User talk:Android79/TalkArchive012

Thank you so much for your advice and assistance in dealing with DannyWilde. I wonder if you could advise me on how to proceed in dealing with another problematic user, Zordrac (talk · contribs). Zordrac has gone to lengths to make trouble for me, on Wikipedia and off; according to his own account, he e-mailed Daniel Brandt, the person who originally posted on his "Wikipedia hivemind" page what DannyWilde later posted repeatedly as my purported real name, and told Brandt that I was "using weasel words in an underhanded way to discredit him"[1] -- then, later, incredibly, claimed that I had requested him to represent me to Brandt in this manner. He's posted to multiple people's talk pages, making false claims about me such as that I violated the 3RR with fifteen reverts in 24 hours, that I was threatening and accusing him on Talk:Daniel Brandt and said I was "watching him" (supposedly, I was doing these things a week before I purportedly requested his help, making one wonder why he would have accepted!).

It's more than just a case of "one person meant it as this but the second person interpreted it as that instead"; here is what Zordrac writes about me at User:Zordrac/Poetlister: "08:16, 23 December 2005 User:Antaeus Feldspar, wrote to Zordrac supporting Lulu and implying that they both would stalk Zordrac until either he stopped trying to get Poetlister's ban reversed, or else was banned from Wikipedia. [2]" As you can see by checking the diff, there is no mention at all of Lulu, or of Poetlister and his/her ban.

I don't want to go on forever listing the false claims here; what I'd like to know is where to list it and in what format so that I can bring some sort of formal action. I wish I could just ignore it, but my experience has been that just as Zordrac and DannyWilde found each other, just leaving the lies there will result in some other trouble down the line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take a closer look at this when I have more time. As always, real life intrudes. android79 03:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. On a disturbing note... the block log says that Danny is still blocked, but he's making edits nevertheless. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a known bug feature in MediaWiki. Radiant's 48-hour block expired before my indefinite block did (obviously) so the software removed all blocks. I've reblocked him. android79 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you place the Alexa site on my user page ? Under the butterfly award ? Martial Law 09:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what you are talking about. android79 17:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site that rates visits to other websites.

As to your question on the

Link found while on my way to this site is: British publication says Jimbo Wales Shot and Killed

Hope I had done the right thing by reporting this sick rumor. Martial Law 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's called satire. android79 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call THAT satire, I call it sick. Martial Law 01:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are policies for really nasty personal, even racially motivated attacks ? Martial Law 05:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NPA. android79 12:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Another User was literally threatened by members of a racist organization, thus is why I had made an inquiry. They were trying to FORCE him to leave Wikipedia. The matter has been settled w/ Wikipedia's assisstance. Appreciate the info. Martial Law 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Android79,

Thanks for your response Android79! Googie Man, 21:05, 4 January 2006. (UTC)

Could you please block this user for vandalism. You already warned him once but he vandalized again at a AFD, I believe. — Moe ε 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll block him if he does it again. He seems to have gotten the message, for now. android79 01:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would prefer an official statement than a press report. Two reasons: One, I cannot remember who it was or what team it was, but a couple of years ago the press announced that this person was all set to be the head coach of a particular team, but early in the morning of the following day, the team officially announced that he pulled out (I think it was Mike Zimmer and the Raiders). Second, I am sure you have seen the headlines about the Sago Mine disaster and how earlier news reports said that all of the miners were alive. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, didn't notice your edit... my bad... :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but the Strib has a pretty good track record when it comes to these sorts of things. I'm willing to eat my hat if it turns out to be false tomorrow morning. Misreporting deaths as survivals is incredibly tragic; misreporting the hiring of a football coach is annoying but no big deal in the grand scheme of things. android79 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the vandalism on my talk page. --Arcadian 17:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same from me. Any idea why the vandal chose the targets he did? Seems completely random. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, guys. At first, I thought he was targeting admins starting with A, but that's obviously not the case. Probably just a vandal with an axe to grind and a bunch of different IPs available to edit from. android79 17:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Edwin put the Manboobies entry on there [3], but accidentally put his signature on a separate line, so it looked like his sig was another entry. I fixed it [4]. --rogerd 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was a mistake. Go ahead and put it back however you like. --rogerd 18:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He seems that he is going to continue to add that info he insists is vital no matter what. I think we have all tried as best we can to explain the policies here, but none of that matters because he is going to do it his way or no way. Your block was probably a good one, but I wasn't that put off by his alteration of my userpage. We'll see if Dr.Joe, Beckjord or anyone else with the same edits shows up and if not at least we'll now know he only edits from one IP.--MONGO 20:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you blocked him, even if he never did it. I hate him.

George.

Hi - I'm having some trouble with an anon user at the USC Trojans football article; despite my numerous attempts, they have refused to work the dispute out at the talk pages either here or here (I'm guessing it's the same user, but since the complaints are always from anon accounts, and they don't sign their Talk posts, it's just a guess). I've proposed a couple of compromises there which I think present a balanced view, but they always revise the article text after simply dismissing my views. Any chance you could take a look and weigh in (particularly on my most recent suggested version)? MisfitToys 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Documentary Channels have started airing material pertaining to paranormal matters real recently. How can I place these links, such as the

I was only going to place the Documentary Channel's websites on the Bigfoot discussion page, but it looks like another war is on. Will these links cause any trouble ? Martial Law 04:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If accepted, where can I place these, so as to AVOID any disruptions ? Martial Law 04:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect. Protection has been tried, and failed. This is an effort by one user to censor material which two users approve and which no other user objects to. As I said elsewhere, Dmcdevit attempted to mediate informally and was ignored. Septentrionalis 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde has offered to mediate on the talk page. RfC is also an option if you want more editor input; I don't see how having two on one side and one on the other indicates that the two are right. android79 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a local newspaper. Click on "Back to Marco Sun". Cheers. :)

Hi, I have no idea how that happened, and normally if I mess up I at least know how I did it. Very strange! and my apologies,

No problem. Weird stuff happens sometime. android79 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Adminstrators' noticeboard comment on User:Remington and the Rattlesnakes.Gex Terimilu 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) unbanned.Gex Terimilu 18:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Remington_and_the_Rattlesnakes is reported to be the North Carolina vandal. As for Gex Terimilu, this is a new user (3 edits). How could this user be in contact with this vandal unless they were a sock puppet? Anyway, User:Remington_and_the_Rattlesnakes's block should remain.--Alabamaboy 18:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got another POV attack controversy I'd appreciate your comments on the talk page with... some religious folks want to try to redfine myth to mean "religions that are false" and of course take their own religion (Christianity) out of it (and occasionally make reference to maybe possibly doing the same for one or two other major current religions). It went up for RFC but that only means now that a number of people are showing up not understanding the academic definition and not even bothering to read earlier comments and raving about how it's awful to insult their religion. The whole point is that academic study of mythology doesn;t make any comment whatsoever on whether the stories are actually true or not, just that the culture believes they are and hold supernatural and philosophical meaning. To separate Christianity (and other huge mainstream religions) out not only messes up the academic definition but is highly POV by stating outright that, say, Pagan mythology is false. Your help would be appreciated. DreamGuy 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at it ASAP, which may not be until tomorrow. Is this the sort of dispute that would require admin intervention, or should I approach it as an editor instead? I definitely agree with you 100% on this. android79 01:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already locked by an editor I asked to look at it, so all we really need is editor input. All sides -- pro-changing definition, keeping definition, and those who aren;t following the definition argument -- has rejected mediation as something that interferes with consensus building. I'd just like someone I know understands that NPOV means NPOV for all sides and not just "we can't say that because someone in my particular group could misread it and be offended so we'll change it and not worry about offending other people who aren't as important as us". DreamGuy 01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about how to insert myself into this debate. The editors making the more hysterical arguments seem to have quieted down. I'd like to chime in, but I need something more substantial to say than "Ditto DreamGuy". I'll keep an eye on it for now. Do you have an online source that supports your definition of "myth"? I'm surprised that this is causing such a commotion (well, not really, once religious fervor and political correctness enters into it, but that's another can of worms). When it comes to mythology, you might call me an interested layman, and even I understand the difference between the popular and academic definitions of "myth". android79 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources have been posted on the academic definition, mostly on the archive pages (because the current controversy ran through lots of heat and pushed them off the page). There is also a greek definition link posted here and there that Codex keeps ignoring and then people looking around dictionaries until they found ones that only had the definitions they want... one of those was the OED, but then a more recent copy of it, quoted in a recent post, has the academic definition. It's all there. Right now there's one guy who absolutely is convinced all the sources are lies, he's not going to be convinced, and a couple of people saying they are compromising but basically campaigning to do the exact same thing they wanted to do on

