Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive741

Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Original section header: "Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing. Don't like an edit? Call them a sock! I don't like Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, they must be socks of each other! Hitler then would be leader of the USSR!"

I usually just read Wikipedia. Every time I edit a little, incivility causes me to leave. I have decided to edit but again I see that it is hopeless. As administrators, you should try to put an end to this Wikipedia nonsense.

Problems include: 1. If people don't like an editor, just call them a sock. Some sez guy, who is a sock of GrouchoPython, called me a sock just because I made some useful suggestions that he didn't like.

2. I made some very good suggestions to the Obama article but there is a knee jerk reaction to revert them, not even discuss them. Then the discussion is hidden in a collapsable box. What kind of hospitality is that? It borders on incivility.

2a. These suggestions include not jumping back and forth from year to year in the intro. For example, the last version talked about Obama in college and law school, jumps to Senate then jumps back to law school and jumps back to a House run (in between law school and his senate run). If this were a school paper, that section would get an F yet this is called a Featured Article. Get real and at least consider my good suggestions and discuss them.

2b. Obamacare is not mentioned at all. Even if you hate the word, thousands of articles have it, not the formal name. So a brief mention of the word "obamacare" should be mentioned. In that section, there is detailed accounts on the date it was passed by the House and Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with the biography of Obama. Yet some important changes are omitted. (FYI, the 1099 requirement, the Medicaid co-pay proposal, the free birth control requirement recently enacted).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let's have administrators reading this try to solve the incivility problem, the false sock accusation problem, and possible ways to have good suggestions, like mine, considered and discussed not just reverted and responded with sock accusations. After all, we are trying to write a good encyclopedia, not a bad amateur blog!

On the other hand, I've read WP enough that I know that people like to be cruel and do bad things. Therefore, you can edit Wikipedia yourself. I will just read it and not fight an uphill battle to do good. Midemer (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue that requires an administrator? That's what this board is for. If you have an issue with the content of an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If there is a content dispute that cannot get resolved on the article's talk page, take it to WP:DRN for content dispute resolution. If you have a broad policy concern, raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But this appears to be wrong noticeboard for your issue - it does not make policy, and it is not for solving content disputes. Singularity42 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's up to the community to decide whether your suggestions are good. Of course you think they are, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, invoking Godwin's Law instantly in the topic header? Tsk, tsk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

READ GODWIN'S LAW. It says arguments will result in comparing one side's beliefs with the belief's of Hitler or Nazis. No, I did not say that other editors are Hitler or have similar beliefs. I am not Hitler and do not have Nazi beliefs. Midemer (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, I agree. The community should decide. However, it is incivility to squash discussion as has been done. Collapsing discussion into a box, essentially censoring and closing it is bad. Then falsely accusing sockpuppetry.

Administrators should put a stop to this incivility, threatening blocking, if necessary.

You see, the knee jerk reaction in WP is to say "Bushranger and Singularity42, you two sort of agree so you are socks of each other". How would you like to be accused of that?

WP needs to think of a better way. As for me, I will let the bullies and the clowns have their way. I've made good suggestions and smart people would discuss this, even if it is not adopted. Best of luck to Amateur Wikipedia, I mean, English Wikipedia. Midemer (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing you can do to help is to avoid characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, as you did here [1]. Your edit summary was the opposite of AGF. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I said it was an accident, that this editor deleted a lot of other stuff. That editor's edit summary said he was concerned about one little word but deleted a lot of stuff, maybe because he used twinkle. Midemer (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Without a specific incident or specific complaint about a particular editor, you are simply making too broad a complaint here. It isn't that nobody cares, just that there are steps one takes and in the correct way and location. This sounds like it might well just be a content dispute which can be directed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can bring up this situation for the community to discuss. If you have a problem with a specifc editor or editors you should then bring it here. You must show good faith in others by not overreaching in your complaint and sounding like you are just mad because they are not letting your contributions stand. This happens often in the more controversial articles. I suggest cooling down and resetting you frame of mind and then deciding if you have a content dispute or a probelm with individual behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I smell a troll. First, is this tasty edit summary. He then goes on to state that he thought it might have been a 'friendly joke'. For what it's worth. Ishdarian 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has 78 edits in almost 5 years. Only 26 of those 78 were to articles. See [2].--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I filed a SPI report here. The similarities are obvious. I have a bad internet connection right now(in and out), so please excuse the mistakes. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DD2k has a history of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit. DD2K makes no attempt to discuss edits, which is the way WP is supposed to be. I looked at DD2K's talk page and he falsely accused User:Jack Paterno of being a sock. I say falsely accused because there is no CU data that shows he is a sock. DD2K just yells loud enough until someone thinks "if it is said many times, it must be true." If this is WP, I want no part of WP. Congratulations, you have just chased away a good editor with good ideas. Midemer (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to assume good faith about the OP here. To me it looks like someone who wants to contribute, but chose a very bad place to start (articles are prominent political figures are very tricky) and then was greeted with contempt. Midemer, I encourage you stay around and help build Wikipedia. For your own sake, I encourage you to stay away from Obama, Romney, Santorum, etc. articles until you've gained experience. Dealing with these articles is a complete headache even for experienced editors, as they are constantly edited (both in good faith and otherwise) by people with a POV who may or may not be aware of their own bias. If you feel you must contribute to these articles, I suggest you use the talk page to discuss potential changes by expressing your opinions in the most straightforward way possible (i.e with zero reference to other people's perceived biases). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two key things from my very own user page:

1. Who are all these socks (essay)
2. First rule of Sockpuppet Accusations: Put up or shut up. Either file your case, or STFU

Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I admit that my sympathy for people who complain about the Incivilities! Done! To! Them!, using uncivil terms to do so, is limited. As is often the case, the OP believes he writes with the voices of angels, and while there is no reason on the limited information supplied to presume he is anything other than a brilliant political commentator, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you will wind up on the minority side, whereupon your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Unless the OP is alleging his attempts at discussion are being censored off the pertinent talk pages - which of course would be a serious violation - this isn't a matter for AN/I. If (as appears more likely to be the case) no one's paying attention to the OP's POV, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines requiring editors to do so in writing. Ravenswing 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly Congratulations! to the clue-full editor who re-factored the Header, thus contributing to a calmer discussion at this page. This ought to be done as a matter of course, if necessary.

Secondly, Bad Wikipedia Habits do result in inferior articles. This editor has made a legitimate comment that editors who shoot from the hip with accusations of sock-puppetry are being un-civil, and doing a dis-service to en.Wikipedia. This sort of tactic employed to "win" content disputes is, um, despicable. And too prevalent, see above.

Can we please work on, and concentrate in a focused way on improving articles, and only on improving articles, not on attacking strangers? NewbyG ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That would, indeed, be nice, and if the OP has any specific complaints about the behavior of specific editors (backed up, hopefully, by specific diffs and/or the specific articles in question), as he has been repeated exhorted to do, no doubt any such allegations will receive the proper scrutiny. With only two dozen edits in articlespace over five years, though, you'll no doubt forgive people for skepticism that the OP has indeed met with a recurring pattern of hostility against his edits. Ravenswing 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban DarknessShines TopGun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently the community decided that an interaction ban between Users DarknesShines and TopGun was an appropriate course of action. I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator review the following history of possible gaming the system.

Users notified of interaction ban Top Gun at 11:54, 24 February 2012, Darkness Shines at 11:54, 24 February 2012.

Both users are extensively and acrimoniously involved in an RFC. I request that both users be banned from the RFC.

DBigXRay makes his/her first edit at this heated RFC.Revision as of 14:17, 24 February 2012.

DBXR awards User:DS a barnstar at 04:37, 25 February 2012.

User:TG nominates for deletion one of the few articles that User:DBXR has created.

User:DS joins TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion (whether the article should be deleted or not) here.

A Sock Puppet investigation on user [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray|DBigXray] seems to indicate there have been some more SPI's, so that can be looked into also, but additional requests for sock puppet investigations have been added.[3]

I request that User:TopGun be blocked for a period of time for gaming the system for the deletion nomination, and I request both users, User:TopGun, and User:DarknessShines, be blocked for evading their interaction bans.

I request that both users be banned from participating in the RFC. They are using it to continue their bad interactions with each other. If there really are underlying issues they will not be resolved with either one of them commenting.

I request that both users be banned from nominations for deletion of any articles that either user or associates have worked on, maybe any AFDs at all. I request that both users be banned from interacting on an AFD that the other has nominated or participated in. Maybe any AFDs at all.

I have no good faith left to assume with these users. This is a waste of everyone's time.

Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've in no way violated the interaction ban. I saw a post about a school on the help desk [4] (where I reply regularly), and I nominated the school article for deletion as it did not have any reliable sources. There was no interaction with DS. I had some debate with another user DBigXray about the sources where I discussed with him the sources of the article in much detail without heating up the discussion on my side. Although DS joined in to that discussion, I made no replies to him and did not mention him. I did include the sources he provided in my analysis which did not lead to any interaction either. I'll also note that this is the only AfD I've nominated as of yet (and it was never edited by DS) and any reasonable editor will say that this nomination was not out of normal... this report is baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with TopGun that my report is entirely baseless. I should have included that in the initial wording. If this was the only AfD TopGun has ever made, and as the only AfD nominated, not out of order at all, then he should not have used his "only AfD nominated as of yet," for an article by someone interacting with DarknessShines. I stand by all my requests above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

None of my replies in the Afd are heated or to DS, but to the creator DBigXray. And they are around the policies and sources. Fortunately for me, DbigXray himself specifies that I got to the article through his comment on the help desk. So this is not at all about DS. He is the one who entered there without any previous edits, and I could not have anticipated that. Still I did not interact. And my ban is with DS, not with any arbitrary person who interacts with him. About the RFC, I don't think DS made any comment there, only I did on the references posted there by some one else... are you even checking what you are posting? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support banning the wrongdoer

(as my name has been taken above) i would give an explanation The above user Topgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the article for deletion at once. and then he opened 3 Sockpuppet cases against me the 3 IPS in question are

1. 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
2. 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
3. 180.149.53.194 is my IP when i forgot to login , i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed[5]

IopGun seems to be motivated against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past and had tried to get be blocked numerous times i can give all the evidence if needed be --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is following your contributions, thanks for clarifying that I came to the article after replying you at the helpdesk. This is not hounding and the nomination was on its own merits. I've filed the SPI per the reasons given there. Any content disputes I had with this editor are long idle/resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes TopGun has been hounding me since my return to editing and following my comments on RFC on indians in afghanistan
• another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments on talk pages or mislead admins from his own wrong doings ,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I started (requested) that RFC, for everyone's information. This can not be considered hounding by any approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I was actually trying to help this user on how to find sources, this is the comment I get in reply [6]. And then wikireader appears out of nowhere (really suspicious now), who always makes a comment on me instead of content like the current one. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Another wrong and misleading attempt . see the timestamp of wikireader's comment . it was earlier than my comment. exactly opposite to what you claim above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That was in reference to the nomination, not your last comment. I specified when I referred to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another misleading and wrong comment. Topgun clearly gives the link of the comment he is talking about --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seriously loosing my patience with this. Are you all serious? Pseudofusulina - how is it a violation of a topic ban for TopGun to interact with a user he is not banned from interacting with? All of you get off ANI and find something better to do, you're wasting everyone's time. When there is a real interaction ban violation between the users that are banned from interacting with each other, than you can come back. The rest of this RFC nonsense isn't ANI's problem.--v/r - TP 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are interacting on each others' AFDs. If you don't edit in their area, you don't get the delight of going to a page where both have edited, where they come up with an AFD for the others' article (currently DS), or they are trying to save an article the other has AFDed (TG). Since they cannot be kept away from each other even with a ban, I'll just leave their space (wikipedia) to them. An interaction ban that doesn't include blocking the interacting users from gaming the systems is a joke. Everywhere they do this, they are piling this nonsense on wikipedia, if it isn't dealt with now at AN/I, that's where it will go, all over the Pakistan articles, RFCs, AFDs, talk pages. However, I can solve that by giving up on editing. I don't edit that much anyhow, and retention of editors isn't an issue, more come along all the time. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an interaction ban with each other not a ban from editing or discussing content with any one at all... can't be more clearer than TP. You dragged us to ANI. Come back when you have a diff where I or DS reply to each other, mention each other or comment on each other. I can not simply leave any topic I was already editing just because DS entered the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions. This report is completely unfounded.--v/r - TP 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban violation

• On a side note, I'll like to report a clear (one-sided) ban violation from DS to which I've made no response:

This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. DS has now nominated [7] this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per the article talk page note he made before the ban to me and acknowledging it there now. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot comment on Pseudof's speculations, but as far as the AfD nominated by DS on Pak Watan is concerned (an article which TopGun contributed to and of which there is evidence at Talk:Pak Watan that DS has gone there uninvited before), this is outrageous and inexcusable stuff from Darkness Shines. I think this one's a no-brainer where gaming the system may apply (nominating an article for a deletion discussion, while having knowledge that the article is of interest to another user with whom there is an interaction ban). I will again reiterate my suggestion that a topic ban on Darkness Shines on all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles which are of interest to TopGun and where DS has barged in unwelcome) should be in order. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - DS said that the nomination would likely happen several days before the iban. Mar4d and TopGun have been emailing each other. Neither of these things are wrong, but in the interests of clarity ... - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment DoOnce the interaction ban was placed, both players needed to stop treating the entire wikipedia community as if we are morons and cannot see they are gaming the system to circumvent the ban and that neither one intends to leave the other alone, community ban or not. So, I missed this game play by DS, catching only TG's. I'm more interested in keeping TG in line because of his editing contributions in an area I see as needing work. OK, I didn't spend 5 hours getting correct every detail of their bad faith interactions to circumvent the ban. OK they were both guilty of gaming and violating the ban, rather than only one gaming. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD, don't comment on each others' AfDs, don't participate in AfDs at all, don't interact with each other. Who isn't tired of this? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate the ban even remotely, you need to read WP:IBAN. Don't imply a cascading IBAN by yourself. Read TP's comment to your bad report above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would recommend Pseudofusulina read WP:IBAN. I gave notice 10 days before nominating that article that it would go to AFD if sources were not found[8] I believe this is ample time to prove the terms notability and whether or not it is what the article says it is. I hounded nobody to that article, I got there from the what links here on the article of the made up word Pakophilia as can be seen from my removal of the temrHere And I got to the made up term after following it from Here. There are no IBAN violations here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment While DarknessShines did indicate an intent to AfD before the interaction ban, nominating it after the ban was placed is, in my opinion, a violation of the ban. However, perhaps a warning would be better at this point rather than a block. TopGun's deletion nomination is, at best, pointy. A warning there would do as well. But, I do support banning both editors from the RfC in question. Their views are clear and their further comments are only muddying the issue. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I formally supported my interaction ban with DS so that we don't interact any more (which means I don't want to), and I requested for that RFC to be initiated, so I'm a key participant. There have also been no interactions there or anywhere else... I think that is enough to get a good faith? As far the RFC itself is concerned, there are some serious referencing issues which I pointed out... purely content dispute. About this Afd with ban violation, I think it should be outright closed/reverted like any other edits of a ban violation and made sure this doesn't happen again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Xavexgoem and countless others on 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Accuser's own edit summary attacks are almost beyond the pale.  Frank  |  talk  04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at his edits. He is a POV-pusher.

He falsely accused me of sockpuppetry of being editors I've never heard of. I have been reading WP for years.

When you don't like an edit (even though mine are well thought through) and then you falsely accuse people of sockpuppetry, you are being incivil and should be banned. If DD2K were a grown-up, he would discuss things like saying "I disagree with your suggestions and think the edit should be like this....".

Only an incivil person or juvenile would think "I don't like him.....he is bad....he is a sock." If everyone was this way, we'd look at President Assad of Syria and think "he is bad" and then make a complaint to WP saying "Assad is a sock, ban him".

To disagree with an edit and, instead of discussing it, to say to the other person is a sock is bad behavior and should result in DD2K being blocked. As far as I know, this Gaydenver editor (whom DD2K falsely accuses me of being a sock) never edited about the Obama 1099 issue (which makes Obama look good...I admit I am an Obama fan) or made suggestions to make the introduction of the article (lede) chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DD2K disagrees with an edit, does not discuss it, but makes false sockpuppet accusations. For this incivility, he should be blocked. At least block him 72 hours pending SP investigations. Midemer (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see on the talk page of DD2K that he wrote a sarcastic edit summary of "For Pete's Sake", did not discuss things, then after the person tried to discuss things with him (user:Jack Paterno), successfully got that person blocked permanently. He falsely accused him of being a sock and there is no CU data to support this assertion. This shows that DD2K has a record of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit (and makes no attempt to discuss). This kind of behavior is very destructive and harmful to WP. DD2K should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind. If he is not, I predict DD2K will keep on doing this as he has done before. I see he did it in Nov 2011, is doing it in Feb 2012, and keeps on....This is disruption. Midemer (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The checkuser has responded. I am not a sock. This other sock person is, according to posts, an employee of the City of Denver. I am in Los Angeles. DD2K, in an archived CU request of Gaydenver, also accused User:UT Professor, an employee of the University of Texas (Austin?). This shows that DD2K is really grabbing at straws. He must be blocked for massive disruption extending over years. Midemer (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Midemer, the clerk (not checkuser) said nothing of the sort. He simply pointed out the technical impossibility of proving you are a sock at the moment. Regardless, there's no merit to your complaint. You came to the Barack Obama article and made some changes. When those changes were reverted, you went to the talk page and insisted your version was better in the complete absence of sources, in addition to insulting everyone who edits the article. If you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith, especially of those who disagree with you, you should avoid content disputes, or perhaps avoid Wikipedia entirely. I can't fault DD2K for assuming bad faith on someone who acts like a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is false. I made some suggestions. I did not constantly revert and insist on editing the same thing. DD2K is the one who should be blocked since he has falsely accused people on multiple occasions, whenever he doesn't like an edit. I looked at his talk page. He reverted someone's edit and instead of explaining it just wrote "For Pete's Sake" as an edit summary. He later became more sadistic and just falsely accused the person of being a sock. That kind of disruption should cause DD2K to be blocked.

Someguy1221, you and I are discussing things now. This is the way it should be. I don't just start accusing you of being DD2K's sock and get you blocked. See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me, and a disruptive editor, like DD2K. Midemer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You didn't provide any links and it's not clear from your contrib history (or DD2K) but if a checkuser (and possibly a clerk) felt there was a legitimate case to consider and ran a checkuser request, then it's hard to imagine DD2K did anything blockable, unless they lied about evidence. Checkuser requests aren't used for fishing and by and large will only be run of the checkuser feels there is a valid reason to do so. The feeling of another user that there is valid reason does not significantly affect that decision. In other words, the fact that DD2K may have been wrong here doesn't indicate they are being disruptive. BTW, you have failed to notify Midemer of the discussion as the orange box clearly says you should, I have done so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it...but wasn't Midemer the editor that started this discussion? - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right I got confused and checked the wrong person. Apologies to Midemer for incorrect claim. Well the part about Midemer not notifying Midemer was technically correct, but there's no requirement to notify yourself that you initiated an ANI discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found the checkuser request now. Gaydenver apparently has a history of one sockpuppetry so saying someone is a sockpuppet of Gaydenver is itself hardly disruptive. Continously accusing people of being a sockpuppet (even if the person you connect them to is a sockpuppet) without evidence may be. The checkuser request was declined because the Gaydenver case is stale so that's not relevant here. (Note as I said above if the checkuser request is actually run, that likely means there was sufficient evidence.) I make no comment on the evidence presented, but you'd need more then one case for this to come close to being blockable. The headers of this page, other then telling you to notify people you discuss also discuss ways you can attempt to resolve problems with another party like a RFC or WQA. From what Someguy1221 has said who appears to have looked in to the case more, I suggest you be aware of WP:Boomerang before trying to pursue any problems with DD2K again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). Hello, Midemer, this is Shirt "Mr always nice to everybody and never says anything in the slightest bit snarky" 58. You wrote:See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me... You are either delusional or a troll.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Shirt, if you were an admin, would you block indefinitely? (Just throwing this out there for the purpose of discussion--finding "a way forward".) Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, if I were an WP:ADMIN, I would immediately recuse myself from any sysop action as WP:INVOLVED, come back as an editor, strike the comment as a personal attack, apologise to the editor, and talk to them about how to improve the project.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

tpg on obama:talk

Will someone please revert [9]? There's nothing in WP:FORUM or WP:TPG that supports an involved editor hatting or stuffing comments they don't like into an archive. Note: I did remove some comments that we totally off topic per TPG. Nobody Ent 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the Obama page slipped off my watchlist. Is Gaydenver back as yet another sock? Tarc (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See the above section, and the one two above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If somebody thinks that a) unsourced claims, b) offensive rants, and c) personal opinions do not violate WP:FORUM, go ahead and revert. Might become precedent though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's not supported by a specific wording (although as you say, it does allow the complete removal of OT comments), I have seen in place archiving, quick archiving etc being used be in a particularly active talk page like that concerning a controversial recent event. Whether it was needed here I'm not going to comment but since I don't feel there's a good reason to keep the comments, I'm reluctant to revert. Incidentally why did you want an administrator to do the reverting? Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an admin; I'm 1rr and would rather have another editor make the revert in the spirit of consensus. Nobody Ent 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess my point wasn't obvious. I meant since this is at ANI, it seems you must be requesting the help of an admin and if not, what is this doing at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The danger of archiving is that it can be abused very easily. Don't like an opinion, particularly if it is very good....remove it either by reverting or archiving. This is very evil. Obama is a liberal and is against book burning. I am against book burning. Fox News fans love book burning.

EXECURTIVE SUMMARY Administrators should be aware that disruptive users will quickly revert talk page comments, put them in a hat (collapse them), or quickly archive them. If they do this, that is very disruptive and can start fights. Because it is disruptive, users who do these things should be blocked immediately. DD2K is a user that does this. He's not the only one. Midemer (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Midemer (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've given Midemer a time-out for this edit. I am open to comment if anybody thinks I am being too harsh, but it seemed to me like a classic WP:POINT violation. --John (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaaa wedontdotimeoutblockomgwtfbbq. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest Midemer stop bringing up DD2K in to every single discussion as it's starting to sound like harassment. Although DD2K may have done the initial archiving, the reversion NotEnt was asking us to remove was not done by them. And I note they really failed to notify DD2K having checked the right contrib history this time. I don't feel the previous notification of discussion is sufficient since this is a different topic. However I'm not going to bother with the notification since it seems unnecessary given that Midemer was quickly blocked and no one else is interested in discussion DD2K in yet another thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly after looking at his comments I'm thinking a longer block is going to be needed until Midemer is capable of comprehending that Wikipedia is a collegial, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move of "Health" --> "Human Health"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Moved back by Barek. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article formerly entitled Health has been moved to Human Health by Autoarbitaster. I can find no consensus for this move (it does not appear to have been discussed at all). I have no idea whether this is an advisable change. However, there appear to be a number of other problems with it. Chief among is that the new title does not follow the policy for Article title format in that it does not use lower case after the first word. There also appear to be (many) problems with redirects and disambiguation. I recommend that this change be reverted until there has been discussion of the intent of this move and general agreement that it is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I stupidly (albeit trying to help) created a section to discuss on the article's talk page...but with a suggestion in my post to "change" the article to the way it already was (sheesh, been one of those nights). Anyway, I struck my comment, but the section is there if anyone really has some further suggestions for the changing the title/redirects etc. since that's where the discussion should take place if so. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that this has been marked as "resolved" but I thought I would give some advice for any future such "incidents". When someone makes a move such as this "without discussion", it's called a bold edit and the best way to handle it, if there's an objection, is to simply move it back and invite the mover to discuss the move, no harm no foul. It only becomes an "incident" if the mover refuses to discuss the issue constantly repeating the action and/or blows a gasket. Only then should one consider "reporting" the action to one of the noticeboards such as WP:DRN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also fine to take it here if someone is deliberately redirect-scorching by moving pages and editing the subsequent redirect to prevent it being moved back, but otherwise what Ron Ritzman says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Redirect scorching", eh? *files away term for later use* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacob Bronowski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have deleted his name from the list of Senior Wranglers (Mathemtics Tripos, Cambridge University) as such rankings were abolished in 1910, when he would have been 2 years old. I have corrected the entry and don't know who did it. They won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.171.149 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a long list of "Senior Wranglers since 1910", so a) you are wrong, and b) Why delete just this one name, rather than the whole section? And in any case, this is not a matter for AN?I, since no admin action is appropriate or requested. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

31.47.9.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This anonymous user continues with exact the editing pattern he/she has been repeatedly warned of. He/she adds unsourced material (diff), even to BLPs (diff, diff), and disrupts by re-reverting when getting reverted (hist). The user's talk page is full of warnings and even a final warning. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeffrey Lichtman (edit talk links history)

Can somebody take a look at this article? Assadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeadetly reverting good-faith edits and mislabeling them as vandalism, and keeps inserting apparent non-neutral material and original research. Also, Assadson might be a sockpuppet of DiltonDoiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Klilidiplomus+Talk 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A newly registered editor, User:RexRoth1, has entered the fray, his only edit to being to revert my last rollback. I've posted a 3RR warning on Assadson's page, and to satisfy WP:ANEW, opened a topic on the Lichtman Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is RexRoth1 is now editing on behalf of Assaadson based on the timing of my 3RR warning. I don't normally accuse editors of sock puppetry without opening a report, but, in this case, both editors should be blocked, regardless of the sock puppetry issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked them both, irrelevantly of the SPI issue they are both in flagrant violation of 3RR. Mfield (Oi!) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that they will continue to open new accounts as soon as they are blocked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If they both come back as themselves after the 24-hour block, I will file an SPI report. As for any future new accounts, one possibility is an SPI report, and another is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already semied the page for a fortnight. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio, one less thing to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:78.101.214.226—Possible legal threat

This user appears to have made a legal threat in this edit summary. It also looks like a possible impersonation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thought it best to report to you folks. NTox · talk 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the user was making a broad reference to things like abuse response, and what happens to people who vandalize. I see "Thanks Jurisdiction Wikipedia" in the summary, but I don't think he was trying to imply that he was part of WMF at all in the summary. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I looked over the contribs and saw him reporting a vandal to AIV. He seems to simply be trying to revert vandalism. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think you may be right. Nevertheless, I was troubled by the legal comment and thought it best that someone more experienced take a look. Looks like it's been taken care of. NTox · talk 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

YehudaMizrahi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

YehudaMizrahi is a persistent POV-pusher. He repeatedly makes the same changes at Palestinian people and Palestinian Christians, despite the fact that the sources cited in the article do not support his POV. He removes material from Ofra Haza without explanation. When confronted, he has insulted both RolandR and me (ben zonah means "son of a whore").

When he has been warned about edit-warring, YehudaMizrahi often logs out and continues to edit anonymously. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YehudaMedinaMizrahi/Archive for more information.

Would somebody please review the relevant history and take appropriate action against YehudaMizrah? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material this editor, using several IPs, frequently removes from Ofra Haza is the fact that she is of Yemeni origin, and plays Yemeni-influenced music. This editor has also removed the word "Yemeni" (or in some cases replaced it with the Hebrew version, "Teimani") from many food articles, including Malawach, Jachnun, Skhug and others; and has disruptively edited many dance articles, including Yemenite step, Hora (dance), Flamenco , Huayño and many more. These have been reverted by many different editors, few of whom have noticed the disruptive editing in other areas. I have reported him twice for sockpuppetry. Although my reports have been recognised as accurate and justified, no action has been taken because this editor's editing pattern involves spates of activity using a main account and several IPs (all registered in Hamilton, Ontario), followed by periods of inactivity. So, by the time reports are examined, the editor is not actually editing. But the overall pattern is both tendentious and disruptive, and the incivility towards both Malik and myself in itself deserves sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just invoked WP:NOTHERE and indeffed YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. If any admin thinks I was too heavy-handed, feel free to tweak the block settings. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So administrator Salvio giuliano blocked an editor participating in one of our most contentious topic areas who:

(1) repeatedly uses non-English phrases to call other editors "son of a whore", "wanker",

(2) uses non-English and English phrases to tell other editors "kiss my ass", and "go fuck yourself"

(3) logs out to continue, under various IP's, a long-term campaign to remove the word "Yemeni" from multiple articles.

WP:NOTHERE seems an accurate assessment: A good call on the block, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz & User:RolandR - Biased users not allowing sourced information but allowing non-sourced information from others

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have contributed a lot of information on youtube articles that User:Malik Shabazz has even decided to keep. At first he allowed one of my source on but after 2 months he took it away, since I was concerned I put my source again and he responded by already threatening me that he is going to block me. He is very rude and pushy.

As for User:RolandR, he leaves the Ofra Haza article without sources, he has allowed non-sourced sentences in Ofra Haza's article, but when I put a sentence on Ofra Haza's Teimanim background with sources, he took it off and right away he messaged me threatening me in a rude way that he was going to block me. All I'm doing is trying to contribute to wikipedia, he is also accusing me of other things which are not true. He has issues and his articles are clearly biased since he is allowing non-sourced information. For anyone who is concerned, please do check out the Ofra Haza article. I already reported these users. Please do report these people for a non-bias wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehudaMizrahi (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This and this are unacceptable. His reactions were downright civil compared to your's. If gentile Christians were present as well (which the first source indicated), it's unbalanced to limit it to only Jewish Christians, so Malik is correct to have reverted you and asked you to stop.

Calling someone Malaka (see Malakas, folks) is also totally unacceptable. As for this, is is indeed our business, because it is unacceptable to use different addresses for sockpuppetry here. As for claiming that he's allowing uncited material, the first source in the article says "Ms. Haza proudly asserted her background as a Yemenite Jew." Another also says "Ofra Haza was born on November 19, 1957 in the Hatikvah quarter of Tel Aviv to parents who had immigrated from Yemen". Your claim that the Yemeni bit is totally inaccurate. Furthermore, your attempted change reverted here cites a source which again says Haza was one of nine children born to parents who had emigrated from Yemen" and at no point does the word "Teimanim" appear anywhere in the source you cite.

In short, not only were Malik and RolandR right to revert you and let you know that you will be blocked if you keep it up, you were wrong to misuse sources, make various personal attacks, and claim that they were the ones causing sourcing problems.

I recommend backing off, or an admin would be completely justified in blocking you after one more screw up. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not only from Ofra Haza that this user and his many sockpuppets is removing the word "Yemeni", but also from many more, including Bo'az Ma'uda, Malawach, Israeli folk dancing, Achinoam Nini, Jachnun], Yemenite step and several others. This slow-moving tendentious editing is extremely disruptive, and is wasting the time of very many editors. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange socking and edit warring

This strange edit warring discussed here a couple of weeks ago has reared its head again. Revertorium (talk · contribs) and several IPs in the 69.171.160 range are edit warring, with Revertorium claiming that the IPs are socks of the banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs). Anyone know anything about this? Should we block both? (see also WT:PLANTS#Orchid_wars) SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for 24 hours (IP 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)) as they were being disruptive. If anyone knows anything about this though, please unblock/lengthen blocks as necessary. SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A knee-jerk block without any investigation? Bad move. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it was preventative, not a punishment per WP:BLOCK. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

• Revertorium (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Won'tBeBackAHAHAHA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IsThisReallyWhatWeWant? (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JeffMerkey'sGhost (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, I have made Revertorium's block indefinite. --MuZemike 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This accusation is blatantly false. Several admins know exactly which banned user loves to accuse me of socking, and I'd say that is who is behind the specific edits from the 69.171.160.0/24 range. My guess is that the named socks above are User:Vigilant. My guesses and 50 cents will buy you a coke. I keep this account as a sort-of doppelganger now (with very rare exceptions like this edit), and I edit regularly now under a new account; names have long-since been disclosed to the WP Functionaries. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where the hell do you find a Coke for 50 cents these days? --NellieBly (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On one day in 2003 you could get it for a nickel. [10] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for clarifying what was going on. I don't anyone any of us at WP:PLANTS would have suspected a banned user faking a revert war with himself. Circéus (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, this exact thing happens surprisingly (disturbingly?) often... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Two different banned users. One using the IP range noted above, the other using Vigilant, Revertorium, etc. Both edit-warring against each other. Over the past year, I have been accused, without any evidence, of socking from many different accounts (one of which was a poor attempt at impersonation) and IP address by one of those banned users, which is why I chose to step in and refute this time. It seems like everywhere he goes, he sees socks that absolutely must be me, but he is sadly mistaken. I will now go back to my regular (and long ago properly disclosed to the Functionaries) account now, and leave this one as a doppelganger again.

As for 50 cents for Coke, well, it was 50 cents when I started using that saying back in the early 90's. I haven't made it keep up with inflation, because "that and a buck twenty-five will buy you a Coke" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Pfagerburg (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the 69.171.160.xx range again from six months. There was some discussion at WT:PLANTS, but it was agreed that it was probably a sensible course of action. Then the following conversation happened. It's pretty pointless as the range has been blocked, why is "Can'tWehaveADialog?" harping on it further? I mean, he's obviously not defending the IPs/users concerned. Can we get a IP check and if possible also a IP block on that one? I have an eery feeling that trolling of a sort is at play here, but as I mentioned to someone in private, I haven't really done enforcement for years now (the mop didn't turn out to be something I normally deal all that well with). Circéus (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to ask someone to do that! SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WT:PLANTS

Can we talk about this in just this one section without the banhammer falling immediately?

These are the IPs that have been used from the 69.171.160.* range to edit WP:PLANT articles, almost exclusively orchid articles:

Note also the common thread with Military Brat and anti mormon stuff intermixed with plant articles.

• 69.171.160.6 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.7 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.21 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.24 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.26 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.28 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.32 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.34 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.35 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.42 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.43 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.48 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.51 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.58 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.63 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.83 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.85 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.92 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.94 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.96 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.98 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.114 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.120 (talk · contribs) With military brat as well, making the link even stronger
• 69.171.160.134 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.144 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.150 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.151 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.152 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.153 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.157 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.164 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.165 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.168 (talk · contribs) Plus WP:ANI, "I am NOT Merkey" stuff
• 69.171.160.174 (talk · contribs) Plus Utah stuff where Merkey used to live
• 69.171.160.181 (talk · contribs) Not orchid, but still under WP:PLANT
• 69.171.160.183 (talk · contribs) Plus Bisexual erasure, Merkey's been on a "I'm bisexual" thing lately
• 69.171.160.186 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.187 (talk · contribs) Plus anti mormon stuff
• 69.171.160.192 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.194 (talk · contribs) Pus ANI stuff
• 69.171.160.200 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.201 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.209 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.210 (talk · contribs) Cactus
• 69.171.160.216 (talk · contribs) Ginseng
• 69.171.160.218 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.227 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.231 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.237 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.238 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.239 (talk · contribs) With military brat as well
• 69.171.160.242 (talk · contribs) Poppy
• 69.171.160.247 (talk · contribs)

IPs in the same range editing topics near and dear to Merkey's heart:

• 69.171.160.13 (talk · contribs) Edited anti-Mormon stuff, another Merkey strong hold
• 69.171.160.52 (talk · contribs) Linux, Pamela Jones(groklaw.net), etc
• 69.171.160.55 (talk · contribs) Anti-Mormon stuff
• 69.171.160.65 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.75 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.78 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.91 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.93 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.104 (talk · contribs) anti mormon
• 69.171.160.109 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.111 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.126 (talk · contribs) Pamela jones
• 69.171.160.127 (talk · contribs) Solera Networks a previous Merkey Employer
• 69.171.160.139 (talk · contribs) Solera Networks
• 69.171.160.141 (talk · contribs) Military brat, PTSD stuff
• 69.171.160.166 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.148 (talk · contribs) Pamela Jones
• 69.171.160.161 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.175 (talk · contribs) Making sock puppet allegations against someone
• 69.171.160.178 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.180 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.199 (talk · contribs) Military brat and grief stuff
• 69.171.160.202 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.207 (talk · contribs) Pamela Jones
• 69.171.160.219 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.224 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.232 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.234 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.235 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.255 (talk · contribs) Military brat

Take a look at the evidence compiled here. Jeff Merkey has gone to great lengths to insert (probably) copyrighted text into many articles using a wide array of IP addresses to mask his work.

Can we talk about this here and ANI without getting out the ban hammer?

Please note that there is text directly below the edit window that reads, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. "

Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think introducing yourself first would be the polite thing to do? What's this all about? Who the heck is Merkey in the first place. Using his name is not enough justification for mass reverts. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[11] Merkey's history. Poke around. Tons of sockpuppets, indef'd at lesast 20 times, legal threats, calling people's work, crazy stuff about gays and Mormons, the works. Also, [12] search for Merkey.

He has effectively polluted your orchid articles by adding tons of edits with no citations/sources over a wide range of IP addresses. Do what you will. Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian, this user is another sockpuppet of User:Revertorium and User:It'sJeffMerkeyYouFools from the Orchid Wars discussion above.--Tom Hulse (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read the section heading? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Lol. You want to have a "dialog" about how Jeff is using sockpuppets and is editing while banned... while you use sockpuppets and edit while banned? You can't see how ridiculous your postings are? I for one one would like to thank you for the free entertainment. This is better than a soap opera, lol. ;) --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one inserting thousands of edits of dubious copyright status into hundreds of articles on Wikipedia? Can't *you* see the difference? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mindjuicer and false accusations of sockpuppetry

Mindjuicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently topic banned from alt med articles per the thread towards the top of AN/I right now. He has taken to making false accusations of sockpuppetry against myself, User:SummerPhD and User:Famousdog on his talk page. I warned him here that this can be construed as harassment and explained that all three of us are established editors that edit many pages. He removed my message without responding and has left the accusations on his talk page. I'm not asking to have the user blocked, rather I would like these accusations to either be stricken or taken to WP:SPI and then stricken when it's confirmed that there is no socking. I will notify the user of this discussion momentarily. N^oformation ^Talk 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the user has been notified but removed the notification here. N^oformation ^Talk 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I wasn't going to bother SPIing you as I'm leaving WP for good but it seems you don't know when to stop. --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're leaving then blank your talk page and go. As long as you're still here and there are false accusations about me and other editors then it's something that has to be dealt with, sorry. N^oformation ^Talk 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are "suspicions of sock puppetry" and WP:SPI is "a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry", I'm not sure I can see any reason one of us (or should that be "one of me"?) cannot dispose of this by starting a thread there with MJ's accusation. Other than the complete waste of an investigator's time (which I'd imagine would be brief), I'd have no objection. Otherwise, whatever. MJ is, purportedly, gone. Problem, purportedly, solved. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Jehochman has blocked an IP editor for 48 hours, for a matter which was precipitated by user:jehochman, who is thus involved. 48 hours seems excessive. Indeed the block seems punitive, without further sensible explanation. NewbyG ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if you could link to the blocker, the blockee, and diff the precipitating event(s). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, broadband is playing up. See talk page for IP editor 90.179.235.249 . Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Convenience links: Jehochman (talk · contribs), 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs). I've also notified both editors, which you hadn't done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? The IP was disruptive, as explained in my block message, and then posted two unblock requests that were both were declined. Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not pursue this particular thread, Newbyguesses. Nothing good will come of it, and I understand that there is justifiable frustration over this matter that is not being adequately addressed. I am also frustrated; but I'm not about to open a thread like this when I know that the thread is completely doomed. Things will work themselves out - it'll be okay. Cheers... Doc talk 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page and explain concerns, calmly, with context, and any relevant evidence. Best practice is to attempt a discussion rather that coming straight here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I see no evidence of an "involvement" that would suggest that Jehochman could not rationally or objectively make an administrator's decision. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heh - well, I guess it's all in how you read the first paragraph of this. Perhaps the vague language should be "hammered out"? I see more misunderstandings on "involved" than perhaps any other policy point - especially among administrators. Doc talk 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• All too often "involvement" is invoked to attempt to de-legitimize even simple blocks. It seems pretty obvious to me that the IP was plenty disruptive. And what about Tiderolls' denying the unblock request? Or we going to review every block on ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heck no! I said that NBG should not pursue this here - close the thread. Doc talk 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been my observation that the area between cries of "Involved!" and cries of "Drive-by adminning!" is disturbingly narrow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting "admin abuse". Doc talk 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Not that I hvew the faintest idea what going on here, but if the suggestion is that the thread be closed not because there is no case to answer, but because "justice won't be done" than that seems a poor precedent. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, a thirty-second review suggests to me that this is a block that could stand review. Not saying of course that I'm prejudging, just that this appears messy enough that it bears review. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It does need review, and you are correct that I suggested closing it only because I felt that it had no chance to be taken seriously, and not because it had no merit. Doc talk 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• re:Doc's comment on admin abuse. Personally, even admins. get tired of being abused. If you cut us, do we not bleed? ... sigh ... — Ched :  ?  06:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've said many times that cries of "admin abuse" mean that an admin is indeed being abused. Doc talk 07:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

if the IP agrees to and acts to stop attacking other editors, and stops encouraging others to violate policy, I can shorten their block to time served. Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, please, for the attacks and encouragements for others to violate policy? (I note how harsh we are to complainants who make claims such as that without evidence.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If Jehochman doesn't mind me finding the diffs for him, here they are: Clear PA on North8000 and S Marshall: "You and S Marshall are either trolling or incapable of clear judgement" [13] [14]. The encouragment to violate policy is sketchier, but I presume the comments here [15] [16] are what's being referred to, in relation to the discussion preceding them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let us not forget this one a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. User:Jehochman 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Newby, you are involved in the WP:V dispute on the same side as te IP, aren't you. How is your participation here not merely an extension of that same battle? (Same comment applies to anybody else who spilled over from that dispute to here.) Jehochman ^Talk 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have encouraged the user to discuss their differences with Jehochman, on the IP's talk page. I too had questions about this block here. I would note that the arguable PA, noted by Bushranger, took place in the context of dispute resolution, and it did not inflame that discussion, at all, nor was it even noted upon by the third party DR mediators - there should be some leeway for users in that context to layout their differences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP followed me to a totally unrelated page and told a user I had just unblocked to disregard my advice about how to remain unblock. That was disruptive and downright cruel to the other user, because it was goading him to get blocked again. When I checked the edit history and saw that the IP had made personal attacks against other editors; the balance of weight was that the IP needed to be blocked. My prior comment about the IP (which probably motivated the IP to hound me) did not factor into the equation at all because at the time I did not recognize that this IP and that IP were the same one. IP numbers aren't memorable like usernames. If the IP renounces personal attacks, hounding and disrupting, they can be unblocked early. Otherwise, the block expires after another day. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Were you talking to me? I am not on any "side" here user:Jehochman. And, it appears we do have the luxury of discussing this for another day, and then it's all over. Yet you rushed to unblock (with a manufactured consensus) another memorable user who had been fairly blocked.

These inconsistencies are the reason I have braved the wrath of this page, not any "side", as if that is what you want to think. And I do not want "blood on the floor" , I know what a trial it must be especially here for admins to face accusations that are way unfair, and have to bear it. No, I don't want that at all, and for me, believe, it ain't about winning, just seeing some fairness done, and efficient process. NewbyG ( talk) 14:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think I understand better. I hope J and the IP can work it out, as I have encouraged the IP to do. The IP should be reflective. I am sure J will listen to you with a sincere and generous purpose. Hopefully you will do the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, sorry if I'm not terribly informed on this yet, but is "disregard [Jehochman] advice" what was meant by "encouraging others to violate policy"? I'm a bit thick, so can I have an explicit answer on that? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The problem was the next diff, a nasty bit of antisemitic incitement to a user who already had problems with antisemitic POV pushing: [17] I even cited this diff in my block message [18] so that the user would understand why they had been blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole of that diff is

"And you are right, many articles have strong Jewish bias, especially those about the history of Israel. Most of them cite the old testament as a reliable source and describe elements of Jewish religion as if they were facts. That would not be acceptable anywhere else."

I do not believe that that quote can be reasonably defined as promoting hatred toward Jews. I feel as though I'm asking the same question several times, but I'm not seeing how that is "encouraging others to violate policy"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe what's meant is that diff, in context with the rest of the discussion it was added as a response to, was considered incitement. (I haven't had the time to look through the discussion to opine if it actually is or not, but I think that's what's being said here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding, you win the prize. Jehochman ^Talk 07:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous contention. Even in context, this is simply a matter of bullying an IP user, because it is so easy to do. I still think that is a shameful thing to do. NewbyG ( talk) 09:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• The good faith editor, the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 has been blocked unfairly, and since 03:00 yesterday, that is 24 hours too long, that is 40 hours too long. The sham sockpuppet investigation is concluded.

  User:Jehochman, I calll upon you to exhibit some clue in this matter, and unblock the Czech IP 90.179.235.249. Fix your foolish mistake.

  Should you not care to, then we must await further comment here, and discern a consensus, on the block of the good-faith editor the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 which you wrongly enacted, IMHO Thank you-- NewbyG ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Noozgroop

For a whole year, Noozgroop (talk · contribs) has been violating the Manual of Style of Wikipedia (MOS). The MOS says: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". The MOS rule s/he has been changing is the MOS:NUM (WP:ORDINAL), which states: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". I know that many people prefer to write "16" rather than "sixteen", but the MOS accepts both uses, and unless there is a real reason to make a change, challenging the style of an article, with no valid reasons, is kinda disrupting ("The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style"). Considering that since February 2011 Noozgroop has been warned many times about the same—User talk:Noozgroop#February 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#Edit warring, User talk:Noozgroop#Regarding your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#July 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011 2, User talk:Noozgroop#Your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#November 2011 and User talk:Noozgroop#February 2012—and that he has very low (or no) interest to communicate with other people, I don't know what else can be done with this person. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! That toolserver is a killer. No talking to anyone? We do have bots, and they can be shut off when needed. Human editors must attempt to communicate at a basic level. Doc talk 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've issued a 48-hour attention-getting block (hopefully it'll be long enough that they notice it). EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked, and has acknowledged such. More to come once the editor has taken the time to re-evaluate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Eschoir (talk · contribs · block log)'s general conduct has been commented on very negatively on grounds of WP:EW, WP:V and WP:Competence is required in edits by Edjohnston and by Bwilkins.

Now that the recent complaint against him for edit-warring has been archived with no action taken, he has resumed the activity on which he eased up while the complaint was still open (cf. comment by Lionelt).

I will now inform all the editors I have mentioned here. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

His return to disruptive editing is textbook gaming the system. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "textbook", but I've seen enough. I have unfortunately indeffed, but provided a very in-depth, personalized block notice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boris Malagurski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made the following edits:

1. folded the excessive quote into prose, per WP:LONGQUOTE
2. also merge small paragraphs talking about the same thing
3. copyedit, losing some transient and peacock terms
4. noted criticism, per Talk

And then immediately bam:

1. rv

The explanation posted at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies is unconvincing at best, and at worst indicative of a string of sockpuppets operated by User:Bormalagurski - User:Cinéma C, User:UrbanVillager. Does anyone else think this is just a wee bit too much WP:OWN to be an accident? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly. But the edits you point at are from November 2011. Bormalagurski hasn't edited since 2006, and Cinéma C not since 2010. It is entirely possible that you're correct (UrbanVillager is an SPA with no other interests, and came out of nowhere with some decent editing skills) but there's nothing that an SPI can do now, and Bormalagurski and Cinema C aren't blocked to begin with. Can't you edit or re-edit the article and see what happens? You have WP:NPOV backing you up, I suppose. Or, I don't see what admin intervention could be helpful here, besides an as-yet unwarranted block. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Understanding a REVDEL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just curious: see the REVDEL between these two [19] edits in Template:Smallcaps all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Was there a site-threatening edit so that even the editor's name/IP had to be removed? And not a revdel note? It could be my edit! What went wrong? -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant log entry is here. The admin was hiding his own edit that he accidentally created during a history merge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The deleted edit was from 13:22, 25 February 2012, way before the history merge process (01:04, 27 February 2012‎). Also, is it essential to rm the editors id and not providing the revdel-reason is such case? -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont quite understand it either, my guess is that before RevDel was enabled that edit would have been simply deleted the old-fashioned way, as it doesnt seem to belong. But there's nothing "controversial" there, really. Definitely not site-threatening. ☮Soap☮ 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Behavior of user Xelba.davi

New user Xelba.davi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing the BLP Eliyahu Rips into a manifesto for the Bible codes (alleged messages about the future hidden in the Bible text). Rips is a proponent of these codes, but the new text violates almost every rule of Wikipedia. This diff shows the additions in question. It has severe violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, just look at it and you will find stuff like "The Torah was created prior to the creation of the world" and "The evolution of the Universe (and of the Earth) is derived from an infinite combination of the letters of the Torah" written in the neutral voice of Wikipedia. You will find citations to Facebook and self-published web sites. You will find gross distortions of the opinions of living people: "Robert Aumann: this is the greatest discovery of three hundred years of scientific research". Also a claim that critics are antisemites: "Eliyahu Rips is accused of being biased in his research, since he is an Orthodox Jew". Apart from claiming that his/her work is just fine [20], Xelba.davi reverts any changes without comment and barges ahead without answering objections [21] or engaging in discussion.(history) I do not see any way forward other than administrator assistance.

User notified: [22]

Disclosure: As the presence of my real name on the page indicates, I am involved in the "Bible codes" debate as a skeptic. Even though I have never inserted my own opinion into this page, I would really like someone totally uninvolved to take over the defense of it.

Remedy sought: The page should be protected at a version which does not contain the offending material, such as this version. User Xelba.davi should be blocked from editing. McKay (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted, and have left a warning for unverified edits, to which I will add a separate note. But McKay, do you really need to bring this to ANI? (No.) FWIW, you're both edit-warring a little bit here. Next time, the BLP noticeboard is probably a better venue, and if it gets worse, the edit warring board. Oh, no--Xelba will not yet be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I think that the best defense against such butchering is to make the article better; this one was in a pretty piss-poor state, not having a single reliable reference. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eyes, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Interesting edits on Joachim Gauck. An IP (217.23.69.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) keeps adding quotation marks around the word Gulag--Gauck's father was sent to one. There are multiple sources--this one speaks of "ein Straflager nach Sibirien" and this one spells out Gulag. IP claims the latter is incorrect and we're dealing with "a ministry". I want to call this vandalism, and I think many of the IP's other edits are questionable, but since I'm at 3R I can't revert anymore; it is a BLP, but the issue concerns the father. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Having recently unblocked this ip, I have now reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And reverted? Drmies (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

True Life in God: Possible Vandalism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

True Life in God was a stub-article when I found it, so I added two sections: Writing Style and Eastern Orthodox Church's Stance. Than the section Roman Catholic Church's Stance was added. Under the Roman Catholic Church's Stance section, I added the following paragraph from the Vassula Ryden article:

After a request was made by Rydén in 2000 to the aforementioned congregation (the CDF), the then Cardinal Ratzinger invited Rydén, in 2002, to answer five questions about her messages and its relation to the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition. Rydén sent her replies to the Congregation later that same year. At the end of this dialogue, the former president of the CDF, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—now Pope Benedict XVI, formally requested that Rydén publish the full correspondence between herself and the CDF in the published TLIG books. Later still, the Cardinal wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments". The whole process was concluded with a private audience between Rydén, the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt who had first requested the dialogue in 1999.<reference>Dialogue between Vassula Ryden and the CDF - http://www.cdf-tlig.org http://www.cdf-tlig.org/introduction.html</reference>

Then, after I edited the paragraph a little bit, I decided to go to the referenced website (http://www.cdf-tlig.org). I found it was a self-referenced or self-published website, which is not according to Wikipedia guidelines. I deleted the paragraph as such and explained why I did that on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:True_Life_in_God.

Then, on the Talk Page, I started receiving false accusations of bias from an user, who appears to not have a userpage: Sasanack. I explained why I deleted the paragraph to him.

Sashnack "undid revision 479107697" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_Life_in_God&action=history) and another user, Arkatakor, falsely accused me of deleting content pertaining to writings on the Vassula Ryden article.

I'm unsure what to do now, as it seems like the article is being vandalized by these two users. Below is a list of edits of the TLIG article, so you can see the diffs.

TLIG: My first edit

TLIG: My second edit

TLIG: My third edit

TLIG: 81.153.103.78's first edit

TLIG: 81.153.103.78's second edit

TLIG: My fourth edit

TLIG: My fourth edit (comparison to my third edit)

TLIG: My fifth edit

TLIG: My sixth edit

TLIG: My seventh edit

TLIG: My eighth edit, when I realized the dialogue website was self-referenced

TLIG: Sasanack's first edit

TLIG: Sasanack's second edit

TLIG: My ninth edit

TLIG: Sasanack's third edit

This is the situation as of this writing. Oct13 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified them? I'm going out the door so won't, but they are WP:SPAs and others have had problems with that. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how if they don't have userpages. Oct13 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the two editors on your behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope this can be resolved as soon as possible. Oct13 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot pretend to understand the workings of Wikipedia but the situation being referred to above is absurd! If anyone is vandalising the article it is 'Oct13'. He clearly is wanting to portray the True Life in God messages in a negative way and is deleting anything positive. The page at the moment is verging on the libellous and so I will re-insert the accurate information about the dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican.Sasanack (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a better website for the dialogue. Don't use a self-published or self-referenced website. By the way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated, in the documents referenced in the article under the Roman Catholic Church's Stance section, that a dialogue took place between Vassula and itself ("A calm, attentive examination of the entire question...the fact that the aforementioned errors no longer appear in Ryden's later writings..."); so I'm not against the dialogue being posted on the article, I'm just against bad websites being referenced. Oct13 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I'm not against the dialogue being posted on the article". So you don't object to me copying the dialogue itself into Wikipedia??? The dialogue has never been published by the Vatican and is never published by third parties because there is so much hatred to Vassula. Yet, as you are aware, the dialogue took place. So how does Wikipedia deal with this problem if people like yourself object to 'bad websites' being used for reference. I would like to point out that the website in question is owned and produced by the author of a book on prophecy published by Oxford University Press and with a foreward by Pope Benedict.Sasanack (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just find another website, please. Oct13 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The links for the two editors being discussed here are incorrect. The correct links are as follows:

• Sasanack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Arkatakor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting subject matter. Poor article. I haven't gotten to the supposed "vandalism" yet, but I do note that in what you called above your fifth edit you added this link, for instance, which is obviously not a reliable source. I also noted poor paraphrasing from Christian Prophecy – the Post Biblical Tradition; the phrase about her handwriting, which you kept from an earlier version, is not to be found in that book (AFAIK) but your paragraph suggested that it was. I'll have to look further, but for now it seems to me that this is a matter that should be dealt with by rigorous editing, before admins with block buttons get thrown onto it. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, can someone look at File:VassulaRyden.jpg and tell me when this 72-year old woman was supposed to look like this? Or is this simply a miracle? Drmies (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I copied the information about Christian Prophecy and antiochian.org from the Vassula Ryden article. But I didn't know they were unreliable sources. My apologies. Oct13 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As for how Ryden looks: Cosmetics and surgery can go a long way. Oct13 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The clothing and hairstyle (and the underlying tone of the photograph) point to a date for our main photograph of ca. 1975-80, when she would have been in her thirties. More importantly, this article is not well-referenced. The main reference is a primary source, Sasanack, and although that would be fine (even preferable) for an essay or thesis, it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia requires that articles be referenced to reliable, totally independent third parties - newspapers, magazines, reviews, scholarly journals, even TV or radio programs or independent websites with editorial control. The True Life website is not independent and has no independent, uninvolved editorial control, so it's not a reliable source for our purposes. After all, anyone can claim anything about themselves. I could create a website tomorrow claiming that I was - to give a wild example - the rightful Queen of Denmark. That wouldn't make me the Queen of Denmark, and it would be against Wikipedia policy for someone to write an article about me using my website as a source. My claim could only be referenced to reliable, uninvolved third parties - a Copenhagen newspaper, for instance, or a scholarly journal of royal genealogy; in either case, those sources would be appropriate. My website would not. --NellieBly (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, primary sources can be used - but they must be used with caution, and are inappropriate for BLPs for anything more than the barest of factual data. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realized, the Vassula Ryden article doesn't link to TLIG. Perhaps TLIG should merge with the article? Oct13 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

TLIG is now a redirect after I initiated a discussion on the talk page. It was just a content fork from Ryden's biography. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islamism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked by Black Kite for sockpuppetry
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to run, so I have to be brief: a week or more ago I blocked User:Wholetruth123 for edit-warring on Islamism--and insertion of argumentative, unsourced, non-neutral et cetera. Well, Wholetruth is back at the same article and seems to have picked up an SPA sidekick, User:Saadasim. I think both should be blocked indefinitely: the one is a POV warrior and the other is sock or meat. But that's just my opinion, man. I'd like it if someone could look into it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Drmies

I have placed my pov in talk. My edits are simply flagging that the term islamism is itself non-neutral and is resented by Muslims just as the prior term Mohamadanism. I have not deleted any references simply added them so user can see alternate pov.

simply banning people without even bothering to respond to their talk comments is unfair

wt

Wholetruth123 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block, Black Kite.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Blocked Wholetruth for a week for continuing editwar after block, blocked Saadasim indef as loudly quacking sock. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfounded sanction and possible admin tools abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I come here, gentleman, to report a sanction that was imposed to me by Admin WGFinley at this thread (section FkpCascais). I was abusively topic baned for 6 months without even one single diff of mine being presented to me demonstrating any violation of policy by me. I was clearly sanctioned for tendentious editing, as indicated in my talk page (User_talk:FkpCascais#Arbitration_Enforcement), with the, I dare to say, curiosity, of me not having made a single edit in the article in question (!!!). I will present you all my actions chronologically:

• There is a dispute going on between other editors at an article which I have under my watchlist, Yugoslav Partisans. I do not take part in the editing of the article, however I contribute by promoting discussion between the two sides, as seen at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute, asking the editors to focus on sources and article content. In the meantime, Causa sui protected the article for 3 days.
• I objected the insertion of disputed, unsourced text (sources did not contained what was being edited). I analised and exposed the sources, but, despite the users admited that there were problems with the sources, they limited to announce that they will bring sources. I asked for those sources, but they were intentionally not being provided, in order to avoid discussion (because they came to be the same ones which were already discussed in another article and strong concerns were expressed by other users, namelly User:Nuujinn). The article was protected for 3 days by Causa sui however the users were clearly gaming the system by avoiding discussion and waiting for the protection to expire so they could restore the same disputed content.
• I made a report, here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Trolling_and_disruptive_behavior_in_discussion, expecting to obtain admin help and assistance so a consensus could be reached, however, after one first positive intervention from someone non-involved, condemning the attitute of the other users, Admin Animate, a user which numerous times intervened "saving" DIREKTOR at reports in the past, did the same as allways, and even worste, missinformed about the sources having been already presented. I reacted a bit rough, and I exposed that no sources had been brought to the discussion, however, he insisted in a second comment missinforming again and doing the best to turn that into a boomerang to me.
• Surprised by such an irresponsable behavior from Animate, I opened a thread at Jimbo talk page asking for advice about that specific admin and his problematic intervantions, diff.
• In the meantime, as the protection time at the article was almost expiring, and no progress was archived at the discussion, I asked Causa sui to expand protection, however he declined my request leaving a note at the discussion about, in his own words, "the value of the discussion", as seen at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Protection. Afterwords, despite my efforts, no progress was made at the discussion, and it took only 5 hours for DIREKTOR to restore the edit warring inserting the same unsourced and disputed nationallistically based text (with no new sources, but the same old ones which they even admited that were wrong for that edit).
• After that, and after seing that no admin was taking attention of the case and my concerns, I don´t revert, I don´t edit, I continue discussing for a while, and I simply take a break and remove myself completelly.
• During the following weeks, one of the users makes an effort to improve the sources, while another one, PRODUCER, starts a full scale campaign to get me permanently removed, first with one ANI report and, after that one failed, by recomendation of the "friendly" advisor Animate, he took it to WP:AE (section FkpCascais).

I defended myself and I allways favoured discussion and dispute resolution, as clear in all my interventions, article discussions and reports included, I kept this attitude troughout the episode. By then, it had already passed a couple of weeks since my last comment at that discussion. And after a while I am surprisengly sanctioned by a 6 months topic ban. The ban is based on Wikipedia:TE and Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. They also provide some backing by the fact that I had been sanctioned to a 1RR/48 hours limit in another strange thread, in which 2 reverts and 1 edit were considered edit-warring while 4 clear reverts were ignored to the other side, with the fact that at that thread I was sanctioned without even having been noteced about the thread, so I had no chance to defend myself. Admin User:GiantSnowman expressed concerns about it at that time, but no correction of the sanction was made, but neither I bothered to appeal, as I am not an edit-warrior, and that sanction was really no pain for me, and it passed to me totally unnoteced. GiantSnowman also informed EdJohnston about it recently during this episode, as seen at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#FkpCascais.

But, having one unfair sanction is tolerable, but a second one not backed by one single diff is not (and all my problems were allways related to one same user, the 14 times blocked DIREKTOR). This sanction I am complaining here clearly intervened at the dispute as I was the only active participant from my side, and the 3 other users were clearly benefitiated with the admin action, without saying that their actions, some of which are sanctionable and I provided diffs, were ignored. To make things worste, I explained all in detail to the sanction imposing admin WGFinley, providing all the diffs (see section "Please"), and I informed EdJohnston about the thread, as he was the one who backed and "composed" the ground for the sanction. WGFinley was abscent for days, and in the meantime I explained all to EdJohnston at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#WP:AE.

What I need to stress out here is that both admins, WGFinley and EdJohnston, were informed by me of all events, and I provided them all the necessary diffs. Both were informed that I did not edited the article, so the Wikipedia:TE is badly applied here, and also that I never doubled any thread anywhere, so the charge of Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP is also hardly understandable. A hard 6 months sanction is backed on what? I beleaved that they were missguided and I hoped that after clearing all out they will rectify they decition, however I was deeply disapointed when I saw an attitude of further excuses from both of them. The excuses can be seen in their answers, and they go from charging me for the lenght of one RfM in which I was participant, passing by "disliking" a thread of mine complaining about a fellow admin, to the another absurdity of trying to back the forumshopping charge with the excuse that I discusses the sanction at the talk pages of both of them. Each time I got to demonstrate a point, they simply avoided facts and ignored my arguments and questions.

They both had no good-faith towards me, they provided no diffs to back their accusations, they failed to clearly demonstrate any breaking of any policy by me, they directly favoured one side of the dispute, and to top it, they clearly attributed me a punitive sanction, as I was innactive for 2 weeks at the dispute by the time they sanctioned me. Seing things back now, Animate, after having exposed for lying on ANI report, recomended WP:AE for a report against me, after seing that at ANI the report failed, and discretely, step-by-step, WGFinley and EdJohnston cooked a 6 months sanction without having one clear charge against me. That is clearly admin abuse in my view, as they gamed the system using all possible (and impossible) excuses to punish me, and I am asking here for the sanction of mine to be lifted, and the two admins to be worned against this kind of revengfull action. FkpCascais (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no "admin abuse" here - you were reported for violating WP:ARBMAC. Two uninvolved admins looked at your history, agreed that you were (though they also agreed that there were other parties involved who also were in violation) and topic-banned you. That's what ARBMAC means- the Macedonian articles are such a nest of culture warriors that anyone who steps out of line more than once gets topic-banned. They both agreed that you have been battling for more than half a year, and so they enforced the ruling. Go edit some other articles for the next 6 months. --PresN 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFTv5 comment. Action needed?

Hi, someone posted in the AFTv5 feedback log on Date rape drug "What should I do to get tested for proof that I was given date rape drugs". Is there anything that needs to be done about this, since it is not a post on, for example, the Wikipedia Help Desk? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you don't receive a response here rapidly given the nature of this, I think emailing emergencywikimedia.org might be warranted. Kevin (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bloope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two weeks ago, I discovered that Bloope (talk · contribs) posted a message to nearly every single talk page concerning the Japanese Super Sentai franchise asking where he could go to watch these TV shows illegally online where there were English language subtitles on them. He also contacted myself and another editor making the same request. I reverted all of these and then advised him of his error. He proceeded to revert me on nearly all of the pages (I won't spam the diffs as I did above), asked me why I reverted him, and continued to ask why he could not ask, and I told him why and removed his talk page messages, again. Today, I discover that he's made the exact same requests on two new pages. I've reverted him, again, and left a stern message on his talk page. I do not think Bloope is going to do anything but ask "Where can I watch these shows?" and he is a waste the community's (or at least my own) time and resources.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This user certainly spamming and violating WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK. Ryulong is right when he says that talk pages are meant for collaborating and improving the encyclopedia and does allow for minor irrelevant conversations however, it is not meant to be used the way he's using unless he plans on using those videos to contribute to Wikipedia. On another note, those edits were made 15 days ago which means I would consider this issue STALE.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,718,088) 21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As Ryulong said near the end, Bloope asked again in two pages recently [23] [24] so I don't think it's quite stale. After this ANI thread, Bloope appears to have finally concedeed [25] it wasn't appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would disregard those two as long as he's not posting that all over the place again.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,735,640) 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I frankly think he does not get it. He spammed across 17 pages two weeks ago and asked again today. However in that diff, I think he's asking to restore the NOTFORUM questions he made that I also removed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. WP:NOTHERE, block him already. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrative high-handedness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – editor to file RM Nobody Ent 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that User:Keith D has been repeatedly edit-warring and redirecting H. P. Ward to Humphrey Ward without initiating any discussion on the same. In doing so, User:Keith D has also reverted around 10-15 edits of mine, repeatedly removing the infobox and the citations I had added and the copy-editing work I had done. Such an act is childish and domineering and does not behove of an administrator. We do take plenty of measures to fights vandalism from anons. But then, what if an administrator, himself/herself indulges in vandalism.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at WP:RM and request a move properly - any changes you want to make should be done at Humphrey Ward for now.

While the communication hasn't been perfect it isn't that bad and his edits aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's definitely not vandalism and Keith D has explained the reversion in the edit summary. Please discuss with him on his talk page. Nobody Ent 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. But he has reverted fifteen other edits of mine including the copy-edit work I had done and the addition of infobox. That's definitely not in good taste, right. No explanation for the reverts (except for the move). I do expect an administrator to have a better look at an article's history before reverting.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, you're the one who has created a problem. It isn't that he opposes your move on principle, your move is a violation of Wikipedia's procedures because you appear to be trying to do a "copy-paste" move which is highly problematic because it creates problems with Wikipedia's lisencing requirements. Instead of returning the same problems, what you should do is to follow Keith D's advise and use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request that the article be moved to the new title. What you see here, Ravi, is that you've broken then basic principle known by the acronym WP:AGF. You've assumed that Keith D. is out to "get you" or is somehow misbehaving. Instead, what he is doing is trying to get you do use the correct method, instead of the wrong one, to do what you want. In the future, instead of assuming that people who revert you are acting badly, is instead look at your own work and try to see what you yourself may have done wrong. In this case, you've clearly done something incorrectly (doing a cut-and-paste move). Instead, use the correct method (using requested moves) to fix the problem the right way. --Jayron32 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, an article without an infobox, with lesser references is better than this right. If Keith wants to revert my move that's okay, but why have all my edits been reverted. And why should I not get the feeling that someone's out to get me -Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's cool! I'll request moves in the future and not act in my own.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AGF goes both ways. Ravichandar84 has not created a problem, they're simply trying to improve the encyclopedia by ensuring articles use common name. The way he attempted to do so is the obvious way; it requires an esoteric knowledge of copyright and Wikipedia licensing to know that copy paste is problematic. Nobody Ent 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely correct Nobody Ent. You are an astute observer. When Ravi made his first attempt to improve Wikipedia, he did not act in bad faith. When he came here to complain, and called Keith D.s action "high handedness", that was acting in bad faith. You see, Nobody Ent, it is possible for a person's behavior in one instance to be good and desireable, and the same person, in a different situation, can have behavior which isn't so good. People are not unidimensional, and it is quite possible for that to occur. In this case, Ravi should be commended for trying to improve Wikipedia, even if he should not be commended for tattling on people who were trying to help him do it correctly. The good-faith response would have been to contact Keith D. and ask how he could do it correctly. What happened here, where he made no attempt to discuss the matter directly with Keith D before coming straight to ANI with accusations of administrator high handedness, represents a failure to assume that Keith D was working in good faith. That failure is evident in the lack of direct communication with Keith D on Keith D's talk page. Presupposing your next comment, yes Keith D did not contact Ravi either, and he probably should have, but he also did not accuse Ravi of any bad-faith actions. Indeed, he doesn't blindly revert Ravi, but through edit summaries offers an alternate way to do the moves correctly. Yes, it isn't the best way to communicate, so you don't have to tell anyone that it isn't, and perhaps Keith D could have made a better effort using Ravi's user talk page, but that also doesn't excuse Ravi from throwing around accusations of administrator high handedness (especially in light of the fact that Keith didn't even use any administrator tools nor make any threatening actions to do so.) --Jayron32 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it the obvious way? The obvious way is to move the page to the correct title, not create a new page and slap a redirect on the old one, it's common sense. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh well! I just wished to register my protest here over something which I didn't like. I do not wish to dwelve deeper into it. And well, I'll take care to follow WP:RM in the future. Probably, Keith might have taken care to explain where I went wrong before reverting me like that.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He did, you just weren't understanding. In the future politely ask on the article talk page or the admin's talk page before coming here. Nobody Ent 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators should communicate better than what we see here when they undo good faith edits - the very least is to try to make sure that the good faith editor understand why their work is being reverted. If they can do so without being condescendent its even better. It is a load of bull to say that a good faith editor has "created a problem" and therefore doesn't deserve to be explained what is going on in a reasonable way. What good can possible come from reverting a cut and paste move with out taking the touble to explain the editor who did it why its not a good idea, and what is the correct procedure?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, you are entirely correct about that. Editors should take the time to explain why they are doing what they are doing. It doesn't make it "administrative high handedness" when they do not. There are many levels of "not doing what you are supposed to" in the world, and this one was rather low on that scale. --Jayron32 19:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference between arrogance and administrative arrogance is that the latter is done by an administrator. And yes we should expect more of administrators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the edit summary to explain the reason for the revert and felt that was sufficient for an experienced editor. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That was a reasonable course of action. Ravi didn't get it and came here frustrated and made a misguided post, but that is not reason to castigate them. A calm explanation and redirecting them was all that was required. Nobody Ent 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[editconflict]That is a reasonable way to think, and in this case it seems clear that Ravi would have done better to simply ask you to explain what he didn't understand. However I think that this should be taken as a reminder to make always make that extra effort in communication with good faith editors, because it does make a difference.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serious problem with an admin and POV pushing

Hello: I am having serious problem with User:Sitush and his friends who are admins. Please see this diff:[26] specficially note the comments of James Frietag, Giles Tillotson, Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler. Sitush and his friends want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad" and any contrary opinion from Phd's and professors from top american schools are rejected by this bunch. They edit war and threaten to ban me. Please help. Ror Is King (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've started a discussion at the article's talk page, that's good.. but it was only minutes ago.. perhaps you should give discussion a chance first before coming to AN/I so quickly with a content dispute? We have many other venues of dispute resolution you can take advantage of. -- œ^™ 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been having a problem with this bunch for weeks now. They all collude and want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad". On the other hand Phd Scholars Richard Saran, Norm Ziegler, Tillotson (ex director of Royal Asiatic Society) and Frietag's (faculty at ithaca college: http://faculty.ithaca.edu/jfreitag/) comments are deleted as if Sitush and his friends are the only authority. And admins Qwy and Boing support his POV pushing and have threatened to ban me multiple number of times. I fail to understand why I am not allowed to quote from above authors in the Criticism section of James Tod. Ror Is King (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough; I did tell Ror is King that xe should pursue dispute resolution if xe wanted to make those changes. As I mentioned on the talk page, that article was just promoted to Featured Article status last week. No less than 10 people participated in the FA discussion, and others commented on the article's talk page. No other editor found Ror's concerns to be compelling. We can certainly discuss the issue, though right now there appears (to me) to be a strong consensus against it. Also, it's relevant to note that many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India, so I don't think they qualify as "Sitush and his friends". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you questions on what you find wrong with Saran and Ziegler here [27] and what you find wrong with Tillotson. You don't respond. Only thing you do is edit war and threaten to ban me. Since when has citing well refereed authors on wikipedia become a crime? Ror Is King (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If 9 editors have one view, and you have another, you need to consider that maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't them - it's you. And even if you are in the right, you need to calmly discuss things, especially with the proposal of major changes to a just-promoted Featured Article, on the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the 9 editors knew what has been written by Ziegler and Saran, Freitag and Tillotson on Tod. They were just towing Sitush's line. When I question Qwyrxian on his comments criticising me (see above) I see no response. So you see it is *just one* editor and his friends (some of who are admins) who are having a field day. If I add bonafide sources I am the one comitting the mistake since I am threatened to be banned. Ror Is King (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Thanks for noting "many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India". Should they really be reviewing the article then? I mean few editors who have no knowledge of the field but are good with wikipedia's quality standards are okay to have. But many of those types sounds odd. I dont have much experience and hence i dont know if its okay for many editors of film-articles to review FA nominations related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. I also found it odd that the article received FA status with all the discussions User:Ror Is King was having on its talk page and Sitush's talk page too. (Actually Sitush was also surprised with the FA status.) Most of the queries by Ror Is King (RIK) are replied by Sitush, sometimes you. Why did the evaluators not find it important to discuss these things with RIK? Was it because they found his statements not worthy to discuss, as you found them not worthy to include in the article? Or was it because they trusted that you two will sort it out; by some means? Now lets leave this particular case of inclusion in Tod's article aside. Is this the first time that you have been called as a "team"? Or do many editors have this opinion? Is this the first time that some editor has been threatened to be banned by "Sitush and his friends"? There is one editor currently saying the same things on India Noticeboard. I do see that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But why do have to threaten all editors? Would you please see this. Image:Qxz-ad15.gif. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute and the discussion started on the article talk page should continue there rather than being conducted in two places. I don't see any administrative action (blocks, page protection etc) necessary here, nor do I see any abuse of admin powers. Admins can edit, just like other editors and have no more or less powers when they use powers available to every editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Ror Is King for 24 hours for edit-warring on James Tod blatantly against consensus. It's a new FA, and we cannot have this level of disruption on it. Also, I have played no part in the content disagreement, having only warned Ror Is King about his unacceptable refusal to follow WP:AGF (you can see on his Talk page), so his accusations against me are quite false. I consider myself still in line with WP:Uninvolved here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So he wont be able to respond here? Or are blocked editors able to edit this page? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If he wants, he can respond on his page and, using {{adminhelp}}, can ask that his replies be moved here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) He cannot respond here while blocked; he will be able to keep the discussion going on the article's talk page tomorrow, and this discussion may even still be open then (though possibly not). Regarding your question above about me, in all fairness, yes Sitush and I have been called a team before, and, depending on the time of year and specific article, other editors have been named as part of a team. In a certain sense, I freely admit to being a "team" in that we're part of a fairly large group of editors that believes that Wikipedia editors should follow policies, most especially WP:NPOV and WP:V...that everyone should do their best to only use reliable sources...and that people shouldn't cherry pick a few words or phrases out of a longer passage to misrepresent what a source says (this last, btw, is precisely the concern with Ror is King's request on the article currently in question). Sometimes, Sitush alone or Sitush as part of a "team" are criticized, because people want to include what they know is true, even though their knowledge isn't supported by reliable sources. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily "wrong", but it does mean that they can't include such opinions/positions in Wikipedia articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, just looked at the WT:INB topic you mentioned. I'm not part of that "team", but in that case, too, the actions were 100% correct: the article that one editor created was replete with copyright violations (in fact, other than references, it had nothing but copyright violations). Copying and pasting from other sources is not only against Wikipedia's rules, depending on how extensive it is, it may even be illegal. Any time you or anyone else ever sees copyright violations in articles, they should be removed immediately, with an explanation left in an edit summary or on the talk page. Since there was nothing left in the article after the copyvios were removed, it was rightly speedily deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will be happy to copy any comments from Ror Is King to here from his Talk page - I will inform him so very shortly. And any admin is welcome to review my block, which was not a result of this ANI report, but was for disrupting a new FA by edit-warring against clear consensus. (On top of his general refusal to assume good faith, and his apparent misrepresentation of sources to push a non-consensus POV, he is really being quite disruptive) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While Rik was certainly edit warring, he was also trying to resolve matters using this process. I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked. The status as a new FA is a bit problematical, as we publicize new FAs through the Signpost to bring them to community attention and we shouldn't be surprised when community members duly edit in response. "Disruption" is a term I think we should avoid, as it is so amorphous it can easily be used for finger pointing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear--this isn't a new member coming to the process. Everything that RiK changed now was a change xe proposed while the FA process was ongoing. No editor watching the article at that time found merit in RiK's edits. Furthermore, at one point RiK quoted a source to support his words. However when Sitush got a full copy of that source, it turned out that RiK had (either through malice or simple failure to read enough of the source) that, when the rest of the paragraph was read, the source's meaning was exactly the opposite of the position RiK was trying to include in the article. Furthermore, the editor reverted 3 times today to xyr preferred version (being reverted twice by myself and once by Sitush, with a third editor saying on talk that xe would have reverted had I not gotten to it first), despite the fact that the issue had already been discussed and rejected by a number of other editors, over a week ago. As such, the block was warranted as RiK knew that the change was against consensus and had previously been warned against edit warring. That being said, Boing! said on RiK's talk page that the block could be reduced to time served if RiK promises to stop edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. I should have been more clear I was switching from a specific point to making a general one about FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked". I agree, and in fact said exactly that to him at the time of the block. I'm also happy for anyone else to unblock if they believe further edit warring is unlikely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: I already said that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But the way disputes are handled is sometimes wrong. A edit war doesnt happen just because of one party. Its takes two to war. I once encountered a editor who wouldnt talk on talk pages, his or mine or article's. All he said was through Edit Summary when he reverted my edits. That was the only means he wanted to use. But in this case RIK was talking with you people. The material he had put on the article could have stayed there itself till you had your discussion. The material he added was not even legally contentious or defamatory. It, on the contrary, was speaking good about the subject. Dead Tod was not gonna rise and sue Wikipedia for keeping something good about him for few hours or even days. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Operative phrase here is "you people" (whatever that means--if it is an insult, they people should probably let it slide): it's not two who or going to war here. It's a whole bunch of editors, and RiK has been disrupting (yes) the article for quite some time now. At some point, enough is enough. Lending credibility to repeated claims of bias, against consensus, actually makes a mockery of the rigor of the FA process. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue with you about it, but FA's, as we both know, are not delivered on tablets of stone. Certainly, FAC is not dispute resolution. That being said, such might want to be considered in this matter ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, they're not stone tablets, but at the very least they suggest consensus at a given moment. RiK was a dissenter there on this point, but their objection didn't stand in the way of promotion--I can't see on this edit screen if this discussion on the talk page is linked here or not (it's mentioned by Sitush in the FA review), but it is insightful. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate resolution

• The way I see it, this is a content dispute which has escalated. I concur with User:OlEnglish's suggestion. May I suggest the case be moved to Content disputes noticeboard and the issue of the content taken up with both sides leaving out the behavioural allegations/aspects?
• In case both parties agree to move the case there, I also request the blocking admin to release the block if the affected parties agree to behave during this process so that the atmosphere is not vitiated.
• All parties to the dispute are also requested to NOT edit James Tod for whatever reason so as to maintain a peaceful atmosphere for resolving this. AshLin (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I will weigh in here. This article has just gone through FAC, which is a pretty rigorous process. One person had a problem with alleged bias. Their concerns were examined, the full text of their relevant points was obtained ... and it seemed clear that they had misrepresented those texts. Subsequently, the article was promoted and then the alleging contributor returns and resumes their disruptive edits in exactly the same manner as prior to the promotion, and citing exactly the same misrepresented sources. Similar behaviour occurred when they reported me here last November. Which bit of WP:IDHT does not apply here? I am happy to continue discussion but unless something new is brought to the table it seems to be somewhat pointless, whether it is conducted at the article talk page, WP:DRN or at any other venue. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@AshLin I have already agreed to lift the block as soon RIK agrees to stop edit-warring against consensus (a consensus that has been rigorously arrived at during the FA discussion). There are no other parties whose agreements I would need, as in my judgment no other parties were in breach of any policies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We also have the brand spanking new "Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard" at WP:ECCN. I saw the word "caste" up above so I'm guessing this might be relevant. N^oformation ^Talk 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Content Dispute

Example 1

I would like to point out that my complaint is not a content dispute. Sitush and friends are selectively quoting negative comments about Tod and obliterating the positive ones. For example in the "Criticism" section, which subsequently got renamed to "Reception" this is how Jason Freitag is quoted:

From: [28]

• These factors, says Freitag, contribute to why the Annals were "manifestly biased".

Now from the same source, Freitag, if I want to insert the following quotes:

• Tod's Annals sits at the foundation of modern scholarship on South Asia.(Reference: Freitag (2001), p. 7)
• Freitag further commends Tod in his PhD Thesis: "Today, historical work in Rajasthan continues to operate within the framework Tod defined two centuries ago."(Reference Freitag (2001), p. 6.)

I am not allowed to do so from the same PhD thesis that Sitush had quoted from because his admin friends are helping to create a WP:OWN situation that only Sitush and his admin friends will decide that their POV will be represented in the Tod article. No one dare oppose them or they threaten you with dire consequences and then eventually ban you (as happened to me a couple of days ago). Ror Is King (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

On the article's talk page (or linked from there) we will need to provide an extended section from that thesis in order for us to even consider including it. In this case, providing a copy of pages 6-8 is probably sufficient. Normally we would assume good faith, but since you misrepresented a source in the past by picking out a small portion which was not what the author actually meant, we cannot just rely on your word that this is what Freitag claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the nth time you have accused me of misrepresenting sources which started here: [29] and I responded here [30] and here [31] and asked you yet again on this notice board that how did I mispresent Saran and Ziegler [32]. Till date I have not seen you respond how I misrepresented these authors. Could you please tell everyone how I did so? (I am aware you are wanting to turn this into a content dispute but I am hoping that everyone will see that it is a case of POV pushing, threats and bans from admins)Ror Is King (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Example 2

Continuing the example of POV pushing, edit warring and threats by Sitush and his admin friends.

I added the following quote from Dr. Richard Saran and Dr. Norman Ziegler who are both PhD's from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and University of Chicago respectively. They both spent 20+ years researching the vernacular documents in Rajasthan, some of which Tod also used, and wrote a book [33] published by Michigan University Press: The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3. In this book they write:

Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents. (Reference: Page 1 of their book given above)

I am not able to add this quote because Sitush and his admin friends WP:OWN the page and want to push their own POV. This groups threatens, edit wars and bans people who disagree with them.

More FYI. Topic of Saran's thesis defended in 1978 was "Conquest and Colonization: Rajputs and Vasis in middle period Marwar" and Ziegler's thesis defended in 1973 was: "Action Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A social history of rajputs in middle period Rajasthan". I inserted this material on James Tod page here [34] and it was removed by Sitush and his admin friends. Ror Is King (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification required on interaction ban

According to what was posted on my talk page regarding the interaction ban between myself and he who must not be named "making reference to or commenting on him or his actions" is a violation. I should like it clarified if the following would fall under commenting on my actions?[35][36][37] I ask as from what was posted on my talk page if clarification of the IBAN was needed then it had to be asked here, and not on some random admins talk pages. Also due to the IBAN I am unable to inform he who must not be named about this, so would appreciate another doing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dru of Id (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think asking for clarification of an interaction ban is perfectly common sense and not a violation of ban. I asked an admin about those as pointed out above. One of the issues was later brought to ANI.. the new ones were still unclear so I asked an admin who commented on that ANI report. I don't think there's any thing wrong with that. I'll however like to be clarified about the queries asked in those diffs since they've been brought here now:

• I requested closure of an RFC (before the closure was addressed, the RFC was restarted - I added remarks about that too at [38])... now I have an interaction ban so you can read those remarks on the given link, the RFC was closed accordingly by an admin. This uninvolved admin closure (requested by me) was reverted by the user I have interaction ban with. [39] Is this an indirect ban violation or just a bad revert of a formal closure? How am I to go about this if it is the latter case?
• Closing my nominations (regardless of the achieved consensus) isn't a violation of ban? [40]... can I do the opposite too?

--lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I undid DarknessShines reversion. Asking an admin for clarification, or even to undo an action, is not a violation of the interaction ban. Both of you are good editors when you're not gunning for each other so I strongly suggest that you keep an arm's length distance from each other for the time being. Also, DarknessShines, pointy actions (such as rehashing things in a new RfC immediately after closing the earlier one) could easily lead to a topic ban on Pakistan topics, so I suggest extra care. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been reverted again by JCAla... [41] aren't admin closures meant to stay closed? (especially which are closed thrice [42] [43] [44]) I've informed the closing admin of JCAla's revert though. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the first sentence of TopGun's comment — it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to say that you can't refer to the ban itself. We're not in the business of issuing super-injunctions here. Thank you for bringing up this issue in a wholly appropriate manner. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• An article was nominated for deletion which I intended to improve, since it was deleted I kept it on my to do list to recreate with the right content from a draft but it has been recreated [45] - I was told an interaction ban doesn't mean "first come first serve" - how should I proceed with updating this? -lTopGunl (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can move the content to the other article (simple move, delete, and restore to complete the history merge) when your draft is ready. You're not interacting with someone if the only reason you've edited the same page is a history merge. Let me know at my talk if you'd like this. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Great... I'll request a move after adding some more sources.. I've included the current content in my draft so that there aren't any issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to note my edits in above case were in my own userspace draft which was then merged per Nyttend's proposal above to the article I intended to create and was made clear by Nyttend in the edit summary of merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact you just put an article which was deleted back into main space (which includes the made up word which it was deleted for BTW) how is it not an interaction ban to copy & paste content I have written to userspace and then get an admin to restore it? He has edited the content I wrote, how is that not a violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Second violation after warning

There was a violation report above where an admin (regentspark) agreed that it was a violation and noted that a warning was enough [46]. Now there's been another violation. Not "making reference to or commenting on him or his actions" was a condition of the ban as noted on my talk page by the closer of interaction-ban thread, This has been unambiguously violated here [47]. It was not one of the exceptions of the ban of clarifying the ban or reporting a violation rather a content issue which per me wasn't even a BLP issue as being queried (either the content was sourced or the people were not living). Mentioning me with the weasel word "he who must be named" is being used to lawyer around the ban with an out right reference to my actions. I'll not comment much on another suspected one, but the article being discussed above was on my to do list as a red-link to be created with relevant content since the article with neologism title was deleted and I have suspicion that it was preemptively created to keep me from doing so, now that NyNyttend's proposal of merging my draft solved this issue, this violation was made. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) blocked for three days. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I still stand by what I said earlier and am repeating it for the third time. A topic ban on Darkness Shines for Pakistan-related articles (doesn't have to be indefinite, can just be for a fixed time even) is a must. If a topic ban or a sanction of some sort was in order, we wouldn't be seeing this. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • After seeing this edit, I've sadly come to agree with you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hashem sfarim and Sicily

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hashem sfarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and myself have a content dispute about the first sentence of Sicily. The discussion, starte by myself, is at Talk:Sicily#Lead sentence, where I explained that his version has language problems and duplicated information. User:Bejnar mostly supported my reasoning, and made an attempt at compromise formulation [48].

Despite my appeal not to post on my or Bejnar's talk page [49], but on the article's, Hashem has been posting diatribes on MY talk page [50] (that's some dozen separate edits), containing, among other niceties, "And putting an idiotic lede of only "largest island in Mediterranean"", [...] "Number two: I never called you or anyone an "idiot". Not sure where you're seeing that." "So don't be biased and arrogant with me. " "After this, I'm through with you.", and, finally, "You're out of line, and I'm writing you off. But if you undo any edit on that article, for no reason again, I'll just undo you (but I'll keep it at 3RR, so I won't get a 24 hour block that you can throw in my face, idiotically.)".

Half of that was after I asked him not to post on my talk page anymore. [51], which was then removed with edit summary removing garbage from my page. And, yes, Hashem sfarim has just returned from a 24-hour block for edit warring.

P.S. I informed him about this thread on my talk page; I don't indend to post on his anymore. No such user (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. And I cannot but notice similarity of attitude and wording in this exchange back in June: only Hashem may change the article as he likes, all others must discuss. It took only 4 reverts by 2 users to persuade him to give up. No such user (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how he leaves out other things I said, and tries to poison the well against me, in your minds, by bringing up past things that are irrelevant to this, and how I only responded to today (over a settled matter by another editor) because HE today posted first on MY page. I told him clearly I was finished with him and I was never dealing with him again. Two sides to every story.

I said that the LEDE was "idiotically worded", not any person.

After he wrote this rude stuff on MY page, bringing up junk that has nothing to do with this, like he has the habit of doing, in bias, as if that somehow bolsters up his case, all the while dodging the actual specifics of what is brought up in this current matter:

"If you cannot restrain yourself from calling other people idiots even in the dispute about what should go in the first sentence, after coming back from a 48-hour block for edit warring, you should reconsider if you belong to a cooperative project. Please do not post on my talk page anymore. No such user (talk)"

This is all that I wrote:

First of all, that block has NOTHING to do with this (and it was 24 hours not 48, and the other person got blocked also for violating 3RR). Number two: I never called you or anyone an "idiot". Not sure where you're seeing that. So stop lying and stop hallucinating. Number three: you have posted on MY page, but somehow it's wrong for me to post on yours. Number four: about number one, do you know that the other person was ALSO blocked for violating 3RR that I myself reported on, and also it was a 24 hour block, not 48 hours. Again, that has nothing to do with this. I could have been blocked, about something else, and you could still be technically wrong on this matter. So don't be biased and arrogant with me. And don't accuse me of calling "idiot" when I never did. After this, I'm through with you. I won't even acknowledge anything you write or say to me. I knew you had issues way in the past, with that uptight nonsense about photos, that you brought up again that has nothing to do with the lede. You're out of line, and I'm writing you off. But if you undo any edit on that article, for no reason again, I'll just undo you (but I'll keep it at 3RR, so I won't get a 24 hour block that you can throw in my face, idiotically.) I'm done. Hashem sfarim (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

He said I called "idiot", which I never did. Describing actions or wordings as "idiotic" may be a bit too blunt (for some), but that's not the exact same as calling a person an "idiot". I never do that. I don't violate WP policy with name-calling like that. And I was simply explaining how reverting with no explanation is not according to WP policy, and also how article under discussion is not consistent with how other articles generally are in lede, regarding this matter. I'm done here. I don't have time or patience for his whines and tattling over stuff like this. This only shows what kind of person he is, which I knew already.

He is out of line bringing up stuff from the past that has NOTHING to do with this. It shows a flawed character. I can't deal with this person anymore. Which is what I told him clearly. But he whines about bluntness. I told him that I want nothing further to do with him. It's that simple. I have that right, not to engage persons I feel are unreasonable. Who see things that aren't there, exaggerate things, distort things, try to bully, throw irrelevant past things in the face to make the person feel bad, bringing up junk from the past as if it's relevant, when it isn't. In bias and desperation. I don't have patience for that. He wrote on my page first, a number of times, yesterday and today, and I simply responded on his page after that, and he didn't like what I said, in pointing out his errors and flaws in argument. So he runs here. When the original matter was settled by another editor, and I was moving on already from yesterday. So this was totally unnecessary to be bothering me today about this. And then to run here. And basically just bad-mouth me, to get me in trouble. Class act.

He brings up other matters here to try to POISON THE WELL, against me. A common tactic, and logical fallacy. That you should not fall for. I had a 24 hour block recently (for 3RR), that he brings up of course as if it were pertinent to this, and of course does not see that the OTHER person was ALSO blocked for violating 3RR, and I was the one who reported it to begin with. I could have had a block over something, and still be technically totally right in THIS matter, and No Such User (who loves to revert with no explanation), be totally wrong. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but the point is neither is he. Two to tango. REGARDLESS about some past minor thing that has nothing to do with this matter. If someone got blocked recently, and I was later on in some silly dispute with the editor hypothetically, I would NOT bring up his past block as if it that somehow proved he had to be wrong in this case. Only desperate people do that, who have no real leg to stand on. I try to deal only with the specifics of a present matter, alone. Not pre-biased nonsense from the past, that's totally unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other. But he fails to see that.

But the type of person he is, he went running here bad-mouthing me, putting his spin on things, distorting what I said, not dealing with the fact that another editor already settled this yesterday, and I had moved on already, but he tries to assassinate my character and reputation, bringing up past stuff that has nothing to do with this matter at all, to poison the well, because he can't just deal with this matter alone by itself, proving that his case is weak. Hoping that some gullible or busy or biased Admin will fall for it, which could happen of course. (Don't know what he's trying to accomplish, but just out of spite to probably get me blocked. Which again shows what kind of person he is, as I violated nothing, and called no one any name, as I said that the LEDE was "idiotically worded" not any person). Over a settled matter. HE is the one who posted on my page first today, when this was already a done deal by another editor. I simply addressed what he wanted me to address on the article talk page, and let him know on his page, like he did with my page. And this is the nonsense I have to deal with now. Hashem sfarim (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to use the preview button rather than saving then re-editing. Also, you have a tendency to repeat yourself...repeatedly. Previous blocks are considered relevant by admins if the current report shows a continuance of the behaviour that you were blocked for. Just from your post here and your talk page, I see a tendency to flare up at the littlest things. This is not consistent with the expected collegial environment that Wiki should have (probably an idealistic notion but still, gotta hope for something). Battleground behaviour of the sort you've displayed is viewed very dimly here. Admins will of course investigate as they will, but the first thing you should look at is toning down the rhetoric. Blackmane (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant, because it was over 3RR only before, which is not the case here, as I arguably violated NOTHING, no unambiguous policy or anything here, and it's out of line to mention here, only to bad-mouth and poison the well. Which of course with many people, the fallacious tactic works. I was blocked for violating 3RR ONLY. Nothing else. So it's not relevant here. As I did not violate 3RR at all here. As for repeating, well that was more done in relation to other points brought up, but regardless, some appreciate that for emphasis and memory retention, and to make the matter super clear. That's a matter of taste, not WP policy, so no need to bring that up or complain about that. Also, I have a right to "flare up" over this character's actions here, that were rude and distorting and disrespectful and unnecessary. You talk about "battleground", well I was not the one who started this "battle", and I am simply trying to defend myself. So what? What exactly do you expect? To take his garbage without saying anything? You're wrong about that, but that's no surprise. I have a right to state my case, without you harping on straightforward tone. How bout this? Try focusing on the actual substance? It's not like I'm cursing or going off like that. So let's not exaggerate that. (Even if you're an Admin, which I doubt you are, you could be wrong...you're not infallible). Anyway, this was a settled matter yesterday, by ANOTHER editor, and I moved on. Also, I don't like the fact that you're only harping on my tone, ignoring context that I have a right to be upset, as well as the specifics, meanwhile this person with his nonsense and whining and poisoning of the well neurotic illogical tactics, comes off smelling like a rose, and you say nothing about his nonsense. But (to be honest) I expected no better from Admins on here, for the most part. Sorry, just being frank. Again, though, it's NOT relevant, as my recent block was over 3RR and nothing more. So bringing up that here is creepy and pathetic, to be frank, and logically fallacious, and kinda desperate, because it has nothing to do with what he's complaining about with me here specifically.

I mean, he also brought up stuff from June of last year, that's totally unrelated. He actually milled through my past edit history months ago, in stalk-ish manner, which I have not done with him at all, because I only deal with the matter at hand, never someone's past stuff. The point is he assumes that any past disputes I had in before I MUST have been in the wrong, simply because of personal bias he has now against me, and simply because he does not like me. I must have been 100% in the wrong in June of last year. According to him. But the fact that he looked through my past stuff (sorry to be blunt now) is kinda scary, creepy, and neurotic. (But it speaks to the type of person I knew he already was, which is why I avoid him now, and will NOT engage him directly ever again, unless in edit comments, if even that much.) He brings up past past junk, after fishing for stuff. To try to poison the well. (And it's obviously working on you, which is why it's a tactic often used.) But it's not relevant. The matter here is not even a big deal. He's just whining and complaining and running to this board (class act) simply because I said "worded idiotically" (then thinks that's the same as calling a person "idiot" which it really isn't), and also because I wrote again on his page (which I admit I probably should not have, even though he wrote on mine a few times first). Nobody's perfect here. But it'd be nice to see that he sure isn't. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, verbosity often leads to responses of WP:TLDR. I've no issue if you intend to repeat yourself, merely as a suggestion that walls of text are often skimmed through rather than read especially if the latter parts are the same as the first parts. Whether your previous block is relevant to this report will be up to an admin, if you'll correctly read my statement, where it's quite clearly stated that "Previous blocks are considered relevant by admins if the current report shows a continuance of the behaviour that you were blocked for". If it's relevant, it will be held against you, otherwise not. In fact, I would have to agree that in this case a block for edit warring is not really relevant, but the cause of the block may well be, this will be up to an admin to decide. Diffs from the past are also considered relevant if it is symptomatic of your behaviour. Again, whether it is will be up to an admin to decide, however, you may find that your tone here will be precisely the sort of thing that will get you into hot water. I think you'll also find that a reply that is laden with personal attacks will also be viewed very dimly. And no, I'm not an admin, merely a busybody who decided to make a passing comment. Blackmane (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's part of the problem. There are too many people with low attention spans, when they should take the time to read and mull over these things, if they're important. What I wrote is not THAT long. If it was important enough for No Such User to run here. I was merely stating my case. And if some busy or hasty Admin finds this nonsense necessary for a "block", well that will only confirm my position more about Wikipedia in general. WP has its pluses and minuses, no doubt. And I know I'm not perfect every second. But annoying nonsense like this (and No Such User's unreasonable stuff) is just one of those minuses. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you start SHOUTING people start to get turned off to your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree if I was actually shouting, but you're referring to those occasional all caps of one or two words here and there, and for real that was not meant as shouting, but just as emphasis, similar to italics (which I also use sometimes). If it was actual shouting then you'd see whole sentences in all caps, but you don't see that. So no, the assumption (and charge) are false or a misunderstanding. No shouting was done by me. All caps of one or two isolated words does NOT (there I did it again, you see) constitute necessarily "shouting" but simply emphasis. Ala italics. Again, real "shouting" would be clear if entire sentences were all caps. But I don't do that. Just setting the record straight. For real, I did not shout, because I did not mean isolated words in all caps as shouting. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

On the Internet, ALL CAPS = shouting. If you want to emphasise words, use italics. And you only need to explain yourself once, explaining it three times (or is it four?) in the same comment as done above isn't necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions are fine, and you may even have a point. But making them dogmatic things is not fine. In other words, common sense should tell you that if they are isolated words that are in all caps then it's NOT necessarily meant as "yelling" per se. Yelling generally carries on with the whole sentence. Also, as far as occasional repetitiveness for clarity maybe, don't exaggerate it, and please stop imposing personal tastes, and whining about it, as if they were hard WP rules or something. That's not your place, plus it's kind of irrelevant to the actual substance of the situation. I was not yelling. Period. If you dogmatically think that even just one word in all caps is ipso facto yelling, and if you can't see that one or two occasional words in all caps in an otherwise non-capped sentence or paragraph is not logically yelling, but simply a little emphasis (similar to italics, but maybe slightly stronger, but still not yelling) then I can't help you. Nor do I have the desire to wrangle about something so trivial. The reason I'm a little annoyed at you right now is because that's all your comments to me here were about. Nothing else. No substance, just whining about petty things, and style (which you're A) misunderstanding, or B) exaggerating.) Like I said, you might have a point, but to harp on it like it's a federal matter? If you have something of more substance to say, other than one or two isolated words in "all caps" that was not meant as "yelling" at all, and some repeating some points for retention and clarity, or maybe further elaborating those "repeated" points, then please don't bother. I had enough of the picayune minutia on here. I got the point. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP, No such user, makes the point that this is essentially a content dispute and as such it really should be settled on the article's talk page. I do note that there has been much discussion there so editors really have been trying to sort this out. Nevertheless, AN/I is not the place to resolve disagreements like this; it's a place to request administrative action such as blocks, page protections etc. The correct board, explicitly set up for content disputes, is WP:DRN. I suggest that either the OP or Hashem sfarim go and follow the instructions there to seek some help in resolving this.

HOWEVER: one word of warning. It's my advice that the manner and tone of your contributions will be as important as the content of your arguments. Hashem sfarim, your contributions both here and on the article talk page tend to be lengthy, repetitive and confrontational. WP is a collaborative effort and you will get your points across much better if you try and work alongside other editors. Carrying on as you have been may start to be seen as disruptive; please take this as an opportunity to rethink your approach. I will mark this as closed in 12 hours time, unless any other previously uninvolved editors weigh in to suggest we keep this open. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion on 189.60.0.0/14

I just noticed in this edit, the IP seems to have admitted to block evasion. Unfortunately, the IP seems to be dynamic within 189.60.0.0/14; this same user appears to have been using 189.61.24.117 relatively recently. I'm not familiar enough with dealing with IP block evaders, especially hopping within such a large block, so I ask here for someone more familiar with such things to deal with it. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: A /14 is too large to check (or block); the smaller range checks I did (imperfect, blunt instruments at best) did not reveal anything actionable at this time.  Frank  |  talk  18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion is block evasion and they need to get blocked for that however, blocking every IP could cause collateral damage and hurt the project. If this were me making the decision, as long as this user isn't doing anything wrong at the moment, I would leave it at that. That's option 1. Option 2, which is likely to be less favorable, is to perform a range block with ACCOUNT CREATION ENABLED to allow regular IP editors in that range to create an account and continue editing while taking care of the block evader.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,724,130) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By my calculation, a range block for a /14 would be 256K (2^18) addresses...and I can't begin to imagine how many accounts. I don't see how that is reasonable, not to mention that leaving account creation enabled would enable a vandal to create an account as well. True, we can (and do) block such accounts, but the potential collateral damage seems immense.  Frank  |  talk  03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hindu fundamentalist vandal?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm confused by what is happening at the Hindu Astrology page. User Dbachmann is vandalizing referenced material and inserting uncited garbage. I tried speaking with him here, but as you can see I am very confused by the conversation. AssociateLong (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is material that has been there in the article. I did not put it in. AssociateLong (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not made any realistic effort to discuss this either on the article talk page or with the editor involved. It is certainly not vandalism which as you'll see from that link has quite a specific meaning here; it is more like a content dispute which AN/I cannot resolve. Dab has a no-nonsense editing style and can often appear brusque but I can assure you from personal experience that s/he follows policy closely and is open to reasoned debate based on good sources, well cited. Please go back to the article talk page and engage in a proper, well-argued discussion about why you prefer one version, and whether there is some compromise to be made here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe with the insertion of junk uncited material. Reading your link, this is absolutely vandalism. And again these are not my edits. AssociateLong (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were your edits. I said it seems as though you prefer one version and dab prefers another. I suggest you both go to the article talk page and resolve this content dispute there. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

AssociateLong (talk · contribs · count) is editing from 23 Feb. Despite contradictory evidence from his contributions, I'm assuming good faith that he is a genuinely new user with no prior username. BTW, we have a policy called WP:CIVIL which AssociateLong must go through. He should also know bold editing is not vandalism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I remember how this noticeboard was useful at the time it was created. Now it just seems to be a forum for trolls complaining because they didn't get away with an edit summary of "reversing vandalism"? Perhaps people should become more exclusive about what kind of complaints are even allowed to stand here? Otherwise, there is a real risk that any real issue will just be buried in all the non-issues. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair dab, we can't be exclusive about what people choose to post here. However we can deal firmly and clearly with people when they do bring irrelevant material to the wrong place and I think that's just what we've done here. I don't see anyone rushing to AssociateLong's side in upholding their complaint! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So what explains the insertion of all the UNCITED material by dab? Can anyone explain that? AssociateLong (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take that question to the article talk page. That is a content dispute and as it says prominently at the top of this noticeboard, none of our business. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wustenfuchs, disruptive editing at the article "Yugoslavs"

The User:Wustenfuchs has violated Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. The user's editing is in violation of the Wikipedia policy of WP:DISRUPT. The user is refusing to accept inclusion of material on Yugoslavs at the article Yugoslavs that has been supported by multiple users by reverting their edits, refusing to accept their arguments in favour of their edits, refusing to accept evidence that supports their edits, and refusing to take other users seriously. In one comment he denied that Yugoslavs exist, and in spite of multiple clear evidence shown to disprove this spurious claim, the user has refused to accept this. The user was warned not to continue this behaviour, has been asked by another user to drop the stick, and was encouraged to cooperate with other users to help build consensus on related material. The user has refused to accept this and has continuted disruptive editing.

For further evidence of Wustenfuchs' behaviour, the following users have been involved in conversations with this user since the user began such disruptive editing, and should administrators wish to contact them for evidence, here are their names: User:Biblbroks, User:Evlekis, User:PRODUCER.

Report by: --R-41 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence in the form of links to specific edits with an explanation of why they are considered disruptive and specify what administrative action you wish to be taken. Otherwise it is just your opinion and this discussion thread will probably be closed. TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to the sections where the disruptive editing occurred: [52], [53]. Here is an edit by Wustenfuchs denying that stateless nations exist after being informed of this and given evidence: [54]

I am asking for the user to receive a two-week block on editing of the Yugoslavs article, and the block would pertain only to that article while the user would be free to edit other articles. Afterwards I suggest that the user may return to edit the article, but if the user upon returning continues to do such behaviour upon returning to the article, then considerations of blocking the user again for a longer period should be considered.--R-41 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide links to specific edits and explain why they are disruptive. TFD (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke. --Wustenfuchs 09:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example: [55] - this example is where Wustenfuchs simply explicitly refuses to accept that stateless nations exist, after being demonstrated to him that they do. And this is Wustenfuchs denying that Yugoslavs exist at all and calling for the article to be deleted when he said: "How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then" - statement by the user Wustenfuchs [56] - multiple users have strongly rejected this and provided evidence disproving this - including statistics, but he has refused to even acknowledge them. Here he Wustenfuchs denying again that there is a Yugoslav nation, after being given evidence that there is: [57]. Here is User:PRODUCER frustrated with Wustenfuchs' editing, and the first user to identify Wustenfuchs' editing as tedentious as well as being involved in edit-warring: [58]. After this Wustenfuchs wanted sources - which were given to him afterwards - but also included an unnecessary aggressive and condescending statement in response to PRODUCER, saying "You can believe anything you want, like I care" - statement by Wustenfuchs.[59] here is User:Evlekis saying that evidence is in the article that states that Yugoslavs exist - people declaring themselves Yugolsavs - and saying that the discussion has been resolved and doesn't understand why it is continuing.[60] Wustenfuchs has been highly combative with the users User:Evlekis and User:PRODUCER, his attitudes with them demonstrate that is not intending to work toward Wikipedia:Consensus and that he is engaged in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. As I have said before, for further evidence: simply ask the three users who have discussed with him on the article: User:Biblbroks, User:Evlekis, User:PRODUCER.--R-41 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I can't agree for adding Strossmayer and Rački in the infobox without source. And there is no source to confrimes they are Yugoslavs, only the sources that explains their political ideology, wich is not same as nationality. All other was discussed on the talk page (the problem are they nationality or not) and did not influenced the article. --Wustenfuchs 12:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

None of these edits would normally lead to sanctions and providing edits showing other editors have expressed concerns is not relevant. If you and other editors are having trouble which cannot be resolved with another editor, then your best approach is to set up an RfC. In the meantime, you have not made a case for administrative action, despite several opportunites to do so. TFD (talk)

I gave you evidence above in diffs showing violations of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. The names of users involved with the issue that you can ask to confirm what I've said, the user's names are: User:Biblbroks, User:Evlekis, User:PRODUCER. User:PRODUCER first noted the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing along with edit-warring, see here: [61]--R-41 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, you have provided three differences.[62][63][64] Together they do not show a pattern of anything. The fact that you and possibly other editors think there is a pattern is irrelevant unless you can provide one. TFD (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

user:Amuel Gins

Copying from AIV.

• Amuel Gins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suspicious edits. Positing here in case someone can immediately spot socking. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist. I just noticed that you violated the rule that "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." I was not informed by you that you brought this up here at ANI.

my edits were intended to fix damage by another user (User:WarriorsPride6565), who deleted random words all over the Tanka people article, then added gramatically and factually incorrect information to Miscegenation and Interracial marriage. Another user called Jim1138 mistook my large reference templates (with google book links and quotes), as me adding massive amounts of material to the article, and promptly assumed I was vandalizing.

Materialscientist also reverted my fixes on Tanka people, reverting back to the version vandalized by WarriorsPride6565. Go look at User talk:WarriorsPride6565. He was threatened with blocks for the vandalism. I'm not kidding, He deleted words all over the article and nobody fixed it. I have notified Materialscientist that he reverted to a vandalized version, but he ignored all messages from me. I fixed it myself.Amuel Gins (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Amuel Gins, some of your edits removed the "destination" or "ref name" for many named references. When you see something like <ref name="xxxx"/>, this is used for multiple references to the same source. If you delete the ref name, example here[65], it will create an error: Cite errors/Cite error references no text. Please see Help:Footnotes#Multiple references to the same footnote. Because of the large number of these references being damaged, it is likely this is part of the reason all your edits were reverted. Also, the standard format for retrieve dates in citations are, for example. 2012-03-01. There is no need to convert to 2012 March 1.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that. The reason I am forced to do that, was because those "destination" templates were added by Rjwilmsi on December 3. WarriorsPride and Sevilledade had vandalized and inserted gramatically incorrect words days before him, on November 30 (this is just one of WarriorPride's edits, scroll down to see the deleted words) and Sevilldade messing up the grammar.

I had to select a revision from before WarriorsPrides vandalism to the article. Therefore, Rjwilmsi's fixes had to go. He can fix it again right now.

And this ANI section serves no purpose, since firstly, materialscientist's entry on me at AIV was removed, admins looked over the case, and since they did nothing, apparently they found nothing wrong with my edits. Materialscientist also did this entire thing behind my back without notifying me against protocol, furthermore, he failed to assume good faith. I never vandalized an article before, and I am not a new account. I have already explained my edits to materialscienist but he just ignored me.Amuel Gins (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Narrowing the discussion to the diffs your provided, which you claim are vandalism:

In WarriorsPride's November 30 edit, [66] the user was apparently not familiar with the flagicon template and was having some difficulty. The other changes made are reasonable. Nothing in this diff suggests anything like vandalism or any intentions, disruptive in nature.

The other diff you gave [67] by Sevilldade, well, I don't see anything wrong at all with this edit other than the resultant wording being a little awkward. Bad grammar? Ok sure, you can call it that. But it was certainly not vandalism.

Please see WP:Vandalism as it appears to me you may have got the wrong idea about what vandalism is exactly. --Racerx11 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, there have been so many strange and confusing revisions that I'm having difficulty figuring out what the heck is going on and I'm losing interest in sorting it out. If the users you mentioned above were the start of all this and their edits the only things you had a problem with, then it should have been a fairly straight forward series of fixes. Instead, what you have now is an edit history in complete shambles. Or maybe I'm just getting tired and cranky. I'm signing off for a while, good night and good luck. --Racerx11 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I am not an admin, I was here just offering a possible explanation for your edits being reverted. Don't read too much into what I have said and wait for an administrator to repond. Take care.--Racerx11 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Racerx11, you do realize that the more you post on here, the longer the (no longer existent) issue drags out? I posted my message as a request to get this thread archived, since the AIV was dismissed and Jim1138 now no longer is claiming my edits are wrong, and I take materialscientist's ignoring of me and my corrections as acknowledgement that he no longer sees anything wrong with my edit. He isn't reverting me anymore.

WarriorsPride received repeated vandalism warnings for blanking random words, and he himself admitted that his browser was deleting them.

User_talk:WarriorsPride6565#Randomly_removing_words

User_talk:WarriorsPride6565#Randomly_removing_words_and_other_matters

User_talk:WarriorsPride6565#December_2011

User_talk:WarriorsPride6565#I_will_have_to_block_you

I also stated that WarriorsPride6565 made more than one edit, in which he repeatedly removed random words all over the articles, they were all done on November 30 [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]

Sevilledade was actually informed by another editor about the deletion of words from the Tanka article. He chose to ignore the message and do nothing at all to fix the mess.Amuel Gins (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

all the articles have been corrected already and materialscientist isn't reverting me anymore. Sevilledade and Warriorspride are no longer editing that article, the AIV has been dismissed, there is no longer an issue. Just leave this thread alone (which means don't respond anymore) and wait for it to be archived by the bot, if no one is going to bother to do it manually.Amuel Gins (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EnRealidad deleting article talk page post by other user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is consensus and policy backing for removing talk page posts that discuss the subject in the manner of a forum post or merely voices the user's opinion about the subject or parts thereof. However, when there exists a focus on improving the article, e.g. when the post claims there are errors or biases in the article that needs to be corrected, removing such a post is inappropriate. And this is what is happening at Talk:Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) where user EnRealidad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly ([78][79]) has removed one post by another user, Mike-ely-kasama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in what I see as violation of WP:TPO.

The rationale for removing the talk page post of another user is given as:[80]

“ Finally, I have also removed an entry that Ely posted on the Discussion page in response to comments saying that the entry needed to be rewritten. He stated that there were numerous errors in the entry as a whole and then proceeded to write several paragraphs discussing what he believed to be the organizational structure of the RCP in Los Angeles and in relation to the RCP nationally and speculation about the role of individuals in the RCP. By his own statements, Ely has not been a member of the RCP for a number of years and yet is trying to pass himself off as an authority on things about which he could not have any knowledge. ”

I find this rationale wholly insufficient, but having been reverted by EnRealidad and seeing the post in question being removed twice from the talk page I'm calling on the community to intervene. __meco (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the disputed talk page edits and they do not violate any talk page rules. Whether or not they are supported, true or valid the edit is a commentary upon the article as it stands and not a simple violation of WP:NOTFORUM. I invite User:EnRealidad to self-revert by restoring the comments s/he deleted. I have said as much on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Open and shut case for a block...i myself had the same when i first joined and was unfamiliar with the guidelines. a <24 hr block should suffice. (as first warning)Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on the talk page; I don't think a block is required now as there is no activity going on which needs to be urgently stopped. Will close this for now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grossincivility/personal attack by User:RedMongoose

Please see this edit summary in response to a warning about this removal of sourced content. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User is abusing power and cluttering up my private talk page to make a point / bullying --RedMongoose (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• And again. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The words "asshole" and "wikitard" are textbook examples of extreme incivility and personal attack, and generates doubt whether this user really has any constructive motive. Anyway I've issued him/her two warnings - one for incivility in edit summary, other for the second incivility/personal attack. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Since (s)he removed the warning templates, I left a note on their talkpage explaining why their behavior is inappropriate, which they removed again. The user has the right to remove warnings from their talkpage, lets see if they continue this behavior. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

However, this level 3 vandalism warning in response to this good-faith edit was just as bad, as was this irrelevant warning, so I don't see what admin action either of you want here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• This edit summary was grossly inappropriate, which is why I issued this warning. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You had warned him for making personal attacks 1 minute prior, which is fine. There is no need to then tell him to "please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did." Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I cannot see that as a good faith edit. Yes, information about the resignation was added, but at the same time, well-sourced information critical of the article's subject was removed. This was not a mistake. Given the extensive edit history with repeated whitewash attempts by different SPA editors, I think that a level 3 warning was absolutely justified in this case. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

...which was why the edit was appropriately reverted. However, I cannot see anything that yet indicates that he made the edit in bad faith, so don't you think that a level 1 warning would have been better? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps. But please have a look at the article history. I don't want to add complications here, but somehow I hear a lot of quacking there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have, and I'd agree that RedMongoose's edits look suspicious. In that case, however, WP:SPI is a better solution, since then he would be indefinitely blocked if he were a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First talk page edit personally is not a gross violation per se...but other edits are incivil and WPA. think a final waning should suffice for now...or an SPI complaint which is apart from ANI.Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at helpdesk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admin eyes on this diff, please: "This dispute must be resolved for legal reasons," and "I have no desire to issue subpoenas," tripped my NLT alarms. User is presumably the same person as IP 86.10.11.16. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, saw the first statement (which promted my link to WP:NLT), but missed the second one - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Placed notes at help desk and User talk:Awdurdod. Also alerted user to this discussion, as required.  Frank  |  talk  13:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to do that. *self-trout* Yunshui 雲‍水 14:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, please stop templating that person. Have a normal conversation with him instead. The templates are bureaucratic and obnoxious and will probably tick him off MORE. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

More possible legal threats here? Quote: "I suggest that those interested in the truth agree a form of words with the management of the new company. That's surely in keeping with policy, courteous and avoids any legal entanglement that may come as a result of certain actions be taken by certain bodies. Wikipedia is not above the law. Nether are the writers here."  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

67.117.145.9 - He's had two template, one was a standard template regarding WP:NLT, the other one was telling him about this thread, not exactly excessive. Also, he hasn't been blocked - not sure where you got that from. He was warned that he may be blocked only. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He should be blocked. How many legal threats does he get to make? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, just pointing out that 67.117.145.9 jumped the gun telling him that he was blocked. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To clear up the confusion, this is clearly the IP user who was IP blocked for one week for disruptive edits. His block expired today. It looks like he has now created an account Sirfurboy (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked as 86.10.11.16 as Sirfurboy mentions. The templates he got were obnoxious and bureaucratic under the circumstances. I left him a note trying to explain what happened. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The templates specifically say what to do if they disagree with the actions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And while you guys argue over whether or not it's a legal threat, the issue that prompted the possible legal threats is going unresolved and we're doing an astoundingly poor job of welcoming this person to Wikipedia by completely overlooking the substance of his complaint and focusing on the way he made it. Somebody should point him to OTRS (info-en-qwikimedia.org), where the issue will be dealt with—informally if possible, by the WMF's legal department if not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There was definitely a legal threat, it's just crappy response to leave those templates that are generic and don't say anything at all about the specific incident. I left him a note pointing to VRT which is apparently the new name for OTRS. HJ is also correct that it's wrong to ignore the substance of the complaint (see WP:DOLT). But I do think the substance has been addressed to some extent at Talk:Welsh Development Agency. I haven't yet looked at it in detail. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And now Orange Mike has indefblocked, leaving another of those damn templates. The block is correct but would it kill us to actually write a sentence or two in English instead of using templates in these situations? We should delete all those templates since they are turning us into zombies. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The templates were specifically created because people complained that warnings didn't mean anything. And nobody will block at AIV unless the going through the motions graduated four warnings, template wise, are given. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:TTR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war/unsourced content forced by Chipmunkdavis at List of world map changes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chipmunkdavis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_map_changes

After I started editing Wikipedia 2 weeks ago and tried to make a change on this page, unfortunately I was in an edit war. When I was informed of the rules and the proper way to make changes, by discussing on the talk page, that's exactly what I did. I stopped reverting and instead explained the edit on the talk page.

The basic idea is this: there is an entry about the symbolic Palestine declaration of independence in 1988. This declaration declared a state of Palestine based on the 1947 UN Partition Plan (ie: the borders of their proposed state would include around half of the modern borders of Israel). Of course, as we all know, this proposal for Palestine has not had any practical effect, and Palestine with those borders never showed up on the world map. So in other words, that symbolic declaration did not make any change to the world map. Instead, the page discusses the West Bank and Gaza, and changes to their status... which makes sense, because the world map does label the West Bank and Gaza. But as of today, Palestine has not become an official country that is represented in the UN and appears on world maps. When it does, it will be based on a future agreement on borders, and not on the borders alluded to in the 1988 declaration. So I attempted to remove the entry since it does not match the topic of the list, which is described not only in the title but also in detail in the introduction of the article.

So after I stopped the edit war 2 weeks ago because I learned it was not allowed (Chipmunkdavis had been participating in that edit war at the time), I made an entry on the talk page and had a discussion. I asked anybody to explain why the declaration made a world map change and show sources that indicated such. Nobody brought any sources, and Chipmunkdavis repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, he told me that if I want to delete the entry, I have to go find sources for all the other unsourced material in the list. I think that it's not my responsibility to fix the entire encyclopedia, and if he thinks something else is unsourced and incorrect, he should bring it up on the talk page like I did and we can have a separate discussion. Meanwhile, the Palestine entry still remains unsourced and does not belong in the article.

I said that I would wait several days without making any more revisions, hoping someone would join the discussion with sources. But nobody did. So after giving the warning, I decided the discussion seemed to be finished, and I went and once again removed the inappropriate entry. Immediately, Chipmunkdavis reverted my edit without bringing any sources or explanation, and accused me of edit warring. Even though I followed the process correctly by discussing and waiting, before making the change.

So now I am stuck and don't know what to do, because he is forcing this unsourced edit into the article and refusing to find any source, instead just putting it back and insisting on his way even though I have explained why it's wrong.

I appreciate any further help, maybe from an administrator who has the power to advise him that he cannot just force unsourced content because he thinks it is right. And since I don't want to engage in edit warring, maybe other people can take a look at the article and discussion and either if you think I am wrong find some sources to show it, or if you think I am right join the discussion and/or remove the unsourced content.

Thank you very much. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the correct venue for this is the dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:96.125.246.135 edit on Pierre Poilievre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Background: There is allegationsof voter suppression from Conservative Party of Canada in the recent Canadian federal election, 2011. There are reports of harassing calls calling claimed to be from the Liberal Party of Canada and robocalls redirecting voters to non-existing polling station in southwestern Ontario. The phone number used in the robocalls is registered under "Pierre Poutine", an obviously fake name. [81] [82].

This IP user made this edit [83] to the Pierre Poilievre. Given the subject of this article is a Canadian Member of Parliament in Conservative Party and the timing of the events this is not only vandalism but constitutes a libel. The said revision needs to be deleted and appropriate warning given to the said user. I have revert the edit alreadySYSS Mouse (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Report them back here if you see them making any similar edits. Thanks, Swarm ^X 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piotrus - experienced user, does not seem to understand or accept "STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please provide guidance. Shajure (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Shajure, an experienced user her/himself, doesn't seem to understand that the purpose of a User talk page is to communicate with other editors, and that a warning saying "Go away. Stay gone." isn't an appropriate use of the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Malik - you are incorrect. The appropriate talk page is the place for that discussion. My talk page should not exist, as I have a strong desire never to read it nor post to it.Shajure (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My guidance is to remove the notice from the top of your user talk page. It is unnecessarily confrontational. This a collaborative project, and if you do not wish other people to periodically contact you regarding your work here, you shouldn't be here. Its that simple. You should not make a blanket request that no one leave you messages on your user talk page. --Jayron32 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I firmly decline and disagree strongly. I am here to edit articles, not my talk page. If I wanted to chat I would be on a chat board.Shajure (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if someone wishes to discuss your edits to articles, they need to be allowed to use your talk page to reach you. You are correct that this is not the place to chat, but you still must be willing to discuss the encyclopedia with other editors when they wish to. --Jayron32 20:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I read the opening of this thread and was prepared to gently remind Piotrus that it's polite to leave people alone when they ask you to, but upon looking at your talk page...this is not that. If, as it reads to me, that talk page notice is intended to communicate that you have no intention of engaging with other users, period, then I would advise that Wikipedia is very much not the right place for you. All editors are expected to be willing to discuss their edits and/or behavior when necessary. Repeated failure to do so is generally considered disruptive to the encyclopedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dear Malik ShabazzShajure, thanks for asking for guidance here. Talk pages are the default way to give people messages (positive or negative) on their behaviour on wikipedia and thus are very useful. If you have problems with someone, you have the possibility to ask them to stay away, but a default "go away" seems not very productive to improving this encyclopedia. My suggestion is thus: remove the text and be open to comments of others! L.tak (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Check again. It wasn't Malik that started this thread. --Jayron32 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • indeed; sorry; corrected! L.tak (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• The warnings on this user's talk page, as well as their comments, seem to reveal an attitude that's absolutely incompatible with our goal of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Piotrus originally posted on their page with a perfectly reasonable comment. Shajure, on the other hand, went so far as to suggest that people who post on their talk page will be blocked. This is astonishingly inappropriate and I'm wondering if there's any reason not to block immediately, considering the message to administrators on their talk page. Swarm ^X 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go that far. A problem has been brought to the OPs attention regarding their behavior at Wikipedia. The OP should be given the chance to not heed our advice before blocking them. --Jayron32 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP has apparently retired. If he/she returns, I don't think a repeat of their non-communicative attitude is remotely acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent: attempted outing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Need a revdel here ASAP [84]. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure you can out someone editing under their full name, Lionel. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, please read Wikipedia:Revdel#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion. I don't think that if you feel something should be removed from public view because you are concerned about "outing", posting a link to it on one of Wikipedia's busiest pages is probably a good course of action. I think Ms. Streisand may agree. Begoon ^talk 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to WP:ABF here, I could... no, never mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Heavens, no... don't :-) WP:AGF at all times, as I do. You know it makes sense. Begoon ^talk 03:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible topic ban violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was pointed out to me on my talkpage that Cybermud (talk · contribs) may have violated the men's rights topic ban I placed on him here, which was confirmed in this AN/I discussion, by participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination). I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could review this and see if action needs to be taken. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the edits you mention border on violating Cybermud's topic ban but do not cross the line. He was banned from making edits related to the topic of men's rights not feminism. I believe, however, it might be wise for Cybermud to avoid that general topic area and concentrate on something completely different for a time... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Copying my commentary on this over from Sarek's talk page. I'm involved in a related AfD and am not comfortable taking admin action regarding other users involved in this round of men's rights salvos, but it appears to me to be a fairly clear violation of Cybermud's topic ban from "pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed)". Men's rights advocates consider feminism and masculinism to be heavily linked (or rather, to be diametrically opposed to one another, and in constant struggle), and an article about "men and feminism" fits quite neatly into a broadly-construed ban on men's rights topics. Cybermud's !vote in the AfD in question is actually quite reasonable, but the fact remains that he has been topic-banned from the area and has now violated that topic ban for the second time this month, after having been given a warning for the first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to wikilawyer, considering that even I am suggesting Cybermud to concentrate on different topics; however, you should link to his restriction, not to the terms of the article probation. Cybermud was a one-month topic ban from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages. I consider it a stretch to argue those words also include an article about men and feminism, no matter what men's rights advocates may think.

    Considering that you yourself think that his input to the discussion was rather reasonable and that it is, at least, disputed that his restriction prevented Cybermud from participating in that AfD, I believe Cybermud should not be sanctioned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Men and feminism is directly related to Men's rights because the article discusses Men's rights, see the entire section Men and feminism#Antifeminist response. Moreover, this isn't the first time that Cybermud has violated his topic ban, see this warning. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree it's related to men's rights. I also agree with Salvio that the topic ban was unfortunately poorly worded. I believe the normal wording is something like from "topic banned from articles related to TB" which makes it clear it's from all articles related to the topic TB. (Sometimes broadly construed may be added.) In this case, the topic ban could easily be read to suggest the ban is from the article (rather then the topic) Men's rights including talk pages and related pages. What's a related page isn't specified, so it could be intepreted to mean xFDs and AN(I) discussions of the article. Or perhaps sub articles of men's rights (of which there are none), but not, related but non subarticles. (Men and feminism can't really be said to be a subarticle of men's rights, of feminism sure. It mentions men's rights, but also other things.) It's suggested multiple places in this thread this isn't the first time, if so, has the topic ban been clarified to Cybermud before? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page section deals with his previous violation. Kim Dent-Brown also clarified his topic ban on the original section somewhat, saying "You are banned from the Men's rights article and other articles in the same topic area." I think Cybermud realized, or should have reasonably realized, that this article was included in his ban. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In that case I agree that whatever the original wording, it should have been clear that the topic ban was in the wider topic area and covered men and feminism. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (recused sysop comment) This is just one further instance of Cybermud flaunting site policy in a long history of it. Salvio Men and feminism has a section on Men's rights - its about men's rights as well as profeminism and other related topics, it falls smack bang in the middle of the topic ban & bans apply to all edits good or bad--Cailil ^talk 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. With most other editors, I would be inclined to say we should let it slide, but this is cybermud's second violation of his topic ban, and shows his continued flagrant disregard for... well... pretty much everything about Wikipedia. Kevin (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How the heck can Men and feminism not be related to "Men's rights"? Men and feminism has a 5 paragraph section titled "Men's rights", and the entire "men's rights movement" arose as a response against feminism. The two topics are directly and closely related. This is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, IMO. Whether or not his edit was helpful or disruptive is immaterial. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a fairly clear (if not particularly large) consensus that Cybermud has breached his topic ban; looking at the article in question I also agree that the article clearly falls within the scope of the ban. I am going to block Cybermud for for the duration of the ban (until 10 March), which is a bit under 2 weeks. I've never blocked an editor for breaching a ban before, so I invite the review of others if they feel the amount of time is too long or two short; we may also want to consider whether there should be an extension of the topic ban, per Kim Dent-Brown's closing comment for the ANI discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with me, and I only noticed this from the watchlist, as I seen the word 'block' and was having a nosey. But I would say a reasonable punishment for anyone who breaches a ban, would be to start the length of the original ban again, and add an additional 50% of the original sentence to the banning order - that way the offender is being punished not only for committing the original offence, but also for breaching it too. Just making an observer suggestion that all. Wesley☀Mouse 02:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My original closing notice imposing the topic ban included the words: "One month topic ban for Cybermud from Men's rights article and closely related articles on the same topic.". I didn't explicitly link to WP:TBAN but this includes the words: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Between the two it's pretty clear to me that a violation has taken place, albeit a minor one and I accept Cybermud's assurances of good faith. I support the block which was instated to run alongside the ban, and propose that the clock for the ban (but not the block) should be 'reset' to one month following the last edit in violation of the topic ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with ban being reset - this was standard operating procedure anyway until fairly recently--Cailil ^talk 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Clear violation of topic ban. POV warriors will continue to fight until stopped. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Armbrust, I've commented out your archiving, because we need to determine if the topic ban should be extended. I see three people supporting that; I feel like that's not a huge number of people and would prefer to see if anyone else wants to chime in before finalizing an extension (probably 1 additional month). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The ban should be reset --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the ban should be reset. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests

I have continously warned and discussed edits at the above page by the user User talk:TAzimi. In return he responds to warnings with attacks of ownerships even though the vast majority of his edits to the page are unsourced OR. He then explains through further OR that one edit is wrong in his opinion and "commen sense" when discredited by WP's own page at Bagram airfield ought to imply. THen he reverts everything AGAIN despite calls and discussion not to do so (where i explained EACH of the reverts of his that are OR or against MOS.) As a new editor i told him to read MOS, but he acusses me of cowing him as a new editor (see the aticle talk page). I am now not reverting but just tagged the page to try and generate a discussion. (the page is also on ITN)

At the moment only seeking a warning intervention..however seeing his contribs there maybe further reason if thats how he edits across WP. in future a block but for now an admin warning should suffice.

On the talk page of teh artilce in question, he must eb told not to resort to NPA off the bat and to discuss content. THX.Lihaas talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" here. (See header). Haploidavey (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Haploidavey (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

FoR THE record, and though needless that the comment is corrected, teh warning is removed [85]Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First, Lihaas should not have come here when I'm engaged in article talk. I'm not sure what OR is this person talking about? He or she should've warned self because he/she's distorting info and trying to blame others. For example, he/she wants the article to read that ISAF were involved in the Koran burning when all sources say it was the Americans. ISAF is a multi-national force and none of the source blamed ISAF. Lihaas is disruptive and a POV-pusher. My edits are fine because they are all properly sourced using RSs, all I did was correct the info. Lihaas is trying to get blocked everyone that opposes his or her's vision (example, he/she keeps asserting that Bagram Airfield is ISAF-run base) but that is absolutely false because there is no source that backs this ridiculous claim. In fact, I provided the official website of Bagram Airfield and there is not even a mention of ISAF there. Many of his or her's other edits to 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests are the same and when someone comes to correct it he starts putting warning messages in their talk as he did in my. When I'm actively engaged in the Talk:2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests he/she shouldn't be writing nonsense in my talk because that makes me confused and frustrated. I think he or she out to be blocked for disruption.--TAzimi (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrea James

The subject of this article is an editor here, User:Jokestress. Ms. James is a transgender activist who edits heavily in the subject here. She objects to the inclusion of claims that she was involved with the online harassment of a prominent academic whose theories she disagrees with has a reputation for rather harsh tactics for silencing dissent. The claims are made in an academic paper published in a peer-reviewed journal by a historian and bioethecist and in a New York Times article (by one of its science/medical writers). The NYT reports that "Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children.. and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided" [86] and the peer-reviewed paper says she wrote "that 'there are two types of children in the Bailey household,' namely those 'who have been sodomized by their father [and those] who have not'".[87]. The NYT article includes her response to a question about why she attacked the guy's children (it appears she thinks this was a reasonable response, according to the Times article). She insists that the academic who wrote the paper and the New York Times reporter are out to get her and therefore their comments should not be included. She's recruited a new user, User:Luwat to edit in her favor (who now accuses me of "hate"). The relevant diff is here [88]. Most of the sources at present are to her own website, fellow activist websites, and a few mainstream press items that mention her en passant (i.e. "James was a consultant advising the actress who played the transgendered character in the movie.") I won't be bothering about it anymore, but it's a classic wikipedia rules "are for thee but not for me" kind of situation. Good luck! Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate is engaging in canvassing, and the summary above is not accurate. There's already a discussion of this complex issue at NPOVN. I have removed an inaccurate BLP violation in the comment above. The issue is not the inclusion of critical comments and sources. I proposed adding them and expanding on them in a version of my bio I prepared after Bali ultimate added numerous dead link tags. You can review the proposed content here: User:Jokestress/Biography My concern is that Bali ultimate's major expansion of one side of the disagreement and breaking it out into its own large section have reached the the point of undue weight and POV issues. We are making some progress at NPOVN despite this sort of disruption by Bali ultimate. I see another editor immediately reverted to Bali ultimate's version, presumably based on the inaccurate summary above. This concern is mentioned at NPOVN and is part of a larger conduct issue I'd like to review elsewhere once this content issue is addressed. Jokestress (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate's claim that Andrea recruited me to edit her biography is an outright lie. I do not know her personally, and she has already clarified, at user talk:Maunus, that she does not know me. Bali ultimate's making of untruthful accusations of this kind is further evidence that he is too emotionally agitated to be editing a sensitive biography. Luwat (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on Bali's emotional state, I will say that most people are likely not dispassionate enough to edit their own biographies and should probably tread lightly. N^oformation ^Talk 01:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not edited my own biography and do not intend to. I have proposed text which I believe is objective and proportional, but that is for others to decide. With controversies, we often see editors like Bali ultimate who get all outraged and expand a minor issue into an over-detailed expression of their POV. That's what has happened to my bio, and it happens to Wikipedians with bios from Jimmy Wales on down. Example: the outrage du jour is Richard F. Cebull, whose biography at one point today was half about an email he forwarded yesterday and half about his 40 years of legal work and service. This kind of COATRACK and UNDUE is my concern, especially since Bali ultimate's additions appear to be in response to my NPOV concern raised on that noticeboard. This kind of "I'll how you who's boss" attitude is always unfortunate, but it's especially problematic on BLPs. I have let a lot of crap slide on the biography about me over the years, but the recent edits made by Bali ultimate do not present the full scope of the controversy and blow it way out of proportion in terms of its significance within my work. I seek to bring it into NPOV, and when Bali ultimate started losing that discussion, he started forum shopping in hopes of getting his way. Jokestress (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what kind of action Bali wants here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he wants his expanded coatrack to stand as is and is forum shopping to achieve that end, where I would like uninvolved editors with whom I've not had negative on-wiki interaction previously to review his version for NPOV. I asked him not to edit it at all since we have had prior interactions and there is a discussion at NPOVN, but that request made him edit it even more disproportionately. Based on his talk page, he has a history of this sort of interpersonal conduct. If we are going to have that much detail, I would hope the other published viewpoints in this discussion are expanded proportionally. However, I think that much detail is out of proportion within a bio this brief. Jokestress (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It certainly looked to me like Bali was edit warring, so I'm glad s/he's apparently stepped away from the article for a while (Luwat too). The underlying is complicated and IMHO, Maunus is doing a good job at NPOVN trying to sort it out. I don't think there's anything for ANI at the moment, if the back-and-forth reverts have stopped. Better to not have too many parallel discussions on the same topic. I suggest closing this thread and referring to NPOVN unless new conflict arises. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict^3, fork, etc. Bali ultimate, exactly how many editors are you going to fight with? ) Bali ultimate's accusation of meatpuppetry above doesn't seem to include any evidence that wouldn't equally apply to Bali ultimate himself. It seems mainly an attempt to undermine one editor on-wiki by reciting what another editor did off-wiki in a previous decade. (Actions that were, of course, discussed at length on-wiki back when they were recent.) It is analogous to arguing that we should punish Bali ultimate because the last person pushing the POV he's fighting for was shown to have an undisclosed conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BB the action i'm seeking is additional eyes on a dispute involving an editor with a conflict of interest. Ms. James: If you have additional sources, or "viewpoints" as you say, that address what the NYT and an academic journal have to say about your conduct, you have yet to point them out at the article's talk page. You should, if you want the "other published viewpoints in this discussion (to be) expanded proportionally" please do so. I'm not aware of any other sources that adress this issue yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping by bali ultimate -- there are no issue here requiring admin intervention. Nobody Ent 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion should remain here: Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Users_editing_my_biography_during_disputes Nobody Ent 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If discussion is being centralized there, that's great. But this is the second time that an effort has been made to attract more attention to the discussion ( here is the first, by me). The issues are complicated and independent editors really, really should examine the details involved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your previous thread attracted one comment, and not from an admin. This thread has attracted more comments, but still not from admins. To the extent, you and Bali want "additional eyes", I've no doubt admins have eyed both topics, so we're done and can close (the ayes have it).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, content creation

A well documented RFCU provides evidence of chronic disruption by TBrandley (talk · contribs) by creation of inappropriate content which consume wikiresources via the deletion process. User was notified, has chosen not to participate, and continues to create additional content, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_She_Solved:_True_Crime. Nobody Ent 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No one is forced to participate in an RFCU, and you would be hard put to find an admin willing to act at this point in time. I've warned him about his only truly blockable behaviour (creating hoax articles and user pages about "Tateland" and the "TB Network"). I'll block him if he starts doing that again, but otherwise you should just consider him to be one of the many hyperinclusionist editors on Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 11:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments and contributions. Surely there is a problem under WP:DISRUPT that goes beyond an enthusiasm for creating articles. The editor submitted an AfD for Disney Channel Hong Kong after his own, similar articles had been AfD, then, inexplicably, created a spurious redirect DCHK to the article while the deletion was under discussion. This is very WP:POINTy. In general, the editor does not take account of feedback from other editors--the essence of WP:DISRUPT. The articles in wiki-space presenting fictional TV networks named after himself suggest a lack of understanding of what WP is for, raising questions about WP:COMPETENCE. So I think more is going on than just being inclusionist. Some of my best friends are inclusionist :). Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think while it's true that no-one is forced to participate in an RfC/U, they are a fairly good sign of widespread concern and an indication that community patience (or at least that portion of the community dealing with the editor concerned) is wearing thin. Failure to participate can also be seen evidence of "I didn't hear that"-type behaviour and has factored into decisions on sanctions in the past. That said, the RfC/U has only been open for two or three days. It might make sense to give TBrandley a little more time to respond, assuming they've even seen the notification in that wall of deletion notices that constitutes their talk page. Like Kww I'd be inclined to block them immediately for any further hoax creations, and block them eventually unless they make some sort of positive acknowledgement—at the RfC, here, their talk page or anywhere suitable—of other editors' concerns and moderate their editing accordingly. EyeSerene^talk 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Another question about this IBAN

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No more drama Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it an infraction to edit talk page stuff? I setup auto arching which has now been reverted and changed[89] Is this an infraction? Is that allowed? Or moving my comments[90] Is that permissible? I am not allowed to let the other person know of this thread.Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Note to uninvolved: I moved my own comment which seemed to be violating IBAN even though it was to another user (due to indentation), after the new comment was added out of chronology above mine. I moved my own comment only to below the intended user. I didn't know who set up the archiving, it was dead since ever and not working. I fixed it... but now that I know that it could be a violation, I've self reverted it (though it is dead again now and starts from 7th archive page?). Any one can reinstate my self revert to the fixed version since the previous archiving never worked. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to say this once and only once so hear it now and I believe I speak on behalf of the community here: If you two don't figure out how to leave each other alone, you're going to find this IBan leading to an indefinite block. I (we the community) don't want to hear your excuses. Be more careful in your editing.--v/r - TP 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconding this. Very tired of seeing either name crop up here, which they do with distressing regularity. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thirding it. Clearly other admins are far more tolerant, because frankly I would have indeffed both of them by now for repeated wasting of the community's time and effort. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Periyar (river)

There is a legal threat at Talk:Periyar (river), here and it was repeated in a recent edit summary relating to the article. I've warned the user but my regular go-to admins appear not to be around at present and I am unsure whether anything more need be said. Can someone take a look, please? - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Good, obvious block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I waited a bit, while searching for any admin in the non-existent cabal. Within moments of posting this report, three of them revive their activity. How weird is that? Are admins actually buses? Sorry for sticking the thing here. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bus, I'm a taxi: I need to be summoned... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't go south of the river this time of night, guv... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And now they're essentially trying to say they've sicced the Indian government's cybercrime Division of Truth on us. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Google suggests he's pulling an agency out of his ass; no direct hits for "India(n) Division of Truth". I'm tempted to add language to WP:NLT expressly noting that making up government agencies is tantamount to a legal threat (since the purpose, again, is to stifle opposition and discussion). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

They are a contributor with few edits, practically every one of which has been reverted and discussed on either or both of their own talk page and the various article talk pages. I rather think that they are a bit lost with the policies etc but I am not the best placed person to turn the situation round. Does the Division of Truth trump the Division of Verifiability? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Howabout90

By policy, the "location" parameter is not to be used in the infobox if the taping location is located in the country of origin. User:Howabout90 wilfully refuses to comply with this policy, as evidenced in the revisions linked below:

•First time the user re-added the parameter.

•Second time the user re-added the parameter.

•Third time the user re-added the parameter.

•Fourth time the user re-added the parameter. And this is where the user backtalked at me in a disrespectful manner after I told him to stop. I even linked the rule AGAIN.

This is where I had to quote what the policy states before the user wilfully chose to continue warring.

This is the fourth time that I have had to explain the policy when reverting the user's edits. I apparently had to bring the case here because I'm tired of reverting edits whose rules are CLEARLY STATED, having to explain & link them multiple times now. This is what the policy states (not what I think the policy means), as administrators have had to explain the parameter to me in the past. Though there are revisions in the article regarding a different edit warring case (which has been closed since), that has nothing to do with this edit war that is being caused by Howabout90. Despite what the recent revisions show (as of today), this is not my intention to cause an edit war. I'm just reverting persistent vandalism (reverting edits after constantly explaining the policy over & over. It is Howabout90 that is unwilling to cooperate.). MegastarLV  (talk)

The template documentation says: "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above." I read this to mean that if the country of origin is UK for example, one should not repeat UK as the location. However where the location is more specific, eg Pinewood Studios I can see the benefit of putting this in - even though Pinewood is clearly in the UK. It's not a duplication of information but an extra level of information. So I think your opponent is in the right here. This is in any case a content dispute, not really for this board. But if you're happy with that ruling we'll leave it there. (If not, please try WP:DRN.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think the template documentation is badly worded, leading to these sort of disputes. I think it would be better to say "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if you only know country and it's the same as country of origin above." (bold is my addition).  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I've been bold and made the change.  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, administrators, if you noticed in the revision history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Howabout90 thought he could avoid this case by deleting this section, which I have re-added.  MegastarLV  (talk)

User:MegastarLV

Over the past week, MegastarLV has been reverting edits that I have made. The edits that they have made are not needed and I have to keep reverting them. It is completely ridiculous that they are now reporting me for something which they started. –Howabout90– 22:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

<Unnecessary bickering removed by administrator> Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea; both of you cut it out now. MegastarLV, "No, you stop" is hardly friendly, but it's certainly not completely beyond the pale. Both of you; the article talkpage exists for a reason. Use it. If you continue to shout at each other here it'll take a considerable amount of convincing not to just block both of you for 24 hours. Seriously, it's just a parameter in an infobox. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User Thai Striker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Thai Striker seems to be attempting to circumvent AfD decisions. After the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in kickboxing lead to the removal of that article plus the one for 2012, the fight cards for the events were moved under List of United Glory events, List of It's Showtime events, List of K-1 events, and I don't know where else. This follows the aforementioned discussion which showed those articles were an attempt to circumvent a previous series of AfD discussions. As pointed out in that AfD discussion by Mdtemp, Thai Striker appeared right after WolffReik's indefinite ban and started editing and restoring the same articles Wolffreik had supported and interfered with AfD discussions on. I suspect WP:DUCK. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Thai Striker is a possible sock puppet of a banned user (banned means banned), I have already tagged him as such. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just created an AfD for List of United Glory events, which includes List of It's Showtime events, before I realized this ANI existed. I did not include List of K-1 events as it seems like a more legitimate list of events than cramming deleted articles into a long article. Now that Papaursa mentions it, it certainly seems like a WP:DUCK situation for WölffReik (talk · contribs). There may be a possibility of re-opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik with Thai Striker (talk · contribs) as a duck and possibly Thai Land F (talk · contribs) as well. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason List of K-1 events looks OK is because user Frietjes already removed 21,000 bytes from that article. Otherwise it would have had previously deleted results like the other two. Papaursa (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The following users are  Confirmed as Cyperuspapyrus (talk · contribs) (as well as comparing editing behaviors):

• Thai Land F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Maciej23tarnowski (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, both users have been indefinitely blocked. --MuZemike 08:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thai Striker (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as WölffReik (talk · contribs); as such, all article creations by Thai Striker and Thai Land F have been deleted. --MuZemike 08:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting a trouble maker

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

65.95.51.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Hi, I came a across a abusive user who is messing with the sandbox which you can see at this link here. If you further look at his contributions, you can see that this user has been making threats against me and if you want to see its talk page here, you can see that I gave this user multiple warnings to stop and the threats that the user is creating. Pardon the bad words the user is typing. Also, you can see the editing history of the user's talk page here where you can see additional threats the user made. Despite the warnings, the user continues to threaten me and mess with Wikipedia and I really need help. 67.169.167.201 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the best solution is that we block 65.95.51.14 for his incivility and threats, since both are not tolerated. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for a couple of days. Swarm ^X 03:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banned wikipedia user Grundle2600 is wreaking havoc offsite

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am a long time member at the message board Free Republic, although I would rather not reveal my account name that I use over there. I just wanted to let you know about this thread over there that was started by wikipedia banned user Grundle2600, where he is very critical of wikipedia. Also, since he admits that he copied the text from wikipedia to the Free Republic site, is there anything that wikipedia can do about this? He did write the text himself, so I'm not sure who would be the legal owner of the copyright.

(I can't seem to post the actual URL here, so please replace the dot with a . and remove the spaces.)

freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/2853412/posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly Freeper (talk • contribs) 05:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

why should Wikipedia do anything other than ignore this, as the vacuous whining of a nonentity that it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If he's already banned from Wikipedia, I'm not sure what you're asking us to do. — Ched :  ?  06:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Samanta Institute of Science and Technology

Okay, I have no idea if this is the right place to post this, or if there's even anything worth posting about. But I'm not a happy camper, and I thought I'd spread some of that joy around.

Article and editors referenced herein:

• Hidden World News (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ayishkaneen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Samanta Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Background:

• A couple of days ago, User:Hidden World News showed up and re-wrote Samanta Institute of Science and Technology, from scratch, in a highly biased fashion. Shortly after that, the editor was blocked for breaking the guidelines on usernames.

• I came across the article when looking at edits tagged as coi-spam. I figured I'd roll it back to the last sourced NPOV version… but I couldn't find one. I looked around a bit for sources, but I had trouble finding any that gave me sufficient background. Okay, I think; I'll take it over to Articles for deletion/Samanta Institute of Science and Technology.

• Today, User:Ayishkaneen, as his first and only edit, added this to the top of the article:

Here is a link to an article about this page.

If you follow that link, you end up at a page with the headline, "WIKIPEDIA DENIES HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE VICTIMS A PLATFORM TO TELL THEIR STORY." Here's what it says:

(this has been sent to many members of Indian Parliament so they are aware of what is happening in the United States and how it is affecting one of their schools. They need to be aware that they should not follow the American sense of justice, nor should they bow to any demands of the American government. This is American judiciary at its finest)

Since June, 2010, there has been a Wikipedia article slandering SIST. The article has been citing WSAW, WCCO, Baltimore Sun, and a source whose name speaks for itself, Jewbytes. None of the named sources have interviewed any members of the board of directors for SIST, and have completely based their articles off innuendos, speculations, and blatant lies from sources completely unrelated to SIST in any way. Following is their laughable “encyclopedic knowledge” as it appeared on February 27, 2012. Please bear in mind while reading this article that SIST is an educational organization that owns and operates a school for under-privelaged students in Orissa, India, and operates a few businesses in Wisconsin and Minnesota, USA, to fund the school. ...... click here for full article

It is a sad and heart-breaking day for humanity and SIST. Even Wikipedia will not give them a platform to speak their side of the story. Wikipedia allowed this article to be on their site since June, 2010, referencing slandered news stories. But within three hours of edits and statements backed up with court documents as solid proof of the human and civil rights violations being perpetrated by the courts and other government officials in the United States of America, they decided it was an attack page and marked it for deletion. How come they didn’t mark it for deletion before? Why did Wikipedia give a platform to a farce for so long that was obviously based completely off innuendos and accusations? Why, after someone posted real factual evidence, did they suddenly get uncomfortable and mark it for deletion? Somebody in their network, currently working under the name DoriSmith, has some type of prejudice against the minority in America. Could it be that she is another white supremist operating under the color of “Wikipedia editor” to re-write facts and history for the murderous Catholic Church? Wikipedia owes SIST an apology. They also owe an apology to the under-privileged students and staff of SIST in India who benefit from the hard work and dedication of those in the United States of America. Many people who, in the face of severe discrimination and persecution, have faithfully dedicated their time, effort, and a few their entire lives to the pursuit of peace, happiness, and fulfilment of supporting that school. Most of these people ask for nothing in return; it is simply a gift form the heart to under-privileged abroad. How criminal of Wikipedia to slap that kind of service and self-sacrifice in the face!

Not that I'm happy with any of this crap, but it should be pretty clear which part has me wanting to throw things.

Your thoughts? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of their self-published rant says it all: "Even Wikipedia will not give them a platform to speak their side of the story. " . That's right - we won't. That's not what we are here for. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the article had been unfairly biased in the past (as they claim) it doesn't mean we need to let it stand around in the future if it is unfairly biased the other way or if it doesn't otherwise meet our criteria for inclusion.  7  08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And since when is a website that has been constructed with Microsoft FrontPage really that viable, unbiased, and trustworthy? --MuZemike 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, just wow (after reading that site). I'm struck by the irony that while the site rails against white supremacy groups it uses very similar language (see the comment about jewbytes). Just your typical rant site. In other news, I'm going through the SIST article pulling out the obvious unreliable sources, replacing some with CN tags. I'm then going to go through the article again for BLP and copy-editing and will watch it to make sure anything added meets WP standards. What a mess. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also ironic: the fact they cry out against "slandering" then promptly describe the "murderous Catholic Church"... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• And finished with the initial pass. Wow - some of the sources were just simply horrible. I'm not sure about the rickross.com source, but I think there have been some discussions on RSN about it that I'm going to search for. Page watchlisted, commented on AFD and will monitor. If the SPA's continue to push badly sourced POV edits, I would not advise blocking them, rather full protection of the page to force them to use the talk page to discuss, at least initially. Ravensfire (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• As a general rule: Anyone who anthropomorphizes an encyclopaedia is unlikely to be factually accurate in other matters too. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Two having it out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sarsein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
༆ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edit warring regarding Burma/Myanmar/Siam wars (multiple articles: see user contributions) Using warning templates (a bit excessively, I'd say) I can not figure who is in the right (if any). Would someone please help with this? Also, it would be nice if user talk:༆ would have a user name that doesn't look like a box. Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen the pages, and this comment doesn't relate to the ANI issue, but just out of technical interest I believe that "box" is Tibetan Mark Caret Yig Mgo Phur Shad Ma which only displays in Unicode. The user presumably is unaware that it's a box on 99% of systems. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article histories is not pretty. There's been revert warring involving at least four editors and a selection of IP addresses going on across at least seven articles (histories: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]).

Having said that, on closer inspection it looks like a POV battle between a single IP-hopping editor who has also edited as Thaizokku (talk · contribs) and Sarsein (talk · contribs), and ༆ (talk · contribs) and Hybernator (talk · contribs). IP/Thaizokku/Sarsein's edits are in poor English and seem to be pushing a particular POV (which may be anti-Burmese though because of the language issues I'm not completely sure about that). They've also crossed 3RR on a number of occasions; I'm not sure that ༆ and Hybernator have, although given the number of edits I could easily have missed something.

Regardless, I think IP/Thaizokku/Sarsein is probably someone we can do without. I've blocked Sarsein for 24 hours for edit warring and (procedurally) Thaizokku indefinitely (I realise Thaizokku is the earlier account but it looks like it may have been abandoned).

༆ and Hybernator are strongly reminded that the only exemptions to our edit-warring policy are listed here; none of the content you were fighting over comes into that list unless you can point to a banned sockmaster behind the disruption (and even then the sock accounts should have been identified and tagged). In future, rather than edit-warring please report problematic edits here or to an appropriate noticeboard. There's plenty of help available so you needn't feel that you're alone in keeping Wikipedia free from POV content... and therefore there should be no reason for you to end up violating site policy yourselves.

Finally, if problematic edits resume I'd be open to indeffing Sarsein, protecting the articles, or looking at the feasibility of a rangeblock for the IP addresses (or some combination of those). EyeSerene^talk 10:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some experience in Burmese and Thai articles, so when I get home from work (6 hours or so) I'll look at everything and see if I can't knock some sense into everyone involved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the more subject-expert eyes on the situation the better :) While Sarsein's edits were less than optimal and the manner of them was problematic, at root this appears to be a content dispute and that element at least is out of ANI's jurisdiction. Policy violations aside there's always the possibility that some of the disputed content changes were good. EyeSerene^talk 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If it helps at all, ༆ (talk · contribs) and Waorca (talk · contribs) are the same person. TNXMan 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tnxman307. I'm not seeing any signs of tag-teaming or other abuse using the two accounts, but of course a second opinion would be very welcome. In any case I think ༆/Waorca would be well advised to read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and take any necessary measures to notify the community/an appropriate person that they operate both accounts. EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've warned Sarsein that continued attempts to push his blatantly pro-Siamese POV here will result in an indefinite block; ༆ doesn't have the greatest English skills, but at least his edits are somewhat useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Update; someone want to check out Wongsathorn (talk · contribs)? Seems amazingly similar to Sarsein. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking into things. I've indefblocked Wongsathorn due the the deafening quacking, and upped the block on Sarsein to indef (the fact that they've gone on to create a new account to evade a 24 hour block is not indicative they want to play by the rules). All accounts apart from the IPs tagged accordingly - I suggest we block additional accounts on sight. Thanks again, EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening. I'd been planning to report these incidents to the board but didn't have much time during the week. I updated some of the articles with additional citations today, and will add more citations in other articles in question. Hopefully, it'll deter / minimize incidents like these on these pages. Hybernator (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

X!'s accounts locked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Issue resolved, accounts unlocked. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Following a report I determined that several accounts belonging to User:X! had their password available in a configuration file for all the toolserver users to see. A user, by negligence and not intent, logged on User:SoxBot and made a few edits. I determined that the accounts User:X! and User:MPUploadBot were accessible in similar manner. While thankfully User:X! had no permissions on it at this time, User:MPUploadBot is a flagged adminbot. Acting as steward, I have locked all 3 accounts pending hearing back from Soxred, who I have contacted. The interested files have now been properly secured on the toolserver in the meantime. I would like to thank TParis for bringing the matter to my attention, Addshore for the necessary assistance and WMDE personnel for the fast action. I am notifying it here as the matter involves an account with the sysop flag. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I also want to note for users who might not be familiar with the concept, that a global lock on an account prevents even logging on on said account, and as such no deflagging of the sysop account was necessary. I also note that thankfully no abuse took place. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for responding quickly, locking the account appropriately and notifying us, please do contact X! if possible to notify him too. The Helpful One 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already contacted X!, I hope in a reply soon :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been able to contact X! and the accounts have been unlocked. I also when locking missed one adminbot operated by him. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reblock of User:Kiko4564 & User:Kiko4564 (alt): review please

In January, Kiko4564 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was unblocked following this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Unblock of User:Kiko4564. In particular, this included "I will agree to cease the use of even nominally permitted alternate accounts, which are also known as benevolent sockpuppets." When I noticed his unblock request, I took a look at the situation and it was immediately obvious he was not keeping his commitment, so I reblocked the original account. I've been questioned on my talk page regarding this, so I brought it here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. It might have been kinder to simply decline the unblock request and give the user a warning, reminding him of the promise made in his original unblock request, rather than simply blocking him. That's what I would be inclined to do, but maybe I'm wrong. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 17:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, that's exactly what happened. I was less than subtle when I declined the previous unblock request for the alt account. I'm disappointed he persisted. Kuru (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this lucky? Why was this something that needed to be quickly resolved rather than taken to here? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The exact course of action proposed was what occurred. I view this as fortuitous. I'm not sure the situation has been resolved; do you feel it has? Kuru (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Was there an imminent act of disruption warranting a block? Does the block resolve anything? I see this as an unfortunate incident because it had to be escalated to ANI instead of an attempt of being resolved through dialogue with the involved parties. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The involved parties in this case are the editor and the community that imposed the sanctions through discussion leading to the removal of an indefinite block. In my opinion, an administrator should not modify those conditions on whim; any changes should have been vetted here. Kuru (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While indeed the closed discussion explicitly states that alternate accounts should not be used, I'd consider it good practice for users to use an alternate account with a different password from their main accounts when editing from public computers such as the ones available in libraries or schools. Keyloggers could very well be present in such computers. User's alternate account carries the same username so it is not like there would be an issue recognizing the main account. Furthermore user has marked their alternate account with a soft redirect to their main account. I'd interpret the use of alternate accounts clause in the past discussion to be the use of sockpuppet accounts to game the system. Lastly we do not want to discourage users trying to reform from the past disruptive behavior. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Good practice aside, there was an explicit condition and promise to avoid even acceptable alternate accounts. A discussion here to amend the community's decision before logging into the account and triggering an autoblock on his main account would have been preferable. Your interpretation of "I will agree to cease the use of even nominally permitted alternate accounts" is odd; could you expand on why you feel that does not include this alt? Kuru (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How long will that condition last? Is it stated? This person was appealing to use an alternate account not using a sockpuppet to edit maliciously. He was following proper procedure to appeal which is the entire contribution of the alternate account. Preternaturally the only thing missing is that the main account needs to confirm that the alternate account is theirs. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Full disclosure: Editor made an ill-advised post to ANI regarding the alt account unblock earlier this morning. I suggested they self-revert and post an additional unblock request stating their reason for wanting it. [98]. They did revert the post -- showing willingness to work in a collaborative manner. So consider them as being baited into the second request, if you will. The purpose of blocking is supposed to be to prevent current and future disruption, not punish past indiscretions nor current faux pas's. I fail to see how editing under an account so blatantly an alternate can cause disruption. On the other hand, I don't see much need for one -- as both accounts have same user rights the amount of damage they could do if compromised is the same. So I'm agnostic as to the alt account but blocking the primary is an overreaction. Nobody Ent 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I believe the user was abusing Huggle and rollback over the past day or so (going too fast, not paying attention to what they were doing), and as such, I have revoked rollback from the account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

More full disclosure -- I didn't pick up on the fact that they edited using the alternate, and should have addressed that prior to giving any advice. My bad. In any, here's the original request which was posted here. Unblocking the primary is the right thing to do here. Nobody Ent 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Most definitely not. The right thing to do, here, is leave them both blocked. We have wasted enough time already. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal How about Kiko stipulates they will only use their primary account and neither use, nor request unblock of, any alternate accounts, for a period of three months? Nobody Ent 18:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a reason for this person to wait a minute to request an appeal. The appeal itself can be subject to a fair discussion and can very well be rejected. I do not see any reason to block the main account for appealing to use one and only one additional account. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend keeping the indef block in place. This is simple trolling/gaming from a user who thinks he can get away with it. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, and thanks to Eagles for revoking rollback. Looking at Kiko's recent contributions and talk page history since having his rollback privileges restored, I see a completely reckless spree of inappropriate reverts and falsely accusing other editors of vandalism. Much, much more competence and carefulness is needed from this editor before an unblock should be considered. 28bytes (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Probable sock-puppetry by user:Liamfoley on Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Liamfoley has been warned and blocked for repeatedly inserting material backed by a patently unreliable source on Abortion in the Republic of Ireland, which is under an Arbcom 1rr restriction.

A new user, user:AliceGlenn, reinserted the material [[99]] with the edit summary: "The deleted text concerns a bona fide poll conducted by a reputable polling firm for a well known lobby group".

The arguemnt and language are practically identical to User:Liamfoley's language in his talk-page posts, especially this edit: [[100]]. User:liamfoley also uses the term "bona fide" in a subsequent post: [[101]].

The similarity in language is far too close to be coincidental. Can somebody look into this? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

spi is here, not here. Nobody Ent 18:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need some copyvio/CC-BY-SA untangling

Discussion below moved to talk page of editor; expert commentary on issue of copyright violation and user behavior related thereto appreciated. Nobody Ent 19:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Barts1a Nobody Ent 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"What you need is someone to sue you"

IP editor 64.254.111.109 has posted a legal threat on my talk page, saying "What you need is someone to sue you for lies and global misinformation." I believe the editor is a sockpuppet of User:Arch1p1elago who was blocked for vandalism on Latin jazz articles. Other involved IP addresses are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arch1p1elago/Archive, and are based in North Carolina. The IP above is based in Colorado, but the skill level and message is the same across all of the editors. Per WP:NLT this IP is up for an immediate block, but I expect the problem to shift to a new IP in the future. Binksternet (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a sensu stricto LT, although it might fall in the "intended to cause a chilling effect" area - but it's certainly a personal attack, so the IP has been blocked for a week. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, beat me to it; I was going to issue the exact same block. Swarm ^X 21:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lapianoisrael

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

This user's contributions seem to consist mainly of SEO keywords, strangely placed. Not sure what action, if any, is appropriate here, other than continued vigilance. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of ultra-short articles containing only SEO keywords have been deleted. The contributions to various talk pages are clearly not about the articles or their improvement, so I'm reverting them. A final warning has been given. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting case. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite :( The warning didn't help, so they are now blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty odd. My guess is a test run for some kind of an SEO bot. In this case, the thing being advertised is some sort of mobile-phone piano tuning app. Seems to be blocked now as an advertising-only account, which from all appearances, it was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Itismesoleavemypagealone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is claiming to be Brandon Cruz (the child actor best known as Eddie in The Courtship of Eddie's Father). He claims that the Brandon Cruz article is his own page, and that he knows more about his life than other users do, causing edit wars on the article. He is also making personal attacks on the article, as well as against other users on their talk pages. Please look into this and take any further action. Thanks, Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Administrator note Blocked indefinitely for personal attacks, vandalism, additions of unsourced original research, and incivility. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Since he doesn't appear interested in appealing the block, I think maybe we could close this? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd say it probably isn't really Cruz. According to the article Cruz is 49, and the Itismesoleavemypagealone posts very much have the style of a young teen or someone doing a dead-on impression of one (not capitalising anything, not even 'i', insults like "loser", jerk", etc.). My guess is it's probably someone he knows messing with him through impersonation for whatever reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and incivility by IP

92.148.172.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I suspect to be an IP hopper, has engaged in personal attacks and incivility targeting me and Edward321 (talk · contribs) today on the Whisper of the Heart talk page and in his/her edit summaries, involving baseless claims that "the previous edits are wrong", "my editing is poor", asking for my actual name, denying that he/she is an IP hopper, that I am "keen to maintain control of a fairly unimportant Wiki page, to the point of being wildly, blatantly, openly rude" and "owning the article" while I don't know Edward321 and follow WP:OWN, and also shouting in edit summaries which are not allowed and completely disrupting the article with a non-NPOV information (this also occurred on the Take Me Home, Country Roads article ([102]) and The Cat Returns article ([103])), which we tried to help bring it down to a more concise version, and bloating up the plot summaries in the relevant film articles per WP:FILMPLOT. The edits by the IP are a clear violation of the relevant policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:TPO, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:SOAPBOX. The attacks continued despite the notice at the Film WikiProject talk page and Betty Logan (talk · contribs) requesting an WP:RFPP on Whisper of the Heart. I started this discussion to help resolve the dispute, but the IP remained incivil and attacked me and Edward321, and added an non-NPOV statement at the Yoshifumi Kondō article. These are differences showing his incivility and issues with the policies in question: [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. The NPOV and NPA issues are urgent, and I cannot tolerate these insults anymore. I had to bring the case here due to the IP's abusive behavior per the suggestion of Betty Logan and I need a solution to help resolve these issues. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I requested a semi protect on Whisper of the Heart (film) but it was turned down on the basis of there not being enough recent disruption. While that may be the case over the last several hours, it has been going on for 3/4 days as you can see from the edit history and there are a lot of problems with the IP edits. The IP clearly isn't having a positive effective on the article; I still think a semi-protect is the order of the day, at least until the IP learns to play nice, since I don't think a block against an IP hopper would be very effective. Betty Logan (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Even more incivility and insults has been shown by the IP in question and I agree that it is not having a positive effect on the article at all despite my efforts in calming the user down. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated blatant copy-vio against all advice

Ilovechoclate (talk · contribs) had started to upload copyvio images at the article on Jayne Mansfield (this, this, and this among many) and edit-warred to keep those images. The user was repeatedly explained on the user talk page and article talk page that copy-vio images should not be uploaded, and was once blocked for edit warring (here). While that has stopped for now, the user has taken the drive to upload copy-vio images to the commons, as well as other pages like Dean Martin (here) and Clint Eastwood (here). This I would believe needs serious intervention now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already had several of their images deleted off of Commons before. If anyone here has admin rights on Commons, they can likely check that. Dismas|^(talk) 06:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, this person has learning disabilities. You may need to take that into account before taking any administrative action. --MuZemike 08:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but competence is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought: do we have anyone on board who has Real-Life experience in "translating" for people with learning difficulties? That might be all that's required, either short-term, or as a more long-term mentor. Pesky (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding, in my own experience, people with learning difficulties can take a bit longer to "get it", but once they have, it sticks. Pesky (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have worked with people with learning difficulties. Tips. Avoid passive constructions. Use simple and compound sentences. Use concrete nouns. Avoid jargon.  Tigerboy1966  11:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Also, when giving instructions, a numbered or bulleted list works better than a paragraph of prose. Tigerboy1966  11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we've been clear, patient and gentle so far. This image stuff has to stop. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I reported this editor to Commons - one week block for ignoring all the multiple warnings there. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm no expert, but the editor's talk page responses seem not what I'd expect from someone with learning difficulties that were at all severe. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Issue concerning User:Green-Halcyon

This is concerning the actress Lina Polito. A little editor war with Green-Halcyon and User:Cavarrone. Fault appears to lie with Green-Halcyon... doesn't leave comments, doesn't respond to a talk message, reverts an edit, twice, that removes a valid source, among other reverts. Green-Halcyon just placed a AfD tag with "Subject appears to lack notability. Sources indicate that she is a real person, but there is little evidence to indicate that she is significant enough to have her own Article page." IMDb lists 39 different acting roles and a simple Google search brings up alot of links.

The day before the two first met with Andy Luotto. Green-Halcyon added a BLP sources tag and then did a revert because "You need to provide page numbers for specific facts, and a summary of the internet link in english" This is how it looked before Green-Halcyon tagged it.

I've had issues in the past with Green-Halcyon. I've asked him three times to leave an edit summary when he makes an edit. He was adding speed delete tags and prod tags without an edit summary and notifying people. Green-Halcyon is now using twinkle.

There is also other problems with his edits. At the very least, Green-Halcyon needs some talking to and guidance. He has already blown me off, so I don't think he will listen to me. Bgwhite (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, all Bgwhite has wrote is correct. Can I just add, I personally have no doubt the edit-warring and the current AFD nom of Lina Polito are caused by the previous Andy Luotto dispute. And about his general behavior, at best, he ignores a proper tag-use, placing tags that are unrelated with the problems he (correctly or not) feels are needed to be addressed. Cavarrone (talk) 07:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing personal intended by placing those tags on the pages, I do it because I genuinely think the subjects lack notability or need more references. Since the problem has been taken this far, I will stop what I'm doing to the pages. As for not leaving edit summaries... I actually do, every time where other editors need to know what how I contributed to an article. Sorry if I came across that way at one time or other, but when did I blow you off Bgwhite?Aunty-S (talk) 11:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As an aside to the dispute here, you really should have your displayed user name give some indication what your actual user name is... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad language and personal assault

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to issue complaint over User:Darkness Shines for use of bad language and personal assault on my talk page. Quote:

When you have no idea of a situation it is usually best to shut the fuck up. Note the article name you dunce,List of ongoing military conflicts does that indicate to you when it fucking started? And calling Komment meict frei a blog? At least I am currently on the lash, I can only hope you are as well you fuckwit.

I see it a highly abusive language and i don't intend to try any conversation with that user after such a brutal attack.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Diff: [110] HandsomeFella (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User notified (you should have done it, Greyshark). HandsomeFella (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Darkness Shines admitted, on my talk page, he was drunk and asked me to block him. Since he was being disruptive, I blocked him for 31 hours to put an immediate stop to his disruption. Fellow admins, feel free to increase the length of the block; as I've said, it was meant to stop him before he dug an even deeper hole. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Judging from his recent edit summaries, he seems to be on a self-destruct path. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like his account has been hijacked or something (the editing is too disruptive), anyway temporal block might indeed help.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Darkness Shines that well, but the interactions I've had with him make me suspect the account has been hijacked. There were some other users did far more to earn such language, and he didn't react in such a manner. Maybe someone should email him? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like DS to me, either, although there has been a lot of provocation and antagonism of late & maybe they really have decided to go on a bender. Perhaps just see what happens in 31h ?- Sitush (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's not encourage wikicide. Does he have any people he works closely with who possibly could talk with him in more detail, maybe even offwiki? I don't know the guy but there may be RL issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He's always engaged with me professionally. I think the 31 hour block is a good call. With regards to being drunk that doesn't seem that implausible an explanation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we can all think of plenty of real life stuff that might precipitate a grouchy drunk. If he sobers up and apologises, no need to take it further at this time. If not, cross that bridge when we get to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pikachu virus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Pikachu virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) diff. Legal threat, or have I fallen for a hoax? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously a hoax. You forgot about SOPA already? SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a vandal. 28bytes (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article contents does appear to have been copied from one of the cited sources. It might have been just a vandal, but the article is still copied word for word. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the copyright problem. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There's better ways to inform about copyvio, of course. And given that the IP's contribution history has zero good-faith edits since August, I've blocked them for a month. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request block of two accounts I control

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like two accounts I control to be blocked indefinitely. I will make two edits producing a signature with those accounts below. T Y 09:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Accounts to be blocked:

Toshio (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

ȹ (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The diffs of the edits producing the signatures are [111] and [112]. I hereby confirm that at the time these two edits were made I was in control of those two accounts. T Y 09:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.185.239 (talk)

I was not logged in when making the last edit. Feel free to checkuser me to see that this was me. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done 28bytes (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Danrolo

Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Danrolo continues with problematic and disruptive editing for months despite his/her talk page being full of good advice and warnings, which he/she ignores completely. Danrolo never cites sources, not even in BLPs, although several users have asked this user to do so, explained how references work and why it is important (since last October!). Edits of Danrolo often include original research even though he/she was told several times that OR is deprecated on Wikipedia. The user has started several new articles without citing any sources (Arab Liberation Movement, Democratic Arab Socialist Union, Democratic Socialist Arab Ba'ath Party), even though the user should know by now, that this is absolutely necessary. Danrolo almost never uses edit summaries, although he/she was kindly asked to do so a zillion times. Danrolo never enters discussions, never answers messages on the user talk page, never communicates with other users. He/she refuses BRD cycle, but re-reverts without at least giving any reason in the edit summary (e.g. here). As Danrolo ignores all messages on his/her talk page, more serious consequences have to be drawn here. --RJFF (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks very like another sock of Greekboy12345er6; it might be worth running a CU on this. RolandR (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked

I have noticed some extremely distressing inaccuracies in many of your WP:BLP articles. I will be contacting the individuals who are subjects of these articles and recommending that they take leal action. 86.160.24.233 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid legal threats as you will be blocked. See WP:NLT - If you found an inaccuracy, why not just be bold and correct it. Youreallycan 15:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would I do that when it is far more profitable to sue?!? 86.160.24.233 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would block you myself now but sadly don't have the button to do it -someone with a button will likely do it as after my friendly warning, you have continued with your trolling. Goodbye. - Youreallycan 16:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest you revise the "No Legal Threats" policy you have just informed me of. It is not wise to provoke those who threaten to invoke legal remedy. 86.160.24.233 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S unprotect your talk page so we can discuss this there instead. Or are you too chicken? Cluck cluck cluck... 86.160.24.233 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are free to contact BLP subjects and recommend that they sue. That would not be a violation of WP:NLP, which applies to making legal threats here. On the other hand, this forum is for requesting admin action, and you don't seem to be doing that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Indirectly, the user has. (S)He has harassed other users and made comments close enough in nature to legal threats that his/her request to be blocked has been granted, for 72 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

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

In spite of opposition expressed at this ongoing CfD, User:Stefanomione continues to create more "Terminology of..." categories, this one just moments ago. He continues to remove pre-existing categories on Jungian and Freudian psychology in favour of his new creations. I recommend a block on further category creation until we determine what consensus is, including here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Five years ago, I created Category:Terminology by ideology, which got promptly a CfD - result: still standing ... pity my talk page hasn't any records of that. In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments. But I agree here and will refrain until the conclusion of the discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terminology by ideology is exactly the sort of category that Stefanomione delights in churning out. It has never been through cfd (see its history) and IMO would be unlikely to survive. Perhaps an admin with access to deleted (or renamed) categories could produce a list of Stefanomione's deleted category creations. (There were several cfd discussions on S's creations in mid-2011 such as Novels by parameter.) Oculi (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is: I don't work at these cat until the matter is settled on the discussion page. (And indeed many of my categories were renamed/deleted (I guess 1/5, 2650 still standing), but that's not the point here). Anyway, it's impossible to create, I think, without revisions/renamings. Stefanomione (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that following his comments above, User:Stefanomione continues to depopulate Category:Freudian psychology. The affected articles are essays, not books, and appear to have been correctly categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some time before you posted this comment, I created Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud ... you caught me in a work of progress .... Stefanomione (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noticed Stefanomione's primary editing contribution is the creation of categories. While this is an important part of Wikipedia, I've also noticed an unacceptably large number of those categories are inappropriate and subsequently brought to CfD (look at his talk page!). I would recommend some kind of community sanction where any new category this user proposes must be discussed first, perhaps at WP:CATP. This would cut down on the massive strain this user puts on other editors trying to clean up after him. After all, it's much easier to create a category than to delete it, so this minor filter would dramatically improve the quality of the categories he produces. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at Category:Freudian psychology, and it's not clear to me exactly which articles should be in it and which shouldn't. I noticed Stefanomione's removal of the category from articles and thought it was rather strange, but I didn't revert him, since I assumed he must have some kind of reason for doing it. Before reverting him, it would be helpful to discuss exactly what the purpose of the category is, as that doesn't seem fully clear (at least it's not clear to me). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • A few hours ago, while depopulating Category:Freudian psychology,I created Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis and Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud. This made the category less confusing (it contained/contains Books/Essays/Terminology/Institutions/People/Criticists/Criticism/Related topics/ ... The Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud - which I created earlier today and is not tagged as CfD - helps, I think, to bring a rapid access to theories really conceived by Sigmund Freud himself. Stefanomione (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Axem Titanium's proposal for a restriction on the creation by Stefanomione of new categories. There is too much work by editors in cleaning after their creation, and Stefanomione seems to be showing contempt for efforts to seek consensus. For example, Stefanomione was notified at 14:36, 25 February that Category:Terminology by author was being taken to CfD, yet still went ahead and created the subcat Category:Terminology of Carl Jung at 23:29, 25 February 2012. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the discussion ultimately endorses the category; what matters is that when the issue has been contested and is under discussion, a responsible collaborative holder will hold back and see what consensus emerges.
  And yes, Stefanomione did know about the CFD discussion: zie made over 50 edits in the period between the CFD notification and the creation of the second category, so the talk page notice will have been drawn to hir attention in the usual way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said, you just caught me in a work of progress: around the same time, I created and populated Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis, Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud and Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud, none of them CfD. Wikipedia is not "too much work", it is a work in progress. Stefanomione (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There is the problem in a nutshell. You were in the process of creating a structure, and even when you knew that the existence of the whole structure was being challenged, you went ahead anyway. That's plain disruptive. The proper way to behave is that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but when that boldness is challenged we stop and discuss. You simply don't seem able to grasp this, which is why I support blocking you from category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have just put up another in a long series of category renames based on the works of Stefanomione. I understand he is well intentioned, but those of us on CFD have had to do more work to fix his mistakes than for any other editor, by far. Sadly, while he remains polite and cheery, Stefanomione doesn't seem to get why these convoluted category names and rabbit holes he creates are so vexing to other editors. I see nothing negative in Stefanomione's attitude, but after a couple hundred category renames, some sort of process needs to be put in place to stem the tide. If a category creation restriction were put in place, I am sure there are editors on CFD who would be willing to check any list of categories Stefanomione wants to create before he creates them and explain whether they are likely to fly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd volunteer to be one such 'pre-checker', if a block was in place. I wouldn't want to be the only one, to be sure, given the sheer volume, but I'd be one. Stefanomione has recently stated that he sees CfD as the place to figure out what categories should be about, seemingly as a substitute for actually considering main articles before cat creation. Mike's way would be much less work for the rest of us, in the end. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I share the concerns voiced above. Stefanomione's success average when creating categories is way too low. He claims only 1/5 of his creations get deleted but if that's the true number, it should be noted that no editor comes even close to that level of errors and it is a significant strain on CfD. Moreover, he doesn't always seem to take criticism on board. I think a discuss first/create later approach would be best and would allow Stefanomione to continue working in the area he likes but would lower the error-rate to something acceptable. Note that this would also be a net benefit in terms of time for Stefanomione: I think he has spent a depressingly vast amount of time building now-deleted categories that others would have advised against creating. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea that he should talk first, create after consensus. And his statement above "In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments." - If you're told stop, and discuss per WP:BRD, the answer isn't to continue on. If you don't understand or agree with the policies of it, here's another reason not to: that can get you blocked. And I might add, you all are fortunate. My experience with the editor had been that they ignore talk page queries until "forced" to comment, such as at cfd (or here, for that matter). I also think that the editor should be banned from using any automated tools related to categories. Maybe having to do things more manually will help with the stop and discuss process. If this was a bot user, I think the bot would have been blocked by now. - jc37 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some "charts" that are quite accurate (based on my watchlist, not my talkpage): 2650 categories still standing, 210 renamed, 180 flatly deleted (of these, 16 created again by another editor). Those renamed categories are mainly ill-named structures (the content-grouping itself not being discussed), like illustrated by Mike Selinker. So, naming things appears not to be my best talent (I intend to ask for more advice here before creating new categories - I would like to do this on a volontary basis). I agree, 6,1 % (2650/164) of my category-production is problematic and I intend to "lower that error-rate to something acceptable" by spending more time (talkpages, ...) on the namegiving. I would like to keep the automated tools. Stefanomione (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Why do you need automated tools to have discussions with other editors on talk pages? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Those statistics are kinda horrifying. Stefanominome has created no less than 180 categories which have been deleted, and doesn't see a problem? Another 210 renamed, and again no problem? Really?
  This is a contemptuous attitude to the time of other editors, who would also like to be doing other things on Wikipedia rather than tidying up after this editor. A total of 390 categories changed at CFD. Let's assume that there was some grouping of the CFDs, and generously assume an average of 5 categories per discussion; that means that Stefanomione's categories have been the subject of 80 CFD discussions. Each one of those discussions involves a lot of work by the nominator (a group nom is a lot of work to set up), more contributions from editors who participate in the CFDs, and then a closing admin has pass the instructions to the CFD bot. After that, watchlists get beaten up as every individual article is edited by the bot.
  Enough already. Time to require this editor to gain consensus before category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stefanomione's numbers suggest a 15% error rate, not 6.1%. But more importantly, the other 85% are not pristine. There are many places he has created categories where I have looked at them and thought, "Wow, this is going to be a nightmare to sort out," and just haven't had the time to nominate them. So just because we haven't put more than400 categories of his through the discussion process is no reason to believe the other categories are safe from problems. Now, here's the good news: When given direction, Stefanomione is more than happy to do the work himself. So once the creation ban is in place, it seems possible to imagine that he would be very helpful dealing with the issues that he has created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 85 % not pristine ? Could you give some examples ? What I see: the 1800 categories I created in 2005-2010 still expanded and completed with subcategories - Only four of them put on CfRenaming in 2011-2012, despite the incredible crowd intelligence of the wikipedians. Anyway, it's true, Mike: I'm eager to do the reparation-work myself. Stefanomione (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A first step might be ones with the word "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books, etc.) in the name. That's all a huge mess. And more than a few violate MoS guidelines for naming. British word usage on television season vs series vs. show for example has a longtime consensus. I look at just how much there is and just haven't dealt with it yet just due to the tagging alone. - jc37 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        • What Jc37 said. My name appears more than 100 times on your talk page due to automatic notifications of discussions, almost all of which have resulted in changes. I'm trying to get you to change your behavior before it appears 100 more times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          • (ec) As Mike knows, we've already spent quite a bit of time at CfD delineating the media/creative works confusion, generally with unanimous support. I thought we had the 'use of the "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books"' problem cleared up. It sounds to me like Jc37 is also criticizing what the categories have become, post-Stefanomione, rather than what he created? Jc, is that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • What Mike S. said, exactly. It's not about what they've become after. See what we have in the category system is (as noted on my talk page) a "commonality of consistency based upon prior consensus". And a category's name, even more than how it is subcatted into an existing tree of cats, is of profound importance when trying to figure out what we're looking at. Categories are all about navigation. and the names should be clear so that any editor (tm) should feel confident placing the category on a specific page. And to further that navigation, we have multifaceted sets of category trees, of varying kinds. Limited only by the software itself, and previous consensus on style and choice. So what I'm getting at is at the start, these cats are named badly, and trees designed into a mess. And at CfD the sections of these huge trees are having separate discussions, so we have ended up with varying results. It is art? visual art? fine art? Should we use media? media by type? medium? works? Should we have X based on Y categories? T (sorted) by Z? And how specific should they be? An author and his works? or just the author or just his works? how vague or specific? Which terminology should we use? How should we disambiguate the names? Are they too broad or too narrow in inclusion criteria (the name itself being the criteria)? Is any of this described in an article somewhere explaining and sourcing this? And finally, how much of this is flatly WP:OR, and has nothing to do with scholarly interest? And I've only barely scratched the surface of this mess. This isn't the only mess in categories, but it's becoming more and more a big one. And Stefanomione's lack of discussion beforehand tied with automated tool usage, makes this very quickly into a king sized mess that continues to grow very fast daily. As I said above, I think that if this was a bot, the bot would have been blocked by now, and the bot owner asked to explain the edits, and to proactively seek community consensus before such future edits. Else their bot privileges may be indefinitely suspended and the bot indefinitely blocked. And yes, there are many examples in this page's archives supporting this assertion. - jc37 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Per Jc37, this is a big mess and getting bigger. Before Stefanomione gets to create any more categories, even by prior discussion, zie should first work with other editors to review the huge number of categories created so far. That will be a big task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been wondering what to do about this user's category creations for a long time now. A very high percentage of them have to be renamed or deleted, and this has consistently been the case for a long time now. I essentially agree with what other users have written above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone who puts that big a strain on CFD resources probably should be on an editing restriction. Agree with the community sanction mentioned above. --Kbdank71 05:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the above discussion, I think we have clear consensus for this community sanction. Do any administrators/bureaucrats here know how to disable HotCat for a particular user? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• As we discuss this, he's resumed category creation. I don't have a particular problem with his latest created category, but he's clearly not interested in waiting for the results of this discussion before resuming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  So it would seem. - jc37 06:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to ban from automatically modifying categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From what I have been given to understand, while proposed, the community in the past decided that blocking an editor was better than adding a functionality to the software to block an editor from using a gadget. Basically, if they've been asked to stop, and they don't, it warrants a block.

With that in mind, I am proposing, based upon the discussion above, and other such discussions, that:

a.) User:Stefanomione be banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories in any way. This includes, but is not limited only to, creating a category page, adding pages to a category, changing a page from one category to another, etc.

This restriction may be lifted in the future IF Stefanomione has shown to be consistently following the second restriction (b, below) over a decent period of time, absolutely no less than 3 months (with at least 6 months being preferrable).

b.) Also that if any (presumably manually done, per the restriction above) category creation or modification done by Stefanomione is contested, he must stop and discuss, gaining a consensus before continuing, per WP:BRD.

Violation of these restrictions may result in being blocked. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption has gone on too long, and this is a good solution which falls short of an outright ban. It gives Stefanomione a chance to learn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with these restrictions and with the principle that after a reasonable period of time he be eligible to have it considered whether they should be lifted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what the value is of a:) The single biggest issue with Stefanomione has been poorly conceptualizing or structuring categories. Taking away Hotcat (if such a thing is possible) won't affect that in the slightest, and will only slow him down a tiny bit, if at all. b.) seems to me to be the meat of the thing. Does "contested" mean it has to come to another CfD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Contested simply means another editor opposes. Similar to how the word is used when saying: a contested PROD. - jc37 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? I can guarantee that an 85% retention rate is better than the content of the edits of just about anyone on this page - myself included. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It will constantly need revising and revisiting. I'm not seeing very much discussion with this user about concerns; I can't even tell from the discussion above what issue people are having with his categories other than "we don't like them". It should be no surprise that if the overwhelming majority of an editor's contributions is to a small area of the project, then the overwhelming revision rate will also be in that small area of the project. I do note, however, that most of the categories for February 26, which are linked at his page, aren't actually listed on the February 26 CFD log. This is a serious error, and needs to be rectified if there is a plan to CFD the category (i.e., starting over for the full discussion period). Perhaps someone had problems with automated tools? Risker (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  No I'm not kidding. And if you did look in even the editor's talk page history you might have seen more problems. And this doesn't include other discussions elsewhere. And 85% retention rate? What? The issue here is that there is just so much, and he doesn't stop (even now) that it's a lot of work for others to deal with it. As I am looking over the editor's contributions, there is a lot which should be reverted/deleted, if only based upon prior consensus. That said, I won't debate it with you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. - jc37 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing. I can personally think of at least four administrators who have made much, much more significant errors in categorization who got a pleasant query on their user talk, worked it out with the person who raised the issue, and together they came up with a solution that was better for the project. If I can think of that many people, and I hardly pay attention to categorization, then I think I have grounds to say that it's not numbers, it's that the user isn't being communicated with. Risker (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Risker, you say you "hardly pay attention to categorization," and that much is obvious. If you went to CfD and typed "Stefanomione" in the search field, you would see many dozens of attempts to discuss this with Stefanomione. In addition, all the February 26 are listed on that CfD page; they're all just grouped into one discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not very much discussion? The vast majority of this user's talk page are notices about categories created by them up for discussion at cfd. It's clear they don't get it. --Kbdank71 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? Those are templated notices that indicate someone's made a decision without even bothering to talk to the user beforehand. I'm not seeing "Stefaniome, please stop for a few minutes and explain to me why you're creating these categories." In fact, I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years. The time for that conversation is before tagging something for deletion. It would be a different story if someone could show repeated evidence of trying to discuss without receiving any response, but that does not appear to be the case here. Risker (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussions are at Categories for discussion. I don't see anything wrong or irregular about that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With regards to "I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years.", there is this discussion from August: last post. Not terribly recent, granted, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that the discussions subsequent to that have been held at CFD - I certainly don't think Stefanomie would have been unaware of other editors' sentiments regarding this. Begoon ^talk 03:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You suggest that the only suitable place to discuss a concern with a created category is at CfD. I very much disagree. If you have a problem with a category that a user has created, our dispute resolution process dictates that your first stop is to discuss it with the editor. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be that Risker is unaware that CfD hasn't stood for "categories for Deletion" for quite some time (years, actually). Categories at CfD are posted for just that. discussion. (Category talk pages are rather typically under-watched) Results at CfD are varied, and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm quite aware of that. What I'm saying is that there is no valid reason to fail to discuss this directly with the editor before taking a category to that page. The first stop in any disagreement is discussion with the user, not a noticeboard of any kind. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now that it's been shown that many users have tried to discuss this problem directly with the editor, on his talk page no less, do you have any valid objections to this? --Kbdank71 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Jc37's proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The amount of unnecessary work being created for others is unacceptable. I do see attempts to discuss this with Stefaniome in the past, on his talk page and history, and at the CFD discussions. It can be hard to navigate the talk page and history because of the number of notices. @Risker: the 26th Feb nominations seem to be combined somewhat, at this discussion - that fooled me when I initially followed the talk page links, too. Begoon ^talk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As I mentioned before, I think WP:CATP is a nice place to have centralized discussions of this nature before category creation happens. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think a ban on his editing privileges will help him understand what is right and what is wrong. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not block editors as a teaching mechanism, particularly when the vast majority of their work is useful. We teach them, and talk to them. We don't do that at CfD, we do that one-to-one; only if that has been unsuccessful should this issue ever come up. Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. We are clearly beyond merely suggesting to Stefanomione that he change his behavior. This seems a regrettable but necessary solution.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for changing your original statement here, Mike Selinker. You have consistently said that the only place you've discussed this is at CfD; I note no other edits by you to this editor's page other than to place CfD notices. Can you explain why you have failed to have a discussion directly with the editor? Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved my statement to further up the page. It is baffling to me that you are suggesting that I have not had a discussion with this editor when I have had dozens of discussions with him, just not on his page. Especially when CGingold, Good Ol'Factory, Elen of the Roads, and Shawn in Montreal have had those discussions with him on his page. And of course, I didn't propose this notice, so I'm not sure why you think my actions invalidate this proposal. You seem well intentioned, but you also seem to have no idea what you're talking about in this case. Please feel free to prove me wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spoken to Risker about his objection. I think he's wrong that we haven't tried to engage Stefanomione, but I understand his position. Accordingly, I call upon Risker to provide an alternative to the proposal, and we can support or object to it. In the absence of another proposal, my position is to solidly support this approach.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral/Weak Oppose I've watched Stef for a few years and admit he can be fairly uncommunicative, but well intentioned. I like the idea of restrictions, but I would prefer it incorporate some aspect of mentorship/education. Also, I disagree with the idea that hotcat is an automated tool. It's a semi-automated tool that requires review of every edit with it. I would be fine with just the second condition applying to all of his actions (semi-automated or otherwise) and requiring him to "fix" any contested actions that result in an opposite finding in the resulting discussion. MBisanz ^talk 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, in light of User talk:Giano II/archive 3#Category:Architects of the Sicilian Baroque, I'll oppose. Could we find a bilingual editor to engage him in his native tongue? I believe User:Snowolf is fluent in Italian. MBisanz ^talk 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the mentorship/education part of your suggestion (before you opposed it, anyway).--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mentorship would be fine with me, but the restrictions should still be placed regardless. And the mentor(s) could help determine how soon after the minimum 3 month time period the (semi-)automated tools restriction may be lifted. - jc37 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – I would go further and support a ban on any edit by any means in category space. User:Pastorwayne (who created a slew of unnecessary and bizarrely named categories without any automatic assistance) was subjected to exactly such a ban after featuring in cfd after cfd some years back. (And cfd is the perfect place to discuss the existence and naming of categories.) Oculi (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent self-promoter at Aquatic ape hypothesis

For the past month, SPA User:Algis Kuliukas has been attempting to add mention of his e-book to the article (he self-identifies as one of the editors of the book). The e-book was published by Bentham Scientific Publishers, which has a dubious reputation as a "vanity press" for scientists who have failed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

I, and several others, have been arguing that the citing the latest scientific, peer reviewed, publication on the subject is a significant and helpful inclusion to the text on the subject.

Apart from gossip, what exactly is there to back the slur that a) Bentham is guilt of acting as "vanity press" ever, b) that the authors of the ebook paid to get it published? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the book has undergone any sort of peer review. Per discussion on the article talk page Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, consensus is that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, despite the protests of the author, who is currently crying "slander" and "censorship".

This is just another slur. I know for a fact that it was reviewed by at least one relevant authority. What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The addition is clearly against consensus as it has been reverted by numerous editors, including User:DoriSmith, User:Johnuniq, User:WLU, User:Kwamikagami, User:IRWolfie- and yours truly.

How can citing the latest scientific literature about the subject be deemed "against the consensus"? I guess, only in the sense that the "consensus" wants the idea ignored without any critical thinking or proper refutation in the scientific literature.

Furthermore, the source has been added by two other SPAs, User:Yloopx and User:Mvaneech. The quacking here is pretty loud.

"Quacking"? I note the ad hominem. You guys clearly do not even know what these ideas are and then you censor a simple ref to update the public with latest. The only quackery here is from people so ignorant that they cannot discriminate between the idea that a slight adaptive shift in moving through water might have, for example by wading through shallow water, led to in increase in hominin bipedalism and the idea that some all powerful "God" created the entire universe in six days, just for us. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, "quacking" does not refer to "quackery", but rather to the duck test. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Could we have an administrator look into the situation and take any steps that are needed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please can we have a little impartiality here. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Algis actually has two accounts, Algis Kuliukas (talk · contribs) and AlgisKuliukas (talk · contribs), but given the account names it is pretty obvious that this is an error rather than a deliberate effort to get around WP:SOCK.

Thanks for being so reasonable there! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a pretty obvious history of promotion, of Algis' near-200 edits, they're essentially all related to the promotion of the AAH. All but one of the first account's contributions are to either AAH or its talk page; the other account has only edited the following pages:

• Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's talk page
• March 5 and it's talk page (to insert mention of the first publication regarding the AAH [113])
• User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 [114])
• Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
• Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH) [115]
• One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper [116]
• My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage [117]
• His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
• Only one edit [118] appears unrelated to the AAH.

I admit to being very interested in this idea. Sorry. I have a master's degree on the wading hypothesis, started a PhD, had two papers published on the idea and now had a book published. I apologise for imagining that this might have made my input as significant as self-styled, anonymous, Wikipedian lay "experts" on human evolution. Clearly, as long as you support the mainstream view, you must always be right. Algis Kuliukas (talk)

Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]. A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.

In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book [124], [125], [126]. Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132]. In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical [133], [134], though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first obvious answer here is to file an SPI, I reckon. That might take care of the above-mentioned two accounts, and perhaps another one. That these are all SPAs seems unquestionable, but issuing blocks with some CU evidence in hand is more comfortable than without. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a recommendation which might help: If anyone supports the damned so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" - ban them immediately. That will solve your problem. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. On that talk page, I couldn't hear the arguments because of all the quack noises. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The SPI came back as no accounts related to each other [135]. The increased interest is probably because of the new book on the subject at Bentham press. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, you guys must be geniuses! Incredible censorship of a mild, plausible and evidence-based idea. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the SPAs, User:Mvaneech, has just identified himself as a co-editor of the book (see article talk page). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a topic ban of Algis Kuliukas would resolve the issue of the disruption on this article because of the amount of SPAs/meatpuppets that are showing up to defend the eBook. The problem here is that we have several editors new to Wikipedia who don't understand WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Algis, if you want your book to be included at all in the article (which doesn't seem very likely considering the publisher), you need to demonstrate that your work has been peer-reviewed or that it has generated any responses from mainstream scientific sources. You can't simply claim that it was peer-reviewed and then not provide any evidence. Listing your CV on your userpage does not lend any additional weight to your book. Additionally, cries of censorship are probably hurting your aim here; there is not right to edit Wikipedia. Imagine, for a moment, that I wrote a book saying that the lights that we see at night are actually not other suns but simply holes in the sky that let in the light of the cosmos. For much of human history, that was a "mild, plausible and evidence-based idea." I can't include my book on the holes in the sky in the article on "star" because it has not been peer-reviewed and it is contradicted by mainstream science. I know that you would probably think that my analogy does not fit your situation at all but realize that this is the way that some Wikipedia editors perceive your claims. You have to provide more than a little-known eBook to change the article. Chillllls (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

<irony>Thanks for voting for not banning me.</irony> "Considering the publisher" is just another groundless slur. Why is it up to me to demonstrate that the book was peer reviewed and not the people set against this idea to show there is something amiss with the publisher? This seems a little unfair to me. Most of the contributors to the book are professional scientists, including Philip Tobias, and almost all the others are PhD students at reputable universities studying reputable subjects. I know one eminent scientist who reviewed the book but I am not at liberty to make this public. We are planning to contact the publishers to let them know about these slurs. Your analogy is patronising and offensive. If you (and your lay cohort of Wikipedia editors) cannot discriminate between the idea that some (rather slight) selection from wading, swimming and diving might have affected the human phenotype, as compared to other great apes - and such twaddle, I have to wonder how it is you/they that are a position of authority admonishing/judging/advising me, and not the other way around. The article (remember) is about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" and we have just published a book - the latest book - on that subject. If even this simple, relevant, timely fact is censored out of this page I have to question the agenda of you and your fellow editors. It would seem that informing the public about what the idea is - is not on that agenda. Outrageous! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"If I were them, I'd be thinking about taking legal action" comes very close to a legal threat. I'd strongly advise you to strike this if you genuinely want to gather support for your position here and bring fellow editors round to your way of thinking. And you absolutely must not repeat or strengthen this threat if you want to remain an editor here. Either take this problem to the courts or solve it here. You can't do both. Further repetition will lead to a block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Algis Kuliukas has promptly complied, many thanks for the co-operation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone tell me why the page has a ref to Jim Moore's (a lay person who was a partner to Nancy Tanner, not the anthropologist) masquerading web site and bloggs that are not peer reviewed, but our attempt to include a reference to the latest, scholarly, peer reviewed, textbook is blocked and results in the page being locked? I think it is called bias. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Algis: The point that you just made is a variation of something called a Other Stuff Exists argument on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the Jim Moore ref and the material that it supports, remove the material from the article and, if the material is challenged by someone else, discuss it on the talk page (WP:BRD). If you actually cared about the quality of the article, you would do that instead of trying to repeatedly force the inclusion of your own book against talk page and RS/N consensus. Your sarcasm and accusations of bias/censorship will not help you accomplish your goal. Chillllls (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page to ban the ebook reference? I never saw any.Yloopx (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All of the accounts arguing for inclusion of the book either were the book's editors, or new accounts such as yourself with little apparent appreciation for policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Honorsteem (talk · contribs) opened a discussion on this board a couple of weeks ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Deleting (references to) moved comments on Talk:Daniel_Pipes) and (in a unanimous decision) was eventually blocked for "his abuse of clean start, disruptive editing and the fairly well supported idea that xe is hounding Jayjg". Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Honorsteem_Blocked. He asked to be unblocked on his talk page, and after several attempts at getting unblocked, which failed because of his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and WP:NOTTHEM violations, he was eventually unblocked. He very first article edit was to revert me at List of Jewish Nobel Laureates, as was his third edit at Party for Freedom.
Regarding the List of Jewish Nobel Laureates article, after his revert was in turn reverted by someone else (he objected to having List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients as a "See also"), he then decided to add a number of other links, including a link to List of Jewish American mobsters.[136] There are, of course, dozens of lists of Jews on Wikipedia; the link to this specific article, out of all of them, is quite obviously just combative and needless provocation.
Regarding the Party for Freedom article, the material itself is an obvious WP:BLP violation, as he knows from the earlier discussion on his Talk: page. Moreover, his insertion uses Wikipedia's voice to describe to specific individuals as "right-wing" and "anti-Muslim", something their Wikipedia biographies obviously do not do.
It appears to me that Honorsteem has learned nothing from the earlier AN/I thread or the discussions on his Talk: page; on the contrary, he seems to still view Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that further administrative action is appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CLEANSTART...means new username and avoiding old haunts and editors...that isn't the case here it appears.MONGO 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One sec here ... Honorsteem has acknowledged that his was NOT a cleanstart, it was a mere change of usernames (done the wrong way). He was not required whatsoever to stay away from "old haunts". However, continuing a previous battle made no sense - but I'm not seeing how this is indef'able (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked initially for (in part) WP:HOUNDing me, and subsequently re-blocked for, in part, doing the same. He's now asking to be unblocked so that he can initiate an WP:RFC/U on me.[137] I think there's a fundamental disconnect here between the purpose of Wikipedia (creating an encyclopedia) and Honorsteem's own reasons for editing it (WP:BATTLE/pursuing a grudge). Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Honorsteem explicitly stated, on his own user page, that he was undertaking a WP:CLEANSTART ([138]) contradicts his claims that he was not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS madness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Favonian has demonstrated, not for the first time, that he is unfit to be an admin. The latest thing, this asinine article renaming with no consensus,[139] does nothing but make wikipedia (and him) look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• You'll have to explain why that is an asinine renaming. --John (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • • • Because there's no consensus and it serves no purpose. As well as possibly being incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it seems entirely in line with the cited policy. What's up, Doc? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Admitting that it took me about a minute to see the difference, I'd agree that the move, while ultra-pedantic, is correct. Encyclopaedias are meant to be pedantic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If the actual title is not spelled that way, then the so-called MOS "rule" is "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cover is all caps, are you suggesting we follow it exactly and have all caps here too?  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The copyrighted sheet music and the record itself, which are visible in various places on the internet,[140][141][142] have it this way:

I'D LIKE TO TEACH THE WORLD TO SING

(In Perfect Harmony)

Invoking "manual of style" to override the actual title amounts to original research. OR is against the rules. FYI, I only knew about this because the article happened to be on my watch list. Things are on my watch list to check for vandalism, not to worry about whether someone is going to impose some new OR title on something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So you'd just like the article title to have the first eight words in caps? To do otherwise would surely be OR?  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You will find other versions where the first line of the title is in mixed case. What you won't find is the "In" in lower case - except on wikipedia. Meanwhile, Favonian was too lazy to change the article content, so now it doesn't match the title he moved it to. Thus making wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Article fixed. Thanks  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 07:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you've renamed it back to its real title, all you've done is perpetute the mistake and continue to make wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, you are calling someone unfit to be an admin because he corrected capitalization in an article title? Didn't we topic ban you from the notice boards already? If not then perhaps we ought to consider it now... You'll have to get your dose of drahma somewhere else. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Bugs is under a self-imposed ban per this but arguably it covers AN only rather than AN/I. Still Bugs, take a chill pill mate, this is not the issue to mark your return to the dramah boards. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, the ban clearly cites AN/I and has another six days to run. Bugs, very sorry but you have shot yourself in the foot here. Reset of ban to one month from today? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You're wrong. The so-called "ban" doesn't exist where I'm affected. And Favonian owes me. I'm still waiting for his apology, or even any kind of acknowledgment, for having compelled me and another user to raise a huge brouhaha at Commons in order to reverse an extraordinarily stupid decision he made some weeks back. He's got no business being an admin... and this allegedly MOS-driven renaming, at the possible expense of making wikipedia look even more stupid, demonstrates it yet again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How are you directly affected by a title change that changes the case of one letter? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The diff you linked specifically identifies "ANI". Powers ^T 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There was no opposition to the move registered in six days of discussion (I withdrew my opposition as I'd misremembered the MOS rule). I am stunned by Baseball Bugs' phrasing: "Yet another stupid decision by Favonian. See you on WP:ANI." The decision was correct per consensus and per the MOS; if BB has a problem with the MOS, this isn't the place to contest its contents. Powers ^T 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I raised this issue to bring up the continued arrogance of the admin Favonian, who this time as with the previous time not only refuses to back down from a wrong decision, but also stonewalls us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I personally agree with Bugs' position - changing the capitalisation on a title, name, or any other thing which the creator and the rest of the world capitalises one way, because "Wikipedia says Wikipedia capitalises it this way", is WP:OR at its most blatant. It's not Wikipedia's place to dictate how something should be spelled or capitalised, but rather to use the spelling and capitalisation used in sources, and for spelling and capitilisation, primary sources are acceptable. That said, though, I'm not at all sure I agree with his presentation of that position, and have "no comment" on any bans' existience, proposed extensions therof, or anyone's fitness to be an admin or lack thereof. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Bushranger and Bugs. The move may have been "ultra-pedantic" in Wikipedia terms, but when MOS conflicts with reality, reality must win, because -- well, because we're an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should reflect reality and not create its own. The new title is incorrect, and the article should be moved back. I disagree with Bugs that the move has any particular relevance to Favonian's ability to be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • First, the MOS does reflect reality, in that is one form of proper Capitalization, even if it is not what the product says it is. But the largest issue is that because page moves are seemingly more disruptive than standard edit moves, the MOS standardized this specific form of capitalization as to avoid not only edit warring on titles, but to make sure titles read appropriately within text, to prevent "fan" versions of names with wacky variations, product names that claim to be all caps when not an acronym, and other nonsense that would otherwise make prose a mess. Yes, it seems silly in this one particularly case, but its sorta necessary to prevent that "leaking" to other cases. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This isn't a "fan" version, it's the title as published. You're trying to justify original research based on a false premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• I am saddened by this, as the Bugs I know would've done a "This is MOS madness you maniacs" header. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• This late in the game, there isn't much I can add by way of explaining my actions, except to emphasized that they were done in good faith. It may be unrealistic to hope for a general consensus defining the demarcation line between MoS and other considerations, so unpleasant situations like this one will keep occurring as they have in the past.

Though I prefer to stay out of the topic ban discussion below, I will raise one complaint. Bugs claims that I "stonewall" the community, presumably because I haven't responded before. I live in the Central European Timezone, and it was 00:44 when the notice concerning this discussion arrived on my talk page. At this point I had retired for the night, my last edit having been made half an hour previously. Not even the considerable amount of noise made by the OP was able to stir me from my slumber. Favonian (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Baseball Bugs, coming here and raising this issue in the manner that you do makes you look silly. Think about that. I quite agree that there are people around here whose thought-free and robotic application of arbitrary house style rules actually results in the introduction of outright factual errors into the encyclopaedia, or other damage. But that doesn't make them unsuitable to be administrators. It makes them unsuitable to be encyclopaedists — something that isn't addressable by removing administrator tools. Moreover, in this case, as in so many other cases, you shouldn't be focussing on the discussion closer, but on the people who took part in the discussion itself. They, not Favonian, are the people who actually hold this erroneous view. A group of people were convinced that it was more important to conform to a manual of style than to consider what the actual real world facts are. A further person then took the view here that agreement between title and body was a more important consideration than factual accuracy, too. They are the true problems, not Favonian. Address the problem at its root, not via the proxy of picking the person tasked with implementing such group decisions and laying the entirety of the blame on that single person's shoulders.

  To that end, I add: A quick Google Books search turns up contemporary issues of Newsweek and Billboard, from December 1971 and 1972, that both use "In" rather than "in" and don't use all-capitals. They have the name exactly as per the pre-move article title, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Usual question which tends to get asked

What administrator response to a specific incident is being requested here? pablo 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Desysoping. Nobody Ent 16:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Unbefuckinglievable. pablo 17:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extension of topic ban for BB

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the diff above, Bugs was topic banned for one month from AN/I on 8th February, except for matters here directly concerning him. He brought the report above which clearly does not directly concern him (never mind its lack of support from others) and really this couldn't be a clearer case of a topic ban violation. I really like Bugs' contributions but AN and AN/I have been a more orderly place this last few weeks. Propose an extension of the topic ban for a further month from today. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. The complaint is about an incredibly trivial issue, but presented in an incredibly over-the-top manner that exemplifies why Bugs was compelled to take a break from AN(/I) in the first place. I would also endorse an extension of more than one month, given that the original topic ban seems to have done very little to reduce Bugs' taste for drama. (Honestly, a trivial move request is unopposed for a week, Favonian closes the unanimous request and carries it out, and suddenly we need to desysop him for doing something that seems to follow the instructions in the Manual of Style—really?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I like bugs too but there's no choice here. Not only does the complaint not directly affect him but it seems far away from something requiring admin attention. On top of that it's just plain rude; if this is indicative of an action that makes one unfit to be an admin the I dare say we'll have no admins soon enough. N^oformation ^Talk 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It was a *self imposed* topic ban. So he broke a promise, that is not a reason for a ban extension. We all sometimes make promises we don't keep because of our habits (just think of our New Year's resolutions, which are often negated within two weeks after the year's beginning). Not to mention politicians breaking their promises on a daily basis. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - A self imposed topic ban is unenforcable. Trying to institute a true ban in this instance would be equivalent to proposing a full siteban for someone who retired and then came back and resumed editing later. Night Ranger (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If it was self imposed, I'd prefer the action taken here to be to convert it to a community sanction, but not extend the length. At the same time, follow it with a "good behaviour bond" where it can be reimposed by any admin (with escalating lengths) if Bugs is judged to have overstepped the mark again. I'd like to think it was a one off and Bugs can demonstrate better self restraint in future. Begoon ^talk 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bugs should have sat out the entirety of the ban, and chose a fairly trivial conflict to return, but a self-imposed ban cannot be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that BMK and several others take this view; a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all. By this reasoning, anyone can self-impose a ban to get the community off their back, then come back at any time they please with impunity. If this does develop as consensus I shall never be satisfied with voluntary, self-imposed bans on people in the future but will always pursue discussions to a community-enforced decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are always other options - WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM being the two most obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• @Kim: Here is my understanding: the community was considering a topic ban for Bugs in regards to AN/I, but that failed when he agreed to a self-imposed ban. The community did not have to accept that, they could have gone ahead with the community ban. If this instance, they did accept it, and Bugs has apparently broken that self-imposed ban. The community now has the option to, once again, consider a community-imposed ban, but there is nothing it can do about a self-imposed ban which is not carried through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It was self-imposed...but it was self-imposed to end a ban discussion in progress early. Violating a self-imposed ban shouldn't mean a ban (unless that's part of the agreement), but reopening the discussion could be an option. --Onorem♠Dil 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• comment - it was also self-imposed after the unblock. IJS — Ched :  ?  04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Since it was voluntary, no red card, this time. Bumping up to two months would really be better.
  The high volume of gadfly participation on pages such as this one is unhelpful; it results in a frothy mixture of jokes and bullshit that perpetuates a vicious cycle of drama. Alarbus (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  But it was voluntary because the community was already favoring a topic ban for him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  I commented in the prior discussion; even re-read my typo. By no red card I meant no block for the noise over an 'i'. I'm all for less noise from such users. Alarbus (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Kim is quite right: a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all, and it would be not only quite reasonable for the question to go back to the discussion of an imposed topic ban, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude from this that Bugs' word is no good, and that he cannot be trusted to deal in good faith. That being said, said discussion was nowhere near a consensus for a ban, and was running not a whole lot better than a simple majority in favor. In any event, it would be horribly abusive to endorse enforcing and extending a "ban" that the community never approved in the first place. I am quite sympathetic with editors tired of the drama, but as with most other areas of the encyclopedia, if you cannot gain a consensus supporting your POV - however worthy and true you're convinced that POV is - your POV does not prevail. Ravenswing 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bugs is rooly cool on IRC. Anyone who is so funny and makes fun of stuff I don't like and stuff must be perfect to build an encyclopaedia.101.118.20.230 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Effectively, the wrong thing has been asked here. You cannot extend a self-imposed topic ban. However, you COULD have asked for the community to impose a topic ban. None of the !votes above mean squat because the question was the wrong one. As my friend's daughter says "No, try again!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think that semantic arguments cut much ice here. Bugs offered a one-month topic ban (however 'voluntary') as an alternative to more serious sanctions; note the closing summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#Baseball Bugs - Block review and topic ban discussion. Given that the above thread demonstrates both a failure to keep his word and (more seriously) a failure to avoid the sort of inflammatory and pointless rhetoric that led to the first ban discussion, it seems like the original question – should Bugs be banned from these boards – is back before us. Regardless of the precise circumstances of Bugs' original departure from these noticeboards, the intent and meaning of the question before the community in this thread is clear. Casually dismissing the comments above on a legalism is missing the point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: Ahem ... "casually?" There is nothing "casual" about my stance, sir, nor was my POV hastily chosen or delivered. I do the honor of presuming that those who disagree with me do so because they believe in their stance, and don't choose to insult them for it. Would you care to exercise some AGF in your own right? Ravenswing 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Your comment would make more sense had I been replying to your original remark, and not to Bwilkin's casual dismissal. TenOfAllTrades

(talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins didn't say anything I didn't, and I see nothing in his remarks which can be construed as casually thought up. Ravenswing 13:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• support community imposed indefinite topic ban from all administrator notice boards (except when notified by others that his input is needed)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  your parenthetical is gameable; anyone could ask for his input. Anyway, I support the direction you're suggesting; indef imposed dramaboard ban. Alarbus (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support new or existing implicit ban. User accused an admin of being unfit for changing the case of a single letter in a single article title after a week long discussion in which both participants agreed to the move. Nobody Ent 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support whether it is new or an extension. What was he thinking? This should include all administrator notice boards as per Maunus. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support extension/imposition of one more month on AN* topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support frankly I'm not sure it would be a bad thing to make it indefinite and for him to show a change of behaviour before it is lifted - this move request seems entirely legitimate. With regards to complaints about the ban not being formal, maybe it should. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With regards to [143] a claim of stonewalling well within 24 hours? That seems more than a tad unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. People have lives outside of Wikipedia... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Baseball Bugs has demonstrated, not for the first time, that he needs a break from drama boards (or, we need the break, if that phrasing is preferred). Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• support with caveat excuse my attempt to start this discussion on the AN noticeboard. I noticed the top part had been closed and didn't scroll down enough to catch this one. The little dramatic and insulting close in the middle really seals it for me, though honestly a month is not enough. He promised a month and couldn't stay away that long. Simply forcing him to stay away a month is really insufficient. What we've learned over the last month before he came back, is as some described, that somethings were easier to deal with without his input. As such this really should be a much longer ban, at least a year.--Crossmr (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per prior reasoning and that this effort did not have consensus in the past, thus the second bite at the apple is counter-intuitive entirely. Collect (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  The previous discussion was abandoned because of his self-imposed topic ban. Which he's gone back on. This isn't a second bite at the apple so much as it is picking it back up because we thought it would be fine when it wasn't. 40 supports vs 27 opposes, is more than borderline to begin with. There was no attempt to previously finish generating that consensus or even evaluating it because of his offer.--Crossmr (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is picking up the previous discussion? In which case, not only should that be explicitly stated - preferably by Kim - but those editors who previously registered their opinions should strike their votes here, as well. Ravenswing 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• My original post to start this thread was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a self-imposed ban was exactly like a community-imposed ban, and should not be broken without consequences. I don't think it would be right for me to now make any alteration to that proposal, because obviously it would cast into confusion everyone's support or opposition. So just to amplify what I thought I was proposing at the start: Bugs was under a ban (albeit a self-imposed one), broke the term of it egregiously and we are discussing resetting the clock - but this time with the reset imposed by the community rather than Bugs himself. We are not (in my mind) continuing the previously suspended discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• My point was the first discussion was never properly concluded because of Bugs' actions. He can't get away with avoiding a ban or discussion by shutting down a previous discussion by offering to stop the behaviour, then going back on the promise, then trying to claim double jeopardy because he knee-capped the previous discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It is best if BB leaves this board alone, and so we convert this to a community ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If only to counter sort of momentum of the "vote" directly above this one. A community ban? Get yer good shoes on for that one, Graeme. Doc talk 09:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think Graeme meant a "community AN topic ban", rather than a "community ban". I think I lost it in the translation, and I struck my last comment accordingly. I think Bugs' topic ban was meant to deal with what many feel is a long-standing issue with him excessively commenting on pre-existing threads that have nothing to do with him at all; not bringing up new ones (though this one was pretty horridly though out, Bugs) or commenting where he was already mentioned. The writing may be on the wall here, but I do like Bugs even though many don't. It's not a popularity contest, right? He's not ever gonna run for adminship, I betcha ;P Doc talk 09:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Now you're not very clear. You claimed to be opposing it simply because you thought Graeme was advocating for a community ban, which you've realized is not the case. Since that seemed to be your only objection, are your for or against the topic ban of Bugs from this board and AN?--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• And while you say "its not a popularity contest" you also say "I like Bugs" - which isn't really consistent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In context, "community" contrasts with "self-imposed," specifying the agent of the proposed ban, not its scope. Nobody Ent 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain my "vote" any further, and I don't see many "Supports" getting a lot of comments compared to the "Opposes". I oppose the topic ban, and 15-9 is not a strong consensus. Doc talk 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

if someone says "I oppose this only because the nominator is wearing blue pants" and the nominator says "I'm actually wearing red pants", we'd need further clarification to your position. You clearly stated above that you were opposing it solely for a reason that was found to be false. Graeme wasn't advocating what you thought he was, so if you've put that forth as your sole reason, it's reasonable that someone may question it and seek clarification. Strong is a matter of opinion, WP:CONSENSUS contains no percentages--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"I think Bugs' topic ban was meant to deal with what many feel is a long-standing issue with him excessively commenting on pre-existing threads that have nothing to do with him at all; not bringing up new ones..." That is my reason. Doc talk 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• oppose - the self imposed restriction was not created to stop BB from bringing issues of his own that he feels require admin attention. Youreallycan 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't really think a closure of a discussion that involved changing an I to an i with a unanimous consensus needed to be bought to administrator attention so quickly that even if it wasn't let go it couldn't be discussed on the closing admins talk page first... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. I get the feeling there was some historic that perhaps BB was more reacting in a straw that broke the camels back manner. Prolly didn't need reporting, but debatable if it violated his restriction imo. - Youreallycan 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- the schtick is old and the drama is counterproductive. Cut it off at the knees. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Crikey - the suggestion is for a months extension, not for any kind of cutting off at the knees - Youreallycan 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As I have said before, BB does not improve the climate here on AN* --Guerillero | My Talk 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to me that I was the one in closest discussion with Bugs when he agreed to step aside for a month, and not once for a second, then or still, did I ever envision it preventing Bugs from bringing forward a genuine complaint. The topic ban part was about Bugs getting in on other (sometimes every single other) threads and mot moving things forward with his contributions. He hasn't gone back to that. Bugs is just as free as anyone else though, to bring forward fresh problems (like spotting a sock) or complaints - even if people find them bogus. In this case there is some substance to the complaint too, where 2 people decide to change something, an admin closes it, and it becomes the new "consensus" version untouchable without another RM. That's wrong, but not sufficient of itself for a desysop, so Bugs was asking for the wrong thing, as many others do also. But Uncle G's advice about the real problem being the MOS-fetishists is sound, so the thread directed the OP in the right way. So it wsan't even that bad of an AN/I thread. I won't support a "no person, no problem" response here. Franamax (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

FWIW, extending a self-imposed ban (which only Bugs can do) an extra month or imposing a 1-month ban, adds up to the same thing - the ban ending in early April. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to close?

I opened this thread nearly 48 hours ago and would have no objection to it being closed now. I think I count 15 editors in favour of my proposal to make a community-enforced extension of one month to Bugs' original self-imposed topic ban here. I count 9 against. This is clearly a majority and I hope Bugs takes note of that and of the strong feeling his premature return here caused. Whether it is a sufficiently large majority for the closer to declare a consensus is much more debatable and I won't argue whatever the decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trolling of Talk:Hezbollah

We've got some joker apparently using multiple IPs to re-post an inflammatory comment on the talkpage.

• 77.42.224.194 [144]
• 77.42.137.61 [145], [146]
• 77.42.189.248 [147]

I thought it worth mentioning here as the editor has been careful in using the three accounts so possibly has some awareness how AIV works. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how they are inflammatory? The person I was having a discussion with didn't seem to mind, and there are far worse things written on that talk page. And perhaps It didn't cross your mind that I have a dynamic IP address and I'm not "a vandal trying to escape ban through multiple accounts"--77.42.189.248 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Please read them. Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is already bad enough. I don't think your comment helped. If you are concerned about the neutrality of article content you can help to improve it. Your comment won't achieve anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Inflammatory" is an exaggeration, and "trolling" is a strong word. Keeping all personal opinion from talk pages is a futile exercise. I agree with Sean, but I see no need here for administrator intervention. Suriel, I think the phantom you're chasing is one of your own imagination. Next matter, please. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspected meatpuppetry/bias in Kish cypher

The article Kish cypher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been subject to edits by those I suspect of having some (academic) relation to the idea's author, Laszlo Kish, or perhaps Kish himself. The article is about a cryptographic scheme, relating to the fields of physics and computer science.

Recently, the editor User:DrEubanks removed criticism of the scheme. The account is recent and only edits the Kish article. When asked why in the talk page he was removing criticism, he stated that he was concerned the criticism would effect his research grant application. After attempting to address his concerns, another account (talk • contribs) was created and reverted to the DrEubanks version.

I suspect the following are sock puppets or meat puppets:

• Repep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PorkoltLover60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DrEubanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• G chime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. Skippydo (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is will his attempt to "sanitize" the article (and the possible use of "shills") have a more detrimental effect on his grant proposal then the original article did. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question. As for the OP, have you filed at WP:SPI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have not filed a WP:SPI. Would you recommend I do so now? Skippydo (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with initiating an investigation, which will prove that Porkoltlover60, Dr. Eubank, and G chime, are different persons than me (Repep) and Skippydo's claims are wrong and ill biased. And the same time, I propose to investigate multiple vandalism by Skippydo, see below. User:Repep —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

An IP edit claiming to be from Dr Eubanks[148] identifies Dr Eubanks as T. W. Eubanks who publishes in IEEE Xplore. That site does show some publications from an antenna designer of that name.[149] The article looks like self-promotion to me too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All my edits have been thoroughly supported by published references and don't see the problem. Please be more specific. PorkoltLover60 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I had included User:PorkoltLover60 in the list due to his combative style in editing the article in question. Ironically, his defence here further raises suspicions. Here's the timeline:

• Special:Contributions/DrEubanks is created and edits the article on March 1st.
• Special:Contributions/G_chime is created and edits the article on March 3rd.
• Special:Contributions/Repep has no edits since January 24, edits the article on March 3rd.
• Special:Contributions/PorkoltLover60 has no edits since Feburary 17, posts here on March 4th.

In fairness, there may be some notification system triggered by my posting in PorkoltLover60's talk page which brought him here, I'm not sure. If they aren't the same person, they appear to be in communication. Skippydo (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippy, why don't you just look at my talk page and see your notification? What's all this "I'm not sure" business? You are being disingenuous. I think you are the guilty one that is using sock-puppets and doing aggressive/manipulative POV editing. Everything you say seems to be projection of what you are in fact doing. All I have been doing is strictly editing according to referenced published articles. What axe are you grinding? Can you come clean please?PorkoltLover60 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to express the fact that a change to your talk page may have prompted an email notification or something of the sort. I don't know if such a thing exists. Skippydo (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While a change to a user talk page can in fact trigger an email notification (see WP:EMAIL; this feature was enabled in 2011 for the English Wikipedia), an editor must have enabled email for his/her account for this to happen. You can see if an editor has done this by looking for a link of "E-mail this user". The page User talk:PorkoltLover60 doesn't (now) have that link (nor does your user talk page, at the moment.) By contrast, you can see such a link here, for an editor that I just picked from the Recent changes page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, that was interesting. User:PorkoltLover60 is  Unrelated. User:DrEubanks has edited talkpages as an IP but the IP has not edited the article so, benefit of doubt, I'd say it's a logging out error, especially as the IP acknowledged who he was. I cannot connect User:G_chime technically to any of the others. User:Repep however appears to edit the article also as User:Piszkosfred. While it is quite ok to have another useraccount to edit in an unrelated area (some people don't want to admit they are My Little Pony fans...), it is definitely not allowed to have two accounts editing the same article. I have blocked both accounts pending some explanation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Repep edited from Texas A&M University, so there is a possible link with Kish, who I believe is based there.
• User:Skippydo and the 67.117 IP are  Unrelated.
• I believe User:Htavroh is Horvath - this is because I think someone has told me this in the past, rather than any use of magic pixie dust. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspected bias of Skippydo toward quantum informatics and related repeated vandalism

Moved to subsection of Kish cypher discussion Hasteur (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippydo proposed an investigation that Repep, Porkoltlover60, G Chime and Dr Eubanks are the same person, see above. I support the investigation. At the same time, I propose to investigate multiple vandalism by Skippydo: in many of his edits, not only at the Kish cypher, he shows heavy bias toward quantum informatics and suppressing opinions challenging it. Examples can be found in the Kish cypher talk page where it is discussed that he removed a fully referenced comparison with quantum encryption when the quantum system was inferior according linked other wiki pages about it. His last such an action is questioning the objectivity of peer review processes of international scientific journals at the talk page of Kish cypher. Thus an investigation against Skippydo's correctness in following the wikipedia rules is proposed. User:Repep —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

We don't investigate people for "correctness in following the rules". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippydo's contributions to that talk page look fine to me. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like there may be a nest of COI articles related to Laszlo B. Kish. See the infobox and other links from that page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippy has certainly been editing boldly. Which is what he supposed to do. However, it seems to me that Skippy isn't strictly going by cited references (which I am). Also it seems to me 67.117.145.9 (talk) and Skippy are puppets of each other. There is a correlation in their activity and timing. I suspect Skippy is guilty of projection and is the one using puppets. I challenge you guys to check that one out.PorkoltLover60 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The references for that article "Kish Cypher" are mostly by Kish (some co-authored with someone named Horvath, which spelled backwards is the username of occasional contributor to Kish-related Wikipedia articles User:Htavroh, hmm....), several published in Fluctuation and Noise Letters, a journal founded by Kish himself, what a coincidence. The article has zero references authored by anyone working in information security as far as I can tell, and the claim it makes is bogus on its face for reasons explained by Aram Harrow on the talk page. WP:REDFLAG documentation is needed for something like this and it just isn't there. We may need a content RFC and/or COIN discussion. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The Laszlo B. Kish article's only reference is a pdf: "Publication list of Laszlo B. Kish" [http://www.ece.tamu.edu/~noise/publist.pdf. Not exactly confidence-inspiring. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Beneficial Edits Added by DrEubanks

I added beneficial edits to the Kish Cypher page that more accurately describe the concept while removing some of the anti-bias against it. Skippydo agreed with my edits on the talk page while undoing them in the history. I'm going to restore my original edits since they are agreed upon. DrEubanks (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD instead of engaging in a WP:EW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rolling back Occupy Wall Street, what else can be done here.

I was looking at this article and noticing that although there are many editors helping to fix it, there are still some technical problems. Some of the people helping or having trouble fixing things, in case I refer to them, are in alphabetical order..notified

• Amadscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Becritical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

On one hand there is good work going on to fix it, but on the other hand there are still bad problems. I suggested rolling back the article, and other editors have suggested ideas which may help as well, plus, the more you read the article's history the more problems you can see that go on and on and on, but I think there may be lots of ways to help out here, any ideas ? Penyulap _talk 09:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Two ideas. 1) Wrong venue, possible content dispute? 2) Need more diffs. Actually, three ideas. 3) Name less editors in the complaint with no diffs. Actually, four ideas: discuss this with the individual editors further before bringing it here. I'm trying to make this easy, here. What do you think this is, the Spanish Inquisition? Monty Python reference: not to be taken literallyDoc talk 09:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

I think it's more than just a Spanish elephant. Penyulap _talk 09:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is not the place for technical problems. If there is an issue with the editing of any of the people you named, say so. If there is not, don't name them at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While I have no doubts as to the good faith of the nominating editor, I'm not sure what he/she is getting at... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion by Walter55024

Resolved

 – Socks washed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Walter was blocked under his Walter55024 account. He was repeatedly reminded not to evade the block when he first evaded it. Now Walter is again evading his block here with an account named Walter55034. Cloveapple (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

He's hardly hiding it. Perhaps rather than a reflexive block, an attempt could be made to engage with him and see if he is willing to be productive?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my first reaction too. Unfortunately, it's far from reflexive. I was one of several people that tried to help him. User:Worm That Turned tried harder. Worm adopted him and then had to block him when it became clear he just wasn't able to contribute.

In any case the latest name is now blocked. Cloveapple (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel sad. Obviously, Walter had the potential to become a great editor, but he had repeatedly created hoaxes and engaged in edit wars. He does not show a basic understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as this shows and so he was blocked indefinitely. His talk page access was revoked due to the fact that he would not be unblocked for at least one year. He was repeatedly asked to email WP:BASC but he continued to evade the block with a new IP and an account. Walter's behavior is becoming more and more disruptive, and it's making my very anxious. --Bmusician 15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Abuse by editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Yeti personally abused me, telling me "Fuck off, idiot" when I pointed out in Talk:John Carter (film) that one should not post copyrighted material regarding film plots if the studio has explicitly said so. Please suggest some corrective measure. You can refer to the talk page to check it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While The Yeti clearly shouldn't have written that, you are totally wrong regarding the copyright issue, and striking through another's talk page comments is against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What Andy said. I've left a note on his talk page (The Yeti's, not Andy's). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. While The Yeti might not have followed the best etiquette, I don't see anything to take action based on his conduct. Ankit should probably be careful that he hasn't just gone tossing a boomerang by starting the AN/I thread, since it looks like he provoked the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell me why? Disney has clearly stated that there is an embargo on all matter containing the film details until March 2, 2012. After that, the embargo has been lifted and several professional reviews have also come. Since the comment was January 29, 2012 I struck it out.

I have witnessed the deletion of edit histories when non-copyrighted stuff has found its way onto Wikipedia pages, I don't understand why such a simple matter like striking out is evoking such reactions. The point being, "Fuck off idiot" is a plain personal attack. There are certainly better ways to discuss issues.

And this is insane, somebody is saying that "conduct" is not wrong. So even I can go around telling editors to "Fuck off" and then I can't be charged with "bad conduct"? Is that what you are saying? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where has Disney stated this clearly and in such a way that it applies to all venues? The immediate question is whether the embargo prevents editors from commenting on the movie. Since it's not clear copyright infringement, striking out the comments is not clearly appropriate.

I did not say his conduct was not wrong; it was an inappropriate comment. My point was that AN/I is not the venue for that issue at this time; WP:Wikiquette assistance is. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Update : The user is now going and saying that abusing on his/her personal talk page is justified. I will be quite put off if this sort of attitude gets support. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Now you want to issued veiled threats too ? With added glee ?" Veiled threat? Abusing is a very serious issue, especially such explicit ones that can't be taken up in any different way. And what exactly does the user mean by biting newcomers regarding the original poster? I was never present on this article when the issue came up; the user is inventing details and pushing POV to justify his/her stand, another quite wrong tactic. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell me why? Because you don't strike out comments made by other users. This rule is independent of any alleged copyright issues. HabitKabit (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking out copyrighted content is not allowed, but deleting edit histories regarding copyrighted material is? Find some better explanation. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking out material of other users is not allowed, full stop. Go ahead and delete the edit history, if you have the privs. HabitKabit (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the underlying issue, Ankitbhatt, the problem is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright here. If you'd like to understand better, I can explain later (about to go do something in real life), or maybe ask someone else, but you were wrong about striking out the comments. Regarding the rudeness, re-read this thread. No one is condoning the phrase used, we're saying that we don't block for every minor instance of someone losing their temper. It's possible to be wrong about being rude, or wrong about striking out someone else's comments, without getting blocked for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm sorry to see that some editors are brushing this issue off, and as somebody stated this issue can warrant severe consequences. I expect a solution to be placed here, and I do expect some punishment for this; ANI has been less lenient previously, I see no reason why it should be so forgiving now. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The solution is that The Yeti has been clearly warned that his/her language was inappropriate. I'm afraid that is as severe as it is going to get, no further punishment is likely unless the behaviour is repeated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to think that discussion of a film's plot is a violation of copyright. That is simply not true. You state that 'Details of the film plot are copyrighted,' but you simply aren't correct about that, at least in the context of discussion on Wikipedia. It might possibly be a violation of Disney's copyright for you to make a film with the same plot and sell it, but it isn't a violation of their copyright for you to discuss the details of a film's plot. That would be true of any film, but in this case, your position is even less correct, since the plot of the film is based on a book, A Princess of Mars, that has long been in the public domain. You demand a solution and some punishment; the best solution would be for you to relax a little bit and stop trying to prevent discussion of the plot of the film 'John Carter' at Talk:John Carter (film). I don't think any punishment will be necessary for you, though, since you meant well and simply didn't understand what 'copyright' meant in this context- there's no need for any of us to punish you simply for making a mistake. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Actually, there really WAS an embargo , per Disney, on the plot for John Carter mulitple references attest to this The embargo was lifted 3/1/2012. Ankit struck out the plot 2/29/201, prior to the embargo being lifted. I'm not sure how Wiki deals with someone else's embargo, but I believe he may have been right to do this in this situation. Just my .02. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be really fantastic if people would, at least, read our article news embargo (we don't actually have a review embargo article, but the concept is the same) before commenting on things they don't understand. No one is disputing that the comments were made before the review embargo was lifted. Embargos have nothing to do with copyright; you should never quote directly from an "official" plot summary, not just during the period it's embargoed, but that isn't what happened here. It would be very difficult to put something about the plot in the article, sourced to reliable sources, during an embargo, but that isn't what happened here. Wikipedia is under zero obligation to enforce silence about a plot summary during a movie's review embargo. 86.3% of the problem with places like ANI is caused by people who don't know what they're talking about, but feel compelled to say something anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless you are a government and have given yourself special powers, an embargo is basically a no more than an instruction to your own press office to hold off on talking about something - or by extension, to request news outlets to hold off printing - until a specified time. It has no legal force - news media abide by embargos because otherwise they don't get stories. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Periodic disruption by User:Buddhafollower

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Buddhafollower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EdJohnston blocked blocked Buddhafollower for 48 hours on 24 January for persistent failure to abide by our policies. I have just had a trawl through their contributions since that date and have had to remove everything that had not already been reverted etc by someone else. The user is still pushing a Kashmiri Pandit pov, is still failing to source a single thing and is still conducting clear original research.

Since then they have made a further 29 edits in small batches, all of which relate to Kashmiri Pandits in one way or another, all of which are unsourced and not a few of which appear to be original research. They have been reverted pretty much 100%, as here and here. Most of them are minor pov-y issues but, as at Kalhana, Saraswat Brahmins, and Kashmiri people, they just keep returning with with reinstatements of similar stuff

Although they have only made 204 contributions, this is starting to look like long-term incompetence. They have never engaged with anyone on any talk page. I've just revisited the issue with EdJohnston, who suggested raising it here if I think that they are being sufficiently disruptive. To be honest, it is a bit borderline, but if only they would talk! What do we do? - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • If they're being consistently disruptive and refusing to talk despite multiple attempts at talking (I assume this has been done?), an 'attention getting' block on the grounds of WP:IDHT might be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, mea culpa. I and others have mostly been templating, mainly because it is so blatant. EdJohnstone did attempt to explain when they blocked the user for the 48 hours. Perhaps I should go back to the drawing board? My experience in this sphere of WP tells me that it will make no difference but, hey, perhaps it is worth me just chattily asking them to talk about things. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• There was already an 'attention-getting' 48-hour block of Buddhafollower on 24 January but it seems to have had no effect. As you might have expected, Buddhafollower has ignored this ANI thread and is continuing to add unsourced material to articles. He just made the important Indian Army general T. N. Raina be a Kashmiri Pandit with no source whatever. This seems to be part of his ongoing program to add unsourced promotion of the Kashmiri Pandits. If there is to be any hope of changing his editing pattern, or getting him to respond to questions, a longer block is surely required. Such a block could be lifted if he is willing to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indef, until they start to discuss their edits. Any admin is welcome to unblock without talking to me first if it looks like that's begun to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KittyKo'sCute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• KittyKo'sCute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has persistently tried to add information with unreliable sources. On several occasions, I have asked the editor to stop this and find sources verified as reliable or to bring a possible to the corresponding talk page, but the editor has chosen to ignore all messages on the matter and continues their actions. Sarujo (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A few things

1. Please provide DIFFs for the offending edits by KKC
2. Please provide DIFFS for your warnings
3. What admin action are you asking for?

140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Must be something in the water, this is the same problem as the previous thread. User blocked indef; block can be lifted as soon as they start discussing their edits. Any admin welcome to do so without discussing with me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing community ban on Aawjgnekr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233 § Ban Aawjgnekr?

 – Wrong venue per suggestion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing a community ban on the user Aawjgnekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been causing serious disruption to the project and ater his indefinite block in 2010, he has created 47 sock puppets to date. He continually uses these to constantly harass other users and makes contradictory edits to our policies and guidelines. He has participated in a campaign to create hoax and attack articles, not to mention mis-nominating articles for speedy deletion. This abuse by Aawjgnekr has been seriously disruptive to our collaborative project. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Venue WP:AN is thataway. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article needs help

Sorry to just drop this here, but I don't currently have the time to look very deeply into the issue. Maldives#2012 Resignation of President Nasheed is a mess. There are appears to be copyvios and bias and a lack of any valid resources. I'm not sure if it's better to just hack off a majority of the section or try to salvage it and I don't feel that I'd be able to devote enough time to come to a good decision either way. I was hoping someone here wouldn't mind looking into it, or forwarding it on to someone that could. Thanks, Shep^Talk 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of administrative intervention are you asking for? If you feel that an article needs editorial assistance then you may want to consider asking for that in one of the many venues available. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are copyright violations then that very well may be an admin issue. N^oformation ^Talk 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have flagged that section for a copyvio. I saw that parts of the section were copied from another site. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 02:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Length of IP block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The IP was blocked by Addshore (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for vandalism on Philip Madoc. In [154] [155] these edits at my talk page, the IP flagrantly contravened WP:NPA and went as far as making threats of personal violence against me. A longer block length therefore appears appropriate under all the circumstances. ISTB351 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is because the IP is on an extremely dynamic /11 range, so a longer block would do nothing because the vandal would most likely be on another IP after a couple days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems propitious for this thread to be closed. For the record, I was not implying any criticism of the blocking admin. ISTB351 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Page speedily deleted per WP:IAR. If anyone disagrees, feel free to take to deletion review. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

User:PaoloNapolitano has made some rather strong statements about Wikipedia Review, a forum which is widely read by Wikipedia editors, going so far as to suggest that the WMF pursue legal action for "libel" against Wikipedia itself. Although their attempts to revive the WP:BADSITES policy have been rebuffed by more reasonable editors, they continue to try to fan the flames. Their latest provocative action is the creation of User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list.

I left a message on thier talk page expressing concerns that it could easily be seen as an "enemies list" (the original list singled out eight Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia Review contributors although there are over 1,500 users) and that it likely violated WP:OUTING. It has since been expanded by another user, so I think it is best to bring it here rather than wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Can someone please take a look at the page in question to see if it should be deleted?

Additionally, User:Prioryman has since responded to my message by suggesting that PaoloNapolitano tell me to "fuck off", and then adding my name to the list with an edit summary of "add notorious outer". Attacks on me seem to be a recurring pattern with Prioryman. I would like to request that Prioryman be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While I share Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing, I would indeed support deleting it on the basis of outing and it being easily perceived as an enemies list. However, there are likely going to be strong opinions on both sides, so if you're unable to convince PaoloNapolitano to {{db-user}} it himself (which I sincerely hope he will do), MfD is probably the best approach. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While I assume you are referring to this, it is not "outing" if a user has self-identified, as in that case. I suspect the page exists for no other purpose than to create drama. An MfD will only be a drama magnet, so I would prefer that the page simply be deleted and the drama nipped in the bud. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'd guess he's referring to your earlier action of posting another editor's personal name, home address and telephone number in the course of a campaign against him. Mind if I take a screenshot of this, DC? You're arguing against creating drama? Interesting how the standard seems to be different when the boot's on the other foot, isn't it? Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we all know that the best way to prevent something from turning into a drama is to start a thread about it on AN/I ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DC claimed on PaoloNapolitano's talk page that the list constituted WP:OUTING, which is beyond absurd considering that the WR users concerned have identified their own Wikipedia accounts, or vice-versa. There cannot possibly be any outing when they have voluntarily disclosed that information, very prominently, for anyone to see. Additionally DC is the very last person who can credibly express concern about "outing" considering that they have self-admittedly engaged in it themselves in the course of a harassment campaign (see here). I can't speak for PaoloNapolitano's reasons for creating the list, since I've not discussed it with him, but personally I found it quite a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. It's fascinating that DC seems to be objecting to an initiative that improves accountability and scrutiny. By the way, it can't possibly reasonably be described as an enemies list. The only distinction made in the list is between blocked/banned en.wiki users and those in good standing, and the list makes no suggestion that any of the latter have done anything wrong. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it's outing, it's clearly an attack page and constitutes harassment. Which is probably why you found it "useful" personally. Jerk.VolunteerMarek 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see how the users of a website dedicated to harassment and outing suddenly don't like it when someone connects their en.wiki identities to their WR identities. Maybe if you people didn't want that information to be publicised, you shouldn't put it next to every post you make on WR? They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, so I suppose one would expect that the germs wouldn't like it. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to know what purpose this list serves. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Nobody Ent 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480044620&oldid=480044418 – @Prioryman: Can you please be more careful? You labeled an user in good standing as being an user in bad-standing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He links from his WR account to an en.wiki account (Nastytroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) that is indeffed, hence the confusion. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that it isn't the first time you've been confused, and what is with this "he" business? John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of the {{vandal}} template isn't exactly flattering, either. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&action=edit&oldid=479959016 – Prioryman was only following the trend established by PaoloNapolitano. Prioryman was the one who decided to switch to Template:Userlinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480025013&oldid=480024707. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks Michael and Prioryman. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I thought Paolo's use of the {{vandal}} template could be misinterpreted. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I endorse Prioryman's statements. This is not outing, it is a list of users who have disclosed their connection between WP and WR and every connection is sourced. The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR. Several of the users on the list have posted information of a private nature about WP users to WR (address, telephone number, real name, job, etc.) and creating a list of users of a website that is notorious for posting such information will make it easier to identify outing or personal attacks posted to WR. Our editors are our main resources - imagine how it feels to have sensitive information about yourself posted to the web - just because you want to contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia.

• Please note: DC, Volunteer Marek and Michaeldsuarez are all WR users. PaoloNapolitano 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As am I. You have an account there too! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Originally PaoloN labeled all these users as "vandals" [156], which is a personal attack, but then put in the weaselly disclaimer that "Please note that the list is incomplete and may include blocked or banned users and users who defend Wikipedia at WR". Let me guess. He'll show up here and demand that everyone assumes good faith towards him.VolunteerMarek 22:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, glad you're here. I'm going to strongly recommend you take this list offline (i.e. to your hard drive) if you find it useful, and request its deletion here. Posting such a list here is a very divisive thing to do, regardless of whether what WR regulars may do over at their site. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 28bytes and depending on the purpose of the list WP:ATTACK may be relevant. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Since it doesn't exist "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" I don't think that's relevant at all. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you say so, but "On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that it's a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did'? As far as I can see, it's simply a directory of WP user names with corresponding WR accounts. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is in the fact that he labeled various users as vandals. *Smack head with hand*!VolunteerMarek 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What purpose do you believe the directory serves? Paolo stated "The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR"; given this edit, I'd suggest it very much is a list of 'enemies', or 'undesirables', especially in the list's first iteration. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it could serve multiple purposes. As I said above, I found it to be a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. The directory is just a list without any suggestion of "badness" in it, other than for the blocked and banned individuals of course. Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm afraid it looks to me as if the list was meant maliciously. You can say it's "just a list", but clearly it is provocative. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Righhhhhhtttttt.... which is why Paolo just added a "whitelist" section to the page [157], which of course carries the implication that anyone not lucky enough to make it onto *his and yours* "whitelist" is on some kind of a blacklist.VolunteerMarek 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The "vandal" template is not a "vandal" label, it is a template that offers several actions to admins; blocking, block log, abuse filter log, deleted contribs, logs, etc. I couldn't really come up with a better template, so I chose the "vandal" one. I repeat, I haven't labeled anyone as a vandal. PaoloNapolitano 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider something from the {{user}} family of templates. Choess (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to {{userlinks}} on Paolo's behalf. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Per 28bytes, please delete the list. Nobody Ent 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. (My advice above notwithstanding, this is...provocative.) Choess (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated an RfC here. Feel free to comment or make your own statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaoloNapolitano (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather offensive that there's a whitelist section, which implies that all the distinguished Wikimedias not in it are not using it to "defend Wikipedia" or w/e it is. This page should be nuked, it serves no purpose other than be divisive, and in its current incarnation, fairly offensive too. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it will need MFD as the user appears to have no intention of requesting deletion themselves. - The list is clearly provocative and its a shame Prioryman chose to massively expand it after it was brought here for discussion. DCarbuncle raised his concerns with the creator of the page. Youreallycan 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan 23:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. It was brought here for discussion by DC after I had reworked the list. Check the posting times. Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected - its still a shame you did that, and it only served to create more disruption. Youreallycan 23:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation (and impersonation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Paolo, I happen to be a fan of singer Amie Miriello. I could not fail to recognize her in the image on your user page, which appears to be the same as an image on her MySpace account. You uploaded it on Commons as File:Paoloandgirlfriend.jpg and you claim it as your own work. On your user page you caption it "Me and my girlfriend", although I think the person shown in the image is named "Drew", according to the information on MySpace. Can you explain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please take it to the user's talk page instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is about PaoloN. I was about to propose an indef ban/WR topic ban for him here, but it looks like it may not be necessary.VolunteerMarek 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So if I suddenly brought up something about DC here not directly related to Paolo's subpage about WR, it's acceptable. The image has been deleted from Commons and this subsection can now be closed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, DC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict). No, part of PaoloN's obsession with WR stems from the fact that some people there noticed some sketchy stuff about the account and started sniffin' around. This section just confirms those suspcions, and hence is relevant. Of course, you can SPLIT off this section into a separate one, rather than a sub-section, but just because the image was quickly deleted on commons to hide the evidence is not sufficient reason to close.VolunteerMarek 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Come off it, it's obvious retaliation. This is SOP for DC. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You come off it. Speaking of SOP, once again you're trying to make a user who did something wrong - uploaded a copyrighted photo of someone else, pretending that it was him (Poetlister anyone?) - into some kind of a victim, simply because the person who pointed it out is someone you don't like. Sheesh.VolunteerMarek 23:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol.VolunteerMarek 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification (typing fast to avoid multiple ec's): I don't think PN is Poetlister, but that the "I'll pretend to be somebody - who is a person in real life - I'm not" is the same thing that PL got indef banned for.VolunteerMarek 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is f..in hilarious - what a faker. - Hes nominated it for speedy at commons - I would block him for blatant copyright violation - Youreallycan 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not resolved in the least bit. In fact, it seems to be just scratching the surface. Just because the immediate copyright violation has been dealt with - via deletion - doesn't mean that examination of Paolo's conduct is unnecessary. At the very least an explanation of why he did what he did is in order.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is off-topic. The PaoloNapolitano account appears to exist almost solely to agitate about Wikipedia Review is a manner that is so over the top that it is indistinguishable from trolling. I have shown that the person behind the account has no compunction against stealing an image from a website, claiming it as their on work, and misleading other editors about their identity. I have seen similar use of stolen images by GNAA sockpuppets, although it is equally likely that the account is controlled by some WR contributor who is amused by this type of drama-mongering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also someone might want to email this Amie Miriello person to let her know that her boyfriend's identity is being usurped on Wikipedia. If I was that guy I'd be pretty pissed.VolunteerMarek 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed - why was this section wanted closed is also beyond me - a user deliberately uploads copyright violations and claims to be the boyfriend of a notable person using the picture to support the claim - he needs to explain this? - Youreallycan 23:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm struggling to find a reason not to indef Paolo, honestly... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then find inner peace and just do it. Lord knows he deserves it.VolunteerMarek 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear an explanation about this. I can't think of a possible good explanation for this, but I'm open minded. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, let me reiterate this: why isn't PaoloN indef blocked at this point? It's pretty clear that he uploaded a copyright image and claimed it to be his own work. That's enough right there. Then he claimed to be an actual real life person in that image, which it's pretty clear he isn't. That's enough right there as well. If there's some "logical" explanation for all this, I'm sure he can provide it. But until then an indef block seems very much in order. Or is it just because he's picking on people who some of the admins don't like and hence is doing a good job serving as a "useful... user"?VolunteerMarek 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this apparent copyvio took place on Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia, and is out of scope for AN/I. The image has been deleted and a Commons administrator has given PN a warning, as he seems to be a first-time offender.[158] A second admin has concurred.[159] As such, the matter appears to have been resolved. Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for Wikimedia Commons, where the apparent copyvio was uploaded. PaoloNapolitano has been given a warning by an administrator there [160] and the image has been deleted. Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note:Prioryman has attempted to hat the discussion with the summary above. I have moved it here instead.ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names covers this pretty well. Impersonation of another real-life person is not permitted on the English Wikipedia. The policy states that "This includes implying a relationship with another person". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The image file was uploaded on Commons, not here. PaoloNapolitano's username does not appear to be a problem here. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have indeffed Paolo Napolitano for the copyright violation and the attempt at impersonating another living person, which is an even more serious affair, in my opinion. I gave him a couple of hours to provide an explanation, but, since none was forthcoming, I have blocked him. This behaviour is unacceptable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Poor block The image was removed 12 hours ago from the user page.[161] It's hard to see this as "impersonation", despite the caption. Adding the image was poor judgement and that in fact seems to be true of many of this user's edits to wikipedia unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but this is just lame wikilawyering. The spirit of the policy seems clear enough. It does not say "you're not allowed to impersonate people with your user name, but you're allowed to impersonate them with pictures and captions on your user page." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
          • This seems to be a minor issue, which has been blown out of proportion. The user page was deleted fairly recently at the user's request; he previously requested a rev-del, having added more personal information than he wished. The present page was created fairly recently. As for supporting this editor, see my remarks below. Thanks, 10:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I kind of hoped Paolo would provide a explanation for the user page image, but if he's going to blow off reasonable inquiries about what he was doing, I have to agree with Salvio here. 28bytes (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Even when he has participated in arbcom cases, PN often seems to have got the wrong end of the stick (not the one used for beating equine corpses). His contributions have been confused and that does not seem to be very much different here. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours by Fæ. 28bytes (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not defending what Paolo did, but he did it on Commons, not on the English Wikipedia. Since when have English Wikipedia admins had jurisdiction over things happening on Commons? Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the copyright fraud occurred on Commons, the attempted impersonation occurred here when he added it to his en-wiki userpage with the caption claiming it was him. What you do with your en-wiki userpage is certainly something en-wiki admins can look at. 28bytes (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The copyvio was used here on en.wiki and here is where the impersonation took place. There was enough for an en.wiki admin to act. However, Paolo has now explained it was a serious error on his part and promise it'll never happen. I am satisfied by his response and with Fae's reduction to a day. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) :: The caption "me and my girlfriend" was on his user page here, on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. Someone keen on impersonation making this proposal about "rehabilitated sockpuppets" does wave a red flag for me, although maybe I'm not AGFing enough. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A reactionary and punitive block. What was the editor going to do next, try to pass of a picture of another attractive couple as themselves? "No, this is really me and my girlfriend"? Who would believe them? If we had a "lame" for behavior as well as for edit wars this would have to be pretty high on the list. It's not a boneheaded stunt someone tries twice. I throw down this challenge to anyone wishing to argue it was a good block: What reasonably anticipated future improper behave did this prevent? Nobody Ent 11:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

More trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The indef block has been restored. The block summary blames abuse of multiple accounts [162]. Delicous carbuncle was correct to pursue this here at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If DC knew or had knowledge the user was a sockpuppet they should have file an WP:SPI, not an ANI. The fact the user was committing another infraction doesn't affect the validity of the block for copyright/impersonation. Nobody Ent 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:PaoloNapolitano

User:PaoloNapolitano uploaded an image to Commons which they knew was copyrighted in a deliberate attempt to deceive fellow editors. User:Salvio giuliano indef blocked them for "copyright violation and impersonation", but that block was reduced to 24 hours by User:Fæ in response to an unblock request which said simply "I made a mistake. The image was deleted within 10 minutes per own request and an indef block, with no previous blocks seems harsh. I have almost 1000 constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and I repeat, I apologise, I made a mistake". Note that the image was deleted minutes after it was pointed out here, not minutes after it was placed on the user's page, where it had been for 3 weeks. PaoloNapolitano is now asking for a complete unblocking.

WP:INVOLVED states that admins "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Given that PaoloNapolitano's issue with Wikipedia Review appears to arise from discussions there about User:Fæ, and given that PaoloNapolitano offered an opinion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ which specifically mentions Wikipedia Review, I question whether or not Fæ can be considered to be uninvolved. I suggest that the block reduction was ill-advised and that it should be obvious to most people that the user is nothing more or less than a troll. Can this unblock be reviewed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You all know the drill, folks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have/had already notified user fae on his talkpage, that imo in relation to anything regarding the wikipedia review I consider him WP:INVOLVED - and he was unwise to have actioned the unblock request. - we have lots and lots of admins, what was the need for an admin that feels attacked through the review reducing a block on a user that is focused on demonising the wikipedia review? - I would suggest the fact is that he made the unblock 'because of his involvement - a poor decision indeed. Youreallycan 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please have a DC/fae interaction ban? DC is doing little more than trolling at this point. *goes back to writing my 3 essays for my classes* --Guerillero | My Talk 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The original blocking admin had said that he's satisfied both with PaoloNapolitano's explanation and with the block reduction, so I don't think there's any need for further drama. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstate the indef. The reduction was not improper given the stated rationale for the indef, but PaoloNapolitano has been using Wikipedia as a battleground (which, as some of you might have noticed, is a pet hate of mine) and has an unhealthy obsession with other editors' conduct rather than the encyclopaedia. The way to reduce drama is not to unblock people who keep lists like the one that prompted this thread in their userpsace, or who try to pass themselves off as the boyfriend of a notable, living person, but to remove them from the project as quickly and as quietly as possible, and to get back to writing the encyclopaedia.

  And while we're here, I would also advocate an indef of Delicious carbuncle, who has a similar tendency to treat Wikipedia as a battleground and a very unhealthy obsession with Fae (seriously DC, what the fuck has that man ever done to you?). He's smart enough to save the really spiteful stuff for Wikipedia Review, but like Paolo, seems to have become addicted to stirring up drama—to the extent that he would sit on a copyvio and wait to bring it up until the moment when he thought it would do the most damage to his opponent. That's not the behaviour of somebody whose primary interest here is a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

HJ, your compass seems to be off. You got one user up to no good and another user pointing it out and you want to indef them both? How about this - maybe DC saw the image and then took his time in verifying that it was indeed a copyvio, and that the guy in the picture could in fact NOT be Paolo because... well, because if he brought it up without checking and it turned out that it was Paolo, I'm sure someone like you would be calling for his head. You're setting up a situation where no matter what he does, you want to indef block him. Ridiculous.VolunteerMarek 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very good at cherry picking pieces of my posts and replying to those while totally missing my broader point, but less good at actually explaining why DC is any more of a net positive to this project than Paolo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because hes not a troll!VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. I'd strongly suggest you refactor that comment promptly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the users post to remove the offensive aspects and left him a note to please not repeat. Youreallycan 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious to anyone with enough clue that PaoloNapolitano is a reincarnation of some blocked user who is here simply to troll and using current sentiments about Wikipedia Review to stir things up. Someone was kind enough to draw my attention to this edit which I missed - an IP which geolocates to Oslo, Norway removes the section in which I questioned the user page image. Perhaps the IP's contributions to the French-language Wikipedia will provide a clue to the user's identity. What will it take to show that this is a troll, doing what trolls do? Ridiculous questions on help desk pages? Lulzy redirects? Wake up people! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the same IP on German Wikipedia's [163] Help Desk [164]: == Osmanisches Reich == Aufgabe 2: Beschreiben Sie die Eroberungen des Osmanischen Reiches und ziehen Sie bitte eine Karte des Reiches am größten. which translates as Task 2: Describe the conquests of the Ottoman Empire and draw a map of the kingdom Please greatest. Or this [165] or this [166].........................................VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP had two one week blocks on the French for basically -'trolling - diff - Youreallycan 00:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a multilingual troll. Before we hear the "he's attacking WR, therefore he's a good guy" song from multiple admins again, I think a WP:RFAR is needed here. It's doubtful that with so many admins wanting PN on board as a "useful idiot" anything is going to change. After all, his main interest in Wikipedia, as stated on his user page, is Arbitration. So we might as well oblige. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstate the indef - Lol. We don't want to feed him with his favorite food do we. The indefinite block was so on the point that its a shame the political infighting over this has returned the user to editing ability on this wikipedia. Reblocking without consensus would be wheel warring - RFAR is not suitable or required imo - we could get a raise to indef poll going - HJ has already supported , I support it, theres a start. Youreallycan 00:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Block both PaoloNapolitano and the outing troll Delicious carbuncle and this will become a better place.--В и к и T 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What outing? PN's name is just as likely to be fake. Are seriously thinking he gave his real phone number on fr.wiki or his real name on de.wiki? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• - seems to have been resolved - Elen has raised the block back to indefinite - there appears to have been some sockpuppetry. Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address as in this diff is a violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Youreallycan 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Attacking the messenger, as appeared to take place here with the attacks on Delicious carbuncle, are not helpful. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting meme

He asked at refdesk and answered himself of sorts: [167]. He also asked it on fr.wiki [168] And this looks like has been asked way back in 2005 [169] [170]. If anyone can point out the specifics of that first round of trolling, we might get a better idea who reincarnated in the PN account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Throughout this whole thing I've had the sense that this is an account which wants to be caught - to get the credit for successfully trolling Wikipedia, to see who's been dumb enough to fall for it, etc. In that context, the fact that he invited even more trouble when it was in his best interest to lay low, his uploading of the copyright image, his comments on non-en Wikipedias (a lot of which have been pretty recent) and all that make a lot of sense. I have no idea what the actual agenda here was, but I do think there's some meta-trolling going on.VolunteerMarek 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The amusing part is that he got confused on fr.wiki and trolled their refdesk with his main account, but reverted himself with an IP from the same Norwegian telco [171]. Also, long history of sockpuppetry and trolling the fr.wiki refdesk using multiple Norway ISPs. See this. So much for this being a new user. [172] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Parthian shot? Promises to do what he's been doing already: socking for the "greater good" of Wikipedia. On the French Wikipeidia he went around with a similar story saying how he was saving them form Anonymous (group) by ... showing them how vulnerable they are to the trolling he was himself doing [173] [174]. LOL. You have to appreciate the chutzpah of that on top of simultaneously being a Polish electrician, Canadian pizza chef and I forget what else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Here he says he is a return of User:MikeNicho231, which sounds plausible enough [175]. That sock farm was blocked on no.wiki before it was blocked here, again for initially for trolling, then socking. See no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for MichaelJackson231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Account blocked indefinitely as a bad-faith, cross-wiki troll by Elen of the Roads. Block endorsed by me. Because the block is based in part on checkuser findings and some other non-public evidence, any appeal is to the Arbitration Committee only. Per WP:DFTT, no further posts should be made to this or any related thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for topic ban for Prioryman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although the main topic has been hatted, no action was taken on my request for Prioryman to be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. I think their comments in the sections above demonstrate quite well why I am requesting this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you, an individual known for harassing and outing others, making a bogus complaint about someone else "outing" WR users who voluntarily disclose their WP accounts with every post they make on WR. 28bytes said above that he "share[s] Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing". Do you want him topic-banned too? I suggest you drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My "bogus" complaint resulted in the deletion of the page and others here appear to agree that it was intended as an "enemies list". I have asked you to stop making wild accusations about me. I have even asked for you to be blocked after you posted what you knew was false information in an effort to have me banned. Neither of those seem to have had any effect. I have no interest in stifling your ability to file some kind of dispute resolution, just your attempts to drive me off the project. I am willing to accept a mutual topic ban (with the exceptions of dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement processes) if it increases the chances of support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't seem proper at this point. The statements made above by Prioryman, while more negative than necessary, are still making a good point. Silverseren^C 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - a two way interaction ban, as requested by DC. Clearly there is a massive dispute between these users and they will be more constructive apart. Youreallycan 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but I would also like to note that I find it interesting that DC created an article for Amie Miriello three days after Paolo uploaded the hoax image of Ms. Miriello. In the three days before creating the article, DC also edited Stalking and Wikipedia:Harassment. Did DC notice the copyright violation and, instead of trying to get the image deleted immediately, wait for the "perfect time" to expose Paolo? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I told () above, SOP. I'd like to point out that DC's request is self-serving cynicism, as he is right now maintaining a "diary" on WR in which he's accusing me of corrupt financial dealings with Wikimedia UK. As I said in a previous discussion about DC, he is a serial harasser who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By making this request he's quite blatantly trying to stop me pointing out his abusive conduct. It's deeply cynical behaviour but unfortunately entirely typical of this person. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eages247, can you explain how my edit which removed newly added original research in Stalking is in any way related to this? Or how reverting the addition to WP:Harassment of a link that has been deprecated for nearly four years is germane to a discussion of a topic ban? Your suggestion that I created Amie Miriello as part of some Machiavellian trap for PaoloNapolitano seems far-fetched, to say the least. This is not only assuming bad faith, it is actually attempting to make edits which unambiguously improved the state of Wikipedia into something negative. This is not the type of conduct that we should expect from admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult to assume good faith with a user who cannot do the same for others. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Your ability to assume good faith is compromised by someone else's inability to do so? I would appreciate an answer to my questions about your comments in regard to why you brought up my edits to stalking and WP:Harassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just interesting, and I think you know the answer to your question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - though a WR topic ban may be more appropriate.VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Somebody indef both Paolo and DC and be done with it. Wikipedia is not a battleground (nor a place to look for ammunition to continue on-wiki battles off-wiki)—a concept which both of them seem to have totally failed to grasp. I'd do it myself, but I'm probably involved wrt to Delicious carbuncle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, so one user uploads a copyrighted image under "my own work", pretends to be somebody else - a real life person, and engages in attacking and harassing other users. The other user points this out. And you propose they BOTH be banned? Seriously?????VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the other user (DC) also engages in attacking and harassing other users, including outing, among other things. But then, Marek, this is all just defending other WRers like yourself, isn't it? Silverseren^C 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't forget anything, because it's simply not true, except in the imaginations of a couple users who have axes to grind with him. Also, seeing you refer to others as "WRers like yourself" is pretty funny, considering that you post over there way more than I do. And you probably already know that I'm quite happy to criticize WR people when they deserve it. Can we skip the hypocrisy please?VolunteerMarek 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As i'm sure you know, practically all of my comments over there are either A) discussing how I improved something, B) discussing how Wikipedia does work, or C) arguing with someone over there about Wikipedia. I don't engage in the attack Wikipedians gimmick everyone else does there. Silverseren^C 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you forget the posts whining about admins, the ones boasting about winding things up, and snivelling about people that are mean to you and what the horrid ArbCom members thought of you, as revealed in last years leaks. John lilburne (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, (), didn't you post a comment on WR a few days ago about how you think Wikipedians are stupid people who deserve only contempt, or something like that? I can't find it now, it seems to have been removed or tarpitted. It did make me wonder why you bother to post here given what you think of us. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Prioryman, quit being a dick and purposefully referring to me by my RL first name. I have a Wikipedia user name - Volunteer Marek and that's how you should address me (or VM if you prefer). Since I'm asking you this explicitly, any further such provocations by you will be considered personal attacks, harassment and taunting.

And if you "can't find it", then how about you don't make the accusation in the first place? I saw somewhere where you said that you hate children and puppies and kittens and think Jimbo Wales is a douchebag but I can't find the comment right now - but you still better defend yourself here and now!!!!! Quit being so obviously sleazy.VolunteerMarek 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll respect your wishes, but I suggest that you stop calling me a "jerk" repeatedly - last time I looked that was considered a personal attack. Prioryman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Priory, it looks like Tarantino did some digging and outing of you on WR. The Wikipedia stuff everyone pretty much knows, but he also listed your real name and some other websites that you were involved in. I'm not sure if your real name is commonly known or not, I don't remember. Silverseren^C 01:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no surprise. Outing and harassment is WR's raison d'etre. Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at this point the same thing can be said for you presence on Wikipedia itself. With the difference that it'd be accurate, whereas your claim is anything but.VolunteerMarek 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Prioryman - You have a large Internet footprint - your real name is well known - through that and editing under a username closely related to your real name and through editing this project in relation to your internet position (one of the 25 most well known anti scientologists) you outed yourself - thankfully - arbitration has removed you from your COI contributions to that sector of wikipedia forever. - As a failed and dubious clean start you should be happy to have the privilege of editing at all. Worse still about your account is that even though you have been restricted by multiple Arbitrations - you are an enabler of other similar violating users, such as User:Cirt and User:Will Beback, now both thankfully restricted at arbitration as well. I suggest the best position for you is to just write your quality articles and steer clear of all this battlefielding. Youreallycan 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one systematically attacking and harassing other editors on WR. Do you have any words of advice for DC? I'm sure he could use them. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would point DC to Harry's comment (a position there seems to be a degree of support for) as a warning for him to direct his energy in a more productive direction. Youreallycan 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? How can a request for a limited topic ban be anything other than an attempt to reduce the battleground atmosphere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The battleground atmosphere is being created by your own actions on WR. Ordinarily I would agree to Youreallycan's suggestion of a voluntary two-way moratorium on interaction. The problem is that you are simply going to slope off to WR and continue your attacks on me there. You're already maintaining an open thread on me, accusing me - without any provocation on my part whatsoever - of financial corruption (which is libellous, by the way). You would have been blocked on Wikipedia if you made claims like that here. You routinely use WR to evade Wikipedia's conduct policies, and I see no reason to expect that it would be any different in this case. In practice a "limited topic ban" would leave you free to continue your abusive behaviour, while I would be muzzled from pointing out what you are doing. I'm certainly not willing to consider such a one-sided approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to "muzzle" you. I specifically excluded dispute resolution processes so that you would be able to take action should you have a legitimate complaint with regard to my actions. With regard to your contention that I have made "libellous" accusations of "financial corruption", this is simply not the case. If I were any other user, your making such a claim on ANI would result in a block for gross personal attacks, but we both know that nothing will be done about it. I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia's conduct policies apply to Wikipedia, but that off-wiki activities can be taken into account in dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would only agree to such a thing if you undertook to cease commenting on me on WR, closed or tarpitted the "diary" thread that you started, and did not participate in any future discussions about me on WR. Any breach of those conditions would end the agreement. Agreeing to those conditions is a pretty good test of your sincerity; your past record suggests that you wouldn't hesitate to do an end-run around restrictions on Wikipedia, so if you want an interaction moratorium it needs to extend off-wiki as well. The ball's in your court. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking you to agree - I am asking that a limited topic ban be imposed upon you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested a reasonable compromise, you've rejected it and you've implicitly indicated that you have no intention of stopping your abusive off-wiki behaviour. I think others can draw the necessary conclusions. I'm done here. Prioryman (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm - Can't you two (or three, or four, or...) find something better to do on a Saturday night? There must be some Dallas reruns or something on TV. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is this being transformed into a WR thread? Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought I pretty much asked the same thing, but in a more subtle manner.

      PN has a laserlike focus WR, afaIct, which of course brings the circus into town (or at least a different circus than the one that's usually here on AN/I). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I say it who shouldn't (currently topic banned myself), maybe we need a seperate noticeboard where we propose editors for topic banning - something like AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

EfD: Editors for Deletion. I love it, it'll be like a Klingon High Council debate. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by an IP editor

174.97.175.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This anonymous editor is removing templates from various articles with no explanation. The most frequent example is the Luke Cage article. Two days ago, after restoring the templates, I issued a warning to the user. Today, the user responded with a personal attack on my talk page. The user then went the Biohazard (band) article, where I had a dispute and discussion with an editor over something, and made the same exact edits the other editor had removed, as well as some unconstructive deletions. I suspected possible sock puppetry but can't be certain. NJZombie (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• User removes templates for the first time.
• User removes templates for the second time.
• User attacks me on my talk page.
• User removes templates for the third time.
• User makes exact same edits as another user did today and unconstructively deletes part of citation.

Have you notified this person of this thread? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not comment on the matter, but you have forgotten to notify the IP editor about this discussion. (No worries, I've already notified him/her.) --Bmusician 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my oversight. Thank your for doing so Bmusician. NJZombie (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning. If their disruptive behaviour resumes please report them to WP:AIV where the appropriate action will be taken quickly. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor has returned to making the same exact obvious reversions but has taken to using a different IP address (173.226.92.195) as a sock puppet. This now involves vandalism, personal attacks AND sock puppetry. I've reported it on the vandalism board but not sure if I should have reported it as sock puppetry instead. NJZombie (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lapianoisrael is at it again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

77.124.156.158 is quacking just like Lapianoisrael was earlier... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whapped for 48 hours. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan of Wikipedian's apparent misrepresentation of sources

Fan of Wikipedian's (talk · contribs)

The user has created a number of articles about Indian models. At first blush they appear to be sourced, to reliable sources such as The Times of India. However when checking the actual "links" of the sources, they are going to sites other than the reliable sources named in the visible citation, non reliable celebrity gossip sites etc.

I have left a message about the acts on the users page, but I someone should check all of the articles and I dont have time today. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For example at this article: [176] and [177] -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need administrator attention. I bet they are copying citation templates from other articles without realizing all the fields they have to change. If they don't meet WP:RS, remove them and any contentious information they are attached to since we are dealing with BLPs. If the editor is creating articles without any reliable sources, you can add reliable sources, or tag the articles for deletion with {{Prod blp}}. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User Brews ohare forum shopping again

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having only recently been warned about forum shopping, is again wasting editors time by starting an RfC and posting to the Village pump over exactly the same issue, As he's already been warned it seems necessary to bring this to administrator attention. Both the warning two weeks ago and the recent activity concern the same page, WP:Formal organization, and his repeated attempts to insert it into the Wikipedia article, move it into mainspace and now link to it from mainspace.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Racist death threats.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is clearly not acceptable behavior or acceptable discourse on Wikipedia. Can some administrators take a look, please? Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, you didn't notify him of this thread, so I've done it. Calabe1992 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defeated Sanity - genre warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since Feb 24, an IP with a changing address (175.110.xxxxx) has been adding a non-existent genre (Technical brutal death metal) to the infobox and lead of Defeated Sanity, without discussion, sources, etc. I have reverted this multiple times, and even added a hidden note in the infobox asking for discussion or sources, to no avail. See the recent history here. I submitted the page to WP:RFP here, but was declined, told to leave more warning messages, and then to bring it to AIV (but since this isn't vandalism according to WP:VAND, I'm bringing it to the main ANI). I have left more warnings that were ignored, so here I am. Can this IP range be blocked for some reasonable period of time? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully they'll get bored and find something else to do. Welcome to the world of anonymous genre editors—they run rampant over all music articles. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rejedef and European geography

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rejedef (talk · contribs) apparently objects to the use of the terms "Western Europe", "Central Europe", and "Eastern Europe", and attempts to remove them from articles wherever possible. Failing that, he re-assigns their geography, so that places typically assigned to Western and Eastern Europe by, for example, the United Nations geoscheme for Europe, are re-assigned by him to Central Europe. He particularly objects to the term "Eastern Europe", which I think he has described as a "racist slur", and to assigning Poland and Lithuania to Eastern Europe. This appears to have been going on for over a year; I haven't added more diffs, because the vast majority of the edits he has made in the past year has been related to this, as is easily seen from his edit history. I also haven't engaged him on directly this issue, because of a number of combative issues I've seen on his talk page, particularly posts like this after he was blocked a couple of times for edit-warring over this. I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I think it may have reached the level of administrative intervention. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone thru and reverted a few more questionable changes. Also, see this old version of his talk page, especially the thread "Vanished"? User:Qwyrxian may have some more info here, so I'm going to ask for their input. --Jayron32 04:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Umm, someone should check if there's any connection to User:Silar and his IP sockpuppets. I glanced at Rejedef's contributions just out of interest here, for completely unrelated reasons and was immediately struck by the similarity of interests - "Eastern European" (or whatever) cuisine, the naming of German concentration camps in Poland, the history of Germans in Poland. There was also a strange IP/user a while back which kept inserting weird text into Mazovia related articles, whose tone was very reminiscent of Silar - Rejedef seems to share that interest as well. I might be reading too much into it - maybe it's just Rejedef following another user's edits but it definitely raised alarm flags.VolunteerMarek 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• This has been an ongoing problem on Europe and elsewhere (he objects to the term "Eastern Europe").[178][179] Since he has caused disruption repeatedly now, I would suggest reporting him at WP:AE under WP:DIGWUREN, so that he can be given a logged notification of discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He's also the guy who created the hoax-y Zapihanha article about a traditional Mazovian dish made out of avocados and bananas. There's some weirdness going on here.VolunteerMarek 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling with how much to say, because unfortunately a lot of my interaction with Rejedef came via email. You can see from his log and the talk page history that I blocked him for 24 on 30 December 2011 for edit warring (block notification diff) on Eastern Europe and Western Europe. As I say there, there was no 3RR breach, but there was consistent edit warring while a talk page discussion was ongoing, especially problematic in that there was at least a clear temporary consensus against Rejedef's additions. The edit warring resumed after the block, so I blocked again on 4 January 2012 (block notifaction diff), this time for 1 week. After that there substantial conversations by email, that I would like to reveal the broad topics of, but probably shouldn't without Rejedef's permission. You can get an idea of the types of issues being raised by the comment in the diff above about how xe asserted an absolute right to blank xyr page per EU law. Those conversations also made it clear to me that I could not help Rejedef, so I've tried to remain hands off since. I do find the recent changes to be a problem, because there appears to be pretty aggressive POV pushing across a wide variety of articles. I simply don't understand this idea that calling a food, a country, an event, etc. "Eastern European" is an insult...but my feeling is that no matter what, we need to use what reliable sources say. I don't know enough about the literature on Europe overall to know what the proper name is for any given instance, but my general impression (just from reading newspapers and general books on history) is that it is not the case that Eastern Europe is somehow a deprecated term, or that there is some well-defined and regularly used term "Central Europe". It never occurred to me that this is a DIGWUREN issue, and if others agree that it is, I strongly encourage the issue be brought up. If someone needs the information, I am willing to send copies of the emails (w/o any private details) privately to a highly trusted admin or Arbcom member. A small note though--there's a good chance I will have only minimal access to Wikipedia for the next 36 hours or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know much about WP:DIGWUREN, so I'd feel more comfortable is someone else followed up on this. Can anyone here do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms both Western and Eastern Europe are very imprecise, according to many scholars (in Discussion page both in W and E Europe articles). Also, they are subtly racial slurs, especially the latter. This is why they are being changed into more precise expressions, particularly when instead of mentioning E Europe, actually one or two countries are meant which makes the article imprecise. I am trying to leave Wikipedia so please let me do it. I really wish if it would be possible. Unfortunately it isn't. My nickname will be illegally (in EU's law) processed by Wikipedia, apparently. --Rejedef (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that you do consider the term "Eastern Europe" to be a "racial slur". Which "race" do you think is being "slurred" by this term? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While there's some contention around what central Europe is, Western and Eastern are pretty well defined as are the Baltics. "Eastern European" is hardly a slur. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rejedef writes that he has been trying to leave wikipedia, but has still been making unsourced POV-pushing edits to articlea including Europe yet again. His belief that "Eastern European" is some kind of ethnic slur has been affecting his edits to articles. In November 20111 he took up a lot of time on Talk:Europe with this issue and that problem has not been solved at the moment. Since the diruption has not stopped, I will file a report at WP:AE under WP:Eastern Europe. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Racism does not anly relate to race but also ethnic origin et alia. The Slavic-speaking populations are being discriminated. Resources can be found in the report made my mathsci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 March 2012‎ (UTC)
  • No reasonable person would ever consider "Eastern European" to be any sort of slur whatsoever. And if there are "resources", you must present them yourself, here, not say "go hunt them down". - The Bushranger [[User talk:|_{One ping only}]] 06:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejedef, if you wish to leave Wikipedia, simply stop posting. If you wish to "disappear" from Wikipedia, follow the instructions in WP:Right to vanish. The fact that you refuse to do so, yet continue making significant changes that appear to be against consensus and possibly POV, indicates to me that you actually have no desire or intention to vanish. It simply doesn't make sense that because we're not disappearing you the way you want that that somehow compels you to keep making the changes you want. I don't know if you don't understand or don't care, but it literally is impossible for anyone other than a bureacrat to do the vanishing. It's very easy--all you have to do is send one email. Basically, you have to chose: simple stop editing, vanish, or be subject to all of our policies--including WP:Consensus. As I have advised you before, if you believe you have some rights according to some EU treaty/law/agreement, you'll have to take that up with the Wikimedia Foundation, probably through either a lawyer or a government agency--none of us here can either tell you if your right or even do anything about it if you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many resources that will prove you are wrong, The Bushranger - you need to have a proof. have a proof that it is a slur, and it is not only me who thinks that way: http://www.ucm.es/info/antrosim/docs/BuchowskiMichal_The_Specter_Orientalism_In_Europe.pdf

Well, I'm addicted to wikipedia. I asked already to delete me, or to deal with all the hassle, but my request was ignored. It's also uneasy to see so clear bias and errors in so many articles. Please note that my right to vanish includes the right to vanish my nickname wherever it occurred on Wikipedia, in accordance to the EU law. --Rejedef (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The fly in that ointment is that Wikipedia's servers are located in the United States, not the EU. However if you wish to vanish, WP:RTV is how you do it. Which will also remove your username: A bureaucrat changes the username of the account to, for example, "Vanished User 1.". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

You could be right if we forget the international law, the fact it is unethical and my personal rights that has been violated. It does not guarantee vanishing my nickname from this very place. As I said, I don't know how to do it.--Rejedef (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice

The discussion at AFD, here [180] and here [181] is perplexing. There isn't much to support the article's inclusion, but in the meanwhile there's a lot of unnecessary Wikidrama driven by the article's creator--a lot of it displays lack of familiarity with guidelines, but attacks on other editors' motives and credibility are becoming tiresome. Help appreciated. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Catpowerzzz (talk · contribs) really needs to rein back on the Wikidrama and not respond to every delete !vote. I note an earlier warning on NPA so they know about that. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That this business is inappropriately personal, and goes outside of this particular article, can be seen here [182]. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note from nom at AFD Rather than list every transgression, a look at the AFD and the talk page for the article speaks volumes. Saying that editors are "gangbanging" this female director by sending the article to AFD, etc. Attacks, belittling, false accusations that border on paranoia, etc. I've gone over the complete history of Catpowerzzz (talk · contribs) and while some of the article contributions are fine, the talk page contributions are another story. The editor seems genuinely incapable of working in a cooperative environment like Wikipedia. It is my opinion that this is the type of broke that you can't fix. This is also the kind of editor that scares good editors away: a liability to Wikipedia, rather than an asset. A complete review (while time consuming) would be eye opening. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What stood out for me is the almost consistent marking edits as minor. Many are the addition of categories, which, in my view, should not be classified as minor ("could never be the subject of a dispute") - although at least he says what he's doing in the edit summary. Others are clearly more extensive ([183]).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Others have expressed concerns about COI, but I'm not convinced that is the issue. My primary concern is of competence, ability to work with others. Their editing history has many large gaps in it, and very little talk page. What talk page additions do exist are disturbing or inappropriate, and consistently disruptive. Much of the attacks have been directed at me so I may have a bias, but my skin is fairly thick and I've been here long enough to let it roll off. What concerns me is a demonstrated lack of ability to communicate with others without making backhanded comments, paranoid accusations, and perhaps willfully misrepresenting both the policies here and other people's comments, in an aggressive (and long winded) manner. The editors interpretations of comments and policy defy common sense, and can only be seen as either malicious or incompetent, both of which are disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the current brouhaha, I don't see anything - perhaps you could provide some diffs from before the It Must be Nice problem to support your points?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough question, but the answer is problematic. He hasn't used talk much at all, as in never before a month ago. The link provided above ([184]) is an unrelated example (but does demonstrate his distaste and distrust for admins, which continues to bleed through in other comments), as well as his consistent marking of all edits as minor (another editor noted above). The editor has been here since 2009 (off and on), but has never bothered to use a talk page until this article, oddly enough. They have been effectively under the radar, and as I said, their article editing has been in good faith from what I can tell (excepting the marking of almost all their edits as minor, including substantial ones). The problem didn't surface until they spoke for the first time, if you will. And once they did start using the talk page about a week ago, well, you have what you have, and on two convenient pages. Those two pages are virtually his entire talk history, but they do speak volumes. I've been waiting for the "maybe I overreacted but I still think it should stay" comment, demonstrating they were simply overcome with frustration at that moment, but it hasn't come. It just keeps escalating, to now calling everyone who !voted delete as "gangbanging" the movie short director. I'm no doctor, but the ongoing and increasingly hostile comments don't strike me as "normal frustration", and several editors have gone well out of their way to try to kindly and gently explain various guidelines, but it doesn't take hold in even the smallest way. Why? Dennis Brown (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I don't think it's necessary to establish a longterm pattern of disruption prior to the most recent business. I didn't come here anticipating a block, but am thinking it's reached a level where it would be advantageous for one or several admins to have a talk with Cat, because this behavior really can't continue. I well appreciate that talk pages and AFDs must allow for heated discussion, but that presumes that discussion is based on an informed discourse re: policy and guidelines. There's only so much latitude when a contributor throws extended fits because 'their' article is in danger of deletion, and engages in the metaphorical hurling of poop at other editors because they're not getting their way. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I was just responding to Dennis's comments, which seemed to expand on the current theme. As for admins counseling Cat, hasn't that already happened? And what makes you think Cat would be responsive given his apparent disdain for admins? Just curious whether it would have any practical effect, or whether it's just a way of "making a record", as they say in legal circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Either outcome would work--several editors have exercised patience in explaining guidelines, to little effect. Perhaps further counseling would be helpful. If not, a record of good faith effort in guidance is established, and would take the issue of the user's behavior off the AFD page and move it to a more appropriate venue. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The diff regarding the Dwarf planet article demonstrates that (1) Cat doesn't like admins and (2) doesn't like User:Ckatz in particular. The first point is also supported by Cat's user page and the Wales quote. It would also appear that Ckatz doesn't like Cat, either, as he accuses him of "COI-based editing" (and I'm not sure what evidence there is of that). What is more disturbing about the Dwarf planet contribution by Cat is why is he even there? He wasn't involved in the content dispute. He just popped in, made some reversions (mainly against Ckatz's position) and then commented on the Talk page. Sounds like he's letting his personal feelings about Ckatz carry over into other areas just to be disruptive. Whether that and his subsequent behavior is sufficient to say he's a liability to the project - I dunno. Frankly, I think he has a mission to create and expand film-related articles (some of the created articles are often poorly sourced), and as long as he's left alone, he just keeps going, but when he's questioned or thwarted, he responds inappropriately.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an accurate reading. Alas, none of us can be left alone, as this is a community project. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I don't see any evidence of Cat liking *anyone*. User:JamesBWatson has gone way above and beyond the call of duty to carefully explain several concepts to Cat, which appear to simply be ignored. User:Boing! said Zebedee certainly went the extra mile. To be clear, it is my belief that this issue is larger than Cat simply not liking Ckat and I. I understand and agree that process is due, which is why we are here, why I waited for someone else to start the process (after considering it and talking with admins), and why I'm still open minded and would love to see evidence that my gut instinct is incorrect, but good faith doesn't require turning a blind eye. Another read in this is the talk page of JBW [185] where Cat basically tells JamesBