Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

I Can[edit]

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

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

WP:NPA[edit]

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

Yeah that section is disputed, but there's no need to bring this here... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 06:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you all know since this seems to be a hot topic and I'm going off-wiki for the night. --Chris (talk) 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

How can you "merge" when the article is deleted, which would be a violation of the GFDL? hbdragon88 05:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes it would be. --Iamunknown 05:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Even as such submission relative to the GFDL is often made, it's not, IMHO, as a matter of law, quite right. One may, of course, effect a page history merge, such that the revision history of the antecedent page may be safely deleted, but, as I recapitulated here, such merge is disfavored as exorbitantly time-consuming and generally unnecessary. The GFDL, though, does not require that a substantive revision history be kept; that is, a revision history that enumerates only those who are principal contributors but does not offer individual diffs to the contributions of each suffices (were the latter substantive history required for GFDL compliance, the transwiki of content from Wikipedia to, say, Wikibooks would be a bit unwieldy [or perhaps technically impossible]). It is only, AFAIK, for policy reasons—largely good ones, IMHO—that we proscribe merge-and-delete closures. (This comment is, of course, entirely irrelevant to the instant situation or, really, to anything we do here, but I think it necessary to point out that (I believe) that we are not compelled to do things as we do.) Joe 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I just posed a question for Jayjg at Doc's page, WjBscribe at Jayjg's page, maybe we should wait for further comments until we hear from em? --Iamunknown 05:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'd just noticed this myself and asked Jayjg to comment on it. It does seem very irregular. Better let him know that the matter has been raised here as well. WjBscribe 05:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg has a long history of activism here with respect to Israeli issues. Fred Bauder 05:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the action was technically correct, a "tsk" is called for. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Upon whom? --Iamunknown 06:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well Jayjg's close cannot be correct because it goes against GDFL. We can't merge deleted content... WjBscribe 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

It should probably be taken to DRV, but as the delete/merge issue, the easy way to do handle that is to have it as a redirect with the edits in the history and then merge anything over. Still, this looks like it should go to DRV for now. I do have trouble seeing Doc's close given what the AfD looks like. JoshuaZ 06:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to be able to suggest that we wait to hear from both of them, but if we must I would suggest undeleting it and taking it to DRV, as that what should have been done had Jayjg not reversed Doc's actions. --Iamunknown 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Sent to DRV. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Should it be history-only undeleted during the DRV? I'm not terribly comfortable doing that since I listed it, but it might be helpful for those commenting to be able to see history. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
As was already noted, Jayjg was right to correct the mistake (I hope unintentional). If anyone, it is not he who needs to be admonished. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What mistake? Jayjg disagreed with the other admin and undid his decision. His decision might have been right or wrong (I have no idea since I have not reviewed the votes Given the discussion, it seems to me that the majority voted for merging the information to other articles-whether that majority formed a consensus needs more experience which I don't have). His decision I think was right and was done in complete good faith but he should have stated his point through DRV but it was not respectful. --Aminz 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see where it was noted and I strongly dispute the statement. I think it was plain wrong. --Iamunknown 06:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Note that it was marked as a "minor" change, too. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi fellows! I just restored the AfD back to Doc's closed version and the article as well, but I left the DRV header up there, so people visiting the article could comment. I've a problem though; I'm rather ignorant when it comes to templates and have no idea how to get the DRV header to reflect that the article is not, in fact, deleted. Any assistance on this would be both welcomed and appreciated! Thanks in advance! Cheers gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. (It's {{delrev}}, by the way.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, excellent. Thanks a lot to Seraphimblade for the help in getting the correct tag on the article! gaillimhConas tá tú? 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the AFD result template to Talk:United States military aid to Israel. --Timeshifter 08:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

There's no such thing as an "illegal" deletion, only an improper one. I'm not going to pass judgment about whether the deletions you highlighted above were improper or not, but you're certainly right in saying that there are some very questionable things going on in the Arab-Israeli-related articles. As Fred Bauder rightly says, Jayjg has a long history of partisan activism in this area and it's not the first time he's acted in this way ([1]). A lot of the problems here appear to result from the activities of a clique of political activists; the same names come up over and over again. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's disappointing that some people appear to have taken a deletionist line on this. I've proposed a possible solution to the issue on DRV, which would establish a consistent series of articles on bilateral US military relations - see [2] for details. -- ChrisO 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I'll just note that some of the most bitter denunciations of Jayjg's preferred area of editing comes from (some of the) people who have been guilty of egregious POV-pushing in the same area themselves. My suggestion is that everyone in this thread just simmer down until Jay has had a chance to comment. I think that's fair to ask. IronDuke 14:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we Jay should explain his actions here. But I must point out that the only "bitter denunciations" I have seen here were the adhomeniam attacks in IronDuke's preceeding comment. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no ad hominem when no specific person is targeted. IronDuke is absolutely 100% correct: Quite a large number of the people who consistently attack Jayjg are people who have their own, opposing biases. And yet, of course, they are never wrong themselves, it's always "administrator abuse", or "illegal editing", or something or the other. It's always "jayjg is pushing his POV", never "Jayjg is reverting other's POV pushings". The fact is, Abu ali, you don't know whether Jayjg was using his admin privileges to support his POV or not: that is an assumption you are making, and as we're already discussing logical fallacy here, the assumption is ungrounded because you don't know what is going on in Jayjg's brain. Lets all just stop "assuming" things already, unless it's "good faith". That's the ONLY thing we should be assuming at the moment: it seems many of Jayjg's critics are forgetting that. SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this is more a question of Jayjg's judgment rather than his good faith. I don't doubt that Jayjg believed that he was acting in good faith. The real issue here is whether his actions were well judged. Let's confine the discussion to that issue, rather than straying into assumptions about his motives. -- ChrisO 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying: He believed he was acting in good faith, so therefore we should treat him in good faith. I'm only commenting as per above based on comments that don't treat him in good faith. I'm not touching the issue whether his actions were "well judged or not" because I frankly don't know enough. SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been away sleeping and working while all this blew up. I find the whole thing really quite baffling. I've asked jayig for an explanation of his actions: [3]. I most resent having my considered decision rolled back as 'nonsense' by a fellow. I'd have been happy to discuss the close with him and review any mistake I might have made. He only had to ask.--Docg 16:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think CJCurrie should have spoken to Jay before bringing it here, or better still, should have left it for Jayjg and Doc Glasgow to sort out between them. We should wait to hear what Jay has to say before throwing any more stones. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no harm in discussing the issue publicly. It's preferable to let the community review this properly rather than rely on backroom deals. Nor should Jayjg's actions be off-limits to public discussion, particularly as this seems to be a recurrent pattern of behaviour on his part. There's no code of admin omertà and nor should there be. IMO, CJCurrie acted completely properly in bringing here. It's the best way of getting the input of people without axes to grind. -- ChrisO 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It's the sound of axes busily grinding that makes me say CJCurrie should have raised it with Jay directly. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is an assumption of "back room deals". This should have been worked out between Doc and Jay first. Doesn't stop CJCurrie from bringing it up for public debate, but this is the Administrator noticeboard: this is not deletion review. CJCurrie was not personally harmed by an admin's action: he's got no standing to bring an "investigation" against Jayjg. CJCurrie's appropriate action was to bring this up at DRV, not here. The only person with standing to bring a complaint here is Doc, IMHO. If I'm not clear enough, let me be more so: if you have a problem with a deletion, you go to deletion review. That's what it is there for. Not here. SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't much care what happens to the article (otherwise I'd be commenting in the DRV). But I don't think CJCurrie can be faulted for bringing this up here. Someone who disagreed with Doc's closing should take it to DRV, that's obvious. But Jayjg's overruling was so surprising that it's not obvious to take to DRV. It looks like the beginning of a wheel war, and that's a valid topic of discussion at ANI. I don't want to see users chastized for bringing up an issue that concerns them. It's not always obvious to every user what is the proper discussion area for every topic. Rather than saying someone has "no standing" to raise a topic, I'd rather users feel welcome to bring anything into the sunshine without being scolded for it. And I certainly don't accept the notion that only certain people can raise certain issues. coelacan — 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Very well put coelacan!! I couldn't agree with you more. MetsFan76 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
User talk pages communication can hardly be seen as "backroom deals," more like the first step. I also note that this article seems strikingly similar in many respects to the Military equipment of Israel entry I authored a few months ago (although, I do think there is room for a United States military aid to Israel one; maybe not in its current from, but as an encyclopedic subject). El_C 18:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily I'd agree, but there's too much POV-pushing, cliquery and outright bullying associated with Arab-Israeli topics on Wikipedia to make that approach a satisfactory one. This sort of thing seems to be a recurring, maybe even systemic, issue. In this particular case, admin powers appear to have been used in a brusque, unilateral and aggressive fashion in an immensely controversial topic area - not for the first time. No backroom deal is going to resolve the bad feeling that causes (it's not as if Doc was the only person involved - for the record, I'm wholly uninvolved in this incident). The only real solution here is for everyone (not just Jayjg) to de-escalate, act more thoughtfully and be restrained in using admin powers. Otherwise we're going to be back here yet again in the future with more of the same sort of complaints. -- ChrisO 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, do you really think it is appropriate to quote a misleadingly titled AN/I post which spends as much, if not more time discussing your alleged improper use of admin tools, in order to make whatever implication? It may not have been your intent, but it seems that this whole thing has gone in a "jump on Jay" direction, with much of the chorus resounding from those in content-disputes with Jay, or who are otherwise not speaking from the most neutral of positions. TewfikTalk 02:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If I may, but "jump on Jay"???? Jay's actions were completely out of line and he was called out on them. That's how it works for any other editor here. Why should Jay get treated any differently? MetsFan76 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. We're supposed to be accountable, after all. As I recall, Tewfik, didn't you call me out for my actions on AN/I a while back? That's how it works. -- ChrisO 08:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, that seems to me to be the fault of the people involved with editing Arab-Israeli topics moreso than the administrators getting involved. I won't attempt to hide my POV on this: I believe that Israeli and Middle Eastern related articles are systemically attacked by certain editors pushing either a pro-Arab or anti-Israeli (depending on the article) POV. I also believe that when they are called out on their POV pushing by appropriate admin action, their immediate response is "This is just POV bias pushing by zionist admins trying to hate on Arabs." I've seen too many incidents where editors have been attacked and accused of things like "working for mossad" or being "cover ups for the Jews". Granted, there have been issues from the other direction as well, but much of this seems a case to me where you have a very loud, very vocal interest group pushing a POV, and then claiming that anyone who disagrees with them is biased, any admins involved are abusing their powers, etc. etc. It's disruptive, and now it is starting to find its way onto AN/I, which should be a bastion against such disruptive editing, and I'm sick of it. I'm not excusing anything that Jayjg may have done because I'm not that familiar with it, I'm just simply pointing out that you're right: there IS a systemic issue, and that all complaints against administrators in middle eastern topics, specifically arab-israeli topics, should be taken with a hefty grain of salt, and the claims advanced by editors on such topics be vetted before being assumed at face value. SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree 100%. I don't think I'd disagree with a single word you've said, actually. But there's also a danger that admins involved in controversial topics can end up in a siege mentality and thinking that they're the last line of defence against a rabble of POV-pushers. I should know - I've been there myself as a veteran editor of Balkans articles, dealing with aggressive Serbian, Croatian, Albanian, Macedonian and Greek editors for nearly four years now. In the end, I came to believe that the way to deal with that sort of thing was to gain the trust of the mainstream editors on both sides by being fair, being willing to look at both sides of an argument, insisting on the use of reliable sources and being restrained in using admin tools (and deferring to other admins where it could be seen as improper for me to use my tools). It seems to have worked; I now get editors from the various sides regularly asking me for assistance in resolving issues. The bottom line is that one needs to build trust rather than stoke confrontation. -- ChrisO 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, SlimVirgin. I wish, however, that in the first place the conocerned administrator consulted the closing admin then, if the two were unable to reach an agreement and considered the disagreement based upon personal opinions but upon policy, taken it to DRV. --Iamunknown 03:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There should also be a United States military aid to Colombia, of course. El_C 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You might be interested in my proposal at [4]. I've been trolling Jane's for relevant info and will have a go at creating US-Israel military relations as a prototype for a "US-<foo> military relations" series of articles covering a standardised range of topics including military aid. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this suggestion. -- ChrisO 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be very useful to have these sort of subarticles when the main -Relations article becomes too lengthy. El_C 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg has responded here [5] and here [6] ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel-United States military relations[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wholeheartedly concur with Dweller. As I have said repeatedly, the questions posed by this user are incidental to the manifesto he pursues at quite tedious length, usually on the Humanities Desk. It is soapboxing of the worst kind. Clio the Muse 08:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Re the above, this comment [7] was particularly offensive.--Mantanmoreland 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

