is perfectly reasonble to remove an assertion that the character appears in the film when they do not. The Avengers is the same -there was no "warring" and a resolution was reached. All in all, this is a very flawed argument.

Asgardian 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Asgardian brought my name up with certain claims, I'm going to comment briefly.

Many WikiComics Project editors have difficulty working with Asgardian. His response is that people are "jealous" of his comics knowledge. This is highly debatable, and it's certainly not true my case.

It would be helpful if Asgardian acknowledged and took some responsibility for the fact that so many editors revert his edits and so many editors have lodged complaints about him. To hear, "I'm right and these dozen people are all wrong" as his response to virtually any complaint ... that's neither right not realistic.--Tenebrae 22:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said I was right all the time, and have apologised before now. Others, however, ALSO need to take responsibility for their actions. That said, GG's argument is weak and flawed. I'll chat with you further on Whizzer at that page, which is all that was ever necessary.

Asgardian 00:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Military brat

Resolved

 – reverted the move. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Somebody made an arbitrary decision to move Military brat (U.S. subculture) to simply Military brat. This is a huge mistake as discussed on the Military brat (U.S. subculture) talk page. The article has a definate US bias because that is where the research has been done and it would be impossible to make a global page unbiased. I need somebody to revert this move ASAP---otherwise, there will tons of criticism (and rightfully so) of the article.Balloonman 05:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC on expand)User in question is User:Deltabeignet. This move wasn't done right, as the talk page is still at the Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture) page, and there was existing talk at [Military brat]], which seems to address the problems with this. Further, a review of the editor's history shows NO involvement on any of the related pages or talk pages, going back 500 edits, which gets back to the start of 2007. ThuranX 05:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In general we don't disambiguate unless necessary; disambiguating just because an article doesn't yet contain all worldwide points of view isn't the way things are generally done. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As the complaintant explains, however, there is no information on the other nations. The article perhaps should've been moved and tagged as america-centric (i forget the proper tag terminology). The way this move was done left behind the talk page, and had NO consensus, and the editor moving had no involvement anywhere on the article before. ThuranX 05:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two things: Wasn't this recently a featured article? Why would it be moved at that point? That's ridiculous. Secondarily, Thuran, I believe the tag is called worldview.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(That's the one, thank you.) ThuranX 05:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was a featured article recently, and also per the move log: "Move log 04:51, December 1, 2006 Balloonman (Talk | contribs | block) moved Military brat to Military brat (US Subculture) (Per Military Peer Review and FAC comment) (revert)" I've therefore reverted it back. Deltabeignet clearly did not bother to check for or get consensus before moving a featured article....that's just ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

However, its current title does not comply with Wikipedia's standard naming conventions, which are to only disambiguate if there actually is something TO disambiguate. I think the problem is that the term "Military brat" is normally used only in the US, but the concept that it describes is not necessarily so limited. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is commonly used in England, US, Canada, and Australia (and probably other English speaking countries.) But the research on the subject has been strictly done in the US (see talk page for full discussion supporting that statement.) Thus it is necessary to create a stub for just Military brat to cover the subject in a generic sense... and then a disambiguous page to cover the specific researched effects on the US phenomenon (again see talk page for discussion on why it is impractical to try to write a comprehensive global article.) Thus the disambig is used to indicate that this article is talking about the US impact of being a military brat. Anyways, I do thank you guys for fixing it... if it stayed it would have caused major problems.Balloonman 05:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

World view for ya—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear enough below, the stub Military brat also exists, for the "world view" aspect of it, you may want to look into adding it there too Ryulong (and now I'm REALLY going to bed). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that when Swatjester fixed the move made by User:Deltabeignet that he moved the article Military brat. There was a stub there that covered military brats from a more generic point of view... and having been involved with this article, that page is necessary. Can somebody restore that page? I've asked swatjester to look at it, but I don't know if he's still awake.Balloonman 06:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. BTW, I didn't move it, Deltabeignet had already deleted it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NP thanksBalloonman 06:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, so because a Featured article only discusses the US point of view, it must have a disambiguation attached to it? why? Seems like someone is deprecating the article with the tag. If there are other views besides the US POV, add them, don't create forks for every country in the world in which the term might be used. Corvus cornix 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT, by User:Steve Dufour, User:Misou Redux

• Disruptive editing of a Straw Poll, with sarcastic comments and fake votes, to make a point, most recently here by
  • Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - DIFF
  • Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) - DIFF

Archived discussions

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Violation_of_WP:POINT.
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive224#Violation_of_WP:POINT.2C_by_User:Steve_Dufour.
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Possible_Tendentious_editing_by_User:Steve_Dufour_and_User:Misou.

Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 05:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

3O:I'm not involved in these edits. After reviewing them, I did not see that they were disruptive. It appears to me that Smee is very quick on the trigger with NPA, CIVIL and POINT complaints, rather than WP:FAITH. Lsi john 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• If the curious editor/Administrator will simply look at the history involved and the DIFFs in question, you will see that the issue involves obvious sarcasm and fake voting, to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Smee 07:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

*'''Support''' two templates on each page. Why not three? :-) [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] 11:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) doesn't seem like a sarcastic comment or fake vote to you Lsi john? Anynobody 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I do not see sarcasm listed as a criteria in WP:POINT.
2. Both you and Smee seem to believe the comments where sarcastic. If they were, then they were not intended to be taken seriously. This would directly refute any claim of overt fake voting or WP:POINT disruption.

The charge Smee raised here was one of WP:POINT and I do not see a violation of that policy. He did not charge them with WP:SARCASM or WP:CIVIL.

IMO there was no violation of WP:POINT in this case.

Also, note that a case could be made against Smee for WP:POINT Here. He reverted user comments in discussion and, specifially, reverting article content after a request was made for discussion and after discussion comments were made Here. Then, after hitting 2RR and being forced into discussion, he stated that he refused to participate in the discussion. Then, rather than participate in the discussion, he opened up an RFC. This would seem to directly qualify for a charge of WP:POINT as these actions are specifically mentioned in the description of WP:POINT, yet none of the involved editors filed such a charge here.

These are heated discussions in highly emotionally charged articles and some latitude should be given rather than simply filing grievances and wasting administrator's time. Lsi john 13:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, seriously. Smee. No, a sarcastic comment is not "disruption". De minimis non curat lex. Please avoid posting trifles at this board. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I will not push this further, but the actions were disruptive to the discussion and the poll. Smee 06:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, thank you for your reasonable response. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

You are welcome, Bishonen. Smee 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

IP 24.255.161.9 NPA

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? Heh, didn't see this report... – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• 24.255.161.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Repeated personal attacks... latest one here, in which he blanks my userpage to make more personal attacks.

/Blaxthos 06:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 31 hours by User:Luna Santin. Mahanga^Talk 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive fraud by administrator User:Jersyko

Resolved

Jersyko is massively blocking others, including hard blocks in order to sqaush all reasonable, NPOV edits in place of subtle POV edits. He falsely claims he’s blocking socks. He accused lawman8 yesterday (proven to be in Atlanta) then blocked sample123 claiming that that user was also in Atlanta, Georgia (abbreviated GA). Jersyko deleted (reverted) evidence proving sample1234 is in San Diego, California (thousands of miles away on the same day). If lawman8 is a sock then sample1234 is innocent because of location and IP.

• Worse yet, Jersyko is guilty of being a sockpuppetmaster because only a guilty person would delete SSP and RFCU complaints against himself as Jersyko has. This alone should cause the banning of Jersyko.

I am not involved in any content dispute and I can prove that I am not anywhere near Atlanta (location of accused sock) or San Diego. I know that I will be blocked just because I’m exposing fraud by an administrator.

This AN/I is already too long but give me a chance and I’ll show even more of Jersyko’s fraud and deception. Block me and delete this AN/I and you prove that you support fraud and cover-up. You should immediately and temporarily block Jersyko so that I can present evidence without being blocked by Jersyko or his accomplices.MAB1970 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, and/or links to relevant block logs, please. Grandmasterka 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say.... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also pretty odd to be discussing adminabuse when the editor has only two prior edits, unless there were deletions.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Block me and delete this AN/I and you prove that you support fraud and cover-up. You should immediately and temporarily block Jersyko" - ah, nope. Not without evidence. Fraud is a pretty heavyweight word to be swinging around, unless you actually meant to accuse them of a criminal offence - Alison ☺ 08:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And I've just been looking through his deletion log, and didn't see any instances of "delete SSP and RFCU complaints against himself as Jersyko has" in it. Bad faith request I would say.--Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it. 3rd edit and you know what SSP and RFCU are? Who's the sockpuppet now? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 08:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

More suspicion is in the actual checkuser request for Jersyko, which has not been deleted.[180] Looks like retaliation to me. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

... also see User:MAB1971 as well as this posted to various talk pages. Nothing wrong if this person has genuine concerns, but creating sock accounts to post (as yet) unsubstantiated complaints?? Smacks of dishonesty - Alison ☺ 08:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what this is for. 75.62.7.22 08:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have block MAB1971 (talk · contribs) as a sock of MAB1970 (talk · contribs), feel free to revert my block. Gnangarra 09:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right... Jersyko is committing fraud... thanks for the laugh, anon... nothing to see here, move along... Phaedriel - 09:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Chances are both of them are socks of some other blocked user. I've notified Jersyko about this thread so he might be able to indentify them for us, but I suspect he won't be around until at least daybreak in the U.S., several hours from now. (I should write on my userpage that I'm an extreme night owl.) Grandmasterka 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser says this is the banned Dereks1x. Dmcdevit·t 09:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! What a surprise! - Alison ☺ 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fits doesn't it? Anyway, indef blocks anyone? --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful Ryulong, didn't you see that you now support fraud and cover-up? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"support fraud and cover-up?" That comment doesn't seeem to be very civil, Seraphimblade, so can you calm down a bit. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, time for the annual humor sensor readjustment? Try reading it in context this time... ;-) Dmcdevit·t 09:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh right. I was wondering about why that comment was placed, especially by Seraphimblade... Sorry. Well I better go and sob in my corner...and I still don't get the joke. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote MAB1970, "Block me and delete this AN/I and you prove that you support fraud and cover-up." Ryulong blocked MAB1970. I think we have an airtight case! :-) Abecedare 10:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that explains it... I was searching through Ryulong's userpage trying to find any mention of fraud and cover-up... --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See, that is the cherry on the "conspiracy theory" cake ... absence of evidence of fraud proves the cover up. :-) Abecedare 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How fun! That was a nice start to my morning. Thanks everyone. · j e r s y k o talk · 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Slightly unresolved

I got targetted by two more socks after I blocked them, but I requested that a checkuser block be put in place to get this guy to give up for a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that works. However, given that I and others have hard blocked IPs that Dereks1x and his socks are known to be editing from yet more socks keep appearing and more edits continue to be made, I suspect that it might not stop him . . . · jersyko talk 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly doubt that his Arbitration request against me will be even accepted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't accused you of being my sock yet, as has been his MO so far. · jersyko talk 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Obvious hoaxes

user:PossumWith seems to be creating (Special:Contributions/PossumWith) obvious hoaxes based on existing Wikipedia article. Could an admin review his contribution and delete the hoaxes? (As a side note, is there a real speedy criteria for such obvious hoaxes? I think G1 can't apply here.) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Different admins feel different ways about obvious hoaxes. Some prefer there to be an "obvious nonsense" tag. Others, like me, view big, obvious hoaxes as vandalism. Others believe that there is no existing speedy criterion and that hoaxes have to go to AfD. I think they're speedies, but I also understand and agree with there not being an easily applied CSD category. Geogre 11:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoaxes are not speedyable IMO because they may not actually be hoaxes - if you get my meaning. NOt talking specific examples here. Viridae^Talk 11:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced, implausible article can easily be tagged with proposed deletion (PROD) and a suitable explanation. If the tag is removed then it can be taken to Articles for deletion (AfD). If someone properly sources the article and removes the tag, all is well. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied two obvious hoaxes recently (and permablocked their perpetrators). One was brought to my attention by the relevant WikiProject and so I was not just acting on my own judgement, the other was a hoax that came after move vandalism. When an admin is faced with such compelling evidence, I don't really think it matters exactly which CSD it falls under! If the admin is not sure, then of course a PROD or an AfD is more appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no clear CSD for hoaxes, but I think in cases of extremely obvious hoaxes you could make a judgment call and speedy it without anyone making too big a fuss. Of course I would have to be 110% sure that this is absolutely, positively, a hoax with no chance of ever being verifiable before I would speedy something like that... because if you are wrong then you are looking at a possible WP:DRV.--Isotope23 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that in clear-cut cases one can speedy. The evidence has to be a bit more than "this looks a bit improbable", and both the creator's prior behavior and the considered opinion of third parties can be decisive in cases where doubt would otherwise merit a PROD or AfD. I wouldn't like to see an attempt to codify this in the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) but it seems to me this kind of deletion, in the right circumstances, is well within administrator discretion. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that statement is that there is meant to be no administrator discretion about CSD - either it is explicitly covered by a CSD criterion or it isn't. If there is any doubt that one or more criteria apply then it is by definition not eligible for speedy deletion. PROD was set-up to handle probably-non controversial deletions that didn't meet the speedy criteria. In this case, if the article is >100% certainly a hoax and other factors (e.g. third party opinion, author's prior behaviour) also indicate it as not valid, then it is speediable as G3 vandalism. Thryduulf 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR does have its legitimate purposes. I deleted an article about a blue whale that lived in Saskatchewan, it would swim along the plains. Being a whale that lived on land was certainly a claim of notability, so no CSD applied. I used IAR and deleted it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what HighInBC said. For process wonks, I'm willing to say that obvious hoaxes constitute disruptive editing that should be rolled back or deleted, or perhaps that they're just simple vandalism and can be speedied under that criterion. For people willing to employ common sense, we have WP:IAR and no further explanation is required for a reasonable deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied a number of blatantly obvious hoaxes. (In addition to inherent indicia of implausibility or complete lack of verifiability, I have found a useful criterion to be whether the alleged hoax article is the creator's only edit or series of edits.) On the other hand, I have also seen an alleged hoax article on AfD and demonstrated it wasn't a hoax at all, so caution should be used. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time tagging articles to be speedied, and I try to follow a guideline of plausibility, much as others have described. For things that could be real, I prod them instead of putting a speedy tag, following the logic of WP:HOAX that apparent hoaxes aren't speedyable because they might not be hoaxes and thus deserve more time and eyeballs. For example, a couple of days ago I prodded Peter Boylan, because it's certainly possible that this person exists and does the things described, though extremely unlikely. An article about a land-swimming whale is something I'd likely mark as speedyable under G1, with the idea being that it's not a hoax, but rather complete nonsense. I try to err on the side of caution, though, so it has to be blatantly impossible and obviously unsourced before I'd try to have it speedied. Pinball22 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How obvious is "obvious"? Truly, truly obvious, nonsensical hoaxes aren't worth a second thought before tagging/deleting -- take Non Sequitur's example of uploading an article about yourself winning the Nobel Prize for Best Girl of All Time, or whatever it was. Just delete and be done with it. Less obvious cases, though, I think that's more what we're getting at with "hoax isn't a speedy criteria" (and the really obvious hoaxes are presumably covered as nonsense or vandalism, anyway). That's my take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious hoaxes which are confirmable as fake by a simple Google search should be speedied, inasmuch they substantively and actively decrease the quality of the encyclopedia, and mislead any reader which might happen to stumble over them. Nothing which is false on Wikipedia is benign. If it's clearly nonsense, don't PROD it, nuke it. Every moment such an article exists on our encyclopedia is a blot on our copybook, inasmuch as we already have enough problems with our reputation for inaccuracy. We don't need to exacerbate the problem. We're rather lucky the media didn't get a hold of our article on a putative major city in Pennsylvania which happened to not actually exist, for example. FCYTravis 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threat again

I reported this edit yesterday under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible death threat. The edit contained "!!You Remove You Die!!", apparently aimed at me who had just removed 3 times. See the earlier discussion for context. No action was taken. Any comments? PrimeHunter 11:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the first reported IP was blocked for 31 hours. This edit by a new IP was reported near the end of the discussion. PrimeHunter 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seams punitive to block the IP now, if it happens again, re-report it. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As documented yesterday, the IP is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the first IP which is still blocked for threatening me. Is it really allowed, with no block, warning or any other comment, to repost a death threat with another IP after being blocked? I reported it 25 minutes after the edit. The IP only has one other edit. Ryan Postlethwaite made 7 posts arguing against the block of the first IP in the above discussion. Does somebody else want to comment? PrimeHunter 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If the guy is changing IPs then blocking the IP would serve not purpose. `^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)}

As shown above, the two IP's are from different ISP's in the same city. If he has to change ISP to circumvent blocks then a second block might work. I also agree with RxS who wrote above "... we should be sending a message that says death threats (however they are stated) will not be tolerated". It seems we are sending the opposite message now. PrimeHunter 14:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't happened again, the incident your referring to happened almost 24 hours aago, we block for protective and not punitive reasons. As I said, if it happens again, re-report it. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On the bright side, their intended meaning is a bit more clear, this time. I'll see if I can try and keep an eye on it. May as well just block, if they pop up again. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

astrology.com

Looks like someone who had a beef with me subscribed my email address to a number of "newsletters" from astrology.com. This shady company does not verify the subscription request properly and does not allow me to unsubscribe from their spam. I'm reporting their unsolicited commercial email to their ISP (ivillage.com) and others, but if anyone else just got a whack of messages from this company, let me know and we'll see if we can figure out who impersonated us. --Yamla 13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Before you unsubscribe, can you let me know what's in the forecast for Taurus this weekend? - eo 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Taurus April 20 - May 20 It's useless to sit at home and wish that a crazed masked murderer would take a welding torch and slaughter your town's sexually active teens when you own a perfectly good welder's torch yourself."[181] Sucks, Yamla. Who would have thought that astrology could be shady? · jersyko talk 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whew, thank goodness I picked up that new welder's torch at Wal-Mart last weekend. - eo 19:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

El-dood (talk · contribs) and Image:Retard.jpeg

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd take this to AIV but since I can't see the image in question because I use a screen reader, I'm not completely sure about it. El-dood (talk · contribs) tried to insert Image:Retard.jpeg into mental retardation. Most of the edits of this user seem to be vandalism and the user has been blocked before. What should be done about the image and the user? It seems to be a vandalism only account judging by the contributions I can evaluate. Graham87 14:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely for being a vandalism only account, and deleted the image. Incase you're curious, Image:Retard.jpeg was a school photo; the person in question was wearing a school uniform. I think it's pretty clear that it was meant as some form of attack. Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought it'd be some kind of attack photo. It always pays to check these things though. Graham87 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Who's being a dick, me or them? *You* make the call!

(I love having fun with my headings)

Quick run-through: in Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, the main character (Jedi Exile) can be either male or female. Canonically, they are female (as noted on Wookieepedia). This is somewhat controversial, but that's neither here nor there; canon states that the Exile was female, end of story.

