Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258

Meatpuppets by two Ryans
Hi, recently I started to chime in on AFDs. One of them was Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Mexican_voice_actors. After I voted delete 1, Ryanasaurus0077 wrote this 2. Later after I replied, his "twin brother" Ryanasaurus007 replied with this comment. 3.

I felt this was suspicious, and I reviewed there contributions, and there very similar to eachother. Is this a violation of WP:MEAT?

Thank You  BH  (T|C) 22:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Likley WP:SOCK and not meat, but who knows? Luckily for us the rules are the same for both instances. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that on the userpage says he is 12 going on 13, yet his birthdate would make him 15, and the fact that he said his twin brother was drunk, and that nobody would name both of their twins Ryan, I am afraid that something isn't right here. --MichaelLinnear 22:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That userpage saying 12 going on 13 is obviously outdated. I think my twin brother forgot to update his user page. --Ryanasaurus0077 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, these two users appear to be an example of very poorly thought out sockpuppetry. Perhaps if one was Bryansauraus, and the other Ryansauraus, they could pass off as twins.  But two Ryans?  They also don't know theyre own ages, and very young to be drunk.   BH  (T|C) 22:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think that whether they're meat or sockpuppets is irrelevant. I think what's more importnat is that some action be taken against the two accounts.   BH  (T|C) 23:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As the creator of that AfD, could I ask someone also explain WP:CIVIL to whichever of these Ryans is the master here? He accused me of being racist and even though I calmly explained on Ryanasaurus0077's talk page why I nominated the article for deletion as well as the general community consensus on certain content he was adding, he continued the personal attacks, continuing to call me racist and comparing me to Tokugawa Iemitsu and Hans Gruber on my talk page and on the AfD . Is this kind of name calling really acceptable on Wikipedia? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with the above as I was threatened because I voted to delete, i believe the threat is in Diff number 2.  BH  (T|C) 23:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on WP:Civil in re User:Ryanasaurus0077, I was accused of this: I responded here. You will note that my marking both pages Francisco Colmenero and Jorge Arvizu with  was legitimate.  His response to the articles was to change "Latin American" to "Mexican" and  with the non sequitur comment that changing that was "Here's proof that they exist" (edit summary).  Neither article has been given any references.  SkierRMH 05:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial expletive
User:24.17.83.230 has been warned for other articles, though I am having a hard time understanding why they have not been banned for their use of a racial slur in the Wayne Shorter article. I can see no reason why we would give someone a second chance after inserting such extraordinarily disgusting garbage. This user has made it clear from the start that they do not want to be a part of this community. I believe that racial slurs, especially in biographies of living persons, should be a first strike and you are out offense. Thoughts? Relevant discussions to see why this action has not been taken? Thank you. (Mind meal 22:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC))


 * We block people to stop them doing bad things. The problem edits to which you refer happened more than a day ago, with no edits since, so a block would serve no purpose. And don't fall into the false notion that an IP is a person: the two are generally only very loosely related things. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If this IP continues his behaviour (within the next few days, so it's reasonable to assume it's the same person), report him at WP:AIV.--Atlan (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks to you both, but if it were up to me that IP would be banned in an instant. Finlay McWalter, I'm unsure why the lack of editing since then makes a block purposeless. If you could explain that to me I would appreciate it. You can count on my reporting this offender the second they add this kind of garbage again. Is there somewhere I can voice my opinion about offenses that I feel deserve instant banning with no warning? I cannot think of a more vulgar edit. (Mind meal 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Your proposed block would stop nothing (because nothing is happening) and has as much (or probably much much more) change of stopping a future legitimate person from editing than the person who made the malicious edits from that address. WP:BLOCK and particularly Blocking IP addresses cover this stuff in detail. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose calling Wayne Shorter a "nigger saxophonist" is just nothing? If other users would become affected by such a ban, they could always create an account like the rest of us and add all they like. How are they prevented from creating an account and contributing (ie. other users possibly using the same IP address)? (Mind meal 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC))


 * What Finlay is trying to say, is that an IP address is not bound to a person. It could be part of a DHCP pool of addresses, or maybe it's the IP address of public computer, like in a school. Therefore, the next time someone edits with that IP address, it might be a different person altogether. That means the vandalism has to happen right now, otherwise we can't block it.--Atlan (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP last edited at 05:08, 9 June 2007, nearly 2 days ago. Even if it had been immediately blocked, the block would have expired nearly a day ago. I know you don't want that guy editing again, and neither do I, but preventing that individual person from editing again is impossible - that's just now how the internet works. There is no reason to believe that the IP address is assigned to the same guy. None whatever at all. Nada. Zip. So blocking the address now would be pointless. As I explained to you, twice, above.  -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I can't see why they were not banned immedietely myself, but that's water under the bridge now. Is there not a way to do an IP lookup to see if this IP address is a school, non-static addresss, et cetera? That's all. It just seems that the edits they had made so clearly rose to the level of a ban, that I had a tough time understanding how anyone could have let those edits pass. Seems common sense to me, but I know how the beauracracy can work. Thanks anyway. (Mind meal 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC))


 * IP addresses should never be banned (which is permanent), only blocked for a a lengthy period, for reasons stated above. This IP probably wasn't blocked yesterday because no Administrator noticed the vandalism or was notified of it.--Atlan (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, certain IPs (such as open proxies) can be indefinitely blocked. And IPs can often be softblocked (allowing accounts but not anon edits) indefinitely - a lot of school IPs are blocked in this manner.  Neil   ╦  12:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of behavior I am constantly referring to when I request a reformation (change) in the blocking policy here at Wikipedia. I am not gloating but am giving you a prime example of what happens when you don't take action against users that violate, constantly, the rules of Wikipedia. Rules are rules and if blocking a user from editing Wikipedia is the way to get the point across, then so be it! There is no need for junk like that. Racial slurs are not tolerated by anyone, nevermind Wikipedia. I thought that this was supposed to be educational!!! How can you assure people that if you cannot take the appropriate measures to keep vandals, trolls, and so on from editing and contributing in a bad manner???? I see no harm, in fact, I see blocking as being overly-acceptable when it comes to a violation of this sort! Please, somebody explain how this could be tolerated among such an educational community. that via my talk page because I am having difficulty understanding this! Redsox04 19:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is "tolerating" anything. It's simply not technically possible to determine that the IP user who logs in today is the same one who logged in 24-48 hours ago, in most cases, so a block on the IP would do no good toward stopping the problem user and have probable collateral damage on other IP users from that area who would be prevented from making good edits. Remember, just because a lot of vandalism comes from IP edits does not mean that most IP edits are vandalism. 64.126.24.12 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sonic.jpg
The image was deleted but there's still the upload history. Clicking on one of that links returns a 404 error. Please either undelete the image (if deletion reason was wrong) or delete the rest too. --32X 22:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagged with db-noimage. HTH. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the problem (and the problem persists now that I've re-deleted the image page). It's probably some kind of db screwup, somehow showing revision history regardless.  But as this problem is confined to this one image, I suggest we ignore it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an isolated issue. I've seen this multiple times before and didn't think much of it. I can't show you any others, though, since I ignored it too. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've purged the page; now instead of showing a standard image description page, it shows MediaWiki:Noimage. But the file history is still there... could be an item in the job queue, or just an odd quirk. Grace notes T § 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it displays the image description page again. Odd, odd. Grace notes T § 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just filed this as 10213 in the MediaZilla. Jesse Viviano 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see the image in the "deleted edits" page. How weird. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User using copyrighted images for userspace
User has been U/L copyrighted images in order to use for his/her userspace. He also modified a logo from an EA Sports Sims Game, but I talked to Becca and she deleted the image, but the person re-uploaded a blank image which is not used in any userspace. This is clearly in violation of WP:USER. Also, could someone delete the copyrighted images on his userpage located via... because 1.) they are blank images 2.) they aren't being used in mainspace or userspace. Thank you. Miranda 09:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussions:


 * Deleting images, revert, hiding, revert.
 * Image talk
 * Logo of my site
 * Deletion of Images discussion on my talk
 * If there are any unfree images on the user page, then they should obviously be deleted. However, I want bring up Image:S2R.jpg. Context about this image may be found at Media_copyright_questions, where Blacksmith asks about the image, which was created by some person on a forum by combining non-free logo with some new lettering above the image. I told blacksmith that if he deletes the logo part of the image, then the remainder is just three letters, which are ineligible for copyright in the US. Blacksmith did so with my advice, and so I don't want him to be sullied on that point. Also, I want to say that I am still confident that my advice is good, and proposed a way to discuss this on the thread in the media copyright questions page. nadav (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

may i be allowed to keep the blank images for a couple of days, i,e, 24-48 hours, just so i can make new ones, if not, dont delete the links from the page, just hiddebn like they are now, so i can upload new images.Ω§|Blacksmith2 09:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are non-free, then make sure that they add significantly to the articles and to add a fair-use rationale and an appropriate copyright tag. I can help you out with that, but be careful not to upload them just for the sake of your user page. nadav (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

how about free images for the use of my userpaghe?Ω§|Blacksmith2 10:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free media should not exist within the userspace whatsoever. Although, as far as I know by current policy, one can link to the images by doing something along the lines of Image:Example.jpg as such not to have the image on your page. If you created them, then they should be free. If the images are used no where but your user page, and they are non-free, then they will be deleted.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, edit the images accordingly, see you all tomorrow,what time is it again? Ω§|Blacksmith2 10:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we're on the subject, I am concerned about the copyright status of Image:Bustamove.jpg, a screenshot taken from the game The Sims 2. Blacksmith2 believes the copyright on the image belongs to him, because he composed the picture in some significant way Anyone want to take a gander? nadav (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Generalizing the question, if a game includes a map editor, and I create my own map and take a screenshot of it, whats its status? Further generalizing, if an image editing software includes textures (or primitive objects) and I create a scene composed of the objects and textures, what would be the copyright status?


 * If this discussion goes on for long, I think this should be moved from AN/I to AN. --soum talk 11:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well IANAL, but creating new creative works using game graphics and such may entitle you to a copyright on your creative input, however it's not exclusive. The image is still made up entierly of material copyrighted by the game developers, and just because you use it in a creative way does not invalidate theyr copyright. As such you won't have the power to release the image under a free license on your own. If you create new maps and models for a game those will be copyrighted by you, but again taking a in-game screenshot of them in action will most likely include textures and other models not copyrighted by you, making the screenshot itself a derived work even if the map itself is entierly your work. --Sherool (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's copyright by both the game company and you if you create a creative work using game content, I suspect, which would mean that both you and the company would need to release the content under the same or compatible free licences for the image to be free use. There are some situations in which this happens (for instance, Second Life screenshot), but it isn't going to happen by default. --ais523 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this Sims game, so I didn't know if Blacksmith meant that he actually made all the textures and visual components (in which the game would just be acting like a photo editor) or if he was just putting together different pieces made by the game designers (meaning the image would probably be an unfree derivative). My guess is that the latter case holds, but just wanted to make sure. nadav (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Derivative works of game producers. There is nothing further to discuss here, it is a clear cut case. -- Cat chi? 16:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

may i say the ea/maxis did not make all the content in the photo, and this isnt a 'i just put it in that way ' commentΩ§|Blacksmith2 04:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC) oh and it isnt all my stufff either, so the only way to tek the copy right for it would be entirely my own made stuff, apart from using the sims 2 t o take it, oh and regarding the origanl issue, is ea going to sue you over three letters?Ω§|Blacksmith2 04:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Libertycookies
Longtime disruptive editor. Pushing own extreme agenda. Refuses to abide by Wikipedia rules despite repeated explanations. See User talk:Serendipodous, User talk: Libertycookies, Talk:J. K. Rowling. Serendipodous 11:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a content dispute - what in particular is the problem? --Fredrick day 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also an arb case of interest here - A l is o n  ☺ 11:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a case of content dispute, and misuse of deletion of content rather than calls for citation and 'request for comment'. Serendipodous has been a long time editor of the J.K. Rowling entry and seems to be overly possessive of the article.  I probably have not responded with kindness to what I see as censorship rather than a productive editing process, but I am not adding material to harrass Seren, I believe the content to be relevent, verifiable (if tagged with a request), and worthy of inclusion.  Seren has abbreviated the wiki-mediation process by selecting friends rather than posting a call for impartial comments.  I see no reason to block him for his wanton deletes, but he feels a need to drag me into this forum. Libertycookies 12:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to be personal, Liberty has added very little of any value - the vast majority has been complete original research which Liberty attempts to support with a plethora of unrelated citations and lots of inference. Liberty may not have posted content to harass Serendipodous but has certainly made plenty of ad hominem attacks against Serendipodous in various talk pages. Liberty cookies has been warned by several editors and admins on numerous occasions about posting unsupported content but continues to flout the rules. To put it simply, Liberty is an extremely disruptive user who is pushing a personal agenda with no real benefit to the wikiproject or to wikipedia as a whole. Further, Liberty is draining excessive amounts of editor resources in policing these edits and is seriously jeopardizing the featured article process for Harry Potter. AulaTPN 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To reply, Aula was directly solicited by Seren to support his viewpoint. Both have been trying to intimidate me into abandoning valid quotes from accredited sources.  All of the content is supported and relevent, despite wild allegations to the contrary. Libertycookies 19:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that's untrue. I was active in policing vandalism on the HP pages long before Seren contacted me. AulaTPN 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it untrue? Libertycookies 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From Aula's talkpage: It looks like I'm about to start an edit war and I really don't want to, so I'm hoping I can resolve this with majority opinion. There's a right-wing libertarian dude who's been editing Wiki articles to post opinions about JK Rowling's supposed socialist messages. He added a massive subsection to the Controversy over Harry Potter page on this topic, which I ultimately deleted on the (in my opinion correct) grounds that it constituted criticism, not controversy. A controversy is an argument or dispute, and there is no evidence of controversy in that section whatsoever. I made that point and merged the section with the Harry Potter#Criticism and praise section. Now he's back and he's reinserted his section, but he seems to have missed the original point. Before things get rough I would like to ensure that this goes over as smoothly as possible. Thanks. Serendipodous 16:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only "Cool Cat" accounts


I do not know, I just noticed a similar repeating pattern for some time. It seems like a bunch of high school kids with too much time in their hands. I thought it would only be right for me to bring this to community attention. -- Cat chi? 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I indef-blocked CoolCatzzzz as a pretty clear vandalism-only account. The other one has only one contrib I can find, to a now-deleted article. I agree with your assessment but would be inclined to give the Tom cat account one more chance. MastCell Talk 16:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh there had been a ton of "cool cat" accounts in the past not listed here. -- Cat chi? 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

10 "cool cat" accounts, actually. More than 50 "coolcat" user names. hbdragon88 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some are related but others (created in 2005 and 2006) are not. For example, there are four accounts at WP start with Evilclown; 92 and 93 are mine (92 is for a sock for public computers), but 46 and 140 are completely unrelated. Evilclown93 (talk)  19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Over 500 "coolcat"s but search seems to be unrelated sets of entries. My point is usernames with "cool cat" in them seems to be often used for vandalism only purposes - thats just my analysis. -- Cat chi? 19:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should block all names with cat in them. You know, just to be safe :)  Neil   ╦  19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure User:CatherineMunro wouldn't like that. -- Cat chi? 19:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Catbar and User:CattleGirl also wouldn't like that. Fun  pika  21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenian allotria
Can someone talk to / deal with ? This charming editor is throwing a fit all over Armenian related articles and apparently concluded I that I am a member of a Jewish conspiracy, hiding behind a German name, wich is trying to hush up the Armenian genocide or something (original sound-bite, "you're obviously the worse of the Jewish type."). dab (𒁳) 16:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message on their talk page re. personal attacks, FWIW. See what happens ... - A l is o n  ☺ 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category move that hasn't happened
Hi. A category move that I proposed has been agreed at User_categories_for_discussion but hasn't actually taken place. Can someone help out with this? Cordless Larry 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an "incident" requiring a post on this board. That discussion was just closed yesterday. It normally takes about 4 days for category moves to take place. -N 19:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Sorry, I was told to post here at the article's talk page. Cordless Larry 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I shouldn't have been so gruff. -N 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I should have realized you didn't know category moving is a manual process. The category has to be changed in every template and on every page it appears on, and there's a backlog of doing so, which means they will get to yours in a few days. If you know how to do it, you can do the process yourself. -N 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, I didn't realise it worked like that - just presumed that it would happen as soon as the discussion was closed. Cordless Larry 19:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- Persistant Hoax Articles
User:Manplush has created several hoax articles pertaining to The Saga of Darren Shan, and continues to do so, despite warnings. A list of Manplush's hoax articles can be found on the deletion discussion page. A look at talk page of user indicated numerous other hoax articles, including a whole series of articles created for a fictional anime series. . In addition, there are several generic vandalism warnings for the user, all of which have been ignored. -AtionSong 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've blocked him for 1 month, given that this is not his first offense and the hoaxes require a lengthy AfD process to fix. Thoughts on whether this was too harsh/lenient? MastCell Talk 22:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. --John 22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me as well. A month is long enough that he'll hopefully give up and forget about us... if not and he continues, we can just block him as a vandalism-only account at that time. Win-win! :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 22:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by IP user
A user using the 71.185.143.* range (at least three seperate IPs) has been trolling the ref desk and vandalizing fairly consistently in the past couple days, I know they've used at least three accounts, and I have suspicion of a couple others, although they are somewhat unrelated. Is it possible to block the enter 71.185.143.* range, or at least put it under higher scrutiny than usual? -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick search turned up only one on-top edit from the /24, so I'm hoping collateral on this will be minor. Blocked the /24 range anon-only for a bit. If anyone has reason to believe this causes significant collateral damage, go ahead and lift it. Otherwise, I'll be happy to register accounts for any affected users (who can also contact unblock-en-l). – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

- Persistant Bad faith

 * The article is Russians in Ukraine, the two parties that over the past month battled out on a never ending dispute are myself and Hillock, the article was locked once to slow the edit war, and on 20:45, 7 June 2007 User:Dmcdevit blocked both of us for sterile edit warring.


 * On 11 June 2007 who was previously blocked for incivility, and who has a record of attacking numerous articles made a series of controversial edits  to that article.


 * Using the WP:1RR I reverted back to a stable version which hanged essentially since both mine and Hillock's block has expired. The stable version took a month to come to and it is extremly sensitive. Yet User:Hillock65 chose to revert back to Ukrained's POV. On his talk page I offered him to undo that edit and restore the consensus version that took quite a sweat out of both of us to arrive on.


 * He refused, accused me of revert warring, bad faith, nationalism, POV (you name it) and told me in his reply that I support Ukrained positions and I totally agree with him and most of all: Discussion is the only way to settle disputes, not revert wars.


 * Whilst I could not contest the correctness of the last sentence, however how can we possibly come to a settlement if hew agrees to a version that neglects the past consensus achieved by us, and also himself reverting to the new, non-consensus version of the article.


 * Raising the issue to him he refuse to reply.


 * Now where does that put me? I am very tempted to press the undo button right now, but I know that Hillock will do the same straight away. Discussing points which are essentially semi-trolling versus common sense ones is only going to be a waste of time. (just read the tone of one of his replies ) I am very tempted to file an RfC or even an RfAr and I want some replies to this fast on advice, I do not want to blocked again for edit warring, however this kind of attitude shown by Hillock is simply unacceptable. Please help! --Kuban Cossack 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z
is back… after being banned for a week for disruption User talk:Gon4z returned to Wikipedia today with a whole new set of tricks! Stealing material from other homepages and claiming images taken from other sites as his own and releasing them as Public Domain. As usual arbitrary, unsourced edits and calling all other editors changes that are not to his liking “vandalism” are a given and therefore I will just list all his blocks and his destructive behaviour now and demand that he be banned finally as he has not learned anything in a month of discussions/warnings and bans/blocks! The posts about him here in the last month:
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here
 * here

And now the new stuff from tonight:
 * Image:Type-77.jpg an image he took from medialab.com, claimed to be the creator (image was taken in 1997 see left upper corner) and then eleased it as PD. After informing a commons admin the image is now poised for speedy deletion.
 * Type 77 article is lifted (100%) from here please delete the article as well, because of copyright infringement.
 * as usual he has “edited” around 20 articles with (literally) his numbers (i.e. Albanians, Islam in Kosovo- were once more he gives a source that states no percentage, but he makes “90% practicing Muslims” out of that...
 * threats and insults: here “this vandalism ahs to stop read the sources and add all the number toget ther and LEARN MATHS” and here “Bluewings STOP vandalising, Albania is a vert well known user of the BTR-250 & Type 77 stop vadalising look at the links on the Type 77 article i have created ” (he created???)

As he got 5 blocks until now and has learned absolutely nothing (!), I suggest it is time to stop this and ban him forever. Anything but this will be a farce as this user has violated now ALL AND EVERY RULE Wikipedia has. --noclador 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * some more insults: here: "...are you iliterat can you do maths..." and here "That means I am not a SUCK up like you who goes ruing crying to the admins because he cannot win a dispute, who also changes my pots in the talk page to make it look like I have threatened or attacked hi, and all that still does not change the fact that you do not quote your source correctly it says 373 tanks not 79 where are you getting that number from Hummm... You have vandalized nearly every article there is to do with Albania or Albanians you remove sourced edits just because you don’t want them to be true and wish to spared propaganda, you clearly have some sort of hate against Albanians and like to express it by vandalizing articles Gon4z 00:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)" and that's just in the last 15 minutes! --noclador 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the below thread ("User:Noclador constant vandalism"); I've indef-blocked for the reasons I've detailed there. MastCell Talk 01:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology not accepted

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Especially since Chris continued to do it by saying I was badgering when expressing my offense at a user name. KP Botany 23:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See . Closing again. NOt relevant to ANI. Viridae Talk 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:24.68.249.225
Ongoing violation of 3rr at Freemasonry see: here, here, here, here, here and here just for starters (I think I left a few out). Also note misleading edit summaries as well as personal attacks in edit summaries... and on Talk page. This fits with the user being a sock of Long term abuse/Lightbringer who was banned from editing Freemasonry articles by ArbCom. Note ISP which fits with Lightbringer's known sock farm. User reported at: Abuse reports but no action taken yet. Blueboar 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You should probably list at WP:AN3R and WP:SUSPSOCK. Cool  Blue talk to me 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Bokiva copyright cleanup
I need some help dealing with this one. This user, who is fairly new here, has uploaded a lot of images with no source and a Serbian license. If I read that license, and law correctly, only documents are exempt from copyright protection. I don't see anything for symbols, photographs or everything from the Serbian Government. Would yall cluestick him and maybe delete the photographs? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please review my actions regarding the Talpiot Tomb
I may have made a mistake in delaing with what first looked like vandalism on Talpiot Tomb due to a report about spam on WP:AIV, but I think that I may have made a misstep by getting into an edit war. Could someone please review my actions? Thanks. Jesse Viviano 03:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please forgive me if I am missing something, but the article history doesn't show any edits by you.  Can you clarify what actions you would like reviewed?--BigDT 04:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it looks like you are referring to the indef block of . Looking now ... --BigDT 04:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason for an indef block. I suggest unblocking and politely reminding him (1) not to link to his own works and (2) content added to Wikipedia needs to be sourced.  He is apparantly an expert in this field, but a novice at Wikipedia.  We should welcome his expertise and help him to get used to our system, not ban him. --BigDT 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do that for me. I feel that I will continue to make missteps in this situation if I continue. Jesse Viviano 04:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked him. I'm typing up a message now. --BigDT 04:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The report that sparked this incident is this report to WP:AIV. Jesse Viviano 04:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry
In reference to this discussion and this one Baseball Bugs and I have discovered the following:

71.56.117.42 first and only edits were to add added cardpricer.com to the Baseball card article.

Twenty minutes later, Blacksoxfan arrived (having never edited this article) and reorders the links slightly. He then adds that same link to other articles:   etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles as well as just add it himself

Tecmobowl claimed that the owner of the site was Blacksoxfan. Blacksoxfan had his talk page blanked by 71.56.127.218 (the page was filled with warnings for constantly adding his own site to articles). 71.56.127.218 went on to add Blacksoxfan.com to articles and later admitted to being Tecmobowl. Tecmobowl even went so far as to remove references to Blacksoxfan spamming on an article talk page.

The IP Tecmobowl was using is out of Atlanta, Georgia as was the original IP 71.56.117.42...and the owner of Blacksoxfan.com is also from Atlanta, Georgia.

While Tecmobowl was on a 48 hour block, El redactor appears and his first edit is to add Blacksoxfan.com back to the Shoeless Joe Jackson article. He added it once more after it was deleted and then made a few more useless edits for the day and promptly disappeared. These other edits were pointed to by Tecmobowl as an alibi for it not being a sockpuppet

I am convinced he has been using multiple accounts over a long period of time to add his own links into articles but I would like another set of eyes to look this over. IrishGuy talk 01:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional input I saw some of Tecmobowl's early edits deleting external links. In almost every case where links were deleted, the links were removed without any explanation other than the claim that they were a "link farm". In every case that I saw, the links provided specific relevant information, and in no case were they excessive. In many cases, Tecmobowl eliminated links that provided clearly unique information from hundreds of articles, including clearly-relevant obituaries (see here for one of many such examples of articles where clearly useful links were removed). Efforts were made to encourage all involved parties to reach a common ground. Unfortunately, Tecmobowl persisted in deletion of links, despite repeated requests to respect the status quo while discussions were still underway. Tecmobowl is clearly capable of excellent work (see here for a specific example) when on his own, but seems to have great difficulty understanding that Wikipedia requires building consensus with ALL editors; unfortunately, Wikipedia involves working as a group and respecting the collective consensus built as a group. I had rather clearly warned Tecmobowl about potential/likely WP:3RR violations (see here) which simply went ignored and resulted in a 3RR-related block. It truly disappoints me that someone who can be so productive, can wreak so much chaos in his efforts to impose what he has deemed to be right, despite persistent efforts to try to achieve a mutually acceptable consensus. It is unfortunate that, at this point, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Alansohn 02:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this edit summary Tecmobowl states: '' most edits (if not all) from me and BlackSoxFan are from the same IP!! How could that be??? head scratcher huh''. If they aren't socks, they are most assuredly meatpuppets. IrishGuy talk 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I read through Talk:Shoeless Joe Jackson and Tecmobowl is pushing that link waaay too hard for me to have any AGF about it. I removed it and removed a few of the other card-pricing links in other articles.  This type of stuff shows up in baseball articles all the time and I've removed it on other occasions.  See WP:WPSPAM for some discussion of the linkspammer profile. 75.62.6.237 06:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC) (Added: There are edit warring problems on that page from many people).
 * Actually, Tecmo stopped pushing the link and said that he would let it go because discussion was ongoing and he'd trust talk page consensus. All he has done is revert people who have since removed it, and I have said that I'm comfortable with the site on while discussion is ongoing.  IMO, it's an ok EL.
 * It's unique
 * the list will never be included in an article as it's too long
 * also, IMO, a gallery is unlikely to be included in the article
 * While the website does sell product, it doesn't on that page and it's not overt--it took me a couple clicks to figure out how to get to the selling people were talking about. It's also not the SOLE purpose of the website, or even necessarily the MAIN purpose--the website has a lot of unique content included a lot of documents that they host online in PDF format--in additional to trying to make money (or maybe just pay for hosting), a resource is clearly being provided
 * Maybe Tecmo has a COI, and maybe his adding it was a spam link but I think that it's a good EL. I also don't want it off of the article while waiting for discussion to go anywhere because most of the editors who care about this link are avoiding the discussion--they'll come to the article to revert three times in  a day but not to talk content or answer straw poll questions. I personally think it's a good link, and I think that the editors who don't want the link included also have a COI, though a personal on-wiki.  They all have the opportunity to voice their opinions--they haven't.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  07:06, June 11 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't a case of "maybe Tecmo has a COI". It is his website. He has used two IPs and three different account to push that website into various articles. That is spamming and sockpuppetry. IrishGuy <sup style="color:blue;">talk 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have filed a checkuser request regarding Tecmobowl and El redactor at Requests for checkuser/Case/Tecmobowl. John254 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL? This is like following a treasure hunt. I go from one talk page to another to another and boom, I end up here. The same guys that have been argumentative and mean spirited. IrishGuy - I just left you a friendly message on your talk page and I have got to say that you are one of the most confrontational people I have seen on here. By the looks of your talk page, Baseball Bugs' talk page, and the comments above about Epfleche, I would say you guys are the sockpuppets. I made my first contributions on Wednesday night before I went to bed, then some more on thursday. Baseball Bugs then edited most of the pages I edited. From what I can tell, you accuse anyone who does not agree with you and get into fights all the time. And aren't you an admin IrishGuy? Aren't admins supposed to be level headed and polite? Maybe you should have that removed. El redactor

Offensive user names and biased non-discussions
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: Moccasin; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names).  No further edits should be made to this section.  

I posted a note about a user name I found offensive on the offensive user name page. It was moved to Request for Comments, user names, where I was told I was over reacting, my arguments were deleted as trolling (I posted a quote from a Wikipedia article), and then the debate was closed by the editor who called me a troll for quoting from the Wikipedia article. It's clear the issue was: women are second class citizens on Wikipedia and should shut up. KP Botany 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your arguments were not deleted, just the three paragraphs from the article Pimp you pasted in the discussion. Your arguments basically were tantamount to saying the name said something it did not. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but RFCN is for users to comment on usernames to help admins make their decisions - it's not a consensus based vote, if an admin feels confident on the username without further discussion, they can do, we don't need days and days of discussion for a username which an admin can easily decide whether or not it is against policy.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KP, I wouldn't have called that trolling, but I don't think it was very helpful either. There's a pretty clear consensus that the name doesn't violate policy. There are various interpretations of the word, so reasonable people can see the situation differently. The best solution is to drop it and move on.--Chaser - T 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above user (KP Botany) has informed me not to post on his/her user talk page again, So I will post here. I didn't tell you that you were over reacting but that this was an over zealous application of political correctness and that to disallow the user name ChicagoPimp would be an overreaction. IvoShandor 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I may have assumed bad faith, and perhaps trolling was a bit strong. I have apologised to the editor for labeling it as trolling. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are also welcome to be offended, nobody can take that away from you. But consensus is that the name should not be blocked, and you being offended does not change that. Sorry, it is not personal. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, my arguments WERE deleted, and I was told I was trolling. I was told I was over-reacting.  I was told not to use the arguments I used, when ChicagoPimp used the same arguments.  I was told it doesn't really matter what I said, and I wast told to shut up because I was a troll.  If user comments don't matter, then don't let users post on that board.  The admin was clearly biased in favor of ChicagoPimp, there was no discussion that didn't involve saying that oh, pimping doesn't mean what it says it means on Wikipedia--so it was necessary to remind people what the word means to a large percentage of the culture.  This is pure and simple bias.KP Botany 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And, no, consensus was that I should shut up, and my arguments were removed to guarantee just that. KP Botany 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not bias, it's just a discussion that went differently from the way you would have liked, it's nothing personal to you. This happens on wikipedia, there's no point in getting upset about it. Chris has appologised for what he said to you, life moves on and so does wikipedia. Let's just drop it, and get on with doing something constructive.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like what, shutting up like the good troll I should be? Not arguing my point?  Not quoting Wikipedia articles?  Spending time actually reading other people's arguments and addressing points to them while I'm being called a troll by an editor who is clearly biased for one side of the discussioin, calls me names, and removes my arguments to make sure that a consensus in his direction is reached?  Is that what I shoudl do, shut up and stop trolling?  Accept empty apologies that don't undo the damage they did?  Why?  So, I can be called a troll, told that all of ChicagoPimp's arguments are valid, and my quoting of Wikipedia isn't allowed in the future?  Then be told to get over it again, and let the non-trolls do the real work?  Why?  KP Botany 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe consensus was to require the user to change his name. Exploding Boy 20:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * RFCN isn't about consensus or votes - it's simply comments to advise admins.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, if anyone told you to shutup that was out of line. But the discussion was closed in line with consensus. Surely reasonable people can disagree as to if the word "pimp" is an endorsement of "slavery". <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was NOT closed in line with consensus. Consensus was not reached because the person deciding that consensus had been reached was busy calling me names and shutting me up to prevent my arguments from being heard.  That is NOT consensus.  KP Botany 20:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see where anybody told anybody to shut up. You lost the argument about the user name, Chris removed a long extract you posted from a Wikipedia article with an uncivil edit summary, which he has now apologised for. Time to move on. --John 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion was in the minority, the only thing that was removed was your exert from a Wikipedia article. What would you have us do? <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * RFCN IS NOT ABOUT CONSENSUS - its about discussing whether or not a name is against policy - if an admin that understands the username policy decides there has been enough discussion - he closes it with the policy in mind.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

'Tis odd that it was closed by a participant in the discussion. Maybe that's just me. --Ali&#39;i 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be right; it was closed as "allow." Strange, because I'm sure I saw "disallow" when I checked it.  At any rate, this is another example of an admin closing a discussion prematurely when there was clear and justified opposition to allowing the name.  Exploding Boy 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Another?! I'm sure your refering to me closing that non latin username discussion - well if people read policy instead of attempting to make it up at RFCN, then there wouldn't have been an issue.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The non-latin thing was clear; non-latin names are allowed. That name didn't need to go to RFCN.  The other name that was closed quickly was (something like) "m3nt4al breakdown" - which was speedily closed as allow wiht little reference to policy.  The inconsistancy of RFCN, and the lack of reference to policy, is frustrating.  Dan Beale  23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RFCN is about consensus only to the point that admins are bound by consensus in general. However the longstanding consensus in policy can certainly override a smaller consensus of RFCN. This is not the case though since both consensuses agreed. There were only two people arguing against the name and their arguments attributes qualities to the name that simply did not posses. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  20:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "disallowers" were removing qualities and attributes from the name, not the other way around. Just to be clear. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. "Pimp" is fairly unambiguous. Exploding Boy 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps but the argument was that it referred to slavery and put women "in the stable", which is really not what it means. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not odd at all, and he edited it first to make sure it was closed without contrary arguments that could be seen by everyone who clicked on the archive. That's right, qualities listed in the Wikipedia article.   What will people do next, use Wikipedia as a source of information?  And the consensus reached was reached exactly as it was desired, with an archive without any Wikipedia artilces quoted, or arguments against allowing the user name being left behind.  Yeah, "stable" the word used in the Wikipedia article, in the arguments deleted before "consensus" was reached.  Now I'm pitching a fit.  Oh those women, will they ever stop trolling and just shut up so the record can look pretty without them?  By an anon, no less.KP Botany 20:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please to not disrupt this board to make a point. I respect your right to have an opinion however making wild assertions such that you have saying that we all condone sexual slavery and other assertions you have made are not going to help with this situation at all, and will in fact most likley add fuel to the fire. I understand that you are frustrated however nobody has stated anything like, "Oh those women, will they ever stop trolling and just shut up so the record can look pretty without them?". This community is not out to be sexist. Also to clarify, my decisions were not sexist either. My decisions were based on my understanding of the username policy and the conversations at RFCN. If you have an issue with my decision, please feel free to discuss it with me.Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Search this board, you're the only to make a comment about sexual slavery on it. I am not disrupting this board to make my point, I believe your administrative action was grossly inappropriate.  Oh, the irony, Ivo is up for RfA, and is getting dogged for cussing out another user by all sorts of people who think name calling is inappropriate for administrators.  (or maybe it's just the level that he used, rather than name calling in particular). Your decision was clearly designed to make the discussion look as if consensus was reached by removing my comments, then immediately closing the RFCN to make sure I didn't respond again.  And, while you are so busy hugging your pals for saving the offensive user name, and while you're calling me a troll and removing my arguments, there is no sense in my attempting to discuss anything with you: you didn't allow me to have a voice in what I consider an offensive user name.  And, yes, it's a sexist user name, and I think that it was sexism that kept it.
 * Your administrative actions in closing the RFCN after removing my arguments to make it appear in the archive as the discussion did not inclued further addresses from me to arguments that the name was not offensive was clearly biased and poorly acted on your part. Had you not also called me a troll, and congratulated yourself and your buddies so heartily, it would not be so straight-forward.  KP Botany 21:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To Ryan: I was only referring to a previous recent incident. It doesn't matter who it was. And the word "pimp" clearly violates the current username policy.

I agree that KP is overreacting somewhat, but I don't think that, in the context of the word "pimp," "slavery" is hyperbole. Exploding Boy 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Others disagree. Short of blocking this guy against policy and consensus(which isn't likely) I don't see what is left to do. I have blocked that IP and removed the trolling comment. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't whether "slavery" is or isn't appropriate in the context of "pimp." It's whether "pimp" violates the username policy. It's clear that it does. We wouldn't allow "Ho," or even "Sex Worker," even if a user argued that "ho" is used by black women to refer to themselves in a positive way, or that "sex worker" is a neutral term." Why "pimp"?  Exploding Boy 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That has been explained on the RFCN discussion, I don't see the need to repeat it here. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the explanations (that "pimp" can mean "flashy") just wasn't convincing. That's why I just gave the example above. Exploding Boy 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This thread is to discuss the merits of my closing of the particular RFCN, not to argue the points again. Please either comment on why yopu feel my closure was appropriate or innapropriate and try to avoid arguments related to the subject of the RFCN.  Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict::No, it has not been explained on the RFCN because only parties approving of the name were allowed their full voice on whether or not the name is offensive. And, yes, ExplodingBoy, no more arguments on the user name, as it was closed to prevent further arguments from those disagreeing with the name. KP Botany 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "It's clear the issue was: women are second class citizens on Wikipedia and should shut up." <- Speaking as a female admin...no, not so much. That's a pretty outrageous claim. --Masamage ♫ 21:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Chris, and I'm saying you closed it as "allow" prematurely. The word "pimp" clearly violates the username policy. Exploding Boy 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep saying that, but which part of the policy? <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Awesome, so you didn't even read my opening comments on why it wa offesnsive, just decided I was wrong, and it's time to contratulate that admin for shutting me up? KP Botany 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know why you find it offensive, but how is it against policy? <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-
 * No more than Exploding boy does - the violent hatred for black unavoidable in your username is atrocious. ;0 Wily D 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a pretty outrageous shut up you troll, delete my arguments, rapidly close, head out and congratulate all my buddies on getting the name to stand. That was even more outrageous in my opinion than be treated like a second class citizen on Wikipedia--I'm used to that in a male-dominated world that says, hey, "pimping woman" from the "stable" is just like pimping up my car--or maybe that's how you pimp up your car, access that stable to pimp it out to get money for all that chrome and fuzzy dice.  KP Botany 21:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about being sexist, this is about interpretation of the username policy. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not even sure what you are trying to say in that last post. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide the diff of where anyone said "shut up" to you? The 'troll' thing has already been apologized for; your arguments were not removed, only your pasting of a large chunk of material available elsewhere, which made things harder to read. I utterly reject your characterization of Wikipedia as a sexist community, and I can supply you with many, many reasons why that is so. Please try to see this as a dictionary-based argument, not a political one. I know a lot of these people you're yelling at, and they are kind and helpful and don't deserve these kinds of accusations. --Masamage ♫ 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Chris shut me up by removing my arguments, and called me a troll in the edit summary, this is, frankly, maybe a bit worse than telling me to shut up, but, it is the same thing--he shut me up, closed the RFCN, removed my arguments, and called me a troll. It's a bit outrageous to come to demand diffs or quotes of me, when I used a Wikipedia article on the term to address the comments others had made was deleted.  What can I use, when Wikipedia is not allowed?  KP Botany 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so he never said "shut up", he did not in fact remove any of your arguments, and he apologized for calling you a troll. I suggest you leave those issues alone, as they seem to be taken care of. And you can reference WP in discussions, absolutely; but quoting three paragraphs of material directly on the page when you could just link to it makes it hard for people to read where your words start and where the quoted article, which they could have just looked at for themselves, ends. --Masamage ♫ 21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It violates the policy on offensive usernames, which states that "Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are . . . offensive." Also disallowed are "Usernames that include profanity, or obscenities, or references to genitalia or sexual slang" and "Offensive usernames . . . including but not limited to: Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view . . . Usernames that refer to real-world violent actions . . . Usernames that refer or include allusions to racism, sexism, hate speech, et cetera." Exploding Boy 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

KP, stop trying to create drama. His name is "ChicagoPimp", not "ChicagoRapist", not "DoWhatISayBitch", not "IEnslaveWomen". It's not offensive, you're creating the offense in your own mind. The majority sees it as questionable at worst, and harmless. The admin is allowing a user to use a name, not to walk all over you on the basis of Gender. You have every right to stand up for yourself, but right now you're doing a lot more harm to your viewpoint than you are helping it. Let it go -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop trying to create drama? Don't be offended?  It's all in my own mind?  It appears that no one can support this administrator's actions without telling me I'm over reacting, being politically correct, it's all in my head, I'm creating a drama.  The administrator himself calls me a troll for taking the time to read other people's arguments, and quote from Wikipedia's artilce on Pimp in response to other arguments.  And, now I'm doing harm to which viewpoint of mine?  It's clear H didn't even read my viewpoint.  And Chris deleted my viepoint, so how can I harm it now?  It's clear that a woman is not allowed to take offense on Wikipedia.  Sexism should be deleted from the username policy, as it is clearly allowed, and will be supported by multiple users attacking anyone who complains about sexism.  KP Botany 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * For the last time. I did NOT delete your viewpoint, however a cumbersome excerpt from an article.  After removing it left a note what I removed and explained it.  I DID not touch anything that you truly wrote, respected your argument and have explained that to you as well.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is attacking you. Several people are politely disagreeing with you. --Masamage ♫ 21:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any wikipedia editor should know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. This name is not sexist, it does not insult or demean either gender in any way. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pimp - which could be considered a reliable source - for definitions of the word "pimp". Your limited vocabulary, and insult at words, is not the fault of the user or the admin. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're allowed to be offended - but nothing is going to be done because the username isn't inappropriate. We all have to work together and sometimes that means accepting things we find offensive - it's just the way life is.  And in general, draggin on an argument that's been decided is discouraged.  You might find it better to cool off than just continue on in anger - that's unlikely to be productive for anyone. Wily D  21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the statement that the user name isn't offensive certainly isn't that cut and dried. I think it falls well within the "offensive" category. Exploding Boy 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Break 1, because I hate scrolling up
 * And on what grounds do you call it offensive? This is the third or fourth time you've been asked this, if you can't come up with a reason why this name is offensive, please do not comment. Your statements honestly seem to be weak excuses to get rid of the editor, not a legitimate complaint against the editor-- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so can we create an agreeable forum, somewhere else, for respectfully discussing the quality of the username? This whole "Wikipedia is sexist" thing is silly and needs to be put aside. Have the real discussion, and do it in the proper venue. --Masamage ♫ 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that the grounds that it is not offensive is not cut and dried. Neither is your argument that it is offensive. In short, this is a difficult situation. You asserting that you are right and that is offensivge and that we are wrong by saying it is unoffensive. I could tell you until I am blue in the face that the earth is square, that does not make it so. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've explained why with excerpts from the username policy. Must I really repeat myself again?  Exploding Boy 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, "Usernames that promote a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view" is obviously relevant. --Masamage ♫ 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The names does not promote it. The user in question has also explained what his username means.  To me, that is good enough to show me the name is NOT MEANT to promote anything.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. If my user name was User:IHateWhitePeople and I explained it was about my unreasonable fear of Clowns you would not allow this user name.  I also suggested that to User:ChicagoPimp that if he didn't mean anything offensive he could add a note to his signature--your assurance that he does not mean anything offensive doesn't mean the average visitor to Wikipedia seeing ChicagoPimp in the edit history will know the name is not meant to be offensive.  KP Botany 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The username promotes nothing - it's merely a noun. User:Pimpin'Ain'tEasy or User:PimpingIsAwesome or User:PimpsMustDie would be promoting something Wily D  21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this sense, the user is using it as an adjective, not a noun -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The grounds for calling it offensive were offered in the argument, and they were deleted by the administrator who closed the discussion and called the person offering grounds for teh user name being offensive a troll. The earth is a cube, by the way, and saying it over and over till you're blue in teh face is not the same thing as deleting someone's arguments and calling them a troll then closing the debate and running off to congratulate your buddies on the save.

From above, edit conflict:


 * Any wikipedia editor should know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. This name is not sexist, it does not insult or demean either gender in any way. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pimp - which could be considered a reliable source - for definitions of the word "pimp". Your limited vocabulary, and insult at words, is not the fault of the user or the admin. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Wikipedia is worthless as a source is your argument? You don't see any irony there?  KP Botany 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope. Encyclopaedias are, historically, not to be used as a source. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for any wikipedia article, as WP is unreliable, as are all encyclopedias to a lesser extent.-- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not really true, given that Britannica is specifically listed in WP:OR as a reliable source. I'll agree that Wikipedia is not in general a reliable source, but if some scholar writes a Britannica article that's as reliable as you can get. - Merzbow 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're allowed to be offended - but nothing is going to be done because the username isn't inappropriate. We all have to work together and sometimes that means accepting things we find offensive - it's just the way life is.  And in general, draggin on an argument that's been decided is discouraged.  You might find it better to cool off than just continue on in anger - that's unlikely to be productive for anyone. Wily D  21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about the user name, it's about being called a troll, having my comments deleted, and the discussion closed to prevent further comment by a clearly biased administrator who then went around congratulating his buddies on saving his friend's name. Maybe I'm offended at being shut up now, in addition to the user name.  But, gee, I should get over that too?  KP Botany 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me try this again. Once more, please make sure you understand the difference between Your Comments and Copied Text.  The cotnent I removed was a block section of copied text.  The content that I left was your comment!  Please do not accuse me again of removing your comments. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The text was highlighted by me in response to comments made by other users--this was my commentary and, yes, you DID remove my comments, so please don't deny it. Thanks.  KP Botany 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, KP, that while I agree with you that the username is inappropriate, you're not helping your case here. Exploding Boy 21:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * KP, you're beating a dead horse here. The name is borderline, a clear majority here seem to think it's okay (personally, I think it's ill-advised but not especially offensive), so with that out of the way, all you're now doing is complaining for the sake of it. Your comments were not deleted, the three paragraphs you quoted from Pimp were. The discussion was closed because most of us have better things to do than cover the same ground over and over and over and over again. Calling you a troll was misjudged - "troll" is a very loaded word around here and should not be used lightly. I think your accusations of "clear bias" are unfounded and unhelpful. Please, just let it go. Neil   ╦  21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the discussion was closed immediately after calling me a troll and removing my comments (and, editing my comments to remove what I have to say, namely the offensive nature of pimp, is deleting my comments). The administrator then moved on to congratulating his friends on getting the article kept, people whose arguments I used the copied passage to disagree with--this is bias.  If he hadn't called me a troll, if he hand't edited my comments, if he hadn't gone on to congratulate his friends who comments I was discussing in the text he deleted, maybe I'd be beating a dead horse.  But, that's not the case.  And more people ganging up on me with the same arguments other are using that Wikipedia can't be used to support arguments, that's I'm over-reacting, just make me think my original assessment of this being purely a bias-driven event is correct.  KP Botany 22:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, 1) Any admin who closes a discussion about somebody is supposed to inform that person of how the discussion turned out. This is not congratulating; it is informing. 2) Wikipedia can be used to support arguments. Use a hyperlink instead of copy-pasting. --Masamage ♫ 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, more of it. Phoeba tells me, "Any wikipedia editor should know that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source."  Then she uses it as a source, and now you support her use of it as a source.  And, now, it's that I can't copy-paste, but I can hyperlink--should I have then bolded my arguments in the article, then hyperlinked to it?  Please, think of what you're saying instead of just trying to shoot me down, or you'll do what Phoeba did and use wikipedia after telling me I couldn't, or the Ivo/Chris where Ivo uses a college newspaper, then I get told I can't, or Chris editing the arguments, then using the page to support his conclusions.  KP Botany 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, if you're not going to carefully read my comment, don't respond to it. --Masamage ♫ 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very clearly not being oppressed. Please stop blowing things out of porportion and just get over it. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we have reached the point where people are repeating themselves, please do not post here unless you have something new to say(not addressing anyone specifically). <sup style="color:#000;">( H ) 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To anyone who finds the word "pimp" offensive: PLEASE explain how the word is offensive in it's now out-of-date use as a term for a person who works in nefarious industries, and is any more meaningful in that sense than it is in any number of other contexts it has been used in archaically, such as in the dictionary article I linked to above -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Break 2 (ChicagoPimp case)


 * That use is certainly not out of date. If anything the new meaning of "flashy" is not as widely known or as commonly in use.  Exploding Boy 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is your opinion, back it up with facts. Clearly the fact that Pimp My Ride exists, along with the fact that pimpin pimp and other such words are used to describe over-the-topness (as they originally were) rather commonly in popular culture without complaint shows that this word's more common usage is non-offensive now. "Flashy" is not a new meaning, it's been around quite awhile, as my source (the dictionary article) clearly shows. Just because you find a word offensive does not make it so- a word must be actually derogatory or inflammatory -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That use isn't the common use, so much so that I suspect most of the editors on WP may not be aware of this particular meaning. The fact of the matter is, calling someone a "pimp" in the common sense is close to an insult (how close is at everybody's discretion), close enough that one should be circumspect about allowing such a word as a username. Let's use another word as an example, say "penis". It is a perfectly normal part of the anatomical vocabulary (in addition to a number of other uses). However, I suspect most editors here wouldn't eactly allow this as a username. I'm not saying "Pimp" should or shouldn't be allowed, I'm saying that I find people objecting to using this specific word as a username very legitimate.--Ramdrake 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, you're just arguing over what the common usage is. In America at least, pimp is widely used as an adjective now, not a job title. In addition, if we are going to ban people on the basis of their careers, are we going to ban "Witch"? "Butcher"? "Psychic"? I know quite a few people who would be offended by those much more than prostitution. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Phoebe, was that your wikilink to Pimp My Ride? Aren't you the one telling me I can't use Wikipedia.  Oh, well, a good solid laugh is always nice.  KP Botany 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a large difference between quoting something from an article as your defense and simply linking to something for people who might not know what it is -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can be referenced in discussions, if wikilinks are used instead of copy-pasting. The only time it can't be used is in the articles themselves. The reason why should be fairly obvious. --Masamage ♫ 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What you mean to say is, it's used as both. No new word has come in to fill the supposed void left by "pimp" being newly used to mean "flashy." Indeed, I've just checked several online dictionaries. Merriam Webster doesn't even list the new meaning, but only has the entry "a man who solicits clients for a prostitute." Exploding Boy 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you really check webster? A search of m-w shows

probably akin to British dialect pimp small bundle of sticks, Middle English pymple papule, German Pimpf young boy, kid, literally, little fart, Pumpf, Pumps fart Date: 1600 As a clear result for where the word came from. Showing that it definitely has unoffensive roots, according to at least two sources now. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. I will not argue against the fact that some may find the word offensive.  ACtually, come upw ith anything and somebody can argue that it is offensive to me.  That is the difficulty with these situations and why discussion at WP:RFCN is instrumental to making an administrative decision.  To re-itterate, sure it could be offensive to some.  THere are several questions taken into account when making the decision.  1.) what is the users intent?  IF you read the discussion, the user wasvery friendly, make gave severa points why he felt his name was appropriate and the context he was itnending to use it in.  THe contexts he was using in were valid and were not promoting a controversial point of view.  THe point of view is being projected on the term when its orignial meaning had no such value.  SImilarly, even if it did refer to it pimping, it is not promoting the view in either way.  Also, the arguments by the opposing group were either a.) a vote with no discussion or b.) an argument that liklened the use of Pimp to the use of Nigger or some other racially charged slang term.  The discussion there countered that argument sowing that the two words are completley different and not an appropriate comparison.  In short, YES it could be offensive to somebody but it was not meant that way.  -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The arguments against the user name were edited by you, and I don't consider it appropriate for you to edit arguments to say what you want them to say, then use them as evidence in support of your arguments. KP Botany 22:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Did he edit them meaningfully, or just change the format? Please provide diffs so we know what you're talking about. --Masamage ♫ 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, in case you have missed the 5 other times I have told you (and also for visual reference), I will show you exactly what I removed/edited. here, i remove the excerpt from the article that you placed in the the discussion.  Look carefully at the diff.  You will notice that I did not touch your argument.  Again, I kindly ask that you stop falsley accusing me of changing the argument.  THanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the diff. I see that she had introduced some formatting changes to what she pasted, bolding the parts she found especially relevant and using them as her argument rather than in support of anything. I still think it's better to quote small portions and use wikilinks to summarize the rest, but it's clearer now why she'd be so upset. --Masamage ♫ 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for at least reading what I posted, Mesamage. Chris, I have explained numerous times precisely what Masamage just noted here: I used the bolded text as my arguments.  You appear to have missed my comment, or ignored it every time I responded.  The article does not contain the bolds in it Pimp.  See for yourself.  KP Botany 22:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a matter of anyone ignoring you; I think it's just a misunderstanding. I didn't quite follow what you meant until now, either. The diff makes it a lot clearer. (It's still pretty long for a copy-paste, so it's hard to say what he should have done. Maybe asked you to pare it down, remove the parts that weren't directly part of your argument...) Anyway, please assume good faith in that this was all miscommunication, not outright malice. It's divisive to keep making this a battle if doesn't have to be. --Masamage ♫ 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that no one is able to defend Chris's actions without continuing to demean me. If pimp were so innocuous Phoeba wouldn't have to make up rules about her getting to quote Wikipedia and others not.  If it was just a discussion, Chris wouldn't have had to edit my reply to remove my bolding of the article, he could have let me have my say, if it wasn't so divisive, the discussion could have gone on.  But I got called a troll, the RFCN was rapidly thereafter closed, my comments were edited (and my paste was part of them), I got told I couldn't use arguments others used (same here courtesy Phoeba, I can't do it, but she can in the next post of hers).  What was the hurry?  Why couldn't and didn't ChicagoPimp just simply answer my initial request?  Why such a slam dunk closure?  Why call me a troll?  Then people keep pointing fingers at me for being the divisive one, just because I don't want a name used that I and many others find offensive (and if Phoeba doesn't find selling sexual intercourse access to women for someone else's gain, there's nothing I can say to her).  KP Botany 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But you're repeating several points that have already been responded to; I myself have tried to explain them several times. Are you unwilling to accept the apology you received for the "troll" comment? If so, I don't know what else to do. He can't go back in time and unsay it; saying he was sorry was the only possible action. I'm not sure what else you want. --Masamage ♫ 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Make up rules? Wikipedia is not a source, see WP:RWW. I'd like to see where I've used wikipedia as a source, so that I can correct it. Right now, you're making ad hominem attacks by trying to say that you either find pimp offensive, or you support slavery, please keep WP:NPA in mind, as if you insult me again, I will not take it lying down. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a misunderstanding. You're talking about not using WP as a source in articles; she thinks you're talking about not using it as a source in discussions, which of course is okay, and which is what you did when you used a Wikilink. It's just people not carefully reading eachother's comments. --Masamage ♫ 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP shouldn't be used as a source, period. It's intellectually irresponsible -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Even when the topic at hand is "what does Wikipedia say about this subject"? --Masamage ♫ 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the subject here -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unindent respone to Phoeba: Here you go, your edit from above: ":::That is your opinion, back it up with facts. Clearly the fact that Pimp My Ride exists, along with the fact that pimpin pimp and other such words are used to describe over-the-topness (as they originally were) rather commonly in popular culture without complaint shows that this word's more common usage is non-offensive now. "....-- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)" I have no idea what your comments about slavery are refering to, but perhaps you might want to read your post here before denying you posted it.  You use the argument Pimp My Ride exists on Wikipedia to support your "fact" (your word) that pimp is "non-offensive now."  That's your post.  You are using Wikipedia as support for your "facts."  This is what pimping is, selling sexual intercourse with others for personal profit. KP Botany 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh, that's not using wikipedia as a source, that's just a link. I don't use the argument that the Wikipedia article Pimp My Ride exists, I use the argument that the Television show Pimp My Ride exists, a large difference, and I will thank you to not distort my words against me in a way that goes beyond misunderstanding and into obvious spin. Your use of the word has been shown to be stunted. Just because your dictionary only lists one meaning does not mean that there are not plenty of other ones, which have been shown and proven in other reliable dictionaries. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've moved on to accusing me of having insufficient mental capacities to use words richly ("your use of the word has been shown to be stunted"), I wonder why you would continue discussing it with me.  That's enough, Phoeba.  KP Botany 23:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, stop putting words in people's mouths, you are very close to violating WP:POINT, and are definitely violating WP:AGF. A dictionary definition of stunted is: slowed or stopped abnormally in growth or development.- which is rather true for your refusal to expand your vocabulary and the meanings of words. It has nothing to do with mental capacity or ability. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Nobody is demeaning you and nobody called you a troll except Chris, and he says he's sorry and won't do it again. It seems a majority of editors disagreed with your view on the username; is that why you're so very upset? Because I can't see why anybody would care this much over the process used to rule on the acceptability of someone's name otherwise. Move on, there are other things to be done. --John 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, he didn't apologize for calling me a troll. He apologized for assuming bad faith.  Ivo, on the other hand, does know how to apologize, so maybe Chris can learn something from him.  KP Botany 23:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He did apologize for calling you a troll. From the diff you just posted, he says "I assumed bad faith with your inclusion fo the excerpt fromt the article and labeled it as trolling. I apologize for making this bad faith assertion." (emphasis mine) --Masamage ♫ 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did indeed apologize for making the bad faith assertion that you were a troll. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, you called me a name in the middle of a discussion where you disagreed with me, then you abused your administrative powers by making sure I had no more say in the discussion. You called me a troll--you apologized for your faulty underlying assumption, which only harmed you, not for what you did with that assumption (which harmed me).  This is the difference between your and Ivo's apology--Ivo ate it 100%, and didn't offer an excuse, in spite of admiting that he was drunk at the time.  What you owed me an apology for was for calling me a troll, not for assuming I was one based on a faulty underlying assumption, the latter being what you apologized for.  There was no room for calling me a troll.  And it's still about what you did after calling me a troll-take over and close the RFCN.  KP Botany 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, he apologized. If it's "still" about his administrative action, then let's talk about that and drop this. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine, but it appears his administrative actions can't be discussed without people attacking me, just like the discussion on the board originally--every argument I presented was wrong in some way, but no one could be bothered to look at that substance of what I had to say. And, no, Chris didn't apologize, since he just said he won't reopen the board because I talk too much, it's pretty much at the same point of him calling me a troll. But that's enough for me for today being called a troll, talk too much, quote that bad encyclopedia Wikipedia in the wrong way (any way but the way Phoeba uses it), too sensitive, politically correct. I've been called enough names for one day in retaliation for thinking the concept of selling sexual access to others for profit is offensive. KP Botany 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That's all very well, but the more important consideration is how the community will perceive the name. I could argue that "ho" and "bitch" are used by women to describe themselves; I still wouldn't be allowed to use those terms in my username. Exploding Boy 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Break 3
 * I'd have to agree. --Masamage ♫ 22:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The main difference here is that ho and bitch are derogatory and insulting terms. Pimp is not. Unless you can make a case for the word Pimp as ACTUALLY BEING OFFENSIVE, instead of using other actually offensive words as stand-ins, please stop calling it that. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify, if you walked up to someone on the street and said "You look like a bitch!" you'd probably get bitch (ahem) slapped, whereas if you went up to someone on the street and said "You look pimp!", they would most likely take it as a complement nowadays. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of confused by that request. What constitutes proof of whether or not something is offensive? How come you can say "derogatory" and "insulting" without providing proof, but "offensive" is subject to citation? Aren't they all synonyms? I'm not even disagreeing with you, I just think that we need to be clear on what we're asking for here. I know a lot of girls who are openly proud of being "bitches". --Masamage ♫ 22:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Masamage, that is the question. What constitutes offensive?  That is what I had to decide, and its not black and white.  Read the dsicussion at RFCN and you will see 2 people arguing the same arguments with many others areguing against it.  THat is what I went on in deciding to allow the name.  THe problem is the situation is not black and whtie however the outcome is.  THere is no correct answer is this offensive.  IT can be a little bit offesnive, mildly offensive, somewhat offensive, not offensive.  THere are two outcomes.  The guy gets blocked and has to change his name, or the guy gets to keep his name.  THat is the disconect caused in this situation.  I understand that, and the sad thing somebody was going to have to make a decision.  No matter what the decision was, somebody was going to be pissed.  I took the decsion based on the information provided in the RFCN, the arguments, my knowledge of the policy and added it up.  It has nothing to do with me being sexists or trying to stifle opinions.  It has everything to do with me making a difficult situation where the answers do not correlate to the outcome. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your motivation; definitely nothing sexist about it. It was a crappy decision to have to make. Should we perhaps reopen the discussion to get clearer consensus? Or do you think this is done with? --Masamage ♫ 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If i felt it would help, i would re-open it. I have been involved in this situation several times. Here is what will happen if i reopen it. The few who were arguing against it before will argue the point invcessanrty, badgering anybody who trys to say it is unoffensive to them. THe fact is, in this sutuation offensive is an opinion. The page will go on for days and days, will become excessivly long and the same outcome will occur. Either that, or it will be clsoed as noconsensus (which is default to allow the name anyways). I feel that this should just be dropped and we should get back to writing an encylopedia. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words I might use criteria from the Wikipedia policy on UserNames? That appears to be what you're saying, that you won't reopen it because those "few who were arguing against it before will argue the point invcessanrty, badgering anybody who trys to say it is unoffensive to them."  This is part of Wikipedia policy, offensive user names.  And characterizing what I am saying as "badgering" and "arguing" without ceasing is no better than editing the content of my post and calling me a troll.  KP Botany 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)  PS emphasis mine.  KP Botany 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, offensive here is subjetive. Again, offensive is not black and white.  that is what the RFCN would be fore is to determine what the majority felt about the term.  Badgering discourages participation and would end up with the same outcome as beore with 100 posts by you and 10 posts by everybody else.  Again, it is not black and white.  the equestion pimp==offensive is ! always true.  IT is about levels.  to reitterate IT IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, I talk too much? You closed it because I talk too much?  KP Botany 23:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt that. And it's not that the term is itself "dirty" (like shit or fuck), it's it describes something offensive. Exploding Boy 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WHY ARE WE YELLING?!?!. The user is referring to themselves, and pimp can be a "postive term." See the article: Artists such as Snoop Dogg, Ice-T...ect...paid obvious tribute to pimping within their lyrics. The term doesn't have to be negative. <b style="color:#33ff00;">~</b><b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;"> Wi ki  her mit </b> (HermesBot) 22:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with someone having a username that involves the term "pimp" - it's a colloquially positive term, and many people self-identify with it. --Haemo 22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Many people identify as "nigger" or "faggot" or "ho" or "bitch" as well, but they wouldn't be allowed to use those terms in their usernames. Exploding Boy 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (...People self-identify as "faggot"s? O___o --Masamage ♫ 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
 * that argument has been used several times. nigger, bitch and faggot are either curse words, racial slurs. You will NOT find them used in popular media such as television unless it is a R rated move. Pimp is a much different word. The ARE NOT comparable please stop trying to use that argument. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany, please could you provide a short polite list of a)What you think is wrong with the username and b)what you think was wrong with the discussion at RFCN. I'm interested to read what you think, but I really don't want to read through the nastiness (from all sides) above. Thanks. Dan Beale 23:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure they are, because people are trying to claim that the word "pimp" no longer has negative connotations. This isn't true.  Use the example of "sex worker," if you prefer.  Though the term is neutral, it wouldn't be allowed.  Exploding Boy 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comment there is exactly the problem with this entire argument- you aren't stating a point. You're saying that it's offensive, but you aren't explaining why the word is offensive (you're just saying it refers to a career), nor are you explaining why only a single use of the word is the possible or reasonable use. -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure pimp won't be bleeped out even on PC American television. I agree with Chris, it's definitely not comparable to bitch and faggot. I feel pimp is more akin to "tramp". It has definite negative connotations, but it's really just another word for vagabond.--Atlan (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Word order matters. "PimpChicago" = "decorate or sell Chicago", "ChicagoPimp" pretty much means "Pimp from Chicago". Dan Beale  23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not true. Think of the name as "ChicagoCool" or "ChicagoFlare". It's a name, not a sentence. The word order is nearly irrelevant -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To be frank, I find your argument a little disingenuous. If you can't understand why the term "pimp" might be offensive, then perhaps you aren't familiar enough with the term or its implications. I agree that "pimp" has been used positively by some, but surely you must realize why: pimps have long been associated with extravagance, flashiness and large amounts of cash, which they acquire by prostituting women, often against their will. It's really not very complicated.

As to this particular user name, ChicagoPimp, I find it somewhat difficult to swallow his arguments. There's a difference, even in colloquial usage, between being a pimp, as "ChicagoPimp" seems to suggest, and pimping something out ("a pimped out car"). And note, by the way, that the same phrase (to pimp someone out) can also be used in the original sense of prostituting someone. Exploding Boy 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that some people consider the name offensive. I think they have a point. I'm also always wary when a discussion is closed by an editor who participated in that discussion -- regardless of whether the closure was made in good faith, closing a discussion you have any stake in presents an obvious conflict of interest. So. Does reopening this discussion solve anything, at this point? Is it likely that a reopened discussion would be more productive than what we have, right here? Honest question. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "tramp". It has definite negative connotations, but it's really just another word for vagabond. This is another disingenuous statement.  I challenge you to walk up to any young woman and call her a tramp.  I'd bet dollars to doughnuts she won't understand it as "vagabond."  Exploding Boy 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exploding Boy, I have in no way stated that it may not have offensive connotations. I have stated that there are many unoffensive connotations, as well as this user explained what he meant in his username.  It is not black and white as being offensive or not offensive.  It may be offensive to some and unoffensive to others. a.) it does not promote the point of view b.) the context he is using it in acfording to his explanation is unoffensive.  Again, i am not saying there are not offnesive conntations, i am saying that in this context, it is unoffensive. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely you agree that if the name has potential to offend it shouldn't be allowed? The "policy in a nutshell" on WP:U states: "When choosing an account name, be careful to avoid names which may be offensive." Exploding Boy 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends quite a bit on the amount and nature of the potential, I believe. When viewed in the light of assuming good faith, names which may be ambiguous should probably be tolerated until an abuse or problem becomes clear, or there is a consensus that such an abuse or problem exists. My take, anyway. – Luna Santin  (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything has the potential to offend, it's a matter of will it or not, and I really feel that getting offended over this username is just allowing yourself to get angry at it. My name is, by a very large coincidence, an alternative way of saying "Front Line". Yes, someone could take it as a military/political commentary, or be offended because they have family in the armed forces, but it's beyond being reasonable -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that was especially unlikely. There are, however, current and former sex workers who edit Wikipedia, and I think we can probably all agree that pimping human beings is an unsavoury profession. Exploding Boy 23:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of an archived discussion escapes you? Archive box moved to include this. Viridae Talk 07:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:Yug adding disruptive templates to talk pages
Could another admin please have a word with User:Yug regarding the image or template he's placing on talk pages (my own and the Talk:Stroke order page .  I've asked him repeatedly to stop, as the templates are offensive and disruptive, but he persists restoring them.  I don't think a block is called for (yet), just a word on his talk page, perhaps.  Thanks.  Exploding Boy 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that almost seems like a new one to me, and I thought I had seen everything. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but Yug has again restored this image/template to the Talk:Stroke order page. I've repeatedly asked him not to.  Exploding Boy 21:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * well..em.. I'm a bit lost for words with that one - I'm assuming that english is his second language? Maybe he does not clearly understand what is going on? --Fredrick day 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

English is his second language, yes. Unfortunately, it can be very difficult to ascertain what he's trying to say. At any rate, I've asked him repeatedly to remove that image (or whatever it is). It's disruptive, and it's certainly not encouraging cooperative editing. He refuses. I'm an admin, but since I'm involved with this user I'd just like another admin to have a word with him on his user page. Exploding Boy 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and for the record, I've removed the image/template several times while keeping all of the content. He persists in restoring it.  Exploding Boy 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK on second look, there is clearly a problem here and the crux (someone correct me if I am wrong) seems to be as follows - User:Yug's contributions to the article are in broken pigeon English and he seems insistent on replacing coherent content with his own version. He is highly resistant to people rewriting or reverting his material and thinks it is best that he writes and then people clean-up after him - that seems like disruption to me. While wikipedia welcomes all contributions, if your English is not up to a certain standard, it's pretty clear that (as has been suggested to him on the talkpages) that he should get others to check it over before it's added. An admin making those suggestions would clearly be helpful - oh and telling him to knock it off with the template. --Fredrick day 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's more or less correct. Exploding Boy 21:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed the template. Left a note about avoiding it, asking if people can all work together. Hoping this can be resolved amicably. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Yug:

Luna Santin : can you had this to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents :
 * Notes:
 * first : I think it is not fair to talk here about me without notice me. I asked you for two day to start a WP:RfC. Instead, you come here find other admins help, with the statement "User:Yug adding disruptive templates".
 * Second: my edits in stroke order are : delete misleading contents (fully explained in the talk page) in good English, and replace it by better content with English mistakes. Explodin boy don't like this : What is the solutions ? Revert, or spelling correction ?
 * Third : For the last 2 weeks, EB choice the first way : to make hasty an full reverts. He made no edition onto user:yug/Stroke order.
 * Fourth : the "disruptive template" is a div + an image to underline why I'm in opposition with exploding boy, this div and image is what exploding boy want revert.
 * That is why we are in the current situation. --Yug (talk)  22:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC) <I'm admin in Fr and Commons><ok : good night everyone !></i>

You're right, you should have been notified first. Well, to be fair, your English is really bad. You can't really add any substantial content to an article with that standard of English. I have a hard time understanding what you're trying to say most of the time, so having people clean up after you wouldn't really work. Perhaps you can suggest edits in article talk pages, so other's can implement them in good English?--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Yug should have been notified. Sorry about that. The fact remains, however, that the template or image was disruptive.  Exploding Boy 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I haven't been notified, and you didn't went to RfC(as I asked you 3 time), you came here.
 * I honestly think you want do too much, and you make mistakes.
 * Worse : you lead other in your hasty and diruptive way. Admins have to help, not to create and feed edition wars, like you did. If you are too busy help : stop to revert. --Yug (talk)  13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC) <I'm admin in Fr and Commons>

</i>

uncivil behaviour, personal attacks
See his edit history. He's been warned more than once, yet continues to own his talk page and make snide uncivil remarks, as well as personal attacks. Here, being reminded to remain civil, he labels a template as "insulting". Here he threatens the same editor, makes a snide remark again as I remind him to be civil , here he makes several insulting and attacking comments Talk:Bose_%28company%29. He's obviously not particularly interested in cleaning up his behaviour, as he's been warned multiple times. Perhaps someone could get involved here?--Crossmr 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As well, he seems to have owned his talk page, claiming to moderate it for any message he doesn't like (which would include warnings and comments about his behaviour in article space, and other pages).--Crossmr 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone should have a look at what's being left on my talk page as well. This looks like this behaviour may be rather long term.--Crossmr 00:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this user may benefit from the carrot before we have to reach for the stick. He is very passionate about promoting Bose products here, and I think his reaction is that of a person who is genuinely offended that anyone would question those products. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You know, where I'm from, we tie the carrot to the end of the stick -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 01:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He's passionate about a lot of things. After some digging it seems I encountered this user a year ago, and he was just as passionately involved in editing the Apprentice Seasons 4 article. In fact I suffered some long term harassment for warning one of the parties involved in that dispute. This goes well beyond his passion for the Bose article, he seems to think anyone reminding him of the rules is an unfair and harsh attack on him, and seems to wish to completely ignore them. --Crossmr 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This still needs addressing. The user seems to be under the impression that its okay to level personal attacks against other users and threaten other users, if its for a "really good reason" like making sure his viewpoint is accepted in articles.--Crossmr 12:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Noclador constant vandalism
I have been suspended a couple of times now, unfairly might I add the admins have seem to only look at one side, I really would like you too take a look at some of the vandalism User:Noclador has caused to nearly every single article that has to do with Albania or Albanians, BRDM-2, BTR-50, T-55, Type 59, Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces, Albanian Army, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, Albanians, Islam in Kosovo, he was been in violation of the 3RR rule is more than several occasions and I have not seen any action take against him, he removes sourced information like on the BTR-50 article he removed Albania from the operator section even though it had 3 sources, for no reasons when I asked him he would not reply, he never uses the talk page to discus his edits, and he uses obsolete sources and even when he uses those he miss quotes them like this one for example http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 it clearly states there are 373 tanks in service and yet his number is 79 I would really like to know where he got it from. He also has in some occasions changed my words in the talk page to make it seem like have attacked him so he can get be suspended, I don’t like to run to the admin for every little think like a little child runs to his teacher but User:Nocladordoes seem to, but I would really appreciate if you take look into him and see that I’am right and do something about him from editing those articles because he just seems to vandalize them, I would also like if you would open the Albanian military articles and let me fix them again as I did 3 months ago until he started to ruin them everything was sourced and well laid out, I would also appreciate it if you ban him from editing them again, because he surely will vandalize them again, for 6 months no one had problems with my edits but for some reason this guy wants a war with me, User:Noclador associate is User:MrMacMan but his more reasonable guy but he also has vandalized in the past a few articles, he stalk me in every article I edit just to revert it. Well thanx in advance and I really hope you can take a look into this guy Gon4z 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PLEASE guys I have tried to be as nice as possible to this guy and still I’am trying he has clearly vandalized and has made me very angry.
 * Not only that he is in violation of the 3RR rule in the BTR-50 article where for 3 times he has been removing my sourced information I have tried to talk to him in the talk page he has not replied, but what’s wore he has totally deleted the new article I have created today on TYPE 77 I spend 2 hours in that article today and he deleted it all that is really disrespectful you managed to suspend me for a week for a minor edit I think you can ban him for deleting a whole article. Gon4z 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted article was an out-and-out copyright violation. Sourced is good; cut-and-pasted is bad. Noclador didn't delete it; an admin did so, appropriately. MastCell Talk 01:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * After looking at the thread above ("Gon4z"), I've indef-blocked for intentional creation of copyright violations, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behavior. I'll welcome feedback on the block. MastCell Talk 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Gon4z's post here is an act of bad faith. He has behaved as if he owned the articles about the military of Albania and his comment above "PLEASE guys I have tried to be as nice as possible to this guy ..." couldn't be further from the truth. Gon4z has not provided adequate sourcing for his edits when others asked him for them, and he has been very rude towards several other contributors. See e.g. a few edit summaries, , and some of the messages Gon4z posted to Noclador's talk page. Warnings that other editors posted to him were simply ignored and removed, including block notices.. See also User_talk:Prodego. Noclador is known on this project for being a valuable contributor regarding the size and organization of European armies, not for "constant vandalism" as Gon4z claims here. Conclusion: Gon4z has been disruptive and I don't believe he will begin editing collaboratively with others. The block sounds appropriate. Valentinian T / C 09:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Political userboxes
User:Husond/Userboxes/Assyrian User:Chaldean/Userbox/Assyrian independence

I think these userboxes do not help us make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. -- Cat chi? 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user thinks Ashurbanipal was an OK guy if you got to know him. —<tt>freak(talk)</tt> 03:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user thinks all non-Babel userboxes are evil. --Haemo 03:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user thinks this to be a matter better dealt with via MfD, if at all; he thinks it is, in any event, not something requiring administrator attention but, instead, something requiring, if anything, the attention of the community (as any other userspace-hosted userbox with which one has a problem). Joe 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user thinks that, as she finds the above hilarious, she's probably been spending too much time here. Natalie 06:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought political userboxes were speedy deleted. Was there a change in that practice that I am unaware of? This does need admin intervention since I can't delete them myself. -- Cat chi? 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I filed an MfD Miscellany for deletion/Assyrian related political userboxes anyways. -- Cat chi? 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BmaninOK
New user BmaninOK continues to make less than neutral edits, labeling Robert Mugabe an "anti-white racist" and a "terrorist,", and complaining about the "left wing lamestream media" on David Brock while removing references. He was asked to stop but has continued. Perspicacite 05:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is still a "warning" situation. There are not yet grounds to block.  I reverted his edits to Pol Pot. Yechiel Man  15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at William Cheung
Viridae Talk 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC) User User:MichaelMaison has been told multiple times by multiple editors over the past month that his attempted contributions to William Cheung and Leung Ting and Emin Boztepe violate NPOV, lack actual references (he has actually provided none except to copy advertisements from Cheung's website word for word as entry material), and do not follow an encyclopedic format. This is not a place for political minded editing and bickering in leau of actual encyclopedic material. Every effort has been made by the major contributors of that article and the Martial Arts project to explain the situation to him. I (today), as well as another editor (last week) have even tried to rewrite his material in a NPOV manner for him so it could be included (see William Cheung talk page), and this was still not good enough. He has simply responded with accusations, derogatory comments (see page history), and continued re-addition of the same material. Now he's threatening to "dispatch individuals" in person and to further edit war the page [1]. In the past three hours, he's simply resorted to pure vandalism, throwing up any reason in the editing comments for spite. I have also filed for the page to be fully protected. --Marty Goldberg 05:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo the observations made by Marty about User:MichaelMaison. The article has gone from relatively stable to complete disarray in the space of a week or two. I can understand the sensitive nature of some aspects of the article, but the user's response has been to make soapbox statements or simply peddle a party line. I personally don't know of correct procedure in disputes such as these, but I think a good precedent could be the Ashida_Kim article. That became relatively stable after protection and some stern action towards a vocal minority of loyal vandals. -- Rpf 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the two main editors on each side of that revert war: and  for massive violations of the 3 revert rule. The former has a 24 hour block (first offence) the second has a 31 hour block ( second offence today! Whoops, that block was exactly three months ago ). Everyone else should remember that ANI is not part of the dispute resolution process. Viridae Talk 07:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Protection declined per the block. Viridae Talk 08:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Ned Scott
The user has removed a warning message on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan) each time referring to my reinstatement of the message with the "don't be a dick" message, which I consider to be a personal attack. The message simply says that techers who are employed at the company should have proper sources. Previously, there was a LOT of unsourced NPOV material and OR in the article. I have asked Ned Scott to discuss the removal of the warning message on the page, but he refuses, and continues to revert the warning. . Rather than get in an edit war with him, I would like admin assistance. I feel this kind of trivial editwarring is not in good faith. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't let the diffs fool you, I made two reverts and that's my limit. Sorry if I feel a message that says "YOU CAN'T EDIT HERE" is inappropriate. I urged Sparkzilla to make a different warning message, noting WP:COI and all that jazz, but one that doesn't give the false impression that certain people are not allowed to use the talk page. -- Ned Scott 05:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the message, which was originally posted because all the behaviour in the message was present in the article:


 * Just because you worked at Nova and think you have some inside knowledge about the company does not entitle you to post here. This page is not the place for rumours that you may have heard, inside knowledge that no-one outside the company knows, or your opinions or the consensus of opinions of teachers about the company.


 * Wikipedia requires reliable sources, such as items from the company website and newspaper or magazine articles about the company. If you don't have a proper source please do not post on the page. All non-sourced items should be removed from the page.


 * So the message makes it clear to editors that they should follow WP policy and take care to only post relibaly sourced material. How you can get upset about that, I don't know. You did not urge me to make a different warning message, and I would have happily discussed any new text on the article's talk page, but instead you chose personal attacks and editwarring. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait a second here, I'm not saying edit warring is right, but you reverted just as much as I did. This "personal attack" you speak of was me trying to express to you that you were making yourself look like a dick with the message. Sure, maybe not the best way of putting it, but in no way am I trying to attack your character or who you are. And maybe you missed my very first message and edit to that talk page: "Warning message has been archived. I would have just deleted it, but it was signed, so I figured it counted as a talk page comment. If you want to note WP:COI here, or something to that extent, great, but don't be a dick about it. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)", so yeah, I did urge you to make a better message. -- Ned Scott 06:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple of questions. Sparkzilla, why did you make 3 diff links to 2 reverts, which implies incorrectly to the casual reader that Ned Scott was brushing with 3RR? Ned, what led you to decide that the right course of action in this dispute was to replace the contested talk page content with a paragraph calling your opponent a dick?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying "don't be a dick about it" is not the same thing as saying "hey! you're a dick!" I could have, and probably should have, just said "but don't be rude about it". -- Ned Scott 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you said: "I understand that, but you're being a dick in the process". "You're" not "you look like". Throwing around insults when making edits is not acceptable on WP. It is unecessarily combative and does not assume good faith. The three diffs are to show the edit summaries of the initial edit and the reverts. Actually< I realised that in the first edit he didn't write an edit summary but placed this message on the page: "Warning message has been archived. I would have just deleted it, but it was signed, so I figured it counted as a talk page comment. If you want to note WP:COI here, or something to that extent, great, but don't be a dick about it." Clearly shows combative attitude. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Spark, I've already apologized for that, and tried to explain to you that my intention wasn't to call you a dick, but comment on the impression the warning message left. You also seem to be confused, as we are commenting on the message I left on the talk page which does say "don't be a dick about it". Any other use of the word DICK was in reference to THAT. Now you're screaming your head off, saying I keep personally attacking you, when all I did was slip up on one edit summary. I'll admit that even that was rude, but it is not a continuing issue. It was never my intention to personally attack you, and I'm really getting tired of saying that. Maybe I'm not assuming good faith here, but it feels like to me that you're just repeating the words "personal attack" as much as you can to make the situation seem worse than it was. -- Ned Scott 06:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would both of you be willing to take 30 minutes away from this conflict and then return here?--Chaser - T 06:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have accepted your apology on your user page. I will replace the warning, and after some calm down time (longer than 30 mins), I am happy to discuss it with you on the talk page. I would urge you to be careful in future with the "don't be a dick" message as it is unecessarily combative and, due to ambiguity in the subject, can be taken the wrong way easily. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I really should stop using that word.. Sorry I got so heated there. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about we make it a few hours instead, then?--Chaser - T 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? -- Ned Scott 06:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A few hours of voluntary time off to cool down so that when you get back you won't still be harping at each other about nothing.--Chaser - T 06:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I won't be commenting again on this until at least tomorrow. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well Sparkzilla - you're not exactly as pure as driven snow when it comes to making "dick" attacks are you?. By the way it was me you were supposed to apologise to, not the admin who pulled you up about it. See Petard, especially the "hoist" bit. David Lyons 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Bringing up entirely different situations is poisonous to the process of solving this problem. Please let it lie for a few days, or at least start a new section.--Chaser - T 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User 61.17.42.55
The user using IP address 61.17.42.55 is editing the Indian military articles without providing any source which is vandalism. This is repeated many times. I request this user to be warned and subsequently blocked. Chanakyathegreat 06:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the edits. It seems the fellow has been inactive for the last nine hours, but a 24-hour block might be a prudent move.  The repeated vandalism warrants such a response. Yechiel Man  15:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack
Is this the correct place to report a personal attack? ExtraDry 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question, it depends. We used to have a noticeboard just for personal attacks, WP:PAIN, but it was tagged historical a while ago because people were abusing it. Now you have several options, which are listed near the end of the WP:PAIN page I linked above. In your specific case, I believe attacks that severe can go straight to WP:AIV. --tjstrf talk 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ExtraDry 09:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours for that plus various gems in their edit summaries. Natalie 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #C7BEFA; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

, who has been involved in a five-month, protracted conflict with me on Children of Men, has begun following me to other articles in order to disrupt, this time ALF. I politely asked him to stop, at which point he ignored my concerns and responded with a series of personal attacks and incivility on my talk page and other places, consisting of "You have absolutely nothing to say that I find compelling or interesting", and "That I happen to notice that a disambiguation that I happened to visit is being messed up by someone means I will contribute" and "You are a pariah in the Wiki community." . He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts, in the process ignoring the consensus on talk and reverting myself, User:JHunterJ, and User:Bkonrad. An ongoing discussion about this topic is also occurring on Talk:Alf (disambiguation). He has now attempted to add nonsensical comments to a closed move request from 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC), in the process voting "strongly oppose" based on nothing more than opposition to me. His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom. I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC) As much as it is ammusing to see double, I would suggest that dispute resolution is that-a-way -->. Viridae Talk 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikistalking and personal attacks are a dispute? I'm just asking for the behavior to stop. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The behavior has now accelerated to outright deletion and removal of my comments to Talk:ALF.Each time he deletes my comments, he follows up a long time after to claim it is an "edit conflict" when the edits were many minutes apart.  Basically, he keeps deleting my comments and replacing them with his own.   has stepped in previously to restore my comments and has asked Arcayne to stop removing my comments, but Arcayne continues. This is clear harrassment. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(reprinted from the two prior times Viriditas submitted this exact complaint, found here and here)


 * The problem is you, in this case, Viriditas. You've taken unreasonable control over Children of Men, and have prevented other users from adding any material that you personally don't like, whether it meets the standards of the policies or not. Arcayne was a new editor when you first did this to him, and was understandably bewildered by it. As for the other examples you give above, you're telling only half the story, as you know, and I see that Bkonrad has abused his admin tools during the dispute, perhaps because you requested his assistance. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have your facts wrong. Arcayne's contributions were removed by consensus of the active editors to that article due to his tendentious edit warring over inserting original research for close to five months. And,  has never abused his admin tools, nor can you show that he has. It's a low blow, Slim, making serious accusations about mere editors like myself; it's an even lower blow making such a serious accusation against an admin.  Please show everyone how Bkonrad abused his admin tools. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, while Virtiditas and myself have disagreed mightily on content within the CoM article, that was the only place wherein we really had contact. I believe that the user has made more than enough personal attacks to warrant a stronger AN/I report against him in the past, but it was just myself (other editors wanting nothing to do with him), which wouldn't meet the 2-editor requirement. Reporting him for past 3RR violations has actually gotten both of us blocked for edit-warring in CoM, and has caused me to withdraw from the article significantly (this would not be the first time an editor has withdrawn fromt hat particular article due to Viriditas' behavior) Clearly, I dislike the editor in question, and will make every attempt to ignore the young man in future dealings, but being accused of wiki-stalking is rather serious.
 * No, I haven't been wiki-stalking Viriditas. I have over a hundred articles on my watchlist, and came across the Alf dispute by happenstance. It wasn't until I was already involved that I learned it was one of Viriditas' edited articles. That's when the accusations of wiki-stalking arose from him repeatedly. Actually, I have noticed a great many other times where I have made a comment in many different areas wherein Viriditas injected himself into the conversation, seemingly out of nowhere. This rather tells me that my contributions are watchlisted by him, which is frankly rather creepy when the editor watchlisted isn't a friend or a like-minded contributor. I could pull up these instances, but I pretty much brushed off the occurrences as bothersome but not really all that important. But I can provide them if requested. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You wikistalked me to ALF and Talk:ALF to disrupt the article with trolling, vandalism, and blanket reversions. You found the article either on my contribution history list or came because SlimVirgin canvassed you; there is no other alternate reason for your arrival on a dab page that you have never edited before.  You don't do rc patrols, you don't edit dab pages, and you don't concern yourself with more a small handful of articles.  And finally, your reason for arriving on an obscure dab page because you came "across the Alf dispute by happenstance" doesn't hold up.  Your contribution history shows that you edit the same articles, which explains why you only have (tee-hee) a hundred articles on your watchlist. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rather proving my point with the snide remark. No one is wiki-stalking you. I was frankly looking up DVD info on Alf for my nephew (who's too young to knowabout the series but has an alf doll), and I came across the DAB page, Simple as that. I guess those sorts of assumptions happen when you don't AGF. As for your other, baseless accusations, please include those events where I refactored your comments. I am sure the folk here would love to see what comments of yours I have been removing as disruptive personal attacks. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it bears mentioning that this would not be the first time that Viriditas has made unsubstantiated claims against me. Back when I first started editing in WP, he accused me of sock-puppetry, when someone else disagreed with his edits in Children of Men. Later, he accused me of meat-puppetry in the same article, nearly ruining a WP newbie's impression of the Project in the process. This is just another one of those times. I am not making excuses for my less than polite addresseing of Viriditas (I was wrong), but I think there is just so much you should have to take from a bully before pushing back.
 * Lastly, it should be pointed out that the comments posts in Discussion being refactored are at best uncivil, and at worst, constitute significant personal attacks against not just myself but any other editor who disagrees with him. One of his posts was indeed removed unintentionally during a lag-time edit conflict, but I restored them, removing his personal attacks against other editors - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No such personal attacks were made, nor can you show that I made them. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course I can. So can SlimVirgin, who you've attacked as well as Crum375. Give me a little time; it's a fairly big list. I'll post them in a bit. Slim Virgin and Crum might want to weigh in as well, as they have been on the receiving end of this uncivil behavior. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  09:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Personal Attacks/Incivility: 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7.

...and these are just in a few days. The comments, in and of themselves are snippy, but taken en toto, they create a hostile work environment. And I am not posting those attack posts from Children of Men, because I heard you folks like things to be kept brief. Be assured his behavior is actually worse there. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given a warning to both users to stop being nasty to one another. This behavior is frankly rather childish. Please give it a rest and ignore one another for a few days, this'll blow over in no time.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

User:EliasAlucard


User maintains an uncivil/insulting tone despite being warned. He continues to maintain same accusatory and uncivil tone in a self righteous manner disrupting a sensitive yet rather routine stub-sorting maintenance discussion. -- Cat chi? 10:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find calling someone a racist a pretty serious allegation. You could have given him notification for this report though. I see you haven't done that yet.--Atlan (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He has been warned for personal attacks and incivility many times before, to no avail. Blocked for 24 hours, to prevent further wild accusations of racism.  Neil   ╦  12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's just me, but I couldn't find any warnings on his talk page. Only 1 3RR block some months ago. I don't object the block, though.--Atlan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And now you are making personal insults again. See Wikipedia:Civility. Others have been blocked for that kind of behavior recently. You need to reassess the situation here because I don't think you are looking at it realistically. DreamGuy 11:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Whispering 00:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Last warning. Watch your comments or you will be blocked -- Samir धर्म 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These are the ones on his/her talk page. He was welcomed on 10 July 2004 so he must have stumbled upon our core policies by now. And if he hasn't checked out our core policies by now, now would be a good time to do so.
 * -- Cat chi? 13:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, it was just me then. It must have been the small print on his talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Communists
, and  are doing little more than following eachother around reverting names and communist afiliations from a score of Romanian Politicans from the WWII era. Perhaps widespread protection or sending both of them a discuss-or-leave message would be useful? PouponOnToast 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Could one of these users be User:VinceB by any chance? I can't tell enough about the dispute to see who's the pro-communist and who's anti-communist. In any case, I find Icar's constant use of the term "vandalism" to be off-putting enough that I want to ignore him altogether. The Evil Spartan 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have learned to use the term "vandalism" from User:Dahn, who reverts most of my contributions with a note "revert vandalism" or "rvv". One admin left a warning note on my page but not to User:Dahn's or to User:Francis Tyers's. They are continuing the edit war. My reasons for changing is that I follow MoS:BIO and the examples of Lenin and Stalin. The reason for User:Dahn to revert is that he follows my changes and usually reverts them. Icar 13:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Lazio Gio
Lazio_gio is my user name on Wikipedia, for some reason I have been blocked by administrator Duja. Duja is taking a break right now and cannot get back to me. I have written to other administrators but they have not responded either. I have been accused of being a sock puppet of Vince G or Vince B, I am not. Just compare my editing record. Anyways, please write to me at lazio_gio@easy.com I do not want to start any wheel warring but this block is totally unjust, I feel like I am in a Kafka book...

I have created the Wikipedia article on Vilmos Apor and on Count Kuno von Klebelsberg, as well as the article on General Schmidhuber. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * This may require a checkuser. The only thing I can be certain is that both Lazio Gio and VinceB have taken an interest in articles related to Serbia. Yechiel Man  15:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to block...
All the sockpuppets of User:Goodman09. Or someone to block the IP range if possible. Multiple sockpuppets such as User:Goodman017, User:Goodman016 and so on ad nauseum. Sasquatch t|c 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

More H.E. socks to block
H.E. is disrupting Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency with, after CheckUser confirmed that was identical to. (MomoShomo was not IP-identical to prior socks, but was blocked by admin Tom Harrison as a sock based on behavior, for which the evidence is very strong). Both accounts should be blocked, and if admins could put that page on their watchlist for more disruption I'd appreciate it. - Merzbow 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think  should be blocked; his comments on the CU page moved to his talk page; and a link to the page before his writtings were moved to be provided on the CU page for further decisions. --Aminz 18:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The checkuser proves that I am not His Excellency. Please stop bothering me about it. Ibn Shah 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser does not prove anything, it just gives clues.  Neil   ╦  19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He is now disrupting ANI with his comments, and continues to disrupt RFCU. If H.E. wants to comment he can do so on his talk page, as Aminz says. (BTW it's funny how all of these accounts that are supposedly not H.E. socks are born as adults, with the ability to find their way to ANI, RFCU, and 3RR at will, with nary a newbie edit between them. Also funny how his self-admitted socks seem to find the time to check these places multiple times a day for mentions of him, odd for a banned user who isn't supposed to be here.) - Merzbow 22:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's quite a naive comment. I may be new but do you think I'm not going to look over the contributions of people who are petitioning to get me banned with every other edit? Yes, I will, to defend myself. Ibn Shah 22:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny how you never saw the need to contest 's indef then. MomoShomo was obviously the sock of some previous experienced user. The easiest way for you to clear your name is to indicate who that user is. (But the answer, of course, is H.E.) - Merzbow 22:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't desperate to contest it because I already had this account among other reasons that I listed on the checkuser. Of course the only evidence you have now is circumstantial, so I'm sure you'll try to find every excuse you can to get me blocked. Ibn Shah 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * MomoShomo is banned, are you are confirmed to be identical. Unless some other admin wants to overturn Tom Harrison's block of MomoShomo, you are confirmed to be evading a siteban, and should be blocked forthwith under policy. That's all. - Merzbow 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you always go around endorsing incorrect sitebans or do you really have something against Muslims as His Excellency was alleging in his edit summaries? If Tom Harrison was so confident in his previous block then he would have blocked me himself when he was on Wikipedia a few hours ago. This is getting quite annoying. That's all. Ibn Shah 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"HisExcellencyReturns" and I were editing almost concurrently recently if you look through our contributions. That further proves that I am not him. Ibn Shah 23:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tom just went on wikibreak, so your joy is premature. I formally request that an admin either block Ibn Shah as a sock of banned user MomoShomo, or overturn MomoShomo's block. The status quo as it is cannot stand under policy, with an RFCU-confirmed sock of a banned user walking around editing. That is the last I'm going to say here unless asked a question by an admin. - Merzbow 00:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ibn Shah and MomoShomo have been confirmed as H.E. socks now and blocked. - Merzbow 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The administrative response to this thread was unimpressive.
 * This is as clear a warning against overreliance on checkuser results as one could hope for.Proabivouac 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If Dmcdevit had not come through with extra-effort checkuser results, we'd still be dealing with Ibn Shah and also, both H.E. socks and both heavily editing articles together. More admins should become familiar with his editing style and be willing to follow-up on these reports; he is quickly becoming a sockmaster as corrosive as Hkelkar.- Merzbow 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No HE is even worse than hkelkar. Since he lives less than 5 miles from it appears obvious that both are probably colluding in an attempt to undermine wikipedia. The information given to me by Hkelkar before his block (regarding BhaiSaab) makes string of puppetry from NYU/NYC (residence of these two users) entirely plausible. Baka  man  02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the community ban discussion a couple months ago, it doesn't appear as if BhaiSaab has socked for a while; he appears willing to wait out his block now. Do you have evidence he is socking again, and/or colluding with H.E.? - Merzbow 02:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Physical threats between students
I have just blocked for extreme physical threats at User talk:Jwarrior343 and User talk:Waveisback77788 (see this diff and this diff). Usually I'd revert, block, and move along. But because it appears these are threats against fellow classmates, I felt I should bring it here to be looked at further. What should/could be done about this? Metros 20:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Threats of buttkicking presumably happen all the time in junior high schools across the world. I don't see any reason to do anything more than what you've already done.  Friday (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Threats of buttkicking are just fine, as we then get to buttkick the one who threatens! As was done here. Moreschi Talk 20:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah but shouldn't I at least contact the Internet police? Metros 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...another reason I shouldn't wiki at work: random bursts of laughter is suspicious. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whew, that picture is funny... but back to business, see this. Apparently it's just a bunch of school kids pwning each other.  I gave them their wish and blocked all the accounts that were not already blocked.  That should take care of that.--Isotope23 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You did all that you're responsible for. Good job!!! We need to keep that kind of crap out of Wikipedia!!! This is not a freaking chat room! Redsox04 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadkid2010 is a sockpuppet of User:Funnykid2010
My evidence is as follows:
 * Similair Name
 * On page of Sadkid2010, it says "HalfShadow, why are you posting stuff about vandalism on my page for my other account when I did NOTHING????" proving they have another account, and HalfShadow warned it
 * User Funnykid2010 commented unsigned on halfshadow's page
 * HalfShadow has warned Funnykid in the past
 * On talk page of FisherQueen, they signed a message as follows: "-Funnykid2010, pretty soon Sadkid2010."

This is my first time reporting a sockputppet, so if I stuffed something up, I apologise. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Added more evidence. Matt - TheFearow 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You would probably get a better/faster resolution of this at WP:RFCU or WP:SUSPSOCK. Feel free to ask me questions if you need help posting your case. Cheers! -- <font color="darkblue" size="2" face="Constantia">moe.RON  Let's talk  21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone is a sockpuppet of User:Quentin X
As explained on the userpage of User:Jackofalltradesmasterofnone. Dalejenkins 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I my opinion, this seems fine on the surface. The states that he can not log onto his account,, at work, so has created this account (which works). I would probably do the same thing. The user does not hide the fact and this complies with WP:SOCK. However, if there questionable edits or the users are not actually the same user, then there could be an issue. -- <font color="darkblue" size="2" face="Constantia">moe.RON   Let's talk  20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup, it does explain that. Is there a specific problem? Sock guidelines do allow the use of multiple accounts for benevolent purposes, and the explanation seems reasonable. They're not editing at the same time or anything, and the sock's talk page redirects to the main account. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote fraud by banned user
was indefinetely banned in April by Moondyne for abusive sockpuppetry. In a previous blocking of one of his sockpuppets,, Avraham cited this edit by 12345ak as one of the reasons for the block, proving that 131.111.8.104 - registered to the University of Cambridge - was one of the sockpuppets used by 12345ak.

In May a new user account was created, (note "ka" not "ak"), which voted keep at Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as his first edit. Out of the 5 IPs which voted to keep the article, 2 are confirmed to be IPs of the University of Cambridge, and  (the confirmed puppet account of 12345ak). That would almost certainly mean 12345ak / 12345ka was engaged in vote fraud on the AFD.

I didn't think a checkuser request would be required in this instance given the proof, so could an admin please block user:12345ka as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and are there any other ways to prevent further vote fraud at AFDs by the same user using various IPs? --<b style="color:#9696A0; font-family:Tahoma;">snowolf</b><b style="color:#0A0096; font-family:tahoma;">D4</b>( <b style="color:#339966; font-family:Constantia;">talk</b> / <b style="color:#CC0099; font-family:Constantia;">@</b> ) 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Obvious sock. Sasquatch t|c 21:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Momusufan reverting all my edits as vandalism
is going aroudn and reverting all of my edits as vandalism, which they are not. Can someone please review? Thanks. --130.15.219.160 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, your edits do not look like vandalism at all. — Alex(U 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a content dispute of sorts. Am trying to sort out on Momusfan's talk page and will find a source for the population of the town.--Chaser - T 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Account compromised?
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This edit means that KP Botany's account has been "compromised" (nice euphemism!) unless I am even sleepier than I realize.

I believe that I should block the account, for the sake of the real KP Botany. But I'm reluctant to do so: (i) I'm connected expensively via dialup right now and don't want to spend the time looking up all the relevant instructions; (ii) I really am very sleepy (I've just woken up and haven't had my first caffeine of the day), (iii) I only noticed the page because KP Botany left a message on my own talk page, (politely) complaining about what I said to him or her; my block, however well intended, might look like the crudest kind of revenge (?!) for the complaint. Could somebody else take a look? Thanks. -- Hoary 22:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure that KP Botany did do that edit to herself in a fit of anger based on some discussions yesterday. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.  Someone called KP Botany a troll at some point in some conversation and in a fit of anger she appeared to put the word "troll" on her own user page.  Metros 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is nuttier and nuttier. I'm not going to self-revert (revert-revert), but you're welcome to revert my edit (if it hasn't already been reverted). -- Hoary 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those of us who know KP Botany both through her constructive edits and her sometimes intemperate responses to the school playground that is Wikipedia would never assume that her account had been compromised. Even the quickest look at the edit history of her user and talk pages will show that she routinely blanks them. I suspect the "real KP Botany" is wishful thinking on your part.--Curtis Clark 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sanity check requested for a range block
Can another admin sanity check a range block I just did for a half-hour. It's the last thing in my block log. The IPs were vandalizing Wal-Mart, User:DerHexer, and Home Depot, and possibly other pages.--Chaser - T 22:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. Expired by now.--Chaser - T 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Evaded block
User:Wikimegamaster was blocked on the 10th June for canvassing and trolling. He circumvented the block to leave a message on my talk page on the 11th the nature of the message was an apology for behaviour and a promise not to do anything else while blocked. I'm listing it here as it is a block evasion but what do people think about following up on it? Given the conciliatory comments and no other obvious edits being made while blocked should any further action be taken? Malla nox  00:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This does not constitute circumventing a block. People that are blocked can still use talk pages, circumventing a block means editing with an IP or a sockpuppet. <font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#008080">Griz98  01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I was under the impression that while blocked users could only use their own talk page to request unblock. Malla  nox  01:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent copyvio uploader still active depite warnings/previous blocks
is still uploading copyvio images despite numerous warning and several previous blocks for the same repeated offences. Prior to last block the suggestion was an indefinite block. But the next offence only resulted in a 5 week block. NOTE this user is also editing unlogged as IP as can be seen in this IP's edit history. Suggest a long vacation for both. 156.34.228.140 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, this IP user helps a lot on the project, so I trust their judgment. Looking at contributions, there are concerns that this user is not getting what we are asking for through policy. The talk page alone is damning. The user has been blocked five times with four of them being directly related to images. If others agree, I think it may be a good idea to take this to WP:CN. -- <font color="darkblue" size="2" face="Constantia">moe.RON   Let's talk  02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandal currently on another spree
67.49.181.250 has been vandalizing many articles in the last few days. I notice he has had several warnings before on his talk page but they have not deterred him, and his account is being used solely for vandalizing articles and his vandalism spree doesn't appear to be slowing down. Masaruemoto 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Womcat: A User:Komodo lover sockpuppet
Resolved Womcat coincidentally edited some of the same page that User:Black Rhino Ranger edited, including Impossible Creatures and Animal Face-Off. The user even restored a comment made by Blue Rhino Ranger. Pants (T) 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see Suspected sock puppets/Komodo lover. Pants (T) 03:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

KP appears to be getting herself more and more worked up. May I suggest that either everyone leaves her alone, ie not leave her any more messages or we take the unprecedented step of protecting her talk page to stop the rant - it might get her to step away from the computer and settle down. She is a good editor in my experience, I just don't know how this happened. Viridae Talk 05:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I say we tolerate it, but only to a point. Wikipedia is not therapy, and using it to vent your anger should really only be tolerated so far. I agree that for now leaving her alone will give us the best chance of a productive outcome. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  05:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that protecting her talkpage is adding insult to (percieved) injury, and might drive her away. Anchoress 05:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was worried about that one too. Driving a good editor away is the last thing I want to do, but she is stewing, working herself up further (I know that well, have been known to do it myself on occasion). Viridae Talk 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The best thing would probably be to leave her be for a while, and hope for the best. We all have those "days" every once in a while. Sean William @ 05:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would appreciate my talk page being protected for a while, and my user page, in the Troll version, as I would like people to stop posting insults to me on my talk page. I've said this as many ways as possible, and just been told to shut up, called a witch, and threatened that I will be a troll if I should comment again on the subject.  I would rather not have any more comments from Chris's supporters on my talk page, and there seems to be no way to say this, so please, do protect my talk page, and my user page, as they are right now after my most recent edits, for say 24 hours.  Thank you.  And I'm not worked up, I'm irritated at being treated like dirt, and at having no means of getting Chris and his supporters to leave me alone.  No need for anyone to psychoanalyze me via cyberspace.  KP Botany 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I protected your userpage in the version you want, however I am slightly unsure about fully protecting your talk page - it may stop legitimate users communicating with you about unrelated matters - I would like some opinions from other people please. Viridae Talk 05:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * People can e-mail me or communicate via project plants or on the article talk pages, my usual method of communicating about issues. However, if it will require administrator input, or more people talking about me, please just diregard the request as someone will just take it as an invitation to call me a troll or something.  KP Botany 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances I think it's an acceptable invocation of IAR. This situation has quickly ballooned, and giving it 24 hours to collapse by such drastic measures seems like a fine idea. Other avenues of communication are open.--Chaser - T 05:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If KP has no problems with communication out of the talk page, it's fine. However, I'm growing a little concerned over these comments directed at KP, which are claimed to be personal attacks. They should probably be warned. I'll look into it a little. - Zero1328 Talk? 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, your talk page is now protected for 24 hours, your userpage for 3 days. If you would like it removed, don't hesitate to ask me or drop a note here or at WP:RFPP. Everyone else can follow KP Botany's instructions and email her about anything unrelated to this issue if you would like her input. I am archiving this because I think it is best for all involved. Viridae Talk 05:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User Lft6771 repeatedly pushing his original research
He rejects all mass media as "corporate media", "They are all wrong", and "misinformation" and refuses to cite any sources. I repeatedly told him and asked (and even offered him to reach a consensus, which he simply ignored):

Instead, he simply reverts to his version (repeatedly), which is not only originally researched but also full of (dozens) "citation needed" marks: Yes, he ignored my warnings too.

Thanks for taking care.--HanzoHattori 08:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seek dispute resolution. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for any of this. As for now, I guess any moderator telling him along the lines of "original research is bad, m'kay" (and that he needs to provide RELIABLE sources for everything) would do. I don't REALLY seek him to be banned (after all, what problem is to get an anouther account and go back with a real vendetta). So, thanks in advance again. --HanzoHattori 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not moderators. We are administrators, ordinary editors entrusted with access to certain tools.  If you want the support of other editors in telling this person about original research, then use dispute resolution, including Requests For Comment and Third Opinion, as you have been told to do. Uncle G 09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the time to read up on your dispute (unfortunately, administrators often don't have that time, especially for long protracted disputes as this). I would suggest filing at WP:RFC, and also, I would suggest being more precise. It's my experience that as who ramble on and can't precisely state the nature of the problem are often not paid attention to. The Evil Spartan 16:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'll decline. I hate all this beurocracy. (Btw, he reverted your revert too.) --HanzoHattori 13:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review: trying to OWN their talk page
See User talk:Soccermeko. They have posted "rules" forbidding the posting of messages to the page. They have reported 2 users to an admin. Also threatened to have User:Moondyne blocked. I've blocked for 36 hours as they had a previous block for harassment and incivility. Mr.Z-man  talk <i style="color:navy; font-family:cursive;">¢</i> 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I usually say to grant people leeway to do lots of things on their own talk page, but you can't just forbid contact and expect it to be enforced. Fully agree with the block. -Amarkov moo! 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, hopefully a quick jab with the "get a clue" stick should solve the problem. --Fredrick day 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Forbidding people from posting on your talk page is only an invitation for people to do so. — Kurykh  23:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yes and it's disruptive to boot - the use of the usertalk page is an accepted part of the communication and "glue" that hold wikipedia together. You don't get to opt out of communication from fellow editors (within reason).--Fredrick day 23:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also agree that posting such rules is inappropriate. The rules are no longer there; for those who want to see it, here's an old version. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner
This user is doing super-speedy reversions, apparently either using a bot or tabbed editing, but whatever he's doing, he's obviously not paying attention to what he's doing, because in many of the cases where he's editing, he's reverting good edits back to vandalism. Corvus cornix 02:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please block him until he responds to the problem? Corvus cornix 02:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just spot-checked the last 10 of those he did; they were all either clear vandalism he fixed (8), or seemed to very likely be (2). I don't know if this is manual or automated, but unless you can provide us with good reason to think he's got an automated or semi-automated bot in use, it appears to be good if rapid vandal fighting.
 * I'm not ruling out that he may have made some mistakes; if so, please call out the specific edits he did which are goofs, preferably to him on his talk page (your note there was too vague). If he keeps making a significant number of mistakes or won't respond to them there, bring it back up here.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I can see with his reverts, most of them are removing vandalism, but a few seem to be trigger happy. The controversial ones have been reverted back to their original ones. This doesn't warrant a block; it would be punitive in such a case.  bibliomaniac 1  5  Join or die! 02:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * His proportion of "goofs" is ten times what anyone actually reading the revisions he's reverting could ever be believe to make, and he's been evasive and nonresponsive when asked to explain. I've blocked him until he gives us a darn good explanation. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See the edit history of Galeries de Hull, where he reverted my speedy delete tag back to an empty article. See his reversion of Donation. See his reversion of Tilt up. See his reversion of Gamma ray burst. Corvus cornix 02:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See, here's why linking to specific diffs in the initial report is so important. If the first 10 things that an uninvolved admin looks at aren't the problem, then you didn't give us enough info to begin with...  Thanks for elaborating now, though.  It does clarify the situation.  Odd.  Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I unblocked him to give him a second chance. I hope he learned the importance of double checking what he does. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk 10:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Humanities Ref Desk
I'm feeling a bit jaded, so am about to take a Wikibreak. So I could be just being an old miseryguts with this edit. Appreciate some other admins familiar with the Ref Desks casting an eye over this. At first I thought of pruning out the worst elements, but even if you do that, there's no real Ref Desk question at all. Anyway, if I've been too curmudgeonly, I happily expect to be reverted. --Dweller 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a knowledge-based question to start with, from my read. I'd say good job on sending the poster back under his bridge. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

page move got kerflunkeled--help!
MrsMacMan's move log shows the following:


 * 16:11, 11 June 2007 moved Talk:Primary education to Talk:Elementary school (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)
 * 16:11, 11 June 2007 moved Primary education to Elementary school over redirect (Primary school and elementary school are two different types of schools. Primary school provides primary education. Elementary school provides elementary education.) (revert)

Primary education redirects to Primary school Talk:Primary education redirects to Talk:Elementary school

I can't even begin to figure out what happened where. Obviously an admin is needed to undo these--if these are moves that need to be done they should be done properly and probably proposed first. I'm guessing it was in the undoing that something got kerflunkeled. Miss Mondegreen talk  15:41, June 13 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do they need to be undone? Looks like primary education should redirect to Elementary School, as does the talk page. What's wrong with it? &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it be fair to say that MrsMacMan has declared that the Way That Things Are Done In Some Parts of the United States Of American Trumps The Way That Things Are Done Elsewhere In The World? Or have I just not looked hard enough?  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've moved it back and move protected it to allow a discussion to actually take place (I would say that the majority of the English-speaking nations refer to these as "primary schools"), and WP:MOS says stick with the original title in cases of US vs British English.  Neil   ╦  16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a fairish assessment. MrsMacMan is a new editor, and honestly doesn't see the problems created by her moves.  She just copy-pasted middle school to junior high and didn't see the problem with that and then redirected the middle school talk page to the junior high talk page and didn't see a problem with that either.  She sees the institutions as genuinely different and wants to split the article into two (ASAP!), but has yet to explain any difference (and the article makes no distinction), and hasn't quite grasped consensus or other basic concepts (like responding to talk page comments dated 2005 is pointless).  She seems very willing to listen, but it's slightly difficult explaining when I have no earthly idea why she does some things.  I'd be on the lookout for more big school moves or forks like this, because I'm not sure she gets it yet, but I do think that they are good faith edits.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  21:40, June 13 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This user's been blanking their talkpage - full of vandalism notices - several times this week, and has also made some very strange edits, and very few non-strange ones. As I told them, I suspect that they're a sockpuppet of Dwrules, France a, Secisalive! and Secfrance, the last three of whom are all indef-blocked, and were all self-confessed sockpuppets. Any suggestions?--Rambutan (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Users are not obligated to keep comments on their talk page. It appears he's enforcing policy such as WP:NOT as well (and to a degree WP:TRIVIA, a guideline). Matthew 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war over other editor's talkpages. is free to blank his talkpage if he so chooses (though archiving is always the preferable option). If you believe this person is a sockpuppet, open a sockpuppet investigation or a request for checkuser with evidence in the form of diffs.--Isotope23 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How do I do a WP:SSP on him, if there are two current accounts?--Rambutan (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * List one as the main account and one as the sock. I'd make sure you have diffs for evidence though before opening as sock investigation.--Isotope23 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Right!--Rambutan (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hannahrama
Hannahrama is with about 99% certainty a sockpuppet of Susannah_Mills. The user has made a personal attack on my talk page, erased a warning from her own talk page, and recreated a previously non-notable, conflict of interest bio of herself at Susannah Mills. I recommend a block. Chicken Wing 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, now isn't that interesting. First edit is to the talkpage for, then moves on to recreating a previously deleted article and uploading several redundant versions of an image with no licensing or copyright info (and they appear to be copyright violations from the looks of it)...--Isotope23 17:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a basis for a block. Even if  =, I don't see any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK.  I will warn the editor about the talkpage comment though--Isotope23 17:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Already warned, and I speedily deleted the article under G4 (recreation of deleted material following AfD). I agree that I wouldn't block the account right now, but I left a warning to the effect that continuing to recreate the article or attack other editors will result in a block sooner rather than later. MastCell Talk 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Fayden
I have today received two personal attacks via email from the blocked user User:Fayden asking why I blocked his account and then going on to say rather nasty things and make threats about me. I had never heard of Fayden until he emailed, and certainly had nothing to do with his blocking. I'm avoiding replying to him as it will give him my email address. According to others, I'm not the only one receiving these, and he's repeatedly requesting unblocking claiming to have done no wrong, and seemingly has no interest in reading Wikipedia policy. I posted this at WP:VPM, and was directed here. Cheers, Stannered 18:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A diff: Stannered 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-blocked him with the brand-new email blocking feature enabled, as he seems to be misusing that privilege. That should dry up the stream of emails, at least. MastCell Talk 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) Stannered 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where can we learn more about the brand-new email-blocking feature? Newyorkbrad 19:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering the same...I see the option has appeared on Special:Blockip. -  auburn pilot   talk  19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the hell he would be emailing anyone other than me is downright baffling (though I did get an email from him)... I love the new feature, though. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLOCK, under "Setting block options", for a brief explanation of the email blocking option. This is the first time I've used it, but it just felt right, somehow. MastCell Talk 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this user faked an email pretending to be from an innocent third party entirely unrelated to the block to unblock-en-l. As such, I have also placed a block on the IP address. I suspect that google search results for Iced Entertainment Media Inc. are going to start including the links to the Wikipedia pages showing this Fayden person's bad behaviour. Well, he brought it on himself. --Yamla 03:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
Yet another one. has been copying news articles (from the Washington Post, CNN and the L.A. Times among others) and creating articles from their content, despite four boilerplate warnings and a note from. I deleted several of the articles and have blocked Yosuf for 24 hours. Question is, should it have been indefinite? I'm still wary of blocking users, and would appreciate an opinion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable for now. If he comes off the block and does it again, we could consider a longer block.  Hopefully this first block will drive home the "yes, we're really serious about copyright" message.  Friday (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Friday... 24 hr is a good "we are serious about this" block. If the message doesn't sink in and copyvio's continue to be posted, I would probably indef block pending a discussion with the editor on his/her talkpage where they affirm that they understand the policy and agree to adhere to it.--Isotope23 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I'll keep an eye on his contributions when the block expires tomorrow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 24 hours seems reasonable, with possible increases if the user doesn't get the hint. Indefinite blocking should be reserved for serious repeated violations of policy. exolon 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

AFD edit war
This AfD is getting out of hand. User:WATP added a comment insinuating that new account (User:Coeur-sang) was commenting heavily on AfDs involving User:Vintagekits. Vintagekits reverted/removed the comment. It's now turned into a revert-fest. I'm not sure whether 3RR applies to the Wikipedia namespace, but it's gone well past that point, with incivil edit summaries etc. Could someone have a word? Ta.  Eliminator JR <sup style="color:#483D8B;">Talk  18:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Users warned for revert warring, if it continues I'll block.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am getting confusing messeges from different admins. Can you please clear up the position.--Vintagekits 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seem like different cases to me, should be resolved with check user, SqueakBox 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Vintagekits behavior over the last 24 hours is unacceptable. Looking through his contribs just in the last 18 hours, I count another revert war (he was involved in one yesterday, too, and reported his opponent at WP:AN3), a personal attack on, of all things, what he thought were another's user's sports preferences (for the record, the user in question is not actually a fan of that team), and multiple incivilities . This is all after a stern final warning from me just yesterday. I would like another admin's opinion on a 24 hour block to put an end to this trail of disruption. Picaroon (Talk) 18:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and block, I was unaware of the previous edit war and personal attacks when I gave that warning.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I almost did it myself until I saw that Ryan had warned, and that was before I knew about the past history. A block seems to me to be in order. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Picaroon, how can what I did be wrong yet you said that opposite yesterday. Yesterday you said that Sqweeakbox removed that comment than that was OK, and then when I follow your ruling exactly then I am in the wrong. All I am look for it a little consistancy.--Vintagekits 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How on earth can this be ruled OK but when I do the exact same today its not. All I am doing is following the advice another admin (John) stated on my talk page yesterday.--Vintagekits 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours. Picaroon (Talk) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for getting involved in that. One question for future reference - was it wrong of me to make the aforementioned comment? <font style="background:#0000FF;"><font style="color:red;font-size:100%">WATP (talk) • (contribs) 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I think you were right to flag up what seems to have been a valid suspicion. As someone who has known Vintagekits since his very first edits here, I really hope he can learn to live with other people here and work better with them. I cherish his zeal and commitment to ridding Wikipedia of pro-British PoV (to be honest, as a Scot I often feel the same way), but some of the recent nastiness has crossed a line. If he can't accept that people are people, Wikipedians are Wikipedians, without bringing ethnicity and allegations of bias into every single argument, he needs a much longer break. I genuinely hope this won't go in that direction. --John 04:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard

 * See: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258 archived today.
 * See: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive258 archived today.

Since the expiration of the 24 hour block (as per previous ANB/I discussion linked above), the user is still raining personal attacks. To be more specific (and this is a partial exert): "This is comparable to some Nazi running around and deleting Jewish stubs and Jewish political userboxes."

When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives."

-- Cat chi? 18:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This user is only trying to get me banned. He's got something against Assyrians and he's resorting to some kind of censorship by trying to get me banned for speaking up about his motives. He's running around on Wikipedia and he's trying to get everything about Assyrian related stuff deleted (example ). We got a dispute here, and I'm not the one out of line. EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * When told not to engaged in further personal attacks, he responded with a "I'm just pointing out his racist motives." - What's wrong with that? If I believe that you have racist intentions in what you're doing, am I not allowed to point that out? EliasAlucard|Talk 21:28, 13 Jun, 2007 (UTC)
 * Elias, I had hoped that 24 hours would have been sufficient. Please calm down.  You are accusing an editor of racism - please either provide evidence for these claims or stop making them.  Your actions are becoming disruptive; the first thing you did after your 24 hour block was go right back after White Cat, again accusing him of racism.  And accusing me of bias.  I believe I have now been accused of bias both in favour of and against Turks.  Carry on and you will be blocked for a longer period to prevent further disruption.  Neil   ╦  22:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6
Would anyone be willing to help me out with a review of fair use images incorrectly deleted on June 6? Some of you may recall that every image with an expired dated disputed fair use tag was deleted on that date, without any review to determine if the deletions were appropriate.

Until June 5, Template:Dated dfu stated that editors should not remove the tag if they address the concern; instead, an administrator should review the editor's effort and remove the tag. Many images were tagged as lacking a fair use rationale on May 31st or June 1st, had fair use rationales added in the next few days but did not have their tags removed, because the tag specifically said not to, and then were incorrectly deleted on the 6th.

Naconkantari stated that he would restore images on request, and he would also manually review his deletions. He stopped editing on June 8 and has not restored images since then, and he never even started a manual review or undeleted any files that were not specifically requested.

Is there an automated way that we can approach the task of reviewing and undeleting these files as appropriate? If not, would anyone be willing to split up the task with me? Depending on how many people would be willing to help, maybe we could divide the task into blocks. TomTheHand 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any automated way to do it, but I'll help out. Just leave me a message on my Talk page with the block you want me to process. --<font color="3300FF">Spike Wilbury 22:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat
User:Ohmygeoffrey has created an attack page including a threat to kill the subject of it. Please take appropriate action. exolon 19:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)\


 * This user has no contribs, SqueakBox 19:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The users contribs were deleted. I found them and indef blocked for threats in personal attack articles. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This user should be blocked. If that's what you meant, then great! But if not, then this user should get a indef block. Crap like that is garbage. No need for that nonsense!!!! Throw them out of here! Redsox04 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonation of a copyright holder
I came across a page on a NYC artist, Nathan Mellott, on a recent CSD patrol. The page has since been deleted, but images that were uploaded by remain. These images are the work of the artist, and are tagged with either GFDL release templates, or in some cases release into the public domain templates.

I have contacted the real life Nathan Mellott via email, and he objects to the release of his artwork under these licenses. Will an administrator kindly delete the image contributions in question and indefinitely block the offending user for impersonation and disruption. I will gladly forward the email conversation to an administrator who requests it. Cheers, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted them all, it appears they have also been dumped into various articles and reverted as appearing as spam for the artists work. I notice from the editors talk the first few were initially given tags not permissible for use on wikipedia, so it looks like rather than work out the proper tagging they just tagged something which works. I'll post a warning and that if they can legitimately release under those licenses they'll need to send in proper permissions. It maybe worth keeping an eye on any further uploads. --pgk 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in voting

 * User:Shoopshoop appears to be an account created just to comment and vote for deletions. It has just a dozen or so edits, all related to User:Sexyorge and User:Josmul123 I suspect they are coming from the same IP address to disrupt a vote. The patterrn also suggests: User:Falchamble387 --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest a checkuser--Isotope23 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The rules say, I have to wait for the vote to be closed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV-pushing on DYK
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #dedaca; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

''I'm not an admin, but Justanother acknowledged his misunderstanding of the DYK approval process and apologised to the two DYK selectors in question, so... I think this issue is closed? Anchoress 04:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)''

I see that we are once again bashing the Church of Scientology on the front page of this project by means of WP:DYK. Since DYK updates are admin actions I am posting here. Would you'all please take a look at the fact that with about 270 articles related to Scientology on Wikipedia out of how many total articles, DYK "facts" critical of Scientology seem to show up with alarming frequency? Most are the work of one editor,, formerly , and she has had an inordinate number, well over 30, DYKs in recent months on her anti-cult soap-boxing (see User:Smee/DYK). But I do not fault Smee here as all she can do is nominate, it takes an admin to elevate and seems to be her willing partner. --Justanother 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are any of those claims actually factually inaccurate? DYK works in tunnel vision, the main concern is just finding 6 articles for the next update, then doing that update. I am not aware of any attempt to balance the long-term content of DYK to give equal time to various sides, so I wouldn't blame Howcheng, he does a whole lot of DYK unrelated to Scientology, just choosing items from the available options. --W.marsh 20:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the DYK fact in question is properly sourced within the article (by no less than the New York Times). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. WM, I have complained about this before and Howcheng is well aware of my concern, I think. HBWS, there is something wrong if DYK is being used for POV-pushing. --Justanother 20:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Hit bull, win steak, for verifying that this information is indeed factual, and sourced to reputable secondary referenced citations in the article itself. I had thought that under an agreement with, User: ( talk · <span title="Contributions: ">contribs  · [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= <span title="Page moves: "> page moves  ] · <span title="Block User:">block user  · [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ]) and myself were to avoid posting to WP:ANI in the future about each other.  I see that Justanother has reneged on this, but I will restrict myself to this post itself.  Smee 20:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * See WikiProject Scientology/DYK for DYK related to Scientology (one or two Scientology-related per week out of 30 - 35 DYK per week) and User:Smee/DYK for total Smee DYK. Smee formerly worked mostly on est-related articles but has expanded her "cult"-bashing. Smee's cult-bashing accounts for a disturbing percentage of DYK entries. (EC) And Smee, re your above . . . oh puleese, I said this is not about you and I am not looking to get you in trouble; I just want this addressed. --Justanother 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I am unaware of having engaged in any Scientology-bashing. In fact, I distinctly recall being critical of some of Smee's DYK nominations (see Talk:The Pit: A Group Encounter Defiled). Smee just happens to be a prolific editor who posts many nominations to DYK and I do a lot of DYK updates. You just happen to be looking at the intersection of two sets a la a Venn diagram.  howcheng  {chat} 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I could be easily accused of having a pro-Frank Lloyd Wright POV, what with all the recent FLW-related DYK entries submitted by User:IvoShandor.  howcheng  {chat} 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not an argument. If the most prolific editors get a 20-30% ratio on DYK (out of 1.7 million articles) just because they are prolific you are opening the door to any paid PR agent to promote their clients POV on the WP front page. COFS 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that paid PR agents probably aren't going to be able to source their articles to multiple secondary sources.  howcheng  {chat} 23:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Howcheng, this "cult-bashing" thing has been going on for months and I have objected to it before. I think that putting up obscure trash that only serves to bash the Church is Smee's agenda; I would be disappointed if she found a willing accomplice. Surely you are not saying that today's anti-Scientology crap was the best of the noms? --Justanother 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much everything that gets nominated for DYK status will make it assuming it meets the minimum criteria of being 1,500 characters and well-referenced. Nominations where the subject matter is disputed may be skipped as well. In this case, there were no such objections. I made sure that the article was long enough (check), created or expanded in the last 5 days (check), and well-referenced (check). If the article passes the criteria, it goes up. There's not much more to it than that.  howcheng  {chat} 21:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And for a discussion on that, and to see how multiple editors/Admins weighed in on it: Wikipedia talk:Did you know.  Smee 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Thank you for this point of clarification. This report to WP:ANI by User: ( talk · <span title="Contributions: ">contribs  · [/wiki/Special:Log/move?user= <span title="Page moves: "> page moves  ] · <span title="Block User:">block user  · [ <span title="Blocklog: "> block log  ]) is a frivolous, disruptive use of this page, and an attack on a respected administrator.  Smee 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Ps, Smee, NOW, with your "frivolous, disruptive use of this page, and an attack on a respected administrator", you are doing EXACTLY what we told Bishonen we would not do. --Justanother 20:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, so now you get to decide what is and is not appropriate for your own posts to ANI ? Smee 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Huh? I don't really get that. Anyway, we should knock off bashing each other, that is what we agreed to. This is about the, to me, undue weight given to your very specific POV on DYK. You are not being faulted for self-nominating your work; I am faulting either the elevating admins or whatever is causing other noms to be passed over to repeatedly play the cult-bashing game on the front page of this project. --Justanother 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I've just nominated the page for AfD, it might be worth considering to take that DYK down. But I'll leave that decision up to others.  Mango juice talk 20:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Curious if anyone disagrees with User:W.marsh and User:Hit bull, win steak's assessment, above? Smee 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC).


 * It is very possible that a neutral point of view may come out as critical of Scientology. <sup style="color:#000;">( H )  21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is usually the one-sided and uninformed views that comes out that way. The ones that rely totally on internet criticism of Scientology to form them. Informed neutral POVs often come out neutral and sympathetic to the beliefs of others that are trying to improve their lives and the lives of their loved ones and associates. But we are talking about the undue weight of repeated front pages bashes, not one particular entry. --Justanother 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the bashing? The cofs hires a criminal to do their work, it gets exposed, and they scream like babies on ANI.--Fahrenheit451 02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooh ooh, I see some bashing! --Masamage ♫ 02:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is quite probable that a neutral point of view will come out as critical of Scientology. I suggest that you try and get hold of the recent BBC documentary on the organisation and watch it with an open mind. One incident of a screaming presenter aside it is damning inditement of the organisation which is very free from bias. David Newton 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have seen that and I invite you to watch it again. Sweeney went in as a troll with the stated mission to see if the Church would go after him. He had no interest in a neutral presentation, he was looking to make trouble and see if the Church came after him and all they did was follow him around as he played his little game; pretty innocuous, I would say. ps, did you see the Church counter-documentary? It is online. --Justanother 23:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And Sweeney was met by someone who could also be considered a troll named Tom Davis. The cofs counter-documentary is full of illogics.--Fahrenheit451 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not noticed any particular POV on the front page, other than the one you seem to be trying to create in suggesting the removal of certain articles. If you feel there are too many articles critical of Scientology, I would suggest you write some that aren't, using reliable sources, and then nominate them for DYK.  If this can not be done, then there is no undue weight being given to the current articles.  Bushytails 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally thing the DYK could have gone without the mention of the church. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the entry from the current DId you Knows. An article for deletion linked to on the main page does not look good. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this, though at Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram, a question about the timing of this AFD nom was brought up, by User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Smee 21:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't usually pay much attention to DYK, but while I do think that it would seem odd to readers who regularly peruse the DYK to see a preponderance of articles on a single topic, particularly if it's a contentious one, I don't think that there is any blame to be laid or sanctions/censures to be levelled. IMO the only logical solution is for those editors who believe the DYK should be more balanced to either create, expand, improve, or troll (not in the WP:TROLL sense) new articles and craft suitable factoids for submission to DYK. Smee's motives may not be innocent - I can't see into someone's heart over the internet - but the only way to frame this is as an active editor making lawful (morally and legally) use of a WP service. Something that any editor can do, should s/he feel sufficiently motivated. Anchoress 00:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Smee 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Well said. --Masamage ♫ 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really agree with Jossi, below, as well. Anchoress 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No one should be penalized for being a prolific contributor to this project. On the contrary. On the other hand, if an editor really cares for this project more that he cares about his POV, that editor would want to expose our readers via the main page to those tidbits of information that DYK so nicely provide, to these unknown but but nonetheless fascinating subjects and topics that Wikipedia covers. I extend an invitation to Smee and other DYK editors, to expand their range rather than focus on a specific subject that may be dear to their hearts. Think of the reader. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of process DYK deletion closure?

I see that User:Blnguyen, another admin invested in the DYK (and another admin that has been elevating Smee's noms, IIRC), has closed the AfD on Eugene Martin Ingram less than four hours after it was opened by User:Mangojuice. Mango raised good points that should be considered and I think that the AfD is far from WP:SNOW and not a candidate for speedy close, especially as three of the nine Keep votes are bloc votes from the Wikipedia Chapter of the Scientology Haters Club. --Justanother 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother you are advised to stop your personal attacks. There is no such thing as the "Wikipedia Chapter of the Scientology Haters Club".--Fahrenheit451 01:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel attacked then, F451? --Justanother 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you making personal attacks, Justanother? Is that a way to get your stats up?--Fahrenheit451 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * F451, if you are going to post to this board, you should have the courtesy to answer questions asked of you and not play your (usual) word games. This is NOT your talk page. --Justanother 02:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, you sound like you are in a lower condition. What condition is it?  Are you being punished for the Ingram article being featured?--Fahrenheit451 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * F451, why the nastiness? Do you have something constructive to contribute? Anchoress 02:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anchoress, Justanother has the nasty habit of engaging those editors he does not like in a scientology practice called "bait and badger". It is not the first time. It started with his personal attacks.  If he is quite through, so am I.--Fahrenheit451 02:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * F451, I fear that the student (you) has surpassed the master (whomever you think you are emulating). --Justanother 02:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, I am neither your fancied student or master. It appears that you are projecting.--Fahrenheit451 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not mine, F451. I have no idea who you are emulating with your "bait and badger". --Justanother 03:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * F451, whether or not that's true, I think that a) focusing on the problem at hand and possible solutions; and b) civility and kindness; are never misplaced. Anchoress 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed.--Fahrenheit451 03:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nine keeps, some of which were speedy keeps, zero deletes except the original nomination... seems like a good application of WP:SNOW to me, especially since it was de-listed from DYK due to the nomination, and now can be put back. Bushytails 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (inserted out of sequence) Had the AfD been open a bit longer, there would have been one explicit objection to a speedy keep. There were two clear BLP violations in the article. Did those voting keep not notice this? Gimmetrow 03:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My church gets bashed on too, so I sympathize like crazy, but WP:SNOW clearly applies in this instance. --Masamage ♫ 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was a very poor application of WP:SNOW. One must recognize that the comments that come in in the first three or four hours of a debate are rarely a random sample of the community.  In this case, most commenters probably found the debate via this ANI thread or from the Scientology wikiproject AfD page, where the debate was posted.  This didn't have time to be heard from in general by the community, and I think it really should be reconsidered, since it's a WP:BLP issue: the article is basically a sourced attack article, describing only negative information about a private figure, created by editors with a clear interest in exposing Scientology's flaws.  Normally, I wouldn't care, but this is a living person and they should not have their name dragged through the muck on one of the web's top sites, at least not without us properly examining that.  Mango juice talk 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A wanted felon, with a long criminal history, whose choices have resulted in numerous independent secondary sources is not notable? This is about editors seeking to protect their religion. That's fine, but it's been run through the process of examining it, and been found worthy. Please stop pushing the issue. Wikipedia has processes and policies. Clearly, they've been run through. You argue process was unfair, but I suspect that if it have had 9 deletes in the same amount of time, you'd be the one asking for a SNOW closing. ThuranX 02:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little tired of people making assumptions about me. I'm not a Scientologist, not that it's anyone's business, and my arguing for deletion here has everything to do with WP:BLP.  And, btw, WP:SNOW is not a process, it's a second-guess.  This guy is not just some pawn in a pro-scientology vs. anti-scientology edit war, he's a living human being with a job and a reputation that this article is quite careless with.  Mango juice talk 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then exactly WHAT is your concern? A fully sourced article about a wanted criminal with a long history of carrying out Cos Anti-critic actions is bad? WHY? I still have yet to see anything beyond 'this guy is made to look bad by the article'. No, he's made to look bad by his actions. Actions which were duly reported by reliable sources, and collected here for the purpose of constructing an article. If we were to try to balance out articles in some 'make them look "neutral" no matter what' philosophy, we'd have the most bizarre articles about people like John Wayne Gacy and Ed Gein, who we would probably have to describe as a skilled tanner and leatherworker. ThuranX 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mangojuice, then I suggest you address your concern by editing the article to bring it up to what you perceive are WP:BLP standards.--Fahrenheit451 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You can simply contest the bits that you don't think are too good, and explain why you want to remove them. It does not appear that notability is in doubt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This habit of mine to snowball AfDs which are a clear keep is nothing new. In August/September last year I think it was me (or I asked Srikeit to withdraw his objection to this article, citing the existence of an AfD) closed an AfD early on some Indian (Indian as in from India, not indigenous) American kid who became famous for remembering hundreds of digits of pi so that it could go on DYK. It is nothing new and I would do it again in future on any type of article, where possible to stop some hard work which is referenced etc being rewarded on the main page because of some bureaucratic faffery. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While you may denigrate my concern for what I perceive as the misuse of this project, your stated reason for closing the AfD is ill-considered. I do not think that anyone will object to an extension of the 5-day rule if this article passes AfD so that Smee can get her shot at another DYK. It seems that you are the one thinking in terms of "some bureaucratic faffery" (whatever that is). That said, I do not think that the bit is of front page quality and, while I do not fault Smee for nominating, I think that the admins that minister to the DYK should think things like "Well, we have already had our Scientology bashing for this month, let's give another editor a chance to have DYK." --Justanother 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that would mean a 10day lag on DYK. We usually let them lag a day or two if the improvement is worth it, but here it is more about whether the article deserves to be there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like those accusing Wikipedia of scientology bashing are, in fact, bashing Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is this journalistic section heading necessary? I appreciate editors' right to draw attention to seemingly untoward behavior, but an inflammatory tone is not the way to do it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If it annoys you then change it - this is a wiki. --Justanother 02:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it. Anchoress 03:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother WP:DYK articles have to either be new or upgraded stubs. Without questioning my motive for posting here, are you suggesting no new articles be written that have anything to do with Scientology? If you are simply asking for more variety perhaps you could suggest why some of the overlooked DYK candidates should have been used instead? Anynobody 02:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Justanother, if you're angry about Scientology DYKs being frequent, write some DYK articles yourself. Quite simple.-- Wizardman 02:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see a number of editors here applying logic that I liken to "Justanother, if you object to bullies beating up schoolchildren, why not just beat up on some schoolchildren yourself." Obviously a bit of a joke on my part but those sort of "Why not write articles for DYK" advices completely ignore and marginalize the issue of what are we choosing to put on our front page and why are we featuring a basher with a very narrow interest range on a weekly or twice-weekly basis (or more)? Why? --Justanother 03:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As one of the 'beat up some schoolchildren yourself'ers, it's really simple. To paraphrase, "To the editors go the spoils,". WP is a volunteer organisation, and volunteers who put in the work get the opportunities. For better or for worse, it's as simple as that. Anchoress 03:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * JA, your assertion is that rather than expand the pool of heavy contributors, we kneecap those whose interests run contrary to yours and who work harder at those interests. This is absurd. Those saying if you want more variety in DYK, ADD TO THE POOL OF DYK mean it. This is basic chemistry. If the concentration is too high, DILUTE the solution. ThuranX 03:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also if you have a problem with the DYK's that are posted, you are welcome to go to T:TDYK and propose alternate noms. I think alot of this issue could have been averted with a better worded DYK nom.  Read through them, if you think there is a better one, offer a re-wording.  Get involved with the Next Update process.  There are many different ways to get involved in the process.  If you have an issue, get involved fix it, dont stand around pointing fingers.  As said above, this is a wiki, fix it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 03:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And people have also accused me of letting too many cricket articles (that I am a cricket pusher), a Eurovision pusher, and also sometimes a Frank Llyod Wright architecture pusher in my selection. If you want to present articles about the achievements of Scientology, then by all means do so. There are groups of Polish and Russian editors who sometimes complain about each others' articles, if it is sourced with RS, is NPOV, is of the correct tone, satisfies the length and the hook is not trivial, then it passes. If it is unbalanced, by only presenting one half of the info, then the only way to know is if someone brings this up. It is the responsibility of someone active in this field who understands it to do so. At the moment, the articles by Smee are on average, better inline cited than any other regular contributor. Mayn articles only have a few books listed at the bottom. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, lots of good advice here. Thanks to all. I will AGF Howcheng that it is really is a matter of just about everything nominated gets posted on the front page. It does not look that way to me as there always seem to be plenty of noms and only 7 DYK per day but I will hold judgement on that for now. Blnguyen, I actually did nominate a non-bashing Scientology fact for DYK; that is how I noticed another bash elevated and I admit that, given the history that I have seen, it ticked me off. I will get more involved with the process over there. I really would like the admins to realize that we do not need to be bashing anything on the front page on a regular basis. Let's keep DYK a bit lighter and less controversial. Please. Thanks again. --Justanother 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it only seven per day? I was under the impression that DYK was updated every few hours (four times a day I believe). This perception may be inaccurate. Anchoress 03:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are right (I looked). And therein lies the source of my upset (as a Scientologist, I know that most upsets can be traced back to a misunderstanding). I thought it was updated only once per day and, as there are plenty of noms, I thought that there was some cherry-picking going on. I apologize to Howcheng and Blnguyen. I would apologize to Smee but I never accused her of any wrong-doing in connection with DYK (my opinions on her editing in general notwithstanding). I still do not think that the nom I objected to is so great and I think that the article should have an AfD but no hurry on that. --Justanother 03:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Every batch must stay for at least 6 hours, so in theory 4 batches a day. In practice perhaps 2.5-3.3 a day. Depending on the lengths of the hooks and the relative size on either side of the page, there might be between 5 and on rare occasions 10 per day. So on some days perhaps 15 entries, another day maybe 30 entries. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.