please review this block[edit]

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

Support block (obviously). I'll be happy to continue keeping an eye on this user if/when he returns. --Dweller 11:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I definitely support this block. I spent a long time reading through this user's contributions (so-called), and it's really quite a body of bad work with bad intentions. --TotoBaggins 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Support the block: The fellow attempts to tie up the Reference Desks with polemics, and he inserts polemics into article? Oh, this is not good and not a good sign for a productive wiki-life at all. Utgard Loki 12:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that he's simply asking a question rather than directly insulting Catholics. Maybe he's a Catholic himself who wants to know how to refute arguments made against the Catholic faith? --BlarghHgralb 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If that were the case, the questions should have been phrased accordingly. There are ways to taunt and to offend religious feelings without "directly insulting" readers. Whether the user in question is Catholic himself doesn't change anything. One way of adding insult to injury is to stubbornly and repeatedly ask taunting questions on the same denomination of faith (we've seen this happen to various beliefs at the reference desk), questions based on false premises, questions alluding to what would be directly insulting. Queries of this kind are usually given a decent amount of WP:AGF at first, but when the same registered user (with dubious editing history in general) taunts us over and over again, it is seen and felt as disruption.---Sluzzelin talk 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I haven't blocked for the Reference Desk disruption, which I have not really evaluated, but only for the WP:NOR violation in article space. ··coelacan 07:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Baronetcies articles[edit]

Sockpuppetry on Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet AfD[edit]

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

I deny this bonkers charge. I live in Scotland and if you look at the map shown for the location of one of the IP addresses you will see they suggest the stretch of coastline between Edinburgh and Newcastle! (Second last pointer, above). I have no doubt British Telecom service more people than myself and on similar IPs; and probably they have a central server. Yes, I set up the article on Morham and I am pleased indeed that someone has added something intelligent to it. Must it always be me? The complainant is a very consistant supporter of User:Vintagekits, and my personal feeling is that these people do not act at all in WP:Good faith. If they really have a seriously worthwhile complaint about the vast amount of effort I have contributed to Wikipedia I would be interested to see it. But I do not see going around making every attempt to eliminate from Wikipedia those they have taken a dislike to as a legitimate occupation. My work and any comments is there for all to see and evaluate. David Lauder 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's more evidence to prove your use of IPs to try and !votestack in discussions. How about this one in another AfD you were involved in? Or how about this one in a discussion involving honorific prefixes you were involved in? There's also another edit from that IP pushing the POV you're always trying to push.
I assume it's just coincidence that the IP edited Morham, an article that's only ever been edited by you and a bot? I assume it's just coincidence that the IP supported the retention of the article about your close friend User:Kittybrewster? The duck test says otherwise. One Night In Hackney303 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately the evidence does appear fairly conclusive that you voted twice in that AFD, David Lauder. I would counsel you not to do so again. In fact, I'd recommend that everyone involved be on their best behaviour. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have now looked again at this and the BT evidence shows that the posts to which you refer could have been made by anyone within their 81.128.0.0 to 81.159.255.255 ranges. I have no interest in the other subjects which are associated with the "fairly conculsive evidence" you refer to.David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
David, please note that Matthew Brown (User:Morven), who commented above, is a member of the arbitration committee and has checkuser access, meaning he can examine the server logs to determine which IPs you have edited from while logged in to your account. Unless he wishes to clarify that he was speaking as an ordinary editor and looking only at the comments in this thread, I believe it is safe to assume that the "evidence" to which he refers is the checkuser report of your recent contributions. I don't care whether you admit what you have been caught doing, or just go away quietly. However, people are watching, and if you do this again you are likely to be blocked for disruption. Thatcher131 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Is there conclusive evidence somewhere of me actually being disruptive on Wikipedia? David Lauder 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I just came across this worrying edit.[8] The editor who actually made the edit defended himself by saying that it was a hurried cut and paste, but I notice there was time to change the target's name. I feel this is sufficent to initaite an RfCU. -Will Beback · · 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
But who was this edit by? I assume you are not blaming me?David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this was the result of a checkuser showing it to be very likely indeed that the IP edits and David Lauder (talk · contribs) edits before and after the IP edits were from the same person. I would note that there has been much in the way of dubious behavior during this AFD from other users as well. I'd encourage all users to keep behaviour civil and avoid sockpuppeting, meatpuppeting, encouraging your friends to come vote, harassing other contributors, etc etc. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

  • He already has a proven sockpuppet- User:DownDaRoad- this account is blocked indefinitely. Astrotrain 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I am almost flattered to be the subject of so much passion. But I have initiated (I hope) a request for an IPCheck at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Vintagekits. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • After having found one instance of sockpuppeting on this AFD, I'd checked pretty much everyone else. Nobody else is doing it in such a blatant way. However, a lot of new accounts or long-dormant accounts have contributed; I suspect a call to action on an external site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganging up[edit]