Along comes The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs), who is editing numerous articles to change the Exile's gender back to male. I've addressed this problem, complete with evidence why the Exile is female, on their talk page.[182] The only rationale Matrix has provided has been basically "you have to just deal with it".[183] Matrix also POINTedly tweaked the Exile article to remove any trace of gender.[184]

Given his repeated reverts across multiple articles, I've warned him about 3RR.[185]

Since this is almost a borderline content dispute, am I stepping "out of bounds" by bringing my mop to the fight? I've got a sourced claim to back up my edits, while he does not; my justification is that I'm removing incorrect information and unsourced claims, but I could easily be seen as being a total dick about the whole thing. So, I want some outside opinions.

Any feedback is more than welcome. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it's a content dispute (although such disputes can be clear-cut on occasion; I don't know anything about the subject, so I wouldn't know). I don't think anyone's violating the famous Meta page in this situation, especially if you've got sources; but to help prevent the matter escalating, I'd suggest that you don't use admin tools in the dispute (if it gets to the point where admin tools would be useful, ask another admin to take the action just to provide a sanity check and to keep AN/I just that bit calmer). Even admins can use WP:AN3 if they want to! --ais523 16:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... not this again. I think this was one of the very first disputes I ever saw when I started editing here. Give me some time to look into this a bit more.--Isotope23 16:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It does appear to be a content dispute. I'm a bit perplexed why Wikia is being offered as a reliable source for this content; I would not consider it as such. Of course The Matrix Prime (talk · contribs) going around and changing the gender with no source isn't helping much either. I'd be happy to look at sources etc and provide an outside opinion (I personally don't really care either way if the Exile was male or female from a canonical aspect and I've played the game so I can probably provide an objective outside opinion), but at this time I don't really see any need for admin tools to be used.--Isotope23 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't citing wikia itself as the source, I was citing what Wookieepedia cited as its source. However, the full Gender section presents the full argument.
My only concern about the need for admin tools is if Matrix keeps making the changes without discussion; it'd be a violation of 3RR, but as the person that is conflicting with Matrix, I'm not sure if I should be the one to block over it, or if I should recuse myself (I'd rather not, as I enjoy taking care of things myself, but if there's a concern about a possible COI, I'd rather avoid it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait and see what effect, if any, your 3RR warning is going to have.--Isotope23 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. In the interest of fairness, I've alerted the user to this discussion.[186] EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the proof needed to trotted out again. Aside from that fact that the Exile is male canonally, end of story, the website called him male, the trailer also shows him as male and the official LucasArts promotional art for the Jedi Exile show a male Jedi and Sith (despite repeated attempts to pull that picture from the article *coughEVula cough*) and traditionally LucasArt has considered the male light side ending to any Star Wars game to be canon (or as canon as such games get). I don't really care if the Exile is male or female, I've played both ways and have no real preference; but I'm a sticker for the facts when it comes down to it.

In the interest of those unwilling to accept such and to be fair to all parties I compromised by changing my own edit to a complete gender neutral version. Unfortunately someone removed that edit and did not even bother to state why.

I realize I may be coming down a little heavy but we had this problem with the Revan article too and I’m not to happy to see that people have transferred it over to the Exile article now. I realize that since Revan was stated to be male it makes some people more determined that the Exile be female but so far their only source is “deal with it”.

Now I believe EVula is editing in good faith but I see no reason why the gender neutral version should be unacceptable in this case. --The Matrix Prime 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a third opinion, and someone who played KOTOR (so I understand the whole male/female issue about Revan which sounds exactly like the subject of this discussion.) It seems like a good idea to explain the overall concept that the Jedi Exile, as the player character can be male or female because it makes the tone sound more out of universe. Then address each piece of information as presented, for example the "x source" showed a male, the "y source" showed a female. Anynobody 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with that... I've not seen anything that would constitute a reliable source for a canonical sex of this character. I'd say a qualifier in the articles and gender neutrality would be a good middle ground for the time being and an RFC or some sort of centralized discussion should be undertaken. At the end of the day, this is a content dispute and it would appear that both editors involved in it are good faith editing, they just are coming at it from opposite viewpoints.--Isotope23 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD decryption key

Over on the Cornish Wiktionary, where I'm the only sysop, it seems the HD-DVD encryption key postings have spread to there too. See kw:wikt:Special:Log/protect for more details.

In one of the postings, a connection to John Bambenek seems to be possible - although it could just have been someone spamming his email address.

I'd appreciate some help with people tagging them for deletion over there, just use {{delete}} (which we've got a similar version of there), and I'll delete it right away, or add it to protected titles if there are multiple re-postings.

kw:wikt:User:SunStar Net is my username there. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 16:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this from Digital Rights Management because it felt wrong. Can someone point at a more firm pronouncement, and is it necessary to get the revisions deleted? Notinasnaid 19:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found [187] but it isn't clear if I should report the revision for deletion. Notinasnaid 19:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User accusing another user of vandalism over a POV dispute

Experienced User:Vintagekits keeps spamming a vandalism tag on new User:Swuekilafe's talk page for this edit which is a POV dispute with Vintagekits over whether Malvinas is an English word. Spamming vandalism tags onto new users to promote a personal POPV that is highly disputed isnt aceptable IMO. Can an admin please take a look, SqueakBox 18:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• More disruption from Vintagekits. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of article's discussion page content

In the case of the article David_Boothroyd, on 5 April Admin FloNight removed, without obvious discussion, the majority of historical content for the article’s talk page – see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Talk:David_Boothroyd

Although Admin El C sites “personal info” in his original deletion on the same date, he sensibly, it appears, immediately restored the remaining presumably non-personal info. There is therefore no apparent reason for Admin FloNight to have involved himself in such a hasty and undocumented deletion of material from a public article.

Having attempted twice (9 April and 16 April) to obtain clarification from Admin FloNight via his own talk page [[188]] without response, I am now appealing for clarification and review as to why such an amount of previously relevant material has been removed from a discussion page of a public article.

I have left a message at FloNight talk page relating to this appeal in order than he is aware of the outline complaint against his decision to remove the material in question. leaky_caldron 18:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please wait until Flo responds to your question on her Talk page. There doesn't seem to be any obvious hurry for the material to be re-added until such a time. Corvus cornix 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The query has now been archived twice - how long do you suggest it is reasonable to wait? It would be easy to answer my question and Flo is answering other later queries, on other topics leaky_caldron 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I removed this as a speedy delete request for personal information. I think I deleted about 200 article that week that were backlogs. This was one of those. It has no special significance to me. It appears that this was a request made after material was added again after El C handled a request. Sorry for a slow reply, but I did not recall the specifics of the situation and did not make it a priority to review it as I have many other pending issues that I deemed more urgent. FloNight 19:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: having looked at the deletion history, I think that the 38 edits that were originally restored were too many. Sometimes, when someone deletes and restores something inappropriate that has just been added, he or she may miss earlier inappropriate additions from the history. I'd only restore up to and including Kingbotk at 22:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC), plus, of course, edits from after 10:15, 5 April 2007, as they were not subject to the original deletion. Musical Linguist 19:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point here is to allow David Boothroyd, i.e. user:DavidBoothroyd, to keep his other wikipedia identity private. While this has the air of trying to unscramble eggs, much of the deleted talk page content is trolling of this user. I don't see anything that must be restored in to order to understand and move forward editing the article. I could be persuaded to restore the content as Musical Linguist suggests, but only after obscuring the user's other account name. Thatcher131 20:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is true. There is no particular need to retain that history, and woe betide anyone who commits the gross privacy violation of mentioning the current username and the real name together (although the connection is trivially easy to establish). Guy (Help!) 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The subject had asked that specific edits be removed from multiple pages (not just the biography), so I limited myself to that request. I don't wish to compromise Dbiv current account, but he expressed satisfaction with these measures. El_C 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As the aggrieved party apparently expressed satisfaction at the removal of personal material by Admin User:El C then surely the appropriate action is to reinstate the position to the status following the User:El C changes?

User:FloNight has stated that they acted in haste and without any particular knowledge or interest (see above). However, on a point of fact, having now been able to untangle the relationship between the subject and their various editor names, it is not the case that the request for deletion was a backlog. Within 30 minutes of the subject's request on 5 April, Admin User:El C correctly removed the material supposedly compromising Boothroyd's wiki-editor identity.

It is therefore insufficient, in good practice, to make further sweeping changes, when the situation had already been correctly assessed and dealt with by User:El C to the subject's satisfaction.

Can I request that the discussion page is reinstated as per the User:El C edit at 10:22 on 5 April, subject of course to the removal of any residual "personal info" as suggested above by Thatcher131. Thanks leaky_caldron 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revert my monobook

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I fried it again. Rollback one edit please. --Pupster210 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it yourself. In IE: Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Custom level. Then under 'Scripting' Set 'Active Scripting' to disable. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh! Settings restricted at school!!!! --Pupster210 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the third time User:Pupster21 has accidentally locked himself out by modifying his monobook, see WP:VPT. Would somebody please revert the last edit to User:Pupster21/monobook.js? The account that posted the message on WP:VPT is also operated by Pupster and he only uses it whenever his monobook fries up. Thanks in advance. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he beat me to posting here. It is the account mentioned directly above this post. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He can do it himself. In IE: Tools -> Internet Options -> Security -> Custom level. Then under 'Scripting' Set 'Active Scripting' to disable. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh! Settings restricted at school! --Pupster210 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am mad at javascript. All I want is a working rollback button. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 20:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Gon4z

Gon4z (talk · contribs) has a content dispute with User:Noclador about what material is currently owned by the Albanian Army. However, Gon4z now repeatedly smears Noclador on his talk page calling him "anti-Albanian" and his edits "propaganda". Gon4z has also behaved with a similar disregard for WP:CIVIL against other users lately, and a NPA warning I posted to his page was immediately removed. He rutinely threatens or smears other editors.[189], [190], [191], [192], [193] Will somebody please do something to make him stop attacking other users? Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Resolved

