Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BassxForte (talk · contribs) / Vilerocks (talk · contribs) shares his password

User BassxForte, who is also user Vilerocks (as claimed on both user pages), admits he shares his account password with other people here [1], who apparently use it for occasional joke edits.--Atlan (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him go out onto the actual articles without my supervision, my userpage(s) are the only things I let them run wild at. BassxForte 02:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has a history of unproductive editing and behaviour going on since January, and he is on very, very thin ice at the moment. I have made unsuccessful attempts on ANI, RFC and CN already. I plan to take it to Arbitration very soon. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that. I just accidentally stumbled upon his comment on that talk page. His history of unproductive editing is therefore not really an issue here.--Atlan (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not clarifying how it's relevant. The relevant part is that he is extremely unlikely to change any of his habits, so if you want to try to make him stop sharing his password, it won't work. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that, I, the correct user of this name, was in complete control of those edits when they were made. Vilerocks 15:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does one person have two user names? Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? --myselfalso 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It was probably due to this whole password thing, but he got his old account back. He probably doesn't know what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the rule existed until just now, when you mentioned it. Furthermore, the rule you gave mentioned that it is "discouraged", not that it was against the rules. Vilerocks 01:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, on one userpage I provide a link to the other, making it bluntly obvious Vilerocks and BassxForte are one and the same, and I havn't attempted to use the Vilerocks name to bend the rules to my advantage. (In other words, I haven't voted twice on a poll, used them ti suggust that there are more people arguing in my favor in an argument, etc.) BassxForte 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't have an issue if you have two user names. I just thought that Sock puppetry didn't allow this. Obviously there are cases that having an additional user name might be necessary. But the issue at hand isn't having two user names, the issue is that you've shared your password. --myselfalso 05:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't let him just run around wikipedia wth my password randomly, looking through my contribuations history( for both accounts) the only thing he ever edited without my supervision was my userpages. Vilerocks 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's just not allowed to share an account.--Atlan (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vilerocks just finished a 24h ban for 3RR(hence the lack of reply), and I don't know much about the bot archival on this page so I'm killing two birds with one stone here by notifying you about the ban as well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate undeletion of HHO gas?

Moved to related thread at WP:AN.

User:MONGO

User:MONGO is going on a rampage altering archived project and talk pages, etc., to "enforce" his interpretation of policy on linking to sites (in this case, regarding Wikitruth, a site that has a page on Wikipedia, and about which MONGO only very recently changed his mind about whether it was an "attack site"). It is my understanding that archived pages are not to be edited by anybody for any reason; they are there to preserve history. *Dan T.* 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the full record of that websites mirroring of deleted pages and other attacks. Once I was, I saw it as necessary to delink to that site as much as possible. Someone please tell Dtobias to stop wikistalking my edits. Archived pages are not exempt from being edited to remove attacks. The banner on the top of them is there only so people understand that if they have new comments to make, they should do so on the active discussion page since no one will likely be responding to them on an archived page. Dtobias, do not wikistalk my edits.--MONGO 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• While utterly pointless, removing links to attack pages out of archives isn't really inappropriate. In general, he should probably be leaving a template or such in their place, but whatever. WilyD 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  It should be noted that we routinely are removing fair use violations from archive pages. Archive pages are not inviolate. NoSeptember 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  He's indiscriminately removing all links to the sites in question, as usual. See my essay for some reasons why this is a bad idea. *Dan T.* 19:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Unarchiving to comment. Please see instructions at the top of this page: Please don't try to stop other people from discussing by inserting the {{discussion top}} — {{discussion bottom}} templates to "archive" ongoing discussions. WTF? My own talkpage archives keep popping up on my watchlist because some bot has had its mysterious way with them—"substituting user signatures" and whatever. Here's one at random. And as NoSeptember points out, FU violations are continually being whisked out of there. I've never seen a template left in place of the removed material. Should I start reverting the bots...? Please cut it out, DTobias. We don't do edits that have no other purpose than to annoy, no matter what the banner at the top of archive pages says. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

So once again MONGO gets off scot free, while the person who criticizes him gets slapped. There really does seem to be an "untouchable caste" here. *Dan T.* 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This racing through Wikipedia with a black censor's pen is just embarrassing to the entire project. The primness, the hysteria, the hypocrisy.--G-Dett 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed the harassment and the offsite attacks. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth could I have missed that?--G-Dett 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites are attack sites whether or not the links exist on so called "archived" pages. Who cares if their links get deleted? --Tbeatty 21:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Mongo's actions are clearly disruptive. This is an attempt to enforce a failed policy proposal via edit warring and must not be tolerated. *** Crotalus *** 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought it was an ArbCom ruling, as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Arbcom dont create policy they interpret it, and in that sense we are a democracy, SqueakBox 21:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• It is an Arbcom ruling (in addition to common sense), that unneeded links to attack sites should be removed with extreme prejudice. That does not mean that someone can arbitrarily declare something an attack site and then remove all links to it. -Amarkov moo! 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• And Arbcom, as is its right, has chosen not to confirm that principle in subsequent decisions[2]. Risker 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Try again. The arbitrators who voted against that principle did so because they thought its language was too broad, not because they were against the principle per se. jpgordon made the point that the language should have said something like "sites that commonly include attacks". And the very next principle, which passed, illustrates this, because it is a ban against ED links - and ED is a site that most certainly "commonly includes attacks" and outings against Wikipedia editors, as does WikiTruth, as can be seen by a 5-second perusal of its front page. - Merzbow 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Mongo actions: he is doing the right thing Alex Bakharev 01:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikitruth an attack site? Does there need to be some kind of clarification by ArbCom like what was asked for with WR? Can't a bot be written to remove the links that MONGO is removing? Is Miller lite less filling or does it taste great? daveh4h 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why WP:BADSITES would be good as it would state clearly which ones should be removed. Right now say for Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review while obviously links to pages that contain personal attacks should be removed as personal attacks, links to their main page or parts of the site that don't have attacks are unclear. Without WP:BADSITES all we have is the spam blacklist and I think people are allowed to remove links to that. If anyone can get ahold of Kelly Martin who appears not to be on Wikipedia anymore but is on IRC maybe, she knows more about how Wikitruth is an attack site. SakotGrimshine 05:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• OK. EITHER ArbCom's decision may be taken as a statement of policy, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong, OR policy is established by the community by individual bold actions, in which case MONGO is not doing anything wrong. No administrator action required. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is edits like this one and this one that are relevant here. In these edits, MONGO removes whole citations from articles not because they are bogus but simply because they contain URLs that hyperlink to a site that xe thinks should not be hyperlinked to. The use of such pages as sources is bad because there is no evidence of a process of peer review and fact checking being involved in their publication, and because they are the subject talking about itself and not independent of the subject. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Independent sources, and User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources.) But challenging them, and the content that they are the sources for, should be on that basis (and indeed had already been raised on that basis, per the notice at the top of that article), not because of the domain name portion of the URL. Uncle G 19:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a distressing circularity to arguments that "it's policy because it's what people like MONGO do"... anybody (like myself) who disagrees and tries to revert such edits gets called a "stalker" and threatened with blocking (see comments left by an admin on my talk page)... once the opposition is intimidated into silence this way, then it becomes "policy" because it's a BOLD action that was unopposed. *Dan T.* 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we should link to wikitruth or are you arguing for the sake of procedure? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. SchmuckyTheCat 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to present an argument, I'm am trying to clear up Dan T's position. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we should link to it when and where it makes sense to do so, and not link to it when and where it doesn't make sense to do so. Of course, probably everybody believes that; they just differ on when and where it does or doesn't make sense. I think it makes sense to link it on the article about the site itself, possibly on the Criticisms of Wikipedia article, and probably nowhere else in articlespace; in project, user, and talk space there are occasions when it might make sense to link it in the course of making a point of some sort. Going in and unlinking it all over the place in archived talk pages and the like almost never is justifiable, unless the links are directly being used as personal attacks. *Dan T.* 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think leaving them in the archives makes sense when it makes it harder to keep track of it when using Linksearch. Also, archives are not immune to editing and enjoy no special protection under policy. Since talkpage keep their own history archives are simply there as a convince. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible disruption

User:Hubier (his contribs) has been uploading dozens of images with no sources, no fair use rationales and using them to replace all of the James Bond film posters. Just about every one was deleted by a bot for having no information, so now he's just replacing the current posters with red links. I don't know if he knows they are all deleted. I didn't know where to take this, because it doesn't seem to be a clear case of vandalism, just plain disruption. The posters he was trying to use, even if they had sources, were not better than what was already there, some looking fan made. He was asked to stop several times by myself and another editor, but he refuses. I was hoping for some assistance on how to handle this.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. I will unblock this user if he agrees to abide by our non-free content policy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like he's decided to simply not log in. User:72.205.56.90 put in the image that Hubier uploaded. Diff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Notorious sockpuppet User:BryanFromPalatine is back

Resolved

 – Already blocked -- Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FreedomAintFree

This user is a almost surely a sockpuppet of banned multiple puppet and puppet master User:BryanFromPalatine permabanned during the Free Republic case. His first edit was to Free Republic and within minutes he was editing Democratic Underground. Both these articles are on probation. He already 'knows' WP, all the issues and long-time editors. Just like socks Bryan and Dino Dean Hinnen, he claims to have been 'lurking' and studying up on WP. Highly doubtful. Please investigate.64.145.158.163 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide any diffs on which your claim is based? Looking at your edit history, all you've done on Wikipedia so far is claim FreedomAintFree is a sockpuppet all over the place. I wonder how you've come to that conclusion.--Atlan (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryulong. - Merzbow 05:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the above user (Xboxwarrior) quacking? Interesting contribs. - auburnpilot talk 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated purging of text

Akhristov (talk · contribs) repeatedly removes text from the article Podilsko-Voskresenska Line w/o any real reasoning [3], [4], [5], [6]

Considering that there was no consensus on the talk page, I was wondering could this kind of extreme WP:POINT-violating behaivour be classed as Vandalism. I mean the article is a subway line and the text he is removing is of the language that the whole city speaks. And his only reason is I really have a strong point of view on this.... Do politics justify disruptive behaivour? Considering that these four (as of me writing this) edits are the only ones he did to the article so far. --Kuban Cossack 03:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the user is violating WP:3RR. I will place a warning in his user page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is real, and a consensus was reached prior to the edit war. User:Kuban kazak has a prior history of edit warring, see [7]. My reasoning is on the talk page, and Kuban kazak was continuously reverting to his revision, which didn't gain consensus yet. This is why I reverted to my revision, since it gained prior consensus. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I marked this incident as unresolved until my comment above is commented on. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not a unilateral near-violation of 3RR. Both parties should have been notified of that. Anyways, protecting the article was the right call. Also, the comments by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs) at Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line#Russian name seems to be assuming bad faith. His contibs history shows him as a good editor, but block log suggests he is a bit over zealous.Corrected username. — Alex^(U|C|E) 09:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that umber of edits is not the yardstick to measure the validity of an edit. It should be on the merit of the edit in question. --soum ^talk 08:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that two days back he was blocked for edit warring for one and a half days on another Russian/Ukranian dispute. As soon as he gets out of the block, he starts doing it on another article. That aspect does bother me. --soum ^talk 08:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want sysops to do? To support one of the parties to this content dispute? This noticeboard is not part of dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not take sides, be impartial. Both sides should have been warned for impending 3RR violation, thats my point. Its us admins who have to act on the merits of the case, not merits of reporting. Its our responsibility to ensure that content dispute does not end up being disruptive. --soum ^talk 10:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the dispute has matured into a WP:MEDCAB, if anybody is interested please participate. --Kuban Cossack 22:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this right?

Could someone please take a look at what this administrator user:Alkivar has been doing. On more than one occasion he has removed huge chunks of information from an article, then proceeds to fully protect it so that no one else can edit it! (like in this case [8] [9]). Surely there is no policy that allows this is there? Where we have to seek the permission of an Administrator to edit an article? 124.176.27.127 09:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, that doesn't look right at all. An editor has contacted Alkivar on three occasions about this article without receiving any response. As it does not appear to be a correct use of an indefinite full protection, and as Alkivar has given no response to inquiries, I'm going to restore it to semi-protected. I'll leave a note on Alkivar's page linking back to this discussion. -- Merope 09:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Biographies of living person, the policy which governs biographical articles, says to remove any text that is not attributed to reliable sources. So, the removal is justified. As for the protection, people were reinserting the unsourced content without addressing the concerns. So, protection is also justified. Though whether an indefinite is proper or not I'm not sure. But indefinite is not infinite. Please find references that you can attriute such content to, without which they are not allowed here. Even if the article is protected, you can discuss the changes on the talk page. Once you are done aggregating the sources, request an unprotection. --soum ^talk 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

hum and look at the differences it's burntsauce again. I've got to ask - is Alkivar in his pocket? --Fredrick day 10:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like enforcing BLP to me. ^(H) 14:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting that this was all "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" (emphasis added)? Seems a bit excessive to me particularly when the admin in question has not responded to multiple questions about his edits. --ElKevbo 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that removing that much material went too far. He even took out basic information like a description of his role on AFHV and what he's currently up to. I would say about 75% of the removal was inappropriate since it wasn't nearly contentious.--Wafulz 20:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support bringing this back to semi-protection (I semi-protected it last month due to libel concerns) — if the material was unsourced, which was largely the case, then it should have been removed according to policy. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

(this argument is identical to the one a bit below this, resubmitted in some sort of lag-time glitch. The only difference is that an additional admin weighed in below.)

Arcayne (talk · contribs), 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.[10] I politely asked him to stop, [11] 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." [12] [13] [14]. He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts [15] [16], 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.[17] His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom.[18] I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. —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. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is another such disruptor. I'm trying to convince him to stop also for his disruptive behavior, but nothing is working. I need assistance. Angie Y. 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about their redirecting articles of episodes, it seems they have stopped. Anyway, how may I assist you? Peacent 13:18, 10 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)

Actually, 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. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

user: LessHeard vanU has assumed bad faith and lied that I have trolled

I am just here to make sure someone keeps an eye out on this administrator and talks to him about assuming bad faith and lying that I have trolled. He told me I was trolling and trying to cause trouble for no reason, so I'm afraid he might block me for no reason like he's done in the past. What he is referring to as trolling is actually about an observation I made about user Danielfolsom. I have actually been more than patient with user Danielfolsom. He told me he was going to get uncivil with me and he didn't care if he broke the rules, and instead of reporting him, I responded very politely towards him and instead complimented him if you look here. [[19]] [[20]] Anyway, I let Daniel get away with that comment without reporting so the user and I should be on good terms.

Anyway, I have taken a look at the Migospia talk page, and there's a very long, drawn-out argument going on between Rockpocket, user: LessHeard vanU and Danielfolsom. I know Rockpocket and Danielfolsom have a tendency to gang up on people, and it really wasn't fair to the editor they're ganging up on. Anyway, I notice Daniel has agreed with Rockpocket about how unkind it is to use the word newbie and berates Migospia about it for the majority of the argument. However, Daniel only used the word a couple days ago without ever being told it was wrong. I point that out to Daniel right here. [[21]] I also do it in a friendly manner as noted by this [[22]]. I was hoping the editor would understand since I didn't report him when I could have a couple days ago.

However, Administrator User: LessHeard vanU calls it trolling, in the 2nd to last paragraph right here [[23]]. I'm only informing the Administrative noticeboards so they can keep an eye out on him. He HAS unfairly banned me in the past, only for 3 hours so I never even knew I'd been banned until it had been over for a great deal of time so I chose not to report the administrator here at the noticeboards. I mean, just by the length of the ban, I think he knew he had no right to ban me at all. He actually banned me only because I said I was going to show the warning he gave me to wikipedia because I felt he wasn't willing to discuss things with me, but only get defensive with warnings.

The point is, I certainly wasn't trolling in this issue where I point out, in a very friendly way, that Daniel has used a word that he is berating another user for directly after Rockpocket has already talked to the user about the word being bad. I have brought the issue here for someone to talk to LessHeard VanU because I wasn't trolling and he may try to impose another unfair ban at some point and abuse his powers again. If you could talk to administrator and let him know that I wasn't trolling and to use good faith, I would very much appreciate that. EverybodyHatesChris 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusing people of lies, in bad faith, is trolling. You're arguing over the use of the word "newbie". How dumb is that? Not to mention you're stating " I won't let <administrators name here> abuse their admin powers the way that rockpocket abused his. FOMG admin abuse. You all need to just drop the issue and stop whining about stupid things. [24][25],[26],[27],[28] ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why EHC was there in the first place. But yes it was stupid at first but it sooned turned hateful and hurtful and did not need to happean and Daniel needs to like EHC not be a troll. A troll is someone who comes into a conversation trying to start things for their sick pleasure thats what Daniel did and needs to stop because it was hurtful. That's all I am sayin there was no need it was pointless just a ploy to hurt people--Migospia†♥ 21:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Read carefully Swatjester. You're making incorrect remarks. I AM NOT arguing over the use of the word, "Newbie!" Daniel and administrator Rockpocket are the ones upset at Migospia for using the word newbie. I did not bring up newbie being a bad word. User Rockpocket and Danielfolsom are berating Migospia about it, so I point out that Daniel has used the word as well and Lessheard told me I was trolling. EverybodyHatesChris 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Can everyone just AGF for a moment?? --Dark Falls ^talk 01:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have. It's administrator LessHeard that has not if you read what I wrote. It's most important for the administrators to know the rules because they can ban and block people and do so unfairly. He really does need to be talked to, guys. I can't stress this enough. Someone really needs to step in and make sure he's assuming bad faith and lying about me being a troll like he just has, and then abusing his administrative powers by banning me for telling him I was going to go to the administrative boards because I didn't think I deserved a warning EverybodyHatesChris 03:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive revert warring

Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are currently engaged in a massive revert war concerning external links on a large number of pages. Both users have been warned extensively about their behavior, but continue to persist in it nonetheless. See, for example, the page histories of Hideki Matsui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ichiro Suzuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Kevin Youkilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Hank Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Ross Baumgarten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It may be advisable to enforce the portion of the three-revert rule which states that

Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.

John254 17:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is also being discussed down the page at #behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl

• Nishkid64 is now mediating and this seems to be more chill for the moment.--Chaser - T 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the links are "Yankees Suck" I'm fine with it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a Red Sox fan, there's a joke in there about Yankees Suck being NPOV.. but I won't go there ;) SirFozzie 18:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl isn't stopping. On the Wikiproject baseball talk page there was consensus about certain external links which he agreed with...then he turned around and deleted them from article anyway [29]. He is also deleting wholesale information from Kevin Youkilis again. IrishGuy ^talk 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, when I tried to contact him about it on his talk page, he blanked it with the lovely summary of how many idiots are there in one day?. Another attempt at contact was again blanked. IrishGuy ^talk 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I recommend blocking in this circumstance, it's clear at least one of them simply isn't listening. --Cyde Weys 19:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl has blanked my attempts to communicate three times. He doesn't seem to care what other editors or admins think. IrishGuy ^talk 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmobowl does not respond well to any suggestions that his actions are not the correct ones. I had a recent disagreement with him over my asking him to only tag articles for speedy deletion that actually met the criteria, and he got very haughty indeed. The usual thing to do when an editor fails to respond to requests from multiple others to stop what they are doing is to make them stop what they are doing for a period of time. Neil ╦ 20:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh you guys have got to be kidding me. First of Neil, your an admin, and your actions have been deplorable. I have started blanking my talk page because everyone and their mothers comes by to drop a Warning or threat. I have engaged everyone where possible, including irishguy. I too fell victim to something that Neil did to me and called IrishGuy an idiot. I promptly appologized on his talk page and will be happy to provide a link if need be. That aside, more people like to talk about me than the actual issues. I have read WP:EL many times, I have asked for advice from outside parties, MANY times, and all i get is a bunch of people who cry about the fact that i am BOLD. I am receptive to open discussion and happy to go along with consensus, but I am not going to let a few misguided people "put me in my place". You guys come out of the woodwork to do nothing but complain - JUST MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER!!!! I tagged a number of pages as CSDs because they are not for notable people. Was a discussion started? No, I was called an idiot and a disruptive person because the nominator feared the content would be removed. Might I point out that CSDs allow Admins to review the situation before they act on it. I removed ELs in favor of incorporating content into the articles. Was I engaged for discussion appropriately? No, I was told I was violating every "rule" under the sun. And far from it. People - I'm here and I'm bold. Deal with it. Beyond that, JUST STICK TO THE CONTENT AND MAKE IT GOOD!!!! //Tecmobowl 21:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

We would all love to "stick to the content". However, when your sticking to the content impinges on the work of others, it becomes a problem that needs to be addressed. Also, "Neil, your an admin, and your actions have been deplorable" - I would like to you either back this statement up (I don't believe you could) or rescind it. Neil ╦ 10:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If any blocks are issued (or this is solved in another way), Hideki Matsui should probably be unprotected. I gave it a few weeks of full protection after someone reported a revert war to WP:RFPP. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As an editor who has little (as in no involvement with baseball articles) and just happened to be watching the project page for other reasons when this went down, and who had had no contact with any of the parties at all before, I'd like to say that other than the revert warring, Tecmo's behavior has been pretty above board, and almost everything else I witnessed has not. I'm very tired of everyone going on and on about Tecmo's behavior when at least on the pages I've been watching there's been almost no content discussion, and often no attempt at content discussion, but a straightforward focus on personal attacks, vendettas and commentary. Even when it's not mean-natured, too many editors seem far too interested in what other editors are doing when and why then in the actual content of the articles and it's a real problem. I've been trying to moderate a few areas of discussion and steer that discussion back towards content and it's been working with too few of the editors. This is being discussed further down the page at #behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl Miss Mondegreen talk  23:43, June 10 2007 (UTC)

Please see below: Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 02:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:209.247.21.121

I received a message in my email that this user attempted to retreive a new password for me. Looking through the contribution history, I see nothing but warnings and vandalism. Would it be appropriate to ask for a block? -N 18:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Similar thing happened to me after I blocked 204.108.96.19. The next day I received an email stating that I'd requested a new password from the IP 204.108.97.205. Both are registered to the Los Angeles Unified School District. I don't think it's much to worry about. - auburnpilot talk 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking, disruption, incivility, and personal attacks

Arcayne (talk · contribs), 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.[30] I politely asked him to stop, [31] 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." [32] [33] [34]. He has continued to stalk and revert me on ALF with two more subsequent reverts [35] [36], 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.[37] His edits were promptly removed by User:Yom.[38] I would like an uninvolved, neutral administrator to ask Arcayne to please stop following me around and to stop making personal attacks. Thank you. —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. —Viriditas | Talk 11:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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 ^(talk) 20:36, 10 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)

Actually, 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. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN is another such disruptor. I'm trying to convince him to stop also for his disruptive behavior, but nothing is working. I need assistance. Angie Y. 13:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about their redirecting articles of episodes, it seems they have stopped. Anyway, how may I assist you? Peacent 13:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack Jones articles

Resolved

There are two Jack Jones, British politician and Labour Party MP articles: Jack Jones (politician) and Jack Jones (UK politician).
I'm unable to move the articles and request that they be moved to the existing named pages.
The Jack Jones (politician) article to be moved to John Joseph Jones,
and the Jack Jones (UK politician) article to be moved to John Henry Jones.
Cwb61 (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please make sure there's no double redirects left. Neil ╦ 20:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the pages. I've made sure there aren't any double redirects left.

I request the #REDIRECT pages Jack Jones (Rotherham politician), Jack Jones (politician), and Jack Jones (UK politician) to be deleted. With too many #REDIRECT pages with Jack Jones and politician, causes confusion. Cwb61 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected the last two to Jack Jones, the disambiguation page. The first one is fine. Neil ╦ 08:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Cwb61 (talk) 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

behavioral problems at wikiproject baseball: Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and Tecmobowl

I should mention from the start that I do not and have not edited baseball articles, except for gnomish and fairy-type edits. I happened to be watching the WikiProject Basebal page when a "discussion" about WP:ELs got a little out of hand. I should also point to these comments on my talk page that were posted while I was writing this up.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Deletions by Tecmobowl of hundreds of baseball urls w/unique information; failure to discuss; edit warring.

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
Tecmobowl (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Epeefleche and Tecmo had been edit warring for days about ELs. Tecmo had started doing a clean-up of a lot of baseball pages. A large portion of his edits were and are completely straightfoward. Most of the pages had and do have a TON of ELs and in addition to individual ones being totally inappropriate, the list itself was way to long. He removed a lot of:

• open-wikis where no stability decision had been made
• bios that included no unique information (often being used as a crutch to add more to an article that was very short)
• pages with excess advertising
• pages that related indirectly to the subject of the article

The part that seemed to be a sticking point was removing duplicate statistics sites. A lot of baseball articles seem to have four or five statistics sites as ELs. People didn't understand what the problem was with keeping all of them, and even the people who saw the problem couldn't agree on which to get rid of as the content differs slightly between them (some say). That part is a content dispute that the community has to work out.

Rather than a clean-up, the deletions were of urls with unique information. The current substantive discussion has centered on Fangraphs, which contains 69 unique categories of information. It is not clear to me that Miss M appreciates the significance of those statistical categories. It may be that someone with a greater familiarity with baseball statistics might better appreciate how that renders the url unique. There has been no disagreement that any urls that are wholly duplicative in data and functionality are appropriate candidates for deletion. That has not been evidenced, however, in the urls under discussion. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But the behavior needs administrative intervention. I first commented after a few days pointing out that while Tecmo was explaining his edits, no one was commented on content, but going on about who did what to whom. My comments at the wikiproject on both behavior and content can be found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Comment from Miss Mondegreen Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Consensus ignored; More urls deleted by Tecmo.

As to which I responded, in part, "The second focus of the above conversation consisted of discussion by a number of editors as to why they thought the urls should not be deleted. I gather that you missed that. I'm confused as to why. You indicate above that the discussion makes "no attempt at discussing what sort of links are acceptable etc." But if you look at the above you will note just such a discussion by a number of editors. I, for example, pointed out that Fangraphs "has unique information," and that the same was the case with others that he had deleted, "such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library." Admin Nishkid said: "I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website." Admin Wizardman wrote: "I ... before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique." Editor Allansohn said above: "See WP:NOT#LINK which states that 'Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article'. In no way, shape or form do the presence of these links violate Wikipedia policy. As can be seen from the discussion here, there is no consensus that these links should be removed." Baseball Bugs indicated "I use some of them (such as Baseball-Reference and Baseball-Almanac) frequently; and (2) they are not duplicates of each other, each offers unique info, including info different from MLB.com." --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo has clearly had some problems. He's gotten in trouble for a 3RR block, and he's been doing more than a little reverting. But if what I've seen extends elsewhere, I understand why. One clear problem he has is that it may take him a day or two to respond. People are commenting anywhere and everywhere they think that they can get attention from the person they want it from and discussion is spread amongst several talk pages, the wikiproject and user talk pages. Just the incessent blanking of his talk page every time Epeefleche warns him has to take up time. If he warned Epeefleche the same way, neither of them would ever do anything.

Actually, Tecmo has a history of making deletions daily. Except when he is blocked for violations. In addition to the two 3RR blocks mentioned in the above paragraphs, Tecmo was blocked on June 10th.[39] That's 3 blocks in the period of June 7-10. And as to the discussion, it has been centralized at [40]. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But, Tecmo has explained his edits and been willing to discuss. For the most part, he hasn't really gotten content related responses back, or he's gotten ones back that are irrelevant or on another planet. When he has gotten content related response back, they tend not to be from the editors personally involved in this ongoing struggle. To often, the dialog trends to personal attacks and commentary. The wikiproject discussion started out as an attack on Tecmo--Epeefleche came there to ask for help dealing with him, and help reverting his edits--he'd run out of reverts. And he got it.

This is untrue on many levels, as [41] demonstrates. He has failed to discuss, and failed to hold off on his deletions during discussion. He has received enormous amounts of thoughtful, analytical, substantive response -- including from 2 admins on the baseball wikiproject, and at least one statistician. Miss M -- who do you suggest track down the deletions that he has made in the past, as to which there is consense that they should not have been deleted? Deletion before discussion had a deleterious effect on Wikipedia in these instances. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tecmo was also attacked for not responding to comments on his talk page, when discussion was already occuring in at least two places. Harsher comments sounded like, "let the bully have his way".

Baseball Bugs then came to my talk page (persumably noticing that Tecmo had been there) and literally spammed me with every thought that came into his head. They weren't real attacks, they weren't real defenses, he was just telling me what he thought and what and what could possibly might be happening that should be checked out. My attempts to get him to focus on content only brought me more comments about personal issues, and my replies to him on talk pages were again answered on my talk page and not the article one.

I also attempted to mediate the issue of one particular link on the Shoeless Joe Jackson page. It took me days of commenting on the talk page mainly to myself to get Baseball Bug's attention, and I'm now spending way too much time attempting to get him to answer straightforward questions (formatted as a straw poll for convience), and I really can't mediate this screwed up party anymore.

Baseball Bugs wants an Rfc on Tecmo--who is possibly the only involved editor who I don't think needs an Rfc at this point. He's at least been explaining his edits and willing to participate in a content related discussion and doesn't fly off the hot seat every five seconds. He also seems willing to listen to other editors comments about both content and his editing habits, which means I'm not as worried about some of his bad habits--he seems much more willing to work towards consensus, and willing to change.

Some editors have advised dispute resolution, and I really don't think that's what's needed here. There are some content issues that need to be solved, sure, but there's not point in discussing those or anything if the editors in question won't focus on content, or the issue at hand. I think administrative intervention is at this point become necessary to even get to the point of dispute resolution. Tecmo has just had a been blocked for 3RR and I think still needs to go more slowly, lest he be blocked again--edit warring and communication via edit summary are NOT the way to go, but I think that Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs might need thwapings: personal attacks, edit warring (getting others to edit war for you), and comments that do nothing but stonewall are not the way to go either.

I might need a thwaping? It would be most appreciated if you would elevate the level of your comments. Thanks. --Epeefleche 01:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Be kind, be cool: While my comments sound harsh--I am only posting here as a last resort--this has escalated and escalated and I did not see this stopping. Harsh comments and diff pulling from months and years ago will only escalate the situation further. I'm looking for help cooling the situation not escalating it. Thank you. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:52, June 10 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask for a summary, please. Admins are loath to read long entries. —Kurykh 21:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not sure there is a way to summarize, what Miss Mondegreen said pretty much nailed it on the head. I'm happy to have polite and engaged discussions about the content at hand, but I'm also a big fan of WP:BOLD. I have gotten in the habit of blanking my talk page (even of things that are very complimentary) simply because it is so hard to follow all the different conversations and because the aforementioned users simply spam me with bogus warnings and such rather than engage in discussions on the content at the relevant pages. I'm happy to talk further if need be and I will say that I am aware of the 3RR and my violation of it. And happy to expand on that, but can we get away from the "who did what to whom on what date at what time and why" and just get back to the content. //Tecmobowl 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, a summary is not necessary; however, it would facilitate a quicker and clearer response if or when needed. —Kurykh 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's actually a summary. The problem is that widespread and out of hand. The very, very, very short version is--there's been a massive edit war between Epeefleche and Tecmobowl ranging across probably 100 baseball articles--maybe more. Tecmobowl started to go through the baseball articles and make them compliant with WP:EL, and Epeefleche started reverting him and once this had hit over a dozen articles and Epeefleche was out of reverts, Epeefleche came to the wikiproject and asked for help (i.e. dealing with Tecmo and reverting the edits he continued to make). He got help--if you count a lot of editors screaming and some helping him revert Tecmo help. Almost all of the discussion on the project and other pages has been personal in nature, a lot bordering on or outright personal attacks.

The content issue is that of the multiple statistics sites. The articles Tecmo has been cleaning have four of five sites that have almost identical statistics for each player. Tecmo is almost always reading WP:EL perfectly--doing absolutely straightforward edits. There are some judgement calls, but it's a ratio of 6:1 probably, maybe more.

Problematic editors I have encountered in terms of personal attacks and unwillingness, or inability to discuss content have been Epeefleche and Baseball Bugs (though I'm watching a fraction of the pages). Tecmo is losing his cool (though I understand why), but I'm less worried about that as he's continually comprimised, returned to talk pages to discuss and answer questions and work towards consensus and his behavior seems malleable. Epeefleche, Baseball Bugs and some of the other editors who have been particular vitriolic are worrying me at this point. This has gone on for a while now, doesn't show real signs of slowing or stopping and there's been no real changes in some very problematic behavior (though with Baseball Bugs it may just be a real lack of understanding--it's hard to tell). Miss Mondegreen talk  23:57, June 10 2007 (UTC)

You are seriously complaining about vitriolic comments from others when you said You just had to follow the link at ANI and cause trouble here? Either answer the straw poll or shut up. to me? Nice. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Polite discussion? Three times I tried to contact you about blanking sourced content on your talk page...and three times you blanked it. Once with the lovely summary of how many idiots are there in one day?. IrishGuy ^talk 21:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This same issue is also listed above: Massive revert warring. IrishGuy ^talk 21:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As a note to your previous comment in this section, I responded to you several times on your talk page (where I subsequently appologized) and then engaged you in a most friendly manner on the article where you had an issue. This is deplorable people - JUST STICK TO THE CONTENT. //Tecmobowl 21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't bother to comment on my talk page until after you had blanked your talk page twice and called me an idiot. Yes, that is ignoring comments. IrishGuy ^talk 21:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm gonna make this short and then I'm going to only chime in where necessary. This is the history for my talk page and this is yours. I blanked EVERYONES comments for some time and responded to you five minutes after your last post to my talk page. I don't think anyone here would call that unresponsive. You introduced your self to me with a warning, not exactly WP:AFD. As I said on your talk page, I am sorry for the edit summary where I blanketed a number of people as idiots. Rather than skirting the issue and pass it off for what it really was - a reaction to ludicrous behavior - I appologized to you promptly. You continue to harp on that, and I'm sorry. At this point, we can either move on, or you can continue to bring it up. If you want to cite me for violation of WP:NPA, then do it. But I am not unresponsive and I am BOLD. MAKE THE CONTENT BETTER PEOPLE!!!! //Tecmobowl 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I look forward to an admin resolving this information.

Summary. In short, Tecmo has deleted 100s of urls from baseball bios. His initial reason, since disproved: "they are not unique." Other editors differ with him. First, Tecmo refused to discuss this on a talk page before deleting. Now, he discusses, but deletes concurrently. There have been multiple requests that he desist with his deletions, including requests from 2 admins in the Baseball Wiki project. He has ignored them, asserting that to do so would not be bold. We have therefore discussed substance while Tecmo continues to delete. We have obtained input from 9 editors as to 4 of the urls, as a starting point. There is consensus, in my view, as to each url. Tecmo refuses to respect the consensus as to the Fangraphs url, and has not reverted his deletes as to the other urls.

Full Discussion. [42] contains most of the pertinent discussion.

Disappearing Entry. I made an entry on this page 6 days ago, concerning Tecmo's behavior, at Miss M's suggestion. It has somehow diappeared. It was at: 06:30, June 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Deletion by editor of hundreds of external links; failure to discuss; edit warring). Can someone please explain how it was lost (or deleted)? Similarly, all of my entries, and warnings and bans from admins, have also been deleted by Tecmo from his talk page. I'm not experienced enough to determine how it was deleted, and by whom.

Edit Warring; Initial Failure to Discuss; Deletion of 100s of urls. I initially asked Tecmobowl to not edit war after he removed a Fangraphs url (which I pointed out has unique information) from the Sandy Koufax external links section. Instead, he continued to RV. His only comment was an unsupported one, later proven to be quite untrue, inserted in the edit summary of his changes, that there is nothing unique about the Fangraphs url.

I asked him concurrently to move discussion of the issue to the talk page, instead of RVing. Instead, he again deleted the link.[43] While he failed to talk on a talk page, he instead deleted unique info urls from additional pages I had edited, such as ESPN, Baseball Almanac, Baseball Cube, and Baseball Library. See diffs at John Grabow, Jason Marquis, and Brad Ausmus. Even as I complained about that on the talk page, he made similar inappropriate deletions to 12 more bios. On his talk page I asked him to desist, discuss, and bring in a third party to discuss if necessary. Instead he ignored me, and deleted urls from nearly 10 more baseball players. I made the above-referenced posting on Baseball Wikiproject asking for help, and asked the 2 admins on that project to help. Tecmo then wrote, in his first talk page response: "The burdon (sic) is on you to explain why these sites should be linked to on the pages they are. Until you do so, they are expunged. //Tecmobowl 08:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)" Admin "Nishkid64 then responded: "Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at ... any other baseball statistical website.... Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page." Admin Wizardman then wrote to Tecmo: "I assumed good faith and, before putting the links back myself, actually viewed them to see if they were unique. Based on the information they offered, most of the links you've been deleting have in fact been unique. I also ask you to stop." Tecmo subsequently, during the substantive discussion, deleted what are now hundreds of such urls. I requested help in someone stopping the deletions. Tecmo deleted more urls. I wrote: "I reiterate my request that Tecmobowl now, during the pendency of this discussion, restore the urls that he deleted from the talk pages."

Fangraphs. I discussed the substance of the Fansgraphs url. Summarized how 7 of the 9 people discussing it found it useful. Tecmo's basis for deleting Fangraphs had been: "it is not unique information." It's been demonstrated, however, that to the contrary the url has loads of unique information. I detailed its 69 unique categories of information, and indicated that it provides some spring training stats, and Bill James, CHONE, Marcel, and ZIPS projections, a game log, play log, compare players feature, news articles, and unique graphical presentations. Also, as Sanfranman pointed out, it has unique formating. Tecmo had written himself, as to that observation, "THANK YOU FOR FINALLY MAKING A VALID ARGUMENT....For you, it is how the data is presented...Can we at least all agree that the data is not unique ... The presentation is however." Still, Tecmo maintains now that there was no consensus. And continues to delete the Fangraphs urls.

Next Steps. I would greatly appreciate an admin's help. Tecmo has deleted a large number of urls as to which he lacks consensus for deletion. I would appreciate his: 1) desisting in deleting such urls (or being blocked therefrom); 2) his restoring those urls that he has deleted; and 3) his restoring other urls that he has deleted as to which no consensus for deletion exists -- we can discuss the others on the Baseball project page as well, once this has been addressed.--Epeefleche 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're asking admins to explicitly intervene in and enforce your side in a content dispute. I can't see that happening. --Calton | Talk 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've not been here before. What can I ask for? Problem 1 was Tecmo's deletions while failing to discuss. Problem 2 was deletions during discussions. Problem 3 is deletions contrary to consensus, as to 4 urls. Thanks for your guidance.

Also, can you tell me the answer is to this question: "Does one need consensus to engage in large-scale deletions of this sort, or to stop large-scale deletions of this sort?--Epeefleche 02:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case of wanting admins to step in to bring a halt to an edit war. That sounds reasonable. Protect the article, thrash out a consensus through civil discussion, implement it when an accepted outcome develops. Any volunteers to be umpire? --Pete 02:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tecmo has deleted urls at many dozens of articles. Is there an easier approach than protecting each one? Tx. --Epeefleche 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see below: Tecmobowl and possible sockpuppetry. IrishGuy ^talk 02:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Look, I don't care about the fangraphs link and that's certainly not why I came here. I came here because I see one editor, who I don't think is behaving particularly well, getting completely railroaded by editors who are behaving badly/abysmally/ not paying attention to the situation.

After days of focusing on the editor, discussion finally did turn to content--editors focussed on one EL. Not even the issue of the statistics links in general, just one of them.

When Tecmo is approached reasonably, he reacts reasonably. I see no reason for him to stop removing ELs (though he shouldn't edit war the way he does). He's supposed to hope that editors stop focusing on personal issues and start focusing on content and this time actually address more than one EL? That's ridiculous. Had the wikiproject comment, or any of the comments aimed at Tecmo said--"don't remove multiple statistics sites yet, give us a chance to agree on which one or ones we think should be used", I think, or hope he would have not deleted them. There would have been good reason to. But that issue wasn't even raised until I raised it, and I got about three responses. That's not helpful.

And then there are all of the other links he removed that people reverted him on, Epeefleche especially but they didn't ask for an explanation on which part of WP:EL said it was a bad link, or when given one say "I disagree that number x applies, look at number y". And yet, these reverts stand. WP:BASEBALL members are violating WP:CONSENSUS (they won't discuss the issues and they're ignoring the consensus that WP:EL has), they're making personal attacks right and left, they're ganging up to revert one person--in fact, Epeefleche can to WP:BASEBALL for help because he was out of reverts and he got it--from admins too because they wanted discussion to take place but no one did anything when one side refused to participate in discussion. Discussion can't happen when one side won't participate--and it's editors on editors and whichever side has more reverts is going to win, regardless of what our guidelines say, and this isn't how editors are supposed to behave.

They've asked for comments from outsiders at various points, but then when they get them, the comments are ignored. I asked content questions and I heard about who did what to whom. I warned people that they were breaking policies and guidelines right and left and was ignored. I post this, and I'm told that I'm wrong, this is really an issue about one statistics EL--even though half of the ELs that are being reverted have nothing to do with statistics. Miss Mondegreen talk  07:21, June 11 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have been playing very close attention to this matter. Shortly prior to Tecmo's 3RR block, I was involved with a dispute stemming from his nomination of numerous articles for speedy deletion. I felt that the nominations were done in contravention of deletion procedure and may not have been done in good faith. When asked specific, content- and procedure-related questions about his motives (in order to confirm good faith), Tecmo refused to discuss the matter further with me. Please see the related discussion on my talk page and at Patken4's talk page. Caknuck 18:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppets by two Ryans

Hi, recently I started to chime in on AFDs. One of them was Wikipedia: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)

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 ([44]) and on the AfD ([45]). 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 {{references}} was legitimate. His response to the articles was to change "Latin American" to "Mexican"[46] and [47] 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 Wikipedia: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. Gracenotes^T § 01:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it displays the image description page again. Odd, odd. Gracenotes^T § 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just filed this as bugzilla: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)

An odd speedy...

Resolved

I just deleted User:Chris Dreyfus and I've got to sign off for the day...Could an admin or two check it out? The page was initially created by Chris Dreyfus (talk · contribs) as a full article, some sort of cut & paste of Alfred Dreyfus with a few changes. It was edited by Islingtonlad (talk · contribs) to seemingly make it applicable to a real-life Chris Dreyfus, apparently Ukportal (talk · contribs), who blanked the page & subsequently asked for the speedy.

I speedied it to be on the safe side with personal info, and I'm bringing it here for more eyes. I've got to go now, so if anyone thinks an RFO is a good idea, please do so. I certianly don't have time to email the user to verify anything right now...is there anything that should be done? Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't see what was there, but based on the information I have it looks like the speedy deletion was a correct decision, and nothing more needs to be done. YechielMan 02:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back...I appreciate the support, YechielMan. I think all I'll do is message the parties involved of my actions and be done with it. I'll give Ukportal a link to the RFO page. — Scientizzle 05:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lizziebor

Could an admin or two review the block/unblock/reblock of Lizziebor (talk · contribs)? This newbie may have used a sockpuppet IP and inserted false information into the article Lucille Ball, but I'm not sure if these offenses are enough to merit an indefinite block. The user is rather new, and might not know better; on the other hand, he/she may have bad-faith motives. Any opinions on the matter? Gracenotes^T § 01:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked, giving them a second chance. I rarely support indefinite blocks for first offences. Would be happy fot eh block to be re-instated if she is caught again. However I am hoping that won't happen. Viridae^Talk 02:44, 11 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: [48] [49] [50] etc.

Blacksoxfan's main motive is to add his own site Blacksoxfan.com to articles [51]. Later Wolverinegod is created. He, too, adds cardpricer.com to articles. [52] [53] He later changes his name to Tecmobowl and continues to argue for the inclusion of Blacksoxfan.com in articles [54] as well as just add it himself [55] [56] [57]

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 [58]

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#Assuming_good_faith 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)

Benito

Once again, the user "Benito" (a.k.a. Benito484847, Benitothedon, and Benitoisback) has returned to harass me and vandalise my user page. He's now "OTINEB," which, as he points out on my talk page, is Benito backwards. This is the third time he's flouted the block. Is there anything more permanent that can be done to stop him? --Juansidious 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. I'd suggest reverting and ignoring, denying recognition, etc and he'll eventually get tired and decide to go outside or something. If talk-page harassment becomes an ongoing problem, let me know and we could consider temporary semi-protection. You could also consider a request for IP check at WP:RFCU, although I couldn't say for sure whether they'll go through with it. MastCell ^Talk 03:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Manchurian candidate

This user fabricated a vandalism warning on another user's talk page and signed it with my signature (diff), probably in response to a couple warnings I gave him on his talk page (see User_talk:Manchurian_candidate#June_2007). He has been trolling quite a bit in general, but he does seem to also have a number of good faith edits. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's totally inappropriate -- it's not acceptable to fabricate warnings like that. I could see how someone unfamiliar with the template might do that, but I don't think that's the case here. --Haemo 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty clear that he purposefully fabricated the warning. What's worse, the the warned user was actually blocked after the warning (and then unblocked, thankfully), and he actually believed that I made the warning and left a notice on my talk page asking why I had warned him so severely. Does this warrant a block, considering his past malicious activity? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 09:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by User:Drennleberrn

Resolved

This looks like an ED attack by User:Drennleberrn. Per arbcom ruling, I believe this warrants a block? JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 04:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I could see a block for personal attacks, disruption, trolling or harassment, but what does an arbitration ruling have to do with that? Anyhow an administrator has already warned him for it. --MichaelLinnear 06:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Drennleberrn hasn't been involved in a case. Warning is enough.--Chaser - T 06:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling referenced is, I believe, a statement that links to attack sites should be removed. Whether this constitutes a "ruling" is a question I'm not going to answer. Natalie 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a moot point; Drennleberrn is now indef blocked. Given the trolling history of this account I'd have to say that was a good block.--Isotope23 13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) blocked and unblocked re: Chiropractic - review requested

This has been a rather strange issue, but earlier tonight I addressed a report on WP:AN3 that QuackGuru (talk · contribs) violated 3RR on Chiropractic by reverting the removal of a sentence by other users who were working on the article at the time. There is a discussion on the talk page about it, and the 3RR report can be found here. I blocked QuackGuru for 24 hours for what I believed was a 3RR violation, but after looking at this diff, I'm not so sure I should have. Steth reverted an attempt to compromise on the issue shortly before I blocked QuackGuru, and he has been warned for edit warring on a related article. Steth appears to have a conflict of interest on the issue and pushing a pro-traditional chiropractic POV on various articles. Given these developments, I've unblocked QuackGuru. I need to know if this was the right decision, and whether it was or not, what should be done about this. --Coredesat 05:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring and WP:3RR makes very few exceptions. I can't see what the status of the other party (unless the sock of a banned user) would make. --pgk 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Steth has now continued the edit war against AvB, which might help clarify who is the real problem. Guy (Help!) 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Should I have blocked them both? --Coredesat 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs) II ban evasion

ORIGINAL POST EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [59] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [60] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [61] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [62] ,[63]. He has been warned numerous times [64], [65], [66] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [67] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order. New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [68] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [69] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [70] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [71] refering to other users as idiots [72] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [73] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [74] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [75].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [76] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [77] [78] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

END OF ORIGINAL POST

new incident following original ban for ignoring the block which using his 69.119.127.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . I believe it's time for a permanent ban.

utilizing more IP's to evade original ban 70.177.181.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . original ban on account EdwinCasadoBaez hasn't been extended. YoSoyGuapo 07:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)  ; 24.190.180.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Original postUses Avfnx and a number of other IP's particulary 24.190.180.244[79] which was discovered when he answered for a Avfnx question [80] and fixes Avfnx edits for clarifications [81] and when he gave a fairwell speech [82]

Warnings for 3rr violations [83], Has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages going from one non-NPOV version to another "Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez a man of virtue, a romantic in a romantic age, a philosopher and an idealist" [84] [85] His first edit fortold his POV with "What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda" [86]
Multiple references of personal attacks "Run you propaganda, do you...cause people like you wikipiedia losing credibility...you wanted your personal attack there you got it. ...point blank if they don't like how they been people welcome them in Dominican Republic, they can go home. If i didn't like how USA treat me i would go home, I have a country, USA not my country...so i don't go out in the street burn the flag. And remember something Dominican flag has the bible and the cross that very disrespectful and we got treat them more rights then Dominican, feel lucky that we don't do like the Americans and send ya right home..[87] "Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are" [88]
Has been warned multiple times for personal attacks [89] with each one labeling the incident in which he attacked someone. He was also given a final warning. [90] Seem to be an extremist, not caring about cited sources and denounces other nations while not caring about WP:Civility particularly Haiti .."This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR.."[91]. Reverts edits on numerous pages that don't fit his liking [92] [93]. Claims edits that aren't with his opinion are propaganda, even if they are cited. [94] Non- NPOV opinions, [95] Deletes cited material with rationale being " Haiti facts on Haiti page " [96] Places in information on cited material that cannot be derived from cited material [97] , rationale behind support of a president [98].
A block is necessary at this point because it seems like that will be the only way in which to him cease from this behavior. YoSoyGuapo 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New 3rr vandalism report on said user [99] As well as removal of warnings on talk page. [100] YoSoyGuapo 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This appears to revolve around an article content dispute where no party seems innocent. Perhaps a nuetral admin should look at all the issues and comment. I will when I have more time. LessHeard vanU 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from 3RR board) This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

end of original post There is no campaign against this particular editor. There was a huge sockpuppet issue on article dominican republic which was reported on AN/I [101] as well as the use of multiple accounts. One sockpuppet case was proven to be inconclusive, [102] but another was found to be confirmed [103] Memeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . The talk pages were frequently vandalized with personal attacks even after the page was protected.

User:Avfnx leaves many vandalistic commentary in addition to those mentioned above with reason for edits to include [104]

12:11, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dominican Republic (we could do this all day, what that got do with DR)
11:41, 9 June 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dominican Republic (USA won it independents in July 4, 1776 should we put that in here too, haiti facts on Haiti page)
01:12, 8 June 2007 (hist) (diff) Juan Pablo Duarte (let the editing war start..wohooo)
16:40, 20 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Dominican Republic (Trinitario weren't racist, stop this propaganda against Dominican...I know there a anti-Dominican movement going on but don't mean we going take this laying down.) . These types of behavior are in violation of WP:Civility as well as vandalistic and the utilization of trolls. YoSoyGuapo 07:49, 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...starting here 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 Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Logo_of_my_site, 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[105] 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)

Eyeballs requested on Glenn Greenwald

Raphaelaarchon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly been adding poorly sourced and probably libellous claims to Glenn Greenwald (see e.g. [106]) and related articles, including Sockpuppet (Internet), How Would a Patriot Act? and Michael Barone (pundit). (See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn Greenwald.) I've indefinitely blocked the user for repeatedly ignoring BLP warnings, evading blocks by using numerous open proxies and repeatedly posting personal attacks against a number of editors - this has been going on since the end of April. However, the user now claims to be working with others on an external forum to coordinate further attacks on Wikipedia articles (diff). It would be helpful if editors could watchlist Glenn Greenwald, How Would a Patriot Act?, Michael Barone (pundit) and Sockpuppet (Internet) for a while. -- ChrisO 09:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted! --Haemo 09:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Ryulong (who never seems to sleep!) - usual Rms sock stuff, NYC IP address, etc - Alison ☺ 10:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

216.194.0.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com, currently stalking and reverting my edits, including reverting back to this egregious BLP violation. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:13, 11 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#Politics again. 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 - Alison ☺ 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)

Wikiboxatgmail (talk · contribs · logs)

Resolved

Wikiboxatgmail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Ryulong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for reason – Single purpose account to promote a non-notable group/object – This user had created an article – 10 dollar e-reader, which obviously was spam and fits under WP:CSD#A7 criterion. The problem which I see with the block is that Wikiboxatgmail was not warned even once before the block. His article was deleted and he was blocked *poof!*. Wikiboxatgmail, who is a newbie user, has over an email, informed me that he had created an account Dejabox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was also blocked, although I am not sure about the reasons, as it had been created on 4th June, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry. He had previously created another account which has a fair amount of productive edits – Bomardv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). My contention is that, as this user was blocked without any prior notice or warning, his block should be undone and policies explained on his talk page, so as to assist him to become a valuable user. In any case, should he start re-creating the deleted article again, he can be blocked. Relevant discussions – [107], [108]. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am only going to be on for a few more minutes, so I will state my own case before this whole thing gets blown out of proportion.

Wikiboxatgmail was blocked for the very reasons stated in my block message. He was here to write a page on a proposed project that he is working on and involved with, and then use it to link back to his own home page, which is currently linked on my user talk as well as Nick's. The only reason that his account was created was to promote his object and not contribute to the encyclopedia in any other fashion. While there was no knowledge of the other account (the one from December/January) and that one was used properly, the Wikiboxatgmail one had not been. He, was as I saw it, spamming, and when he posted to this board to try and keep the article on his personal project that he has linked from his personal webpage, I saw the spamming even more, and blocked, and deleted the article, a redirect he made for the article, as well as a disambiguation page that was essentially a soft redirect to the article, and the images off of his website that were for the article.

When he responded to the block message with, "It has become obvious that you misuse your rights as an administrator to compensate and promote yourself I will recreate the article and come back and talk to you" I contacted a checkuser via e-mail to see if he had any other accounts, and Dejabox was uncovered. I didn't want to have another MyWikiBiz on our hands, so I blocked the Dejabox account, as well. If the "second chance" he is given is accepted, I will not interfere with his actions, but if I do see the article again, and he's the source, I will block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 12:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators and established users alike are supposed to leave appropriate notifications and warning messages before blocking or reporting for blocks. This user was not even warned once. And in the end, you fished and got another one of his account, which neither has any edits nor is liable for abusive sockpuppetry. I think his statement on the alleged abuse of your tools cannot be said to be entirely inappropriate, since you chose to block him without talking. What else would you expect from a newbie user? On what basis are you making the Wikibiz connection? I ask for another administrator to look over the situation and unblock as soon as possible. The block can be restored if Wikiboxatgmail is genuinely disruptive, but from what I saw on the talk page of the article deleted, he was trying to engage into discussions with another user. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but from the prior messages left on his talk page, he was told to go about things other ways, and then came here (or WP:AN, check his contribs) to try and get his way and retain the article. If you want to unblock him, fine. I'm getting tired of being scrutinized for these kind of blocks where I use my discretion on newish accounts that act somewhat disruptively.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 13:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I will leave him a note on his talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully endorse Ryulong's actions here. While maybe 1 in 100 spammers and trolls might be reformed into a useful editor, it is not worth treating the other 99 with kid gloves to get the 1. I don't believe for a second that Wikiboxatgmail didn't come here specifically to abuse the system, and should thus be blocked on site. --Spike Wilbury 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things: 1) We don't like email addresses in the username. 2) We don't like many uses of the word Wiki in the username. 3) certainly, we don't want it associated with a commercial, most likely for-profit, business. WP:USER block anyone? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

-jkb-'s repeated revealing of my personal data

Since 23 December 2003 I used to have another account (V. Z.), but I dropped it, because -jkb- used it as a pretext for wikistalking and harassing me.

I have to choose another account (Zacheus). But -jkb- had spied it and since that time he use it for repeated revealing my real name (last time here, although he was warned not to that: "First, there is no reason you need to continually bring up V. Z.'s former name. All his edits are reattributed to User:V. Z., and the harassment policy specifically mentions not bringing up user's real names after a name change. You may certainly point out that User:V. Z. now uses the account User:Zacheus, and you may have a case to make that V. Z./Zacheus are disruptive and harassing you. But please do it without using his real name." by Thatcher131

That's why I seek his ban to edit the Wikipedia. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to add that -jkb- called me a vandal ("the deletion supported some more vandals who were forcing the deletion here and also in other wikipedias; two of them, User:Zacheus and the user editing like 71.99.xxxxx"), which is the personal attack. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it will be an arbcom case but with him accusing you of the same. If they accept the case, that will be the best place to thrash this out. --Fredrick day 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See please Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Personal attacks / publishing of personal data by user Zacheus etc., thx, -jkb- 15:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well, see also the answer on User talk:Jimbo Wales#my statement to a deletion fyi, :-), -jkb- 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pretty bold of jkb to file an arbitration case against VZ for revealing personal information when jkb has done exactly the same thing today. I have half a mind to ban them both. Thatcher131 15:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what did I do bad? Have I repeatedly breached -jkb-'s privacy? Obviously, I did not. —Zacheus ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 16:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism only "Cool Cat" accounts

• Tom cat is cool (talk · contribs)
• CoolCatzzzz (talk · contribs)

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. Funpika 21:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Armenian allotria

Can someone talk to / deal with Alex mond (talk · contribs)? 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 ... - Alison ☺ 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

More H.E. socks to block

H.E. is disrupting Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/His_excellency with Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs), after CheckUser confirmed that Ibn Shah (talk · contribs) was identical to MomoShomo (talk · contribs). (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 Hisexcellencyreturns (talk · contribs) 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)

Category move that hasn't happened

Resolved

Hi. A category move that I proposed has been agreed at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Queen.27s_University 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)

Physical threats between students

Resolved

I have just blocked Silver Fang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 // ☯ // 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)

Offensive user names and biased non-discussions

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)[109]

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. ^(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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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 ([110]), 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. ^(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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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". ^(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? ^(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. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

'Tis odd that it was closed by a participant in the discussion. Maybe that's just me. --Ali'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. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:55, 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. ^(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'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. ^(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. ^(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. ^(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? ^(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? ^(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 WilyD 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. ^(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 Wright^OBJECTION! 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 Wright^OBJECTION! 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. WilyD 21:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Break 1, because I hate scrolling up

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)

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 Wright^OBJECTION! 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 WilyD 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in this sense, the user is using it as an adjective, not a noun -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 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 Wright^OBJECTION! 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 Wright^OBJECTION! 21:56, 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. WilyD 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)

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

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 Wright^OBJECTION! 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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 ([111]) and the Talk:Stroke order page ([112]). 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. ^(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)

Manplush (talk · contribs) - 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 [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. ([[113]]). In addition, there are several generic vandalism warnings for the user, all of which have been ignored. -AtionSong 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)