I would draw to your attention the developing scenario whereby User:Vintagekits and his chum 303 are leading the pack in a variety of attacks against User:Kittybrewster who is a gentleman and a scholar and has contributed countless hours of industry to Wikipedia. Regardless of Kittybrewster's obvious standing in the world, the Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet article has now been put up for deletion: in my opinion a clear exercise in spite. (See [[9]]) Those who support the article are sneered and jeered at. David Lauder 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Just pointing out the obvious sockpuppetry, like when you !voted twice yesterday David. As for the countless hours of industry contributed to Wikipedia, see WP:COIN. One Night In Hackney303 11:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Unproved, and irelevant to my complaint. I am concerned that you deride the efforts of others. Sir William has always declared anything under WP:COIN. David Lauder 11:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you see WP:COIN you'll see that's not true. Perhaps I should also mention User:Counter-revolutionary, who was made personal attacks against a number of people commenting on the AfD? One Night In Hackney303 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Please address your own activities here. David Lauder 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of addressing your attempt at mudslinging given you have provided absolutely no evidence. This is not the first time you have tried such a tactic against an editor, for example see here. One Night In Hackney303 18:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There are no limits to complaints on these noticeboards as far as I know. I have given an exceptional example in one AfD. Another is the AfD on the Auditor of the Exchequer in Scotland, Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). Any administrator taking a few minutes to look at these two AfD's alone will get a very clear taste of what you are about. David Lauder 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Would administrators please look at the example of pure and utter malice by User:Vintagekits on Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet, where he has reverted a simple academic edit and made the following comment: "Undid revision 126634829 by David Lauder (talk) I prefer this one for the self-promotionalist". David Lauder 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Possible block for 212.101.17.44[edit]

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

I will warn him to steer clear of WP:3RR. He's used up his three reverts, so if he does it again, you can consider reporting it to WP:AN3 (notwithstanding the fact that 24 hours have passed). I hope this solves the problem. YechielMan 18:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, the best thing is I am learning things about wiki through this process. Regards, Grahamwild 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock of User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen[edit]

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

I'm curious to see how this plays out. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not take it back to the community sanction noticeboard? I'm not at all happy with one administrator unilaterally overturning a community ban without discussion. --ElKevbo 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Community bans are not done by trial. This notice is quite sufficient. If you have some actual objection on the merits, please do state it. —Centrxtalk • 03:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow,I'm not sure about this, considering how agressively he didn't get it, I saw several reports across ANI and eventually to CN. Hopefully he realizes that he's on a very short leash. SirFozzie 03:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll relist immediately at CN if this goes through. Nardman1 03:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It started on his talk page were I also endorsed the possibility of an unblock. He had an {{unblock}} up for a day or two and no one else commented. He even took it upon himself to create an article on his talk page, thus furthering the notion that he had reformed and understood his mistakes. John Reaves (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "goes through"? He's already unblocked. John Reaves (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So I see. This unblock violates official Wikipedia policy. It clearly states only the Arbcom may review these bans. I'm going to relist at CN. Nardman1 03:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any provision that states that the community is not allowed to review its own community bans. —210physicq (c) 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
For me, the issue is that the community didn't review the ban - a handful of administrators did so. If administrators are going to ignore community bans, then please do away with the charade so we all know where we stand. --ElKevbo 04:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
So what? You'd rather have the handful of editors at WP:CN review the ban and then it would be okay? I didn't know that the few editors at WP:CN constituted "the community" any more than the administrators monitoring WP:ANI. --Iamunknown 06:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Nardman1 and ElKevbo are misunderstanding the nature of community bans. See WP:BAN#Community_ban. The unblock is legitimate (whether it's well-advised is a different question) and is not based on "ignoring" the ban but rather on the unblocker seeing reasonable hope that the block is no longer needed. So, see how it goes. 75.62.7.22 06:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
No, that section is about appeals by the banned user if no one will unblock him. Here, he is unblocked, so he does not need to appeal. —Centrxtalk • 03:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Centrx is right. Eagle101 didn't "violate Wikipedia policy". The idea that "a handful of administrators" are incapable of determining community consensus is misconceived. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Just to make the point clear, if he does any trolling at all, feel free to re-block. I did this out of the hope that he might improve, and learn from his mistakes. If he does not I have no qualms whatsoever with anyone including ryulong (the guy who did the original unblock) with reblocking him. —— Eagle101 Need help? 07:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
He has a much lower threshold for blocking. You can block someone a lot easier per "reinstating community ban for trolling" compared to "vandalism" or whatnot. The point may be moot at the minute, since all he's actually done so far is edit his talk page. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 11:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there was never any community discussion about this (the block). At least, I didn't see any. I would advise to keep an eye on genvon's editing patterns here, but do list it at CN if you wish and maybe we can get some input on this. // Pilotguy radar contact 13:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to his comment at User_talk:Gen._von_Klinkerhoffen#Article, he believed this text to be freely licensed (and admitted the text was copied before creating the article). --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]


Hostile editor at Creation-evolution controversy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, he is removing cited material that accurately refelects the references. And he is choosing to cause choas on a section. Is this really "just a content dispute?" Thanks again for your attention, I am sorry you reversed your earlier warning, though. ImprobabilityDrive 07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The cited material did not "accurately reflect the references," as I stated in the article talk page here. This, like most of this editor's claims above, is a misrepresentation of the facts. Hrafn42 11:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak (talk · contribs) and Sexuality articles[edit]

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

Edit #1 i'm not sure on, Edit #2 i've reverted requiring a cite before it gets reincluded, Edit #3 is a personal opinion stated on a talk page and is perfectly acceptable.  ALKIVAR 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, #1 looks pretty strongly OR to me and quite POV, and #2 is fairly obviously intended to insult/provoke, while #3 is useless, frivolous, and, no doubt, designed to get a reaction. Everything in these suggests a very young and/or attention-seeking editor. Because the editor isn't warring over a particular issue but is, instead, attempting to get into chats/arguments, any further pattern like this would probably amount to evidence of trolling or disruption. Geogre 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Request block on IP 121.247.253.70[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone quickly fix Steven Gerrard?[edit]

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

Infact, could Fat Lampard also be moved back to Frank Lampard, and Boring F.C. be deleted please. aLii 09:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Scratch that, I've fixed those OK myself, and put the redirects up for speedy deletion. I can't fix the Gerrard page because some anon has edited the redirect page since it was created by the vandal I think, aLii 09:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Freakofnurture fixed that already. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 09:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV[edit]

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

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

User:BrownHairedGirl[edit]

I feel the behaviour of User:BrownHairedGirl started to borderline Wikipedia:Harassment. User has made the same/similar comment (in my view violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA) on a number of cfds: Category:Islam in Kurdistan cfd, Category:Films by culture cfd

User now made a similar remark at Category talk:People by nationality just 45 minutes after my comment.

-- Cat chi? 13:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

See the top of the page: this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It is not. Stalking is prohibited behaviour. -- Cat chi? 13:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
An admin looking into possibly problematic behaviour of another user is not prohibited behaviour. Clicking on "User contributions" is not prohibited behaviour. If you were being followed around day after day for negative reasons that might be wiki stalking. This isn't. --kingboyk 14:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Very well, thanks for the second opinion. I withdraw the request. Sorry for the trouble -- Cat chi? 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User page of User:Kuban kazak[edit]

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

Reverted, left a note for the user. Probably the end of it. ··coelacan 07:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. DLX 08:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The image and link are back. DLX 14:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the image is back. The link is gone. I don't care about the image, to be perfectly honest. I don't know, maybe someone else does. And by the way, you don't have to move this thread when you comment in it anew. ··coelacan 16:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback?[edit]

Resolved

I just noticed a rather extensive copyvio at Elton Brown. Could someone with The Tools please roll it back to this version to get it out of the page history? Thanks. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amoruso (talk · contribs)[edit]

Amoruso (talk · contribs) is making it impossible write good, accurate articles with excellent sources in Wikipedia and his edit summaries are, at the very least, highly misleading. Here are two of the worst examples from today:

  • [11] mass delestion of excellent sources from the Golan Heights article in order to present an idiosyncratic (and unsourced) version of history, with the edit summary "rv gross violation of wikipedia rules".
  • [12] mass deletion of excellent sources from the British Mandate of Palestine article, again to present an idiosyncratic (and unsourced) version of history, with the edit summary "rv removal of sources".

The relevant history is actually explained in the articles themselves and has been discussed in detail on the relevant talk pages. From past experience either of the deletions above would result in a ban if the evidence was brought before the Arbitration Committee. I would therefore appreciate action to prevent this pattern of editing by Amoruso so that there is some chance of getting these articles up to a good standard, with every signigicant claim properly attributed to reliable sources. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Instantnood sock[edit]

Instantnood = Michael G. Davis

Instantnood has been permanently banned for disruption. During his many long bans preceding the permanent ban it was found he'd use sockpuppets to edit while banned. His use of sockpuppets included setting them up with contribution histories months before (the User:Privacy account is nearly two years old).

User:Michael G. Davis is another Instantnood sock. I reported it to WP:AIV via Twinkle but AIV said it was too complicated for block on sight. Really, I don't think it is - look at the article history for Macro-control. Privacy edits while 'nood is on a month long ban, Instantnood returns and makes the same edits, 'nood is banned again, so Privacy edits, now 'nood is gone forever and Privacy CheckUser'd as a sock: enter User:Michael G. Davis.

That's the most single poignant example. Here's the rest:

  • zerg rushing massive find and replace from one term to the other across dozens of articles - check
  • article name move warring - check
  • editing on HK time corresponding to 'noods off-work schedule (MGD claims to be Canadian) - check
  • wiki-stalking Huaiwei and myself - check
  • grammar peculiarities - check

What's different is that MGD edits via Tor open proxies to avoid CheckUser.

This needs admin attention quickly please. The zerg rushing find-and-replace takes forever to cleanup. I have a feeling this will be a weekly occurrence until 'nood finally gets bored. SchmuckyTheCat 15:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Klaksonn and Category:Wikipedians who support Hezbollah[edit]