Can an admin please semi-protect Brazilian waxing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a few days? A determined IP editor, using three different IPs so far, has tried three times over the past 12 hours (making several edits each time) to add material about a company to the page. Thank you. Anchoress 20:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to put this. You may need Requests for Page Protection --24.136.230.38 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Wow, I didn't even know that page existed. Thanks! Anchoress 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Conduct of User:Kafziel and Fox News Channel

Can someone please look into the conduct of the above user on the Fox News Channel talk page. Although there has been a vigorous debate for weeks on this page, today Kafziel decided to unilaterally declare an edit war (although the history shows no sign of one [194]) and full block the page. When I told him I disagreed with the block and responded to his other concerns [195], he responded with this [196]. First, I think it is troubling that a) he apparantly thinks lively discussion on the talk pages is an edit war, b) that he is apparantly gleeful about blocking everyone in a content dispute, and c) the unnecessarily hostile stance. Can someone please review this and remove the edit protection from the article, it is not needed. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone involved in this dispute, I actually support the page protection. This debate/edit war has been ongoing since October 2006 and includes one anon user who has been blanking the section since the very beginning (see diffs here). Without getting into the merits of either side of the argument, having the ability to continue reverting was not helping the discussion. If this forces discussion to continue (as it was already occurring), I see no need to unprotect just yet; let's give it some time. - auburnpilot talk 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although my objection remains (even though the correct version of the page has been locked), it should be noted that what led to the block was a report at 3RR for a user who was editting another section of the article. In addition, none of the current users who were discussing the intro on the talk page the last few days have been edit warring, as shown by the page history. But I will assume good faith and drop this for now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to step in and disagree with my friend AuburnPilot here... it's a very very bad thing when an admin feels the need to accuse all editors of being "out of hand" and worthy of blocks -- AuburnPilot, you yourself are very aware of the situation and persistant bad faith actions of some editors. By supporting this admin's actions you're both doing the good faith editors a disservice by supporting a lump categorization as well as inhibiting their ability to resolve the issues. Consensus building is a team effort that only works when everyone plays by the rules -- need I remind you of bad faith RFC's and blatant disregard of consensus and wikipolicies and guidelines by those editors? Protection and "encouraging discussion" with no understanding of the situation does no good. /Blaxthos 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying was that if Tom needed to be blocked, so did everyone else. But I also said Tom didn't need to be blocked. By extension, neither do any of you. So let's not try to portray me as some block-happy maniac. In fact, your real complaint is that I didn't block anyone at all. But admins aren't attack dogs you can just sick on people you don't like.

Consensus building can occur whether the article is locked or not. Consensus building can't occur when one of the editors is frozen out of the discussion. Tom was warned, agreed to stop edit warring, and was willing to discuss the issue, so I didn't block him. As I already pointed out, he couldn't have violated 3RR unless the rest of you were on the other side reverting him. Just because a bunch of you ganged up on him doesn't mean it isn't an edit war. He was stubborn, POV-pushing, and bold, but none of those constitute vandalism so you should have discussed the issue without revert warring after it was clear he wasn't going to stop. 3RR isn't something you strive to push your opponents into so you can shut them up and win an argument. Kafziel ^Talk 13:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

{{uw-block3}}

Resolved

Hi, I'm bringing this here as I don't want to get into 3rr, and would appreciate some outside input. User:98E changed[197] the image and some wording on {{uw-block3}} without an edit summary. I have almost all of the warning templates in my watch list and reverted[198] the change with the edit summary please discuss any further changes at WT:UTM. He did leave a brief message which I missed but he then changed[199] it straight back and I reverted[200] him again and left a message asking him to discuss it. As I'd missed his note, and already reverted it twice I can't go any further. I'd rather as with all the templates that the change is discussed first, and left another message to that effect. If someone could have a look please would be appreciated. Cheers ^Khukri 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After multiple warnings, User:98E continued to revert and has now been blocked for 24 hours by EVula. He/she is of course requesting to be unblocked. - auburnpilot talk 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Block log says he's been blocked a month ago by Nishkid for the same. I've had dealings with himr before and have to honestly say it had all been good. If it hadn't been for the other block would have argued on his behalf. Thanks for the intervention however. ^Khukri 22:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked 98E indefinitely per incriminating checkuser evidence. Picaroon (Talk) 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Danny Daniel

Resolved

Supericious (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel (long term abuse styled page of Danny Daniel is already wikilinked in heading). The user created a hoax article called Space Ham (A spoof of Space Jam, an article that some of Danny Daniel's other likely indefinitely blocked sockpuppets, such as User:Choolabuuulba have started to edit. Usually, these accounts created hoaxes based on Space Jam.). The user also contributed to List of characters in My Gym Partner's a Monkey. Squirepants101 22:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This incident was resolved by the User:Ryulong. Supericious has now been blocked. Squirepants101 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for sockpuppet block

My previous request appears to have been lost or buried in the sheer volume of material that gets added to this page so I am re-posting it in the hopes that it catches an admin's attention this time.

I would like to request blocks of probable sockpuppets as indicated by this checkuser case. Thank you. JFD 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done Thatcher131 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A request to restore a small part of deleted content

I do not believe this qualifies as an "administrator incident." I believe this is an editing dispute involving an administrator; however, the administrator in question disagrees and pointed me here. I shall attempt an unbiased summary and then proceed with my request.

A Wikipedia administrator, Swatjester, removed a portion of the Age of Conan article on the grounds of WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:RS. Note that I partially agree with his deletions; in particular, regarding the guild-specific material. However, at the time, I mistakenly assumed this was another act of weekly vandalism and, after reverting, stated a gruff warning in my comment. He believed my warning was uncivil ("brutal") and, after undoing my last change, posted on my Talk Page in a manner which, I felt, was equally uncivil. A hotly-debated war of words began on his Talk Page.

However, I am not here to debate those events, my incivility or, in my opinion, his brusque intractability. I am posting here to request permission to retrieve certain sentences purged in his administrative deletions.

Now, I agree with the administrator that the bulk of the content he removed is, indeed, "unreferenced fancruft." I further agree that the majority of guild-specific content was appropriately removed in accordance with WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:RS. I am not objecting to his enforcement of those policies or his overall reasons for the deletions. I am objecting that I cannot salvage certain imbedded sentences regarding Funcom's community initiatives: I would like to restore two small parts of his deleted content which are not "unreferenced fancruft." However, as Swatjester maintains that all the deleted content is unreferenced fancruft and also does not deem this as an editing dispute, I am in a bind.

In short, I would like to restore the following sentences from his administrative deletions:

“ Throughout the development of Age of Conan, Funcom heavily emphasized community relations to encourage the fan sites that support Age of Conan. The fan sites are frequently sent exclusive content to display on their pages as well as exclusive interviews with development staff. ”

And:

“ In April 2006, Funcom created a Guild Hall for its pre-launch community and, within hours, forum members began organizing their player guilds. These guilds consist of individuals who typically share the same playing styles and gameplay opinions. ”

Note that the above sentences can be properly cited and/or referenced via official websites.

And, yes, this is a very trivial issue. -- Flask 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put those sentences in, then go ahead; reverting that would certainly be an editing dispute. Your statement implies that you have previously attempted to put in only that information, which you haven't. -Amarkov moo! 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to those sentences if they are sourced, however they are rather redundant and pointless: ALL publishers and developers give fan sites exclusive material: almost all include a community forum of some sort. That is commonly accepted in ALL games, not just MMORPG's, and I state that coming from extensive experience of work in the games industry in both management, editorialship, reviewing, and game development.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned on Amarkov's talk page, this is the first I am hearing about wanting to put in two lines. Those two lines were never discussed with me, certainly not discussed on the article talk page. If they had, we wouldn't be here, as they are obviously fine for inclusion. However the rest of the stuff wasn't, and the resulting brouhaha coming out of it was a little sickening. Again, see below section for more details. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

response

This is not the whole story. I have made a total of two edits, reverting unsourced information about a non-notable, unsourced bit of game fan cruft. Diffs: my original removal of information, Flask's disruptive attack on me for deletion including threats, my revert and response, citing policy (current version. Please see my talk page for the full length of the discussion.

Content wise: this game is not yet released. There is overwhelming precedent not to add information about guilds to articles on MMORPGs: there is even less reason to add the information for one that has only been in beta testing for less than 1 week. The information was unreferenced, does not come from a reliable source (claims from the publisher itself about their own product), and is entirely non notable. Go see the diffs. Compare to our articles on Counter-strike, World of Warcraft, Dark Age of Camelot, Everquest etc. Fan run community stuff is not suitable for inclusion unless it achieves some level of notability itself: this is well established.

So now we have WP:NOT a crystal ball, non notable, unsourced, unreliable information. I removed it, and I was immediately accused of a WP:OWN violation, disruptive editing, ignoring WP:V, incivility, abusing my authority as an administrator, threats, vandalism etc.....all in the space of one edit.

I'll point out Flask's edit summary there "Reverted a mass-deletion by Swatjester. If you continue to delete large sections of this article without any preceding Talk Page discussion, I'll report you for vandalism and notify an administrator." Who's making threats? My edit summary in response was to cite policy and state "I am an administrator.

Flask cannot even argue there is any talk page consensus. the history shows that were only two talk page comments in the past TWO MONTHS, and none of them had anything to do with the subject matter.

Summary: this is absolutely ridiculous. I perform an uncontroversial action, not even requiring the use of any admin tools, and I'm brutally attacked by this editor, throwing misquotes of policy at me, and trying to misrepresent my actions. This is absolutely absurd. I've warned Flask for his incivility, threats, and ownership violations. This is the last straw. Outside observers need to clearly inform Flask of his errors, and correct his misperceptions of policy, or I will do so by any preventative measures necessary to continue to keep the editing on the article constructive and civil. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Agree, this is a crock. Archive it out or mark it as done with. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• SWATJester is in the right here. Any unsourced information can be deleted at will. Unless there are reliable sources, it doesn't get in the article. Period. The fact that Flask made inappropriate threats makes it harder than usual to assume good faith in this matter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JoshuaZ and BLP and Daniel Brandt

JoshuaZ did this. Good judgement or bad judgement? WAS 4.250 01:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad judgement, besides which he reverted my comments and I am not banned, and DB is only banned at his own request. This violates the spirit of BLP amongst other things and I have reverted because my comments were removed and I absolutely have the right to comment on the BLP talk page, SqueakBox 01:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt was commenting in a policy situation and engaging in more of his standard threats. This was not an attempt by Brandt to fix specific issues on his page, and so the "spirit" of BLP does not support him in this instance. As I have already commented to SqueakBox, it doesn't make sense to only remove every other comment in his discussion. JoshuaZ 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

On a technical point, I don't see any legal threat from Brandt in that thread. He mentions a schedule for appealing to the Wikimedia Foundation board of directors. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt is indefinitely banned. If he wants to have something done, he can email the foundation. He knows who to contact.--MONGO 07:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We can also ignore WP:BAN when the net benefit of Brandt being able to post is good for the encyclopedia; his latest posts certainly seem helpful and not hurtful. --Iamunknown 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brandt knows the email address for OTRS, Jimbo and most of the arbcom, he also knows that he is absolutely banned from posting to Wikipedia AT ALL, including the specific case of his article's talk page. Why would we continue to allow him to ignore that? He has means to get factual inaccuracies fixed, and his past behaviour is such that simply engaging with him presents a real riski to the privacy of editors, a risk to which people should not be subjected. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If ignoring WP:BAN would improve Wikipedia I would agree, but in this case I think BAN is protecting Wikipedia from disruption. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True. --Iamunknown 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kd lvr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (combined User:TREYWiki and SVRTVDude requests)

User:Kd lvr is a nuisance and vandal. He continues to troll on mine and User:Orangemonster2k1‎'s talk pages, after we have apologized for the sock accusations. User:Blueboy96‎ brought up meatpuppet accusations, that are obviously true. His friend, User:Kdkatpir2, was indefinatly blocked for personal attacks and socking. Kd kat has violated the 3RR on the KDKA page, and his own user page, removing {{meatpuppet}} tags and trolling. He has created KDKA anchor pages, text copied off the KDKA website, and violates WP:OWN, assuming ownership of articles. He is severely disrupting the project, we could all be making helpful edits instead of dealing with him. He has proven extremely hard to deal with, his page is loaded with warnings, and I think he needs to be indefinatly blocked. We have reported him to WP:AVI but they have directed us here. --TREYWiki 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kd lvr continues to add inaccurate and unconfirmed information to pages after last warn, continues to WikiOWN several articles on Wiki, including KDKA-TV (which has had inaccurate, unconfirmed and unneeded information added to it repeatedly). User is also a suspected meatpuppet of User:Kdkatpir2 (who has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppeteer and abusing several accounts) and has been previously blocked for this behaviour in the past couple days. User continues to add inaccurate information as of this writing. - SVRTVDude ^(VT) 02:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kd lvr was blocked for personal attacks on me, which he has continued after that block expired. --TREYWiki 02:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you two have been stalking and harassing him, and scored the inevitable flame after endless flamebaiting. I see no reason to think the utterly lame content dispute you are engaged in at KDKA-TV has anything to do with vandalism or trolling, or that Kd lvr is any more of a meatpuppet than you two. I'm blocking all three and deleting this offensive attack subpage: User talk:TREYWiki/KD KLAN. Screaming "WE KNOW YOU ARE A SOCKPUPPETEER!" with no basis and "WHOOHOOO!!!" when someone gets blocked for 3RR is very immature and doesn't belong here. You've been assuming bad faith from the beginning and it needs to stop if this is going to be resolved. Dmcdevit·t 02:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support Dmcdevit's blocks 100%. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• I like it, just like Solomon, cut them all in half. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Userpage of User:Davenbelle

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for additional remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

I was wondering if the page could be undeleted since arbitrators will be reviewing evidence from the past arbitration case which includes Davenbelle's userpage. -- Cat ^chi? 02:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators are admins, and therefore can view deleted edits and pages unless such edits/pages have been oversighted. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

True I suppose... -- Cat ^chi? 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated inappropriate edits to a biography of a living person article

FactsFirst (talk · contribs) is a single-use account dedicated to adding pejorative material to Kevin Potvin. The article was fully protected for a while because of a political controversy that drew some unsavory editors to the page. I requested that it be only semi-protected and since then only two editors have been making inappropriate additions, and now it’s down to one. I suggest that FactsFirst be blocked for the following reasons:

• User has refused to discuss contentious edits on the article’s talk page, instead choosing to engage in a POV edit war with me and the occasional snide comment on my talk page.
• User has been amply warned on their talk page that their edits are inappropriate, with reference to relevant policies and guidelines, including a final warning.
• FactsFirst’s edits are sourced with newspaper editorials smearing the subject, but only serve as character assassination and don’t speak to the subject’s notability. Some of the individual edits just look like bad encyclopedia writing, but taken collectively constitute a systematic campaign in contravention of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:DICK. Diffs are as follows: [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], and [206].

The controversy in the real world has run its course and it appears only one diehard is keeping up the campaign on Wikipedia, so it seems that a block is in order rather than full protection of the article. If FactsFirst is blocked and similar inappropriate edits continue, I will request a check-user because the style of another editor, Naddude (talk · contribs), suggests a bit of sockpuppetry has occurred. Thank you. bobanny 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)(moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. bobanny 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

COFS indef blocked

Given the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, I have indefinitely blocked COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CSI LA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), because the CSI LA account was used for block evasion during COFS's past blocks. This does not mean that the blocks cannot ever be lifted, or even that the blocks should not be reduced immediately. I have no opinion about the appropriate block lengths. But I felt this was the necessary first step while discussion takes place about what exactly should happen in the long run. ··coelacan 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... both of those accounts were involved in the minor shitstorm over my week-long block of Misou (talk · contribs). AGF or RFCU, I'm so conflicted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I kinda doubt Misou is the same person, but who knows. CSI LA stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. 75.62.7.22 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe there may be several people sharing a common ip at Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles, Misou is also one of them. I would like to reduce the block to a week and then have this matter follow the dispute resolution process. I have looked at the edits of CSI LA, while aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view, they mostly consist of removal of links to original research by the opposition. Fred Bauder 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific about the WP:OR the editor(s) were removing? Anynobody 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121754554
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121753145
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodore%27s_Messenger_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=1217410
• Fred Bauder 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fred Bauder, I wanted to make sure it wasn't one of mine. (P.S. the third link goes to some page from 2003). Anynobody 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The first one isn't original research as per WP:OR, it was based on quotes of other people. The second one was based on an analysis of "48 hours". The third one don't work properly [207], it goes to a weird page not based on the history of the article. If you mean this edit, [208], it is a link to a biography. --Tilman 05:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Characterizing CSI LA's edits as merely "aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view" drastically underplays the disruption of this editor. At L. Ron Hubbard, CSI LA stated([209]) that he had looked up certain quotes from Hubbard's The Fundamentals of Thought cited in the article, and found those quotes differed significantly between his book and the article. He characterized the quotes, as presented in the article, as "falsified" for "the purpose of slandering Hubbard". Strong words, but nothing outside the boundaries of appropriate debate, IMHO, even if he added speculation on the "motivation behind this and motivation of those keeping it in there". I checked the quotes in question against my own copy of Fundamentals and found that in that edition, the quotes existed in almost exactly the form presented in the article, differing as far as I could see only in punctuation. I replied to CSI LA,([210]) explaining that while he might have in good faith believed that he had irrefutably proved "falsification", I could personally verify that the quotes he asserted "do not even exist" did in fact exist in official editions of the book, and if he wished to verify it himself he had the full publication data of both editions cited. Obviously it was disappointing when his next comment on the matter([211]) continued to call the quotes "a fake and slander attack on Hubbard" and assert "The real quotes are not containing such statements". Ignoring others is not civil. Judge for yourself whether my response([212]) was mild enough given the circumstances. CSI LA's next comment([213]) was what went completely beyond acceptable behavior. It was not only full of attacks upon my competence ("... to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder.") and upon my motivations ("Maybe so you can complain along about hot air.", "You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials.") but upon my integrity as an editor ("You know better than you say.", "What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes.") By still calling them "altered quotes" he is alleging that when I say I checked the evidence and told him how he can even double-check that very same evidence if he chooses, that I am lying. If it is allowed to simply allege without just cause for suspicion that someone is lying when they say "Here are the reliable sources which say these things verbatim", then we might as well shut down Wikipedia right here; it cannot operate other than on the principle that when one editor of good standing says "yes, I have checked this source, and yes, it does support this claim," the burden of proof is then upon those who would dispute that. To say "nothing is sourced well enough to go into the article if I have to take someone else's word that the sources support it" is a form of solipsism, and it is equally deleterious. As I have frequently pointed out, politeness is not civility; CSI LA's language might meet certain minimum standards for acceptable debate but his monstrous allegations attack the entire concept of collaborative editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The disturbing evidence brought forth from the Checkuser Case Confirmation brings up other issues as well. Isn't this also blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline??? At the very least, if the IPs are all coming from this certain locale, it belies that most likely there is some sort of funding going on to edit Wikipedia in a certain manner. How is this any different than the User:MyWikiBiz issue? Certainly this would go towards some serious considerations of many of the subsections of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, including but not limited to potentially: Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Close relationships, Campaigning, and Citing oneself... Also, at User_talk:Coelacan#COFS_and_CSI_LA, am I correct when I read that Misou (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is also related to this series of IPs as well? How many of these individuals are either the same individual or organization, or are relate to the conflict of interests outlined above? If this is not allowed for the concept and user User:MyWikiBiz, why is it allowed in other situations? Smee 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Thank you Smee for your words. Although I'd understand that corporations are allowed to work on the wikipedia entries of their products and services, I consider it deeply disturbing when several staff members would do so. Theoretically, scientology has the resources to simply set up 20 full time Sea Org staff members (payment: less than $100 a week) at that same IP. Hey, it could even set up 20 different IPs for them. --Tilman 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the cofs would do this because it could always be reverted at a later date AND they have a "security" concern about staff getting information that might lead to them change their point of view on the cofs and leave.--Fahrenheit451 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why current block makes sense

I've honestly tried to think of how this could be a mistake as opposed to dishonesty, but whenever I try to give the editor(s) in question the benefit of the doubt they demonstrate reasons why I shouldn't. For example this statement from COFS talking about how Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop was able to stay:[214]. (My reply:[215]).

He'd get the benefit of the doubt except since he knows about Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop he's either read up on it in the archives like I have or he was here under a different name while it was happening. Either way, he should know better based on the outcome of said example. Or how CSI LA harassed a sysop for blocking Misou:

1. CSI LA advocating unblock of Misou, calls neutral sysop anti-Scientologist for not unblocking
2. same as last diff but on WP:ANI.
3. CSI LA advances notion that Misou was "set up".

If it's one person, the block should stay. If it's several people the block seems just as appropriate because they appear to be working together in a manner not intended by the principles of this project. Also please note that even the points for unblocking raised by them are misrepresentations. CSI LA has said (in an e-mail postd on his talk page) that 1000 Scientologists are being affected. This can not be true, and instead makes it seem as though we are persecuting people rather than enforcing the rules (something the CoS has been observed doing in the past). Anynobody 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The comparisons to my "highfructosecornsyrup" experiment aren't even in the same ballpark anyhow. My two accounts never had conversations with each other, as CSI LA and COFS did. My two accounts never backed each other up in edit wars- in fact, I had stopped editing as Wikipediatrix during that time. I didn't operate two accounts simultaneously. COFS/CSI LA, by contrast, made every effort to portray themselves as two different persons, talked to each other, and apparently used the identities to bolster one user's opinion with two user's voices. (and even if they are two different people, if they're editing from the same office on the same mission or as a WP:ROLE account, that might as well be one person, as far as I'm concerned.) wikipediatrix 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I explained to COFS, you were not trying to give the impression that you are more than one person whereas he was. The difference is as big as night and day, with what you did being day and their tactics being night. Anynobody 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the sock-puppet matter alone is egregious enough to block this user, but the adjunct policy violations, such as repeated personal attacks and incivility, strengthen the rationale for the block.--Fahrenheit451 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Block reduced

User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA Anynobody 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of active content dispute by FeloniousMonk

FeloniousMonk moved my comments, and those of many others, in this edit, in a content dispute of which he is an active participant, in an effort to marganilize opposing viewpoints. ImprobabilityDrive 05:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This active discussion is in regard to the very reason the article was protected. While I am an active participant (and target), I request that an objective administrator review the move, revert it if it was against wikipedia policy, and provide appropriate response to FeloniousMonk. Thanks, ImprobabilityDrive 05:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon to move a particular thread to a subpage, if it's off topic, clogging up the page, or causing disruption. No idea if that's the case here, but he didn't use any admin tools, so I don't see what his involvement in a content dispute has to do with it. In any case, it's not something that requires administrators' intervention. If others agree with his move, they'll support him at that talk page; if not, someone will probably move the comments back. Musical Linguist 05:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It takes sophisticated knowledge to move the article back, and it is well known that FeloniousMonk is an admin. His edit summary's convey his authority. He indicated in his move that the purpose was to avoid complicating the case that I was a disruptive editor. He provides permission to other contributors to continue to enforce his move here. ImprobabilityDrive 05:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ImprobabilityDrive has been deemed by the community at that article a classic disruptive editor. The section I moved to a subpage was a proposal already widely rejected by every established editor of the article several times over and reintroduced yet again. It was moved to allow for other discussions to take place that might actually have a change at gaining consensus.

ImprobabilityDrive's disruption has taken the form of edit warring at that article and at Sternberg peer review controversy, and have resulted in both being protected. He consistently rejects community input and calls for moderation while continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and admins. Not to mention his campaign to drive away productive contributors through gaming the system at WP:AN/I and WP:DE. There's an ongoing discussion among the regular editors to that article (which I am not one) for a user conduct RFC on ImprobabilityDrive, for which there is near unanimous support. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I encourage whatever objective admin that looks at this to dig in to the veracity of the assertions made by FeloniousMonk. For example, the only person now contributing to the discussion is FeloniousMonk, now that he has disrupted it [216]. Previously, as can be seen here, other contributors were commenting, and we were making headway. ImprobabilityDrive 06:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is free to continue on the subpage, here: Talk:Creation-evolution controversy/Sternberg dscussion I don't see how you can in all honesty call no one agreeing with you "making progress." Also, this section Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#To_all_those_that_are_piling_on adds zero value, is further disruption, and really needs to be userfied.

In around six days, User:ImprobabilityDrive has posted 112 times to Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, making him the 10th largest contributor, compared to people who've been posting there for years. It's too much, and it's overwhelming the page. I've asked him to consider taking it off his watchlist for a couple of days to let things cool down. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If only Slim would take her own advice on (e.g.) Pallywood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.66.55 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

<officer barbary> "Nothing to see here people, move along"</officer barbary> ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked ImprobabilityDrive as a sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich. It surprises me no one did it already: the account was obviously a sockpuppet, nearly all the edits touched on fundamentalist Christianity in some manner, and the attempts to whitewash Louisiana Baptist University are a dead giveaway. Durova^Charge! 07:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I only had it at 50% probability, wasn't there a recent checkuser on Gastrich? Anywa, good call - that one is here to promote The Truth (TM) not what is verifiable. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the community is much better off now. I recently began to realise he was likely a sock, but like Guy I was a bit surprised that he was Gastrich's sock. Zeus knows he certainly stirred up enough trouble. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What really did it for me was the diff where he fluffed up a citation of the school's doctoral program. I mean, who else would both care about inflating the appearance of one particular program at an unaccredited bible college and know so much about how Wikipedia works? It's a slam dunk in my opinion, and if checkuser didn't catch this then all it means is he's getting a little clever on the technical end. That might be worth watching for future reference. Durova^Charge! 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Multi-editor improper deletion (without another AFD) of main part of United States military aid to Israel

Some editors are trying to delete the weapon systems list from this article. It is the main part of this article. Here is the last revision of the intact article:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_military_aid_to_Israel&oldid=127900153

This article already survived a recent AFD, a recent incident report, and a recent DRV.

Discussion has already been tried and failed. Dispute resolution suggests protecting the page while further discussion continues. I am also asking other editors and admins who are reading this to come to the talk page. I am also asking those MANY editors and admins who commented on the AFD, DRV, and PREVIOUS incident report to also come to the talk page. I also am asking those who understand better the dispute resolution processes, and incident boards, to take the appropriate actions. I do not know all of them. I have used many of the dispute resolution processes in the past, but I have found that until some admins get involved, genuine discussion frequently does not occur on the talk pages dealing with Arab and/or Israeli articles. But the bottom line is that an attempt to delete the main part of the article is happening YET AGAIN. The weapon systems list is the reason this article can not be merged with other articles, and should not be merged. It is another roundabout deletion without having to go through AFD. I am requesting that the last intact revision be protected, so as not to allow this roundabout deletion to stand.

Here is a summary of what already has happened with this article:

United States military aid to Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel. The original closing admin (Doc) wrote: "The result was KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages." Another admin deleted that closing improperly, and changed the closing admin comment to "The result was Delete - with a strong suggestion to merge." See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States military aid to Israel. During the DRV, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 26, the original closing admin (Doc) clarified his closing comment and changed it to, "The result was No Consensus = default KEEP - merging is of course an editorial decision to be worked out on the talk pages". The DRV closing admin wrote: "After examining the comments carefully (and ignoring the boldfaces here, which were often confused), there is a ~75% consensus in support of Doc's original closure. Relisting is at editorial option; merge discussions belong on the appropriate talk pages." There are overall articles called United States military aid and Israel-United States military relations. The list of U.S.-supplied weapons systems in the article in question here, United States military aid to Israel, is already too long to merge with those 2 articles. It is also too long to merge with Israel-United States relations#United States military and economic aid. WP:NPOV help is needed to maintain and to fill out this spinout article more. --Timeshifter 09:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK QUACK

We don't need a DNA test to tell which type of bird this is.

I rather suspect that this was so loud they probably heard it in China. 69.105.173.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is, I suspect, the latest visitation of Jacob Peters. Los Angeles IP, pro-Communist/Stalin trolling hitting Peters' usual articles. Might be a good idea to block for a couple hours so he won't use this IP again either today or tomorrow. Moreschi ^Talk 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing with rage

I request that some admin stop User:Sarvagnya from going on a disruption spree. I don't want to take admin action as I'm a complainant myself. This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. His edit summaries and talk page comments are almost always provocative. One fine editor who has produced a bunch of FAs has gone into semi-retirement unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang. More users including me are stressed to the point of leaving. Attempts at reconciliation have not worked.

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. He took the next worst choice -- going on a rampage with anything that's linked from there. The latest is the article Tamil people, a featured article and also one which has undergone FA review recently. His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case, but request someone to look into his history of disruption and take action. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I told you guys to seek mediation, and I still think that's best for everyone. This seems to me to be a complex dispute and a two-way street. I nominated Tamil language for featured article review, and it was closed as a "keep", just as the article was being locked and having its neutrality disputed. This has quickly spiraled out of control, but I still would suggest something better than running to admins all the time during your disputes. Grandmasterka 09:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, Sarvagnya seems to have been cleared of being a sockpuppeteer. Grandmasterka 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Have the same opinion about this as Grandmasterka... DR should be used for disputes, with ANI used when things spiral out of control, and admin intervention is necessary to sort things out. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself and he, having bought some time, started his disruptive edits with other related articles. Reg him being a sock, I just notice that the clerks asuumed good faith and revised the decision as meatpuppetry.

Kzrulzuall, I know that DR is generally a better choice. But, we've been through this earlier too. That time, I was a lot more patient, but still we lost or almost lost another editor. I am no longer willing to play this game of pacifying him. I'm going to go away rather than stressing myself with another DR with him. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I could tag the article for OR. But then Mr. Sundar and his stooge Parthi will come and immediately revert it. If you throw in two inline citations in a 10000 word article or names of two books under ==Refs==, the article becomes 'sourced'! Right? Yeah right. Sarvagnya 10:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Assumed good faith and revised as meatuppetry"?!! - Thats misleading people here with malicious intent. Sarvagnya 10:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The very accusations of sockpuppetry were infact in bad faith and I proved it. There was no sockpuppetry. There was no meatpuppetry. Nonsense! Sarvagnya 10:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This person has been nitpicking in numerous Tamil language-related articles despite being warned several times and blocked a few times for disruption and sockpuppetry. - Evidence please. Sarvagnya 10:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He unilaterally removes cited content claiming the authors have an "investment" in writing those. At the same time, he adds things supported by older citations that have been subsequently rebutted. He often adds/deletes/modifies prose just adding an author's name as a citation. In short, he plays the citation game to suit him. - Shameless and malicious misrepresentation of facts. Does not befit an admin. Not in the least. Sarvagnya 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka, I requested him to suggest a draft himself - You didnt suggest that we write drafts. I did. Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recently, his eyes fell on History of Tamil Nadu which is scheduled to be featured on May 5 on the main page. He started "defacing" the article with tags quickly reverting himself perhaps with the realisation that his intent would be too obvious. - Bullshit! Sarvagnya 10:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

His tagging spree includes images that are already licensed under {{gfdl-self}}. - I perhaps tagged only one such image. And didnt resist once it got reverted. Sarvagnya 10:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please revise your tone, Sarvagnya, as you are not acting very civil. If you have comments, please address them properly. Accusing users of having "Malicious intent" does not help. --Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them on some article doesnt help either nor is it very civil. Sarvagnya 10:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And since when is tagging copyvio and asking for citations disruption?! Does this admin in question who openly told me that he cannot assume good faith with me even know what disruption is? Sarvagnya 10:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I'd have done if I was editing with rage. I'd have moved Tamil language back into FAR. Whoever had heard of an article thats protected and with POV and disputed tags being closed as FAs. That too with no semblance of a voting exercise on the FAR page. Sarvagnya 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm too tired to collect and summarise evidence in this case... - I'm tired too. Or I could present several diffs.. even one of the admin in question biting a new user who just happened to be on the other side of the POV divide. Shameful indeed. I could also present a diff where the admin in question attributes malicious intent to me. And many more. Sarvagnya 10:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sundar wouldn't be an admin if he doesn't know what "disruption" is. If someone is behaving uncivilly with you, it is not an excuse to behave uncivilly back. Please calm down before you start making more accusations to respected users editing in good faith.--Kzrulzuall ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Editing in "good faith"? Dont you see how he lies about my block record in a bid to sway opinion of some admin in the hope that some admin would block me? He says I've been blocked several times for disruption and sockpuppetry while one quick look at my block log will reveal that I have been blocked ONLY ONCE and that too for 'fighting' with another user who the concerned admins will testify was a rank bad troll. He and all his accomplices were subsequently blocked for using abusive sockpuppets against me or other users. I could go on.. every single word that Sundar has written is a lie. L-I-E. LIE. Sarvagnya 10:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

...unable to tolerate the nitpicking by him and his gang.... - me and my gang? would you elaborate please? Last I remember, I was waging a lone battle against a tag team of reverters on Tamil language and Talk:Tamil language. Sarvagnya 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Signing off for now. If any admin has any questions, I will answer each one of them. For now, suffice to say that all of Sundar's charges are baseless and nonsense. He is trying to use his admin weight to bully me into submission in the content issue he and his friends are having with me on Tamil language. Sarvagnya 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since evidence is being asked, I will provide them.

Evidence of removing cited content:

He removes the following cited content unilaterally here.

"On the other hand a number of scholars believe that the influence of Tamil and Dravidian had a far greater influence, including grammar, syntax, poetics and meter on Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages."

He then proceeds to remove following cited fact here.

"Unlike in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where early inscriptions were written in Sanskrit, the early inscriptions in Tamil nadu used Tamil exclusively."

This is not the first time where he removes cited facts from Tamil nadu related articles. Previous cited content removal with offending edit summaries are here, here, here, & here. It is particularly notable that in one edit summary he indulges in OR & attacks the Tamil epic's content as disco-dance (a slang in south India for cabaret [217]).

Possible defamation of eminent Tamil researcher & other Tamil organizations (sangams) here where he compares their work to 'squat'.

"...Hart's campaign and sundry Tamil sangams' 'campaigns' would have counted for squat minus Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress govt.,.)..."

Then he indulges in personal attack on all other editors in the talk page of Tamil language article without proof here where he accuses other editors of trolling.

"If only you guys would have spent less time trolling on Halmidi and Rashtrakuta FAC and Kannada and Bharatanatya and Carnatic music, we could have had more time to thrash out several issues on this page."

I warned about this personal attack here.

Can he provide evidence for the claim that he was exonerated from meat-puppetry charges? The restrictions on him were removed on account of subsequent contributions by him & his confirmed meat puppet. Not that his confirmed case was changed to unconfirmed.

He accuses admin Sundar of bullying him (again without any proof). Please make a stop to all these. Thanks. Praveen 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential sock puppets' affecting opinion at deletion review

Please check the three users at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review&oldid=125702519, User:TomSkillingJr., User:Chudzooka and User:Shoopshoop for sock puppetry. They posted within six minutes of one another, and each made the same mistake of arguing for deletion on a discussion page. Their user contributions don't extend further than discrediting Cory Williams. More puppets might be found at Talk:Cory Williams.

I ask this because the article Cory Williams is currently undergoing deletion review at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cory_Williams. Although no puppets have surfaced at the review yet, the user who initiated the review did so solely on the basis of a perceived controversy on Talk:Cory Williams at the behest of User:TomSkillingJr., whom I believe to be the puppet master. Even though the user who initiated the review states he finds Cory Williams notable, a manufactured controversy could end up compromising the review.Ichormosquito 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User Stalking Other User with Constant Incivility and Per Attacks

User Eleemosynary has been following around user Getaway and reverted almost all edits and then personally attacking user Getaway. Examples of this can be found in these places: [218], [219], [220], [221], [222]. I need assistance.--Getaway 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Getaway/Keetowah: I'd be happy to post diffs for over 500 instances of personal attacks and disruptive edits coming from you, your various identities, and your sockpuppet/meatpuppets. I urge you, as Fred Bauder has, to take this to a dispute resolution so all information can come to light. : ) Eleemosynary 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:K1ng l0v3

The user mentionned above has been calling me "Persian wishfull thinker" in the past when I added a sourced statement in the Iranian Military Industry and this is unacceptable. It was related to an Iranian submarine Nahang 1, which exists but this person denies it, and keeps reverting my edits. So I don't know what to do and I don't want to make any personal attacks. SSZ 13:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JASON NAZARIO

Resolved

 – It seems to be deleted, I'll watch it and salt if needed. CMummert · talk 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please delete this attack page asap and deal with the interference of the other school kids trying to keep it in existence. --Dweller 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with a POINT violation but concerned about 3RR

I've got a problem with a user who's disrupting the Anomalistics page by moving the pages infobox from the top right hand corner of a page to the the bottom right hand corner of the page, and by deleting pertinent information from the definition of the term described on the page even though it is backed up by references from the man who first coined it.

With the exception of moving the infobox to silly places the users edits aren't obvious vandalism (there's no bad language or anything) unless you're familiar with the topic, so I'm concerned that I will be slapped with a 3RR violation if I keep undoing it. An admin's assistance would be most welcome here.

perfectblue 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Try the talk page to figure out why they're doing it? Content disputes like this aren't vandalism. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Can an unbiased administrator please look at this article as soon as possible please? An administrator with a Sinn Féin image on their userpage has taken exception to content that is fully sourced from reliable sources, claiming WP:BLP. Practically every single book ever written on the Troubles or the IRA names Adams as an IRA member in the 1970s, and I've recently cited four of them in the article along with other sources which were there already. Betacommand has then jumped in threatening to block anyone who adds the material back without proper sourcing and multiple reliable sources, totally ignoring the fact it is sourced exactly like that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The above statement regarding the use of "reliable sources" is patently false. I've recently learned that Sean O'Callaghan is being used as a Wikipedia reference to make spurious claims about Irish politicians being involved in criminal activities. Sean O'Callaghan is a former IRA member who became an informant for the Garda (Irish police). He has an inherent and evident bias against the fellows who he turned against and cannot be considered a reliable source. I've tried to explain this numerous times that the section in question does not comply to WP:BLP. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's disputable, but the section doesn't even say that he was an IRA member, it just says that various people have stated that he was. The very first sentence in the section was that he denied it. -Amarkov moo! 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer (if you object to O'Callaghan) would be to remove the O'Callaghan part, and leave all the other sources in. Objecting to O'Callaghan does not give you carte blanche to remove every other source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but as I've mentioned to you in the past, Adams has directly refuted and dismissed Ed Moloney's claims. In addition, you sourced Michael McDowell, the PD leader. I wouldn't consider that at all reliable either. Using Wikipedia to advance your goals of attempting to associate a politician with a criminal organisation is inappropriate. In addition, there's not been any proof of this, and again, Adams has denied all of these claims. You've been edit warring with me on numerous articles about this particular point, and while I've attempted to reach a compromise with you on List of IRA Chiefs of Staff, you keep insisting on interjecting your POV gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I insist on maintaining a neutral point of view, as do several other editors who've tried to add the Adams content back. It's quite ironic that by one group of editors I get accused of having a pro-republican bias, now I'm being accused of having an anti-republican bias. The presence of a SF logo on your userpage clearly shows your POV on this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My having a SF logo on my userpage equates to a POV that I eschew the IRA? Haha, now I've heard it all. This conversation might be a bit confusing to those outside of Ireland, and perhaps Britain, but SF has long since maintained direct ties to the IRA, so I'm not sure how removing biased information about an SF member incorrectly being labeled an IRA member equates to a POV (as I realise that I've mentioned they've direct ties, it should be noted that the IRA is completely decommissioned now, off of the US list of terrorist organisations, and plenty of SF members have never been a part of the IRA, Adams included). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether you consider McDowell or O'Callaghan a reliable source is irrelevant. If they made these claims and the claim has been reported on in a reliable source then there is no issue including it in an article here. In these cases all the information is referenced from reliable sources. On the Adams article, as ONiH states multiple sources have been given. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, it doesn't matter if I consider them to be reliable. Apologies for the confusion. I don't consider them reliable based on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact I specifically added four additional sources before adding it back the first time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gaillimh, you misunderstand. McDowell is an Irish politician and lawyer, O'Callaghan is a former IRA member. So their opinions or claims are relevant. Any of our own opinions on them are irrelevant. We might think they are wrong, but that's irrelevant. They made these claims and they were reported on in reliable, independant sources which are used in the articles. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Without the alleged IRA membership, the article fails WP:NPOV. The significant view (among journalists, authors, politicians etc) is that Adams is a former member of the IRA, that Adams denies it does not affect this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is significant opinion that Adams has been an IRA member in the past. In an attempt at a compromise, I suggest that we find reliable sources to present both claims, while obviously giving precedence to Adam's own refutations and the lack of any hard evidence to the contrary. Sean O'Callaghan and Malcolm McDowell clearly fail WP:RS. I am still a bit unsold that this compromise will adhere to WP:BLP, so I would like another administrator or someone well-versed in this policy to take a look at it gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I recommend this article stay protected until such a compromise is worked out gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have all the sources we need. There's plenty of sources already in the article saying Adams was an IRA member, but Adams denies it. That's there already, and I honestly don't see what more needs to be said. There is no WP:BLP violation, the page should not have been protected in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Betacommand was correct and judicious in protecting the page, given the stated WP:BLP concerns above. Again, Sean O'Callaghan and Michael McDowell are not reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

So that would be why Betacommand describes the sources as "anti-adams POV/slander sites"? Any administrator is welcome to check the sources being used, and they will clearly see they are nothing of the sort. This is just another example of poor judgement by Betacommand. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please dont quote me unless you get it right because that is also making my statement false, I also cited BLP and RS for removal so please shut up with trying to smear the admin who took the action and get to the meat of the issue. Wikipedia is not here to spread speculation, have a reliable 3rd party source the data. IE a fox news, the guardian or some other non-biased reliable third party confirm it and there will be no problems. but using confirmed POV sources that lean toward what you are trying to state is not a good Idea get a third party to source it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you missed the four books by respected authors, some of which have won awards for their reporting on Northern Ireland? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason this conversation is being held here instead of the article's Talk page? --ElKevbo 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, Betacommand was quite correct in protecting the page, and it's always best to err on the side of caution when dealing with BLP concerms. The anti-Adams POV evidently refers to Sean O'Callaghan and the slander-sites is probably a bit of confusion with regards to the McDowell silliness in The Guardian. As a related aside, I can't see how one would ever think Sean O'Callaghan could possibly be appropriate for citing in an encyclopedia (other than, perhaps, in his own article when sourcing biographical information) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Purgatory Fubar

Please examine the history of User talk:Purgatory Fubar. I am a long time anon editor seeimingly being "harassed" by the above user (User:Purgatory Fubar). I attempted to engage in conversation, specifically about WP:RED policy (see [223] which was reverted) but find my edits constantly reverted and marked as "vandalism", on his talk page, without even a token attempt to engage further.

This has progressed onto my user talk page (see the history, I have removed what I consider to be "bad faith" templates placed on the page by the above user), and now onto any other articles I have ever edited - such as Halloween (film) ([224] claimed to be "reverting vandalism" but in fact nothing of the sort).

here is the user attempting to "block" me as a vandal: [225]

here is the user again removing warnings claiming it is "unwarranted": [226]

here is the user attempting to engage another user (in barely grammatical language) in the war: [227] - claiming "trollery"

here is the user reverting yet another page without any expln other than I was the last editor: [228]

another one: removing notability tag [229]

removal of all red links from Hong Kong action cinema: [230]

removal of valid "do not claim vandalism when it is not vandalism" warnings from userpage: [231] and [232] (using vandalism tools to revert the messages without any expln.)

I note the user claims to "hate anonymous editors" which may be an underlying cause of his issue, or perhaps he is unhappy with me that some of his college clubs were marked as non-notable as they failed to assert the importance of their subject. I would have preferred his anger to spill out as discussion rather than using "vandalism" warnings and reversions where they do not apply. I hope somebody can have a word... 86.31.156.253 15:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

According to your contribs, you just started editing today. And your edits are somewhat to be desired. See 86.31.156.253 Talk for more insite. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 15:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of 86.31.156.253's edits do leave a bit to be desired, but many are constructive and the ones that are not are simply because they don't follow the style guidelines. As you point out, this user has only begun editing today and so cannot be expected to know all of the style guidelines. I don't see anything (point it out if I'm wrong) that indicates vandalism. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. --Selket ^Talk 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Right then, so as far as I can see, both of you are attempting to make good faith edits, but reverting each other as vandalism. Purgatory Fubar, I'm a little disapointed in you reporting the IP to WP:AIV in an attempt to get them blocked, I would also suggest you let the red links stand, they allow users to see what articles they can create. Both of you I suggest take a short break from the computer, and come back with a clearer head. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Three points: 86.31.156.253 posted a comment [233] which he signed as being from me. I was the user that removed the speedy delete from Fightin' Texas Aggie Band that the IP editor placed. As far as I can tell from here, the IP editor was reported to WP:AIV by User:Savant13 ([234]). -- Upholder 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

see ryan postlethwaite removing false AIV notice by purgatory fubar and| aeropagitica removing incorrectly restored false AIV notice. User:Purgatory Fubar using AIV as a tool to win edit-wars is a strict no-no. Be very careful from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.144.47 (talk • contribs)

Any comment on why you signed a message left on Purgatory Fubar's talk page as if you were Upholder? Many of your other edits can be easily excused by assuming good faith, but that one is troubling. --OnoremDil 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

didnt know i did... but checking my history, it seems when i copy&pasted someone else's template i copy&pasted their username accidentally as well! oops ;)

i should also mention Upholder became very upset when i *dared* to put a notability tag on his apparently non-notable band's page, claiming the addition of the tag to be "bad faith" and "vandalism" ([235]) and angrily started issuing me vandalism warnings as a result [236] (claiming vandalism) [237] (again claiming vandalism), [238] - several more vandalism warnings. is this user simply unware of what constitutes vandalism, or is it a deliberate bad faith attack by a user angered about the question of notability of their favorite band?

Impersonating User:Upholder time left on my talk page 15:53 [239] but signed it 15:44, not very smart [240] and know editing under another IP? Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

User Biophys who is involved in editing Operation Sarindar article, made the following statement: "I believe that recent edits of this article represent a clear vandalism". As I am (User:Vlad fedorov) the only one user who edited the article recently, I regard it as a personal attack on me. The issue between me and Biophys is whether statements of Senior Defense Department officials should be mentioned in introductory paragraph. I have included mentioning of these statements, because they are also contained in the main body of the article.

User Biophys, repeatedly deleted this text supported by reliable sources without discussions. He was reported on 3RR board here.

I also would like to pay attention of the admins, that Biophys continues his abuse of me by calling me vandal. Please, see here for previous instances http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Multiple_instances_of_Biophys_calling_me_vandal.2C_wikistalker_and_so_on. Vlad fedorov 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He continues to make very abusive comments on me diff, despite of my sincere attempts to find a compromise and peace with him diff, diff. Vlad fedorov 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply. Yes, you can take a look at the link provided by Vlad Fedorov: [241]. I am not going to comment here any more, since you are very busy.Biophys 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice of possible vandalism by User:JzG

This user removed all content from the Larry Gluck article. Here is this user's explanation [242]--Fahrenheit451 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, that's a content editing decision based on the Biographies of living persons policy. Please feel free to follow his instructions for a sourced rewrite, if you feel you can create such a thing. FCYTravis 18:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify Larry Gluck was a redirect to Lawrence Jerrold Gluck, which JzG deleted per an OTRS ticket (and I just deleted Larry Gluck as a dead redirect). Looking at the deleted history I'm going to have to agree with JzG's deletion; this article was in no way adequately sourced in a way to meet WP:BLP.--Isotope23 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)