Mythology but now on Myth (which was a redirect, and is where a ton of articles link to, I think they just want to put their info on a fork file where more people will see it). I dunno, it;s a mess. DreamGuy 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I guess I was wrong about the hysterics quieting down. Just read a long rant... and I thought "OMG edit wars are Hiroshima" was the worst hyperbole I'd read today. At this point, I'm probably well-informed enough to give an opinion on the talk page; look for it tomorrow. And thanks for your help on the RFC stuff. Bishonen is suggesting we fast-track it to RFAr... I'm mulling that one over. android79 06:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will User:Dreamguy accept the nomination of Admin. ? User:Beckjord already believes User:Dreamguy is already a Admin. See Re.:Bigfoot Hex comment on the Bigfoot article's talk page. Martial Law 10:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask him? android79 12:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, User talk:Android79/RFC. Friday (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, saw that. Thanks. Beckjord is "out of town" again, BTW. android79 19:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes little sense to call the deletion of worthless info from the Rush Limbaugh entry "vandalism" I was simply trying to shorten an already too long article.

As for Rush's comment on Abu Ghrabib, I can assure it is true. I can't site it. How can I? How can you site a radio show? I do know it happened in the last week of October 05. On a Friday, I think. Is there anyway we could get other Rush listeners to comment on this? I resent that only one listener can comment "I don't recall hearing this on the show" and the comment gets banned.

I'm new to Wiki. I am alarmed by your threats to ban me. At least give me a good heads up first before you resort to those tactics. I didnt know that I had to refrain from altering an article simply because one guy hates it. Also, i didnt even know that anyone disagreed with it at first, until much later when I looked into the history file of the Rush entry. My edits where sound and logical. You may not like that I provided citation for the Abu Ghrabib info, but my edits were still fantastic, making a long article more readable.

I was wondering if it is possible to hide my IP number on the old posts I made. If I had known that I could hide it I would have.

How might I hide the IP number, or replace it with a new one?

Bob5005 23:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)bob5005[reply]

I do agree with what you're saying. Its just that some people do not grasp the concept of how bad a Edit War can be. Martial Law 23:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to help, probably later tonight. Only thing is I think the person in question is using AOL, so it may be hard to block him...--MONGO 02:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Android, I just saw your note on Bunchofgrapes' page. I've hardly been involved with the article--somewhat with the user--but I'm finding it quite a wild ride merely to have Bigfoot on my watchlist. Have you thought of going straight to an RFAR? IMO, an RFC is, if not quite a waste of time, then at least an unnecessary detour, in a textbook case like this. (Of course I don't mean all the work you've already put into the RFC draft would be wasted, as that could easily be recycled into RFAR evidence.) Contrary to popular opinion, an RFC is not required before an RFAR. I do believe the arbcom would accept a case like this. In fact I was just experimentally typing some evidence notes, and thinking of contacting DreamGuy, when I came across your message to bunch. How about it? If you think it would be any use, I'd be glad to write an evidence section for an RFAR. (For an RFC, not so much.) Though probably you'll get all you need without that, too. Best, Bishonen | talk 03:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• I've generally not liked the idea of "fast-tracking" to ArbCom... but maybe it really is appropriate for a case like this. I'm willing to be convinced. If Beckjord really is "out of town" on an "expedition" as he said, then there's really no hurry. android79 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I personally think arbitration is good insofar as that's what it takes to establish sockpuppetry. Otherwise, let's not waste their time with an obvious case like this. Admins can block for disruption, and if there's reasonable consensus for it, the blocks will stick. I guess I should clarify; I'm not opposed to arbitration; it may well be helpful. But they may have better things to do with their time. If we can manage to resolve the situation without arbitration, we should do so. Friday (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this is what we have an ArbCom for, Friday. An ArbCom ban would get more validity and support from the community than blocks by individual admins, and you guys need all the legitimacy you can get, if you're going to keep an AOL user at bay. (AOL blocks are worse than meaningless, they create havoc for virtuous users while the target rides the rotating proxies.) Maybe sanctions and reprimands by the ArbCom might even help with the user's attitude problem, you never know. And if not, then having his editing officially discredited and shunned may be the only way. For instance, only the ArbCom can impose a revert-on-sight on a recalcritant banned user (and recalcritant is B's middle name). Bishonen | talk 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, gosh, when you put it that way, it sounds pretty darn obvious. If they don't accept the case, we could always do the RFC as a backup plan. I'll help out however I can in either case. Friday (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA, etc. ? Is this like going to court ? Arbitration ? What is this protocol ? Martial Law 20:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Android:

I need your advice. If you have a chance, see the AMA talk page. There is a proposal that, after much discussion, Izehar and I put forth to revamp adn reform the AMA. The vote was 9-7 with a deadline of the 23d when some of the opposers Sam Spade and Wally for example) decided they wanted an alternative proposal heard instead and wanted the voting to be stopped. I opposed that because they were a bunch a people (now 9-10) that wanted the first proposal and I didn't think it was right to suspend that without some consensu from them before moving on with a different idea, especially when those same opposers participated in the initial duiscussona dn could have put that idea forth then. I am arguing that we finish the first voting first and then move on to other idea if it fails to reach a consensus.

I trust your opinion. Am I wrong or missing something here?

• Sorry, Gator, I haven't had the time to look at this. Been very busy in real life, and the time I have had to spend on Wikipedia has been all consumed by an RfC/ArbCom case I'm preparing (and cleaning up after the subject of said). Is this still something that needs to be resolved? android79 17:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did'nt mean to intrude. Do apologise if I had. Martial Law 22:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to help the other user locate some material pertaining to Rush Limbaugh. Martial Law 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I have a gut feeling he's still around. Appreciate the reminder. Martial Law 02:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I saw on ANI that Kelly Martin doesn't think the evidence sufficient for a Checkuser sockcheck of "Dr Joe" and other Beckjord footwear. A pity, but also yet another reason for going straight to RFAR: CheckUser is used for sock accusations in requests for arbitration. I'm not sure if that can happens as soon as the request is filed--maybe not, since it would invite gaming of the system--but I do know it will happen once the request is accepted by the arbs. Something to think about? Bishonen | talk 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Rense material led me to both the Mexican media, who had made the initial reports and to the Texas media, who made the stateside reports. Jeff Rense has both accounts and other info. related to the Flying Humanoids article on his Homepage and/or in his archives. Does the protocol you kindly reminded me of cover foreign media sources ? Martial Law 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you read it and find out? android79 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Luminary666 ? Martial Law 08:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got a really strange visit from this User. Martial Law 08:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea. android79 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• On second thought, that's obviously Beckjord with a different username. Thanks for pointing that out. android79 16:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, of course. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I suppose you saw my note here? Are you planning to set up a RFAR request template in your userspace? I was told something by an arbitrator that surprised me: that once a case has been accepted, nobody's ever going to look at the original (probably very painstakingly set up!) request again: an evidence page will be created on acceptance, and that's the one the arbs will be reading. The moral of this, I guess, is that we need to take the advice on the RFAR page very seriously: "If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs." Don't use all your evidence on the request, save it for the Evidence page later. Diffs must be cited in the request, but only a small, representative selection—the best diffs. Also, of course, the arbcom are more likely to get round to reading a compact, punchy request; they're human.

Of the ones I know, btw, Antifinnugor was comparable to this case, with a similarly committed and unscrupulous editor. I think its Evidence page might be useful as an example.

Another thing: if you take a look at the RFAR page and their request template, you'll see the importance of trying mediation first. Lack of mediation seems to be the most common reason they reject a request. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See User:Android79/Arb. I agree that being concise is key; we can shorten that and sprinkle in the "best" diffs. As for mediation, it's clear that it would be futile, as would an RfC likely be; if ArbCom rejects because of that, well, I'll guess we'll just have to prove ourselves right on that count. android79 19:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree that it's pretty sure to be futile. But I still think it would be good to have even a futile effort to show the arbcom. It's not like it'd cost much effort just to ask Beckjord if he'll agree to mediation, with, say DreamGuy (the obvious choice—of course DG should be asked first!). At least, not compared to the disheartening effort of a rejected RFAR. Or alternatively, you might submit a short but eloquent explanation of why it would be pointless to even ask B. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This may be all we really need to show just how futile it would be. android79 21:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a Greek tragedy, but we probably better go through all the steps. The Rfc appears to have enough meat in it, but the supply is almost limitless if we need to dig up more info.--MONGO 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to consider an attempt at mediation; given the recent hostility directed towards me and DreamGuy, I don't think anything with either of our names on it would be a good idea -- Beckjord would just continue his tirades. We would need someone else to attempt mediation, someone involved at Bigfoot, but someone with whom Beckjord hasn't identified as an enemy. (Yeah, I know, short list.) android79 21:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how mediation works here... there are some "Cabal mediation" people running around who do not seem to be the same as the people at Wikipedia:Mediation. I would encourage anything that involves mediators who are not self-appointed and hold some sort of sway. Frankly, Beckjord clearly isn;t going to listen to anyone, so trying to find someone not on his enemy list to participate is futile, as anyone who has interacted there is already on his list and anyone new would have no standing for mediation. But his actions are so clearly beyond acceptable i think ArbCom ought to step in right away. Hitting them with the evidence that he clearly intends to keep putting his info in regardless of what anyone says and that if he doesn't get his way he'll just cause disruption means nothing short of a total smackdown will do. DreamGuy 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Android, I think it ought to have one of your names on it, as the disputant: it ought to be one of B's prominent opponents, someone he's engaged with (and insulted) a lot. I don't agree that the mediator should have been involved with editing

Mediation Cabal, they're backlogged anyway, and take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation, see what you think. If you're agreeable, apparently the very first step (and most likely the last) would be for you to ask B if he'll agree to mediate: "Disputant(s) should contact the other party and get their consent for mediation, then contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, who will then appoint someone to act as a mediator." Heck, I know the page goes on to say that you're obliged to believe the process might reach the desired result... but they're not the thought police, and you could always hope the process might be successful, right? Considering not only B's behavior here, but his long previous internet career, I know it takes some optimism. But, anyway, I won't go on about it any more. Maybe you guys are right that the ArbCom won't insist on mediation in this case. Just, do say something in the request about why it would be pointless. Btw, I've added a statement to your RFAR subpage, Android. Please use it any way you like, or not at all, feel free. Integrate with yours if you like some of the phrasing, keep it separate and shorten both, or delete — whatever. I can just as well use it when there's a real Evidence page, so don't be shy about deleting it! (It needs diffs in any case.) Bishonen | talk 00:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

I think you may have misunderstood me -- I meant not for the mediator to be a previous editor of Bigfoot, but for the person that "volunteers" to agree to mediation with B ought to be a previous editor of that article, other than myself or DG. What you say makes sense, though. I'll take a look at mediation options tomorrow. android79 06:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, seriously, never mind mediation, let's GO. Just add this latest one and go. Note the characteristic Beckjord header formatting — ONE equals sign — and feel free to compliment RexNL and me on good reflexes. :-) Bishonen | talk 19:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I think I reverted one like that yesterday; didn't even bother reading the whole thing after I read the attack on me. I agree; I'll get back to you on this later today. Thanks for nabbing that. android79 20:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well... fine, except that I'm catching an early train tomorrow, and if you're on EST, I'm six hours ahead of you (=CET). Bishonen | talk 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Me = CST. Too late now, eh? :-) android79 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another hour from now is OK. Bishonen | talk 23:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Tired of indenting) So, should I add the request to the page as-is (with that link included)? Or what? I'm new to this. android79 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a brief statement. I'd be a little surprised if they didn't accept, after which... nothing happens for a long time, if recent experience is any guide ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed mine a bit, going for fair and judicious. I've used the diffs you added, thanks for that. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Go to my talk page - Pronto !!!! Martial Law 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. That's actually quite useful. android79 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Await further evidence. Martial Law 22:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to This link leads to war link Martial Law 22:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this link, scroll down until you find this:

Wikipedia has probably 10,000 hits a day on BIGFOOT ALSO PG FILM. Click on this link

to see a declaration of war. User:Dreamguy is referred to as "skepticGuy" on this link.

I am requesting that this message be deleted as well. Martial Law 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may keep the link. Martial Law 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A weird malfunction is currently making a mess out of Wikipedia. It had already fouled up my userpage, no telling who else got fouled by this malfunction. I've reported it in the

So far, it looks like this bug is exterminated. Still investigating. Martial Law 05:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have told User:Beckjord what will happen if there is one more personal attack, one more Edit War. Freeze the bigfoot article so that only admins such as yourself may edit it. I have seen what I had seen. Martial Law 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for extending that. It was pretty much being blocked every day anyway. The longer block will reduce the workload of cleaning up after them. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted in the DRV for

Found 4 links. 3 appear to be scholarly, the other is of a unknown nature. All are on the Bigfoot talk page as persuant to the template that is on the Bigfoot article. Martial Law 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can just post on the Bigfoot talk page; I'll see it there. No need for a message here. android79 04:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're already there. Martial Law 04:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of

Yeah, the policy on offensive usernames and what to do them is a bit vague and contradictory. Let common sense be your guide with these. :-) android79 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I'll see what I can do. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that autoblocking vandals and trolls impacts other AOL users who are assigned random IP numbers. This is my second such block this evening and I have a long history of these problems. Please see my user page User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block. Information below. Thank you. WBardwin 10:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Your IP address is 207.200.116.131. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by User:Android79. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "DrJoe". The reason given for DrJoe's block is: "sockpuppet of User:Beckjord".

Unblocked. The autoblocker needs to be fixed, and so does AOL's proxy scheme. android79 18:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate your cooperation. WBardwin 22:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again -- same autoblock with your name on it. How about a release? Thank you. WBardwin 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address is 207.200.116.136. Please include this address, along with your username (if you are a registered user), in any queries you make. Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Android79. The reason given is: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "DrJoe". The reason given for DrJoe's block is: "sockpuppet of User:Beckjord".

Done. android79 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with Jeff South's edits on Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal. They made the page far more informative.CGFTA 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rescuing my user pages! — TheKMan^talk 20:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Let me know if you have any more trouble with that guy. android79 21:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the indent on your edit to Talk:Bigfoot because it appears as if you are replying to me, even tho you start if off with Beckjord. The last thing I need is to be confused with Beckjord. ):- However, it's no biggie. (no pun intended). Cheers. Moriori 00:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks to me like it's exactly the opposite... as you say, though, no big deal. :-) android79 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, User:DreamGuy, User:Mongo are under attack. Link is:User:DreamGuy,User:Mongo, you are under attack Martial Law 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, already saw that. Thanks. android79 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've let User:DreamGuy know of this as well. Can you also show this to him ? Martial Law 04:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also let User:Mongo know of this as well. Martial Law 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Beckjord/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to do with that article. I used to rewrite it every two weeks, just to keep it clean. It's become a horrible monster of a Wiki page. It definitely needs help, but with the vandalism and editing rate as high as it is for the article, I don't know if it can be kept up (short of page protection). What can be done? --FuriousFreddy 02:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not really sure. For heavy vandalism,

Michael Jackson (personal life) fork needs to be resolved. android79 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you see the mess in the artistry section also? OH. MY. GOD. It had weird links to mjjforum and people citing themselves as authoritive sources. It is now literally plastered in "citations needed" by me to protect against taking opinion and uncited info as fact. The trouble with splitting the article up is that we then can't check what is happening to the rest of the article frequently. It's hugely expanding out of the ability to check it properly. People are slipping in and adding garbage under the radar. Which is just worrying. --Manboobies 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much par for the course on that article. It was in a reasonably good, stable state until the recent subdivision. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look at it closely right now; another conflict is taking up all of my Wiki time. android79 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to add to Beckjord arbitration....Bishonen mentioned that her image gallery had been vandalized by Beckjord after she blocked him. I already put in a bunch of diffs on the evidence page and didn't want to hog them all, so if you want to mentioned Bishonen's comment to me, that would be great. It's a tedious chore but we should all voice our thoughts, especially with the level of personal attacks he has waged.--MONGO 12:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I've been meaning to. I'll get to it tonight, hopefully. android79 12:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To a resolution of the Beckjord issue:

There has been a giant misunderstanding by yourself and DreamGuy about me where is seems you have assumed that I was trying by my edits to convince readers that "Bigfoot" already 1)exists and 2) is proven and verified.

Not so, Grasshopper.

1) Bigfoot is not verified, not proven, not established by science as a zoologiccal apecies.

2) I never said it was, and never meant to imply it was.

3) The word "Bigfoot" means with quotes, it is a nickname and not a real animal proven real.

Those of us who do research find it tiresome to keep using quotes all the time. Maybe, in Wiki, we need to use quotes all the time,however, a real animal has a scienmtific, taxonomical name, like canis lupis, the wolf.

I feel you see the word Bigfoot with no quote marks and think this means we are trying to pull a fast one. Not true. We are not.

4) We are trying to find evidence to prove it (they) are a zoological species, OR, some type of paranormal being that may, or may not, come from other parallel words to confuse us.

We do not have that evidence, yet. We may never get it. It is my suspicion that if after 1406 years, and we do not have zoological evidence, that we never will. Thus, we shift to plan B.

5) On the Bigfoot article, we simply want to point out the alternatives in theories.

You don't like that. Yet, many well-credentialled scientists are looking that way.

You seem to want to keep this info from the readers. Please stop.

6) Try this -- YOU, modify the page and put in this opening statement, which is more accurate:

"Bigfoot"is the nickname applied by witnesses and others to an visual phenomenon that appears to resemble a man-like, erect, hair-covered being that superficially resemebles an erect primate. This phenomenon is not a proven zoological species and researchers acknowledge this. However, a dedicated group of laymen and a few scientists (Dr Meldrum, Dr. Bindernagel) are attempting to gather evididence that will satisfy the rules of zoology. Whenever the word Bigfoot is used without quote marks, or other nicknames from other regions, this does not mean this is an accepted, real and proven zoological animal.

7) Try it. If can work. Endless reverts are simply insulting and cause more reverts. Better to edit, and not blindly revert.

beckjordBeckjord 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your attempts to mend fences here and work with us, but when you do stuff like this you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth. Cease personal attacks and sockpuppetry immediately and maybe – just maybe – we can talk about some sort of compromise. android79 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Android, speaking of compromise, did you see my suggestion in the "DreamGuy dispute" section above?[6]. I am curious if you find it acceptable. Thanks. Elonka 23:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to how this is any sort of compromise. It includes two things you want (removal from my talk page, and consolidating related info in one place) with nothing that I want. As I said before: everything currently on this talk page is going buh-bye to archiveland in less than 48 hours. android79 19:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per the discussions at the Admin noticeboard, it would seem that I have the authority to refactor comments. I'm trying to respect your sovereignty here on your userpage though, so, rather than me going in and mucking around, may I respectfully request that you simply not archive that particular section of your userpage, or perhaps simply include a diff to the particular section? Based on the policy at Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, that would seem like the best way to handle this, and would go a long way towards showing good faith on this. I'm also open to alternative ways of handling it, as long as the end result is that the personal attacks are gone off of the live pages. Respectfully, Elonka 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I archive later today, I'll include a diff link. I'm not doing this out of having a need to "show good faith" or anything else – I just wish to wash my hands of the whole mess. android79 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one more thing: I request that you refactor this personal attack. android79 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly pleased to hear that.  :) Regarding the refactoring request, you're referring to my post pointing out that Hipocrite has a pattern of posting random insults that is similar to someone exhibiting disruptive behavior? Sure, I'm willing to do that. What would you like me to change it to? Elonka 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not for me to tell you what to refactor it to. The point is for you to recognize that calling someone else a troll – especially someone with a constructive editing history and generally calm demeanor, like Hipocrite – is a completely unconstructive personal attack. The words "pot", "kettle", and "black" come to mind. android79 23:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take a look at the diffs I provided? Hipocrite has been posting random attacks on my talk page, being extremely uncivil at the AMA, adding completely false statements in edit summaries at my bio page, and rude messages at ANI besides. I agree with you that Hipocrite also does some good edits, but there have been plenty of examples otherwise in the last few days. In any case, I promise to remove my message, in return for your refactoring the DreamGuy discussions off your page. I'm also willing to remove these recent messages too. I'm far more willing to work with Hipocrite than against, if Hipocrite behaves in kind. Elonka 00:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is. Do you want to come to IRC and talk about it? Bishonen | talk 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of

In other news,

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --

Android79, can you check my items I added on the Bigfoot article, not sure I did it right. Added about Ivan T Sandson interviewing Roger Paterson and Bob Gimlin, also reference section to the magazine article. MarcusTCicero 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look as soon as I can. Given that there's no one way used on that article to cite things, it's probably okay. android79 01:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you. I was trying to prevent a potentially ugly situation from happening. Initiate full protection until this war is over. I do humbly apologise if that inconvienced you or innocent Wikipedians. Martial Law 01:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for full protection. Beckjord's army of AOLers is stopped cold by semi. android79 01:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long does a "Semi-protection" last ? Martial Law 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]