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

You told him on the 2nd to take it to deletion review and not to recreate it. He did it anyway. He also seems quite incivil on the talk page. I don't feel you were in error anywhere on this one. IrishGuy talk 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Recreated category per "Likud Wikipedians", "Yisrael Beytenu Wikipedians", "Kadima Wikipedians" and so on.. KlakSonnTalk 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I didn't recreate the category for the last time today, as you sadly claim. I recreated it weeks ago and no one seemed to have a problem with it. I bet you knew that. KlakSonnTalk 20:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Your rationale is irrelevant. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. You were asked to seek deletion review rather than constantly recreating. You chose to recreate anyway...while making personal attacks and calling Netsnipe a racist. IrishGuy talk 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the above is a valid arguement. My rationale is very relevant. Other categories exist, I don't see why the one I created is inappropriate. KlakSonnTalk 21:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I also see you're making it personal by trying to get me blocked for 3RR, reverting edits to an article I created. Very low. KlakSonnTalk 21:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
He just broke the 3RR rule. As I have reverted him, someone else should block him. He was warned, he did it anyway. IrishGuy talk 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
How am I "making it personal"? I don't even know you. I read this report and looked at your edit history. IrishGuy talk 21:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For the record, it is 5 reverts now. IrishGuy talk 21:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Reverts to an article I created. I have provided sources, one of which from an American governmental organization, saying IC is one of the finest educational insitutions in the world. I find it normal for this to provoke some jealousy. KlakSonnTalk 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Three-revert rule applies to all articles, whether or not you created them. --Iamunknown 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
When one editor was about to break this rule, IrishGuy somehow intervened to get ME blocked for 3RR. KlakSonnTalk 21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Klaksonn for thirty-six hours for edit-warring. Feel free to continue discussing the Hezbollah template matter, though. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It has also been the case that Klaksonn has been incivil to me in the past, committing a breach of WP:NPA by calling me a racist, and telling me to "Buzz off", after I nominated the template he has recreated, for the first time. Myself, Netsnipe and Klaksonn were in quite a heated debare which resulted in Netsnipe blocking Klaksonn for 24 hours.In this case, and bearing in mind this user has previously been blocked for longer, and warned to behave himself when he came back (which he obviously has NO intention of doing, I would ask these previous blocks to be taken into consideration and for the present 36 hour block to be severely extended. I see no other way of keeping this user under control. Thor Malmjursson 01:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Not all of Kalksonn's contributions are inappropriate. I don't think they warrant an indefblock yet. --Iamunknown 01:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not asking for an indef, but surely his past incivility, bad manners, behaviour and downright disregard for rules and procedures should be enough to get him more than one and a half days "time out". Thor Malmjursson 02:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
So why exactly is this category not allowed? The Behnam 02:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The initial reason the template and associated category were nominated (in the case of my nomination, for speedy (as devisive and inflammatory)) is that Hezbollah is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities. In my estimation, if someone were to create [[Category:Wikipedians who support Al-Qaeda]], [[Category:Wikipeidans who would like to be suicide bombers]], [[Category:Wikipedians who smoke dope]] or [[Category:Wikipedians with pedophilic tendencies]], they would all get the same treatment. The activity they support is illegal, and therefore could be devisive. Could also start a war with someone creating [[Category:Wikipedians who do not support Hezbollah]]. In short, devisive, inflammatory and plain wrong. Wikipedia is not a battleground! Thor Malmjursson 02:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, though it is a slippery slope in both directions. If expressing support for Hezbollah is not acceptable, what political opinion statements are next? Why not scrap all of them anyway? They don't serve the project, but they can negatively affect it. True? The Behnam 02:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
False debate on it's face. This stuff comes up almost exclusively in regard to a couple of contentious geo-political problems. No one complains ' He has the i'm a democrat' userbox, or the GOP userbox, or the Labour party box. No, people complain when someone's got a terrorist group, and then people scream outrage because they secretly support that terrorist group too, but are smart enough to not advertise it. When it's pointed out that blowign up 3 year olds is generally reviled, they scream 'then get rid of all userboxes, you're repressing my freedom'. No, we're going with widespread consensus that 99% of userboxes are fine, and 1% need to be examined and possibly removed. the "I support suicide bombers who blame everything on jews instead of their own lack of self-accountability" Userboxes should be removed and deleted. The 'I support a major party in the politics of my own nation' boxes are fine. No one's complaining about the 'This user is a member of Fatah' Userbox; it's a legit party. (Is there such a box?) ThuranX 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That's as naked a POV statement as I've ever heard. A terrorist isn't just someone you don't like. Established Zionist groups started out as blatantly terrorist organizations, for instance, and arguably much of what Israel still does is state terrorism -- the Israelis regularly blow up 3-year-old children too, use collective punishment, etc. In fact, the early Zionist groups in Palestine were often more blatantly terrorist than Hizb'Allah is now. Face it, you either allow people to profess faith for liberation movements, or you don't. I personally am against all poitical identification as very unencyclopedic -- the pursuit of knowledge should not be politicized any more than it already is by nature. But it seems to be popular on wikipedia, and tolerated. If it's tolerated for one, it must be tolerated for all. If this user has introduced this in a hostile fashion, that should not be tolerated, but the idea behind the addition of such a category is no different than any other political movement.Larry Dunn 20:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Fatah is a legit party!? 68.248.83.41 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd say it is about as 'legit' as Hamas. Perhaps Hamas is more legitimate from the perspective of political legitimacy, considering the vote. Oh wait, does 'legit' mean acceptable to Israel & friends? I suppose that Fatah is legitimate under that assumption. The Behnam 03:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
More so than Hamas, which has lot more ties to terrorism than Fatah. Even Hamas is more legit than Hezbollah. Both have participated in free elections, both are starting to get major recognition as political parties, not terrorist groups. ThuranX 04:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The user in question was obviously being hostile and as such should be properly dealt with. However, with regards to the larger matter at hand, I have to disagree with some of the users above. Hezbollah is in fact represented in the Lebanese Parliament and as such it does not seem entirely inappropriate for users to believe that category's or infoboxes should be created in "support" or stating their membership in this organization.--Jersey Devil 03:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Jersey Devil, in respect of Klaksonn's behaviour, Hostile is to Understatement, as "Minor tremor" is to the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906! Thor Malmjursson 03:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Ban userboxes is your solution? Throw a hissy fit and get rid of userboxes. and then say 'well, anyone who goes wasn't worth keeping?' I think you'll find we'll lose hundreds of editors, who will see that as a major step towards thoroughly anonymizing their hobby. You will not just lose problem editors, you'll lose good editors who like that they can be themselves in their wikipedia presence while helping the project. Once Userboxes are gone, the next logical step will be the elimination of almost all text oon userpages, because someone will see identification of rival college enrollment as offensive, rival careers as belittling, and lists of on wiki accomplishments as elitist. We'll have to switch to numbered ID's, adn then we hit reducto ad nauseum. No one on this project (or nearly zero, there might be three or four odd ducks) wants to have a user number, and not name. Userboxes are fine in the vast majority, those supporting terrorist groups, pedophilia (also under discussion on AN/I), and other anti-social, often criminal behaviors need to go. This 'eliminate em all if I can't have my 'kill all the XYZ's' box is childish. ThuranX 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe you meant reductio ad absurdum? —210physicq (c) 03:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but ... nauseum, absurdum... either way, the point's the same. Taken too far, everything gets stupid. (and probably sickeningly so.) thanks. ThuranX 03:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Re-read my comment; I was specifically addressing userboxes supporting political parties. We can recognize three categories of userboxes: those which are helpful (e.g., identifying subject expertise, language fluency, admin status, etc.), those which are useless but benign (probably the majority,) and those which are useless and cause pointless strife. The third of these should be eliminated, because there is no compelling argument to keep them.Proabivouac 01:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Compared to actual terrorists.....you mean like the 6 countries that have designated either part or all of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization? Or the European Parliment declaration 2 years ago that recognized "clear evidence" or "terrorist activities" by Hezbollah? Or the AMIA Bombing, the worst terrorist incident in Argentine history, carried out by Hezbollah? Sure. That's legitimate. SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
And yet again, I come under attack... or rather, my choice of design does...Maybe it would be better if I blank my page. Thor Malmjursson 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
We can argue here 'till the end of life on earth but saying that is generally viewed almost worldwide as a terrorist organisation involved in illegal activities is erroneous (read Hizbollah article) as one might argue the same thing about the U.S. administration. I followed User:Embargo's case for a long time and eventhough i blocked him for a 24h period (for relating his Hezbollah supporting userbox to Israeli massacres- according to him) i never supported admins' actions toward him forbiding him to use any userbox mentioning Hezbollah. If your motto, guys, is NPOV than apply it thru and be fair. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
FayssalF, I agree that userboxes supporting the U.S. administration, or any other political party, should be deleted.Proabivouac 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Um...how exactly is "This user supports Israel's right to exist" hate speech? IrishGuy talk 20:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Because it implicitly considers Palestinians, the true owners of the land, subhuman and not worthy of having their needs tended to.--Kirbytime 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
That sentence in no way calls anyone subhuman nor does it say Palestinians are not worthy of having their needs tended to. That sentence, your example, isn't even remotely hate speech. IrishGuy talk 21:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I see it as no different than someone with a userbox stating "This user supports segregation" or "This user supports Apartheid", both of which are unacceptable. Saying that "This User supports Israel's right to exist" is racist, derogatory, and not conducive to a positive editing atmosphere here on wikipedia.--Kirbytime 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You think it is racist to support Israel's right to exist? That isn't even remotely racist. We actually have an article on racism maybe you should read it. IrishGuy talk 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is very racist (along with the whole of zionism) because it favors Jews over other races. Also, it is very offensive that you say it is not racist. Zionism is racism, pure and simple. You ask me to read the racism article; that's funny, seeing how I was about to ask you to read it.--Kirbytime 21:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Instead you link to an article with all manner of tags about the article not being neutral. Saying you support Israel's right to exist isn't racist. IrishGuy talk 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination"--Kirbytime 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice that you leave out the detail that it was revoked in 1991. IrishGuy talk 22:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so for 16 years, it is considered racism, and then suddenly, bloop! it's not racism anymore. Is this a joke? And ultimately, a substantial part of the world considers it a form of racism. Wikipedia should not cater to zionists.--Kirbytime 22:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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


List of entities officially designating Hezbollah as "terrorist"
Entity Part(s) designated as terrorist Reference
 United States The entire organization Hezbollah [1]
 Canada The entire organization Hezbollah [2]
 Israel The entire organization Hezbollah [3][4]
 United Kingdom The Hezbollah External Security Organization [5]
 Netherlands The entire organization Hezbollah [6][7]
 Australia The Hezbollah External Security Organization [8]


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

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

--Kirbytime 22:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

A few points.

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

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

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

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

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

I totally disagree w/ most of your points (yours and Kirby's) as i said above. We can argue forever and i just can invite everyone here to read both Hezbollah and List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state. Again, be fair guys and apply your motto. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not a talk page to discuss content disputes. Please move the discussion elsewhere and leave this page to report actionable issues that require admin involvement. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock/meatpuppet theatre[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are right... it's not complicated (the A.G. Edwards IPs are at the very least clear meatpuppetry and quite possibly block evasion as well; the other IP editor quite likely knows Nysted), but given the fact that it is being claimed that I'm not objective and that I have some sort of axe to grind here I'd appreciate another admin taking a look and taking whatever action they feel is appropriate.--Isotope23 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've indef blocked WebmasterSD and given the IPs 24 hour blocks. They're all sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Nysted, and since he's been indef blocked already, this is block evasion. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick work. Thank you. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, good call. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 21:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Er, error please? Except for one critical error in your case and in your judgment call here: People from around the world are buying and listening to music created by Nysted and Walker (286,000 so far.) Now Nysted is releasing a second album (soon.) Will you continue to block evidence of notable people playing together on albums because you feel a need to do it "for the doing it sake?" You are all involved and all have distinct bias as to the way you think. Even in the face of reality, you choose to live in a vacuum. Block the world? Hardly. All of us, in the entertainment industry, have access to unlimited IP sites and proxies. It might be wise to negotiate as it says in the policy guidelines before congratulations are in order?
By the way? Nysted is in Aruba. I doubt if he has actually ever seen any of this. That is irony isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.123.21 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
If Nysted actually gets some press that indicates he's worth being included as a notable musician, as determined under the WP:MUSIC guidelines, then hey, good stuff. If he wants to get some press, he should play some gigs, get some reviews, and build interest that way. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

'Notability' is a guideline for the existence of an article, not the content of an article. I don't see a good reason to exclude this information (of course, with due weight... which would be very little... where is this info supposed to go?) — Demong talk 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.7.227 (talkcontribs) April 28, 2007 comments actually by 67.163.7.227 (talk · contribs)... not Demong (talk · contribs). Demong is not associated with this IP.--Isotope23 13:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the voluminous amount of discussion that has gone into determining that Nysted's work is not notable. All that putting a mention of Nysted in the Walker article would accomplish is giving him an additional Google hit. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Fox: This is about a discography for Walker's article. Please look at the smear you call voluminous. You chose to not look at reality. Every person that disagrees with you has been accused of being a sockpuppet and / or blocked. You still do not look at reality. Nysted's work is not only notable, Mr. Fox, but at 287,000, he is going to release a second album to a very receptive client base. You, frankly, do not know what you are talking about. You have tried and failed to stop fans from getting involved. Now there are articles popping up in other countries and other in Wikipedia spots. Please read what Demong said. That is policy. Your version of policy is censorship because you have a grudge or other motives. You can block our school or you can block our town, but there are thousands of fans that will keep coming back to ask why? Why are you changing Wikipedia poicy to stop Mr. Walker from having a discography in his article.

The anon IP who posted the last message has been blocked for 24 hours as a sock/meatpuppet of User:Lee Nysted. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Feeding Trolls via defcon Template[edit]

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

I agree, in the spirit of WP:DENY. I mean, the best option would be to just delete the thing, but unfortunately people like it. – Steel 19:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I sort of like the Defcon template in general, but I agree, individual vandals should never be named on it. Dina 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Chrislk02 ..denying them is the best answer and we dont want to motivate the vandals, the names of vandals shouldn't be added to the Defcon..--Cometstyles 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support the deletion of the DEFCON templates.↔NMajdantalk 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am getting to that point. When it gets elevated to level 1 or 2 because of socks, or vandals, that just empowers them. However, it is highly debated and I doubt it would pass a TFD. All I am asking is for input on never including specific vandal names. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course we should never use vandal's names on the defcon template. It does more good then harm normally, but when you add in names that opens up a can of worms.--Wizardman 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would support an MFD on the defcon templates, although I'm aware the likely result is "no consensus". But I think that we can muster a consensus that particular vandals should not be named. That can only make things worse. coelacan — 19:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying we should add specific usernames to the defcon, however Real96 left a message their saying about disruptive socks causing trouble and it was then at level 2, that was appropriate but I dont think it is necessary to specify certain names.Tellyaddict 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
{{Wdefcon}} getting deleted won't be happening (it was just speedily deleted and then restored, with a big brouhaha about it, the other day). I don't think that its mere existence goes against WP:DENY, but naming them most certainly does. 20:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah, it shouldn't have been speedied. I don't think that precludes an MFD discussion though. coelacan — 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's silly to send it through TfD again; it's already survived four times. As near as I can tell, arguments for its deletion range in variety from "I don't like it" to unfounded speculation that the vandals are actually coordinating their attacks because of the template. At most, we'll get another "no consensus" result. I think we've all got better things to do with our time. EVula // talk // // 21:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, Chris. I've seen this in action recently with a high-profile sock and, yes, WP:DENY works. Naming them only empowers and encourages them - Alison 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

  • I'd be up for deleting the whole thing, but agree that naming individuals on it is definitely a bad idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that template talk:wdefcon is the place for this discussion now. coelacan 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The only reason I brought it up here is I had users question my serious requests that they not post vandal names on the thing. I wanted to make sure that i was making the right request, and wanted some input from other editors and administrators. I am fairly sure had I posted this on the defcon talk page I would have gotten minimal input from editors experienced in dealing with trolls. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, I agree. I was just noting that Doc had a good point; I and other editors had started to move the discussion toward deletion, but this really isn't the place for that. ··coelacan 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Whilst I appreciate the sentiment and support the removal of names from the template, I don't think half measures are appropriate here. Let's just delete the silly thing. It's an attractive nuisance and we're fools for hosting it and permitted it to be maintained. --Tony Sidaway 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This should be kept. As stated above, vandal user names should not be mentioned on defcon per WP:DENY. This has happened here. It was good faith, but it still shouldn't happen. WǐkǐɧérṃǐťTalk to me or learn something new! 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

misbehaving bot[edit]

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

Reviewing the bot's last 50 edits, it seemed to be an isolated incident. Just delete the warning on the talk. You could ask Voice of All for some help, but disabling this bot will be premature. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I'm just looking at one of the most recent contribs, and the bot seems to be doing something wrong...Maybe disabling it won't be a bad idea. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Another misbehaving bot: User:MessedRobot is putting Wikiproject Computing tags on the talk pages of various military-related articles. Someone left a message on the ownwer's talk page, but the bot is continuing, so I guess it's running unattended: Special:Contributions/MessedRobot. It doesn't have a big red stop button, should an admin block it? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked User:MessedRobot. Any other admin feel free to unblock once the problem is resovled. --Chris (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The revert on Aaron Gombar seems to be caused by the addition of a link to photobucket.com (see history, another bot reverted again). There are some other reverts that look a bit strange, but I don't know how the bot is supposed to work. Tizio 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

VoABot is not malfunctioning. In short, please don't link to Flickr. (Or Photobucket, or anything similar.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Box Fruit, the revert was correct, but the bot attributed the edit to the wrong user, not the one who added the link. I don't see a ground for a block so far. Tizio 15:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking into it :) Voice-of-All 15:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • About time. I remember telling you about this at least a month ago. --Action Jackson IV 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The strokes[edit]

Can I get an outside opinion over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_strokes. I'm looking for closure. Thanks. ccwaters 14:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

as am I. I'm getting tired of defending myself to one person, then having his cronies come in, and have to defend myself to them, etc The strokes 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hyman[edit]

I have been watching the talk page for this person (a contentious subject due to an alleged misdemeanour of his, which he is in court for at the moment), and today some eight or nine entries were briefly on the talk page before being wiped. Now there is no trace of them in the history section even, so I cannot check up on what was written. Why has this happened? Is it usual to delete material even from the history section? Who authorises it? Why? Surely Wikipedia is not censored? I should add that there have been large-scale removals of material, both in the article and on the talk page, before today, but their traces are still in the history section. The entries made today have gone completely, with no trace. What is going on? Podder8 15:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the article, there appears to be a biographies of living people concern, and the edits have been wiped from the history because of that. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not somewhere to abuse others. As for who does it- it is Stewards who have the oversight ability. J Milburn 15:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. Podder8 15:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact, not all people with oversight ability are stewards. But regardless, very few people are granted oversight. Natalie 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So how can I find out who took the decision to remove the material? I'm interested in accountability. I'm assume a decision wouldn't be taken unilaterally? And why has only some of the material been removed? A lot of what remains in the history sections is libelous, in my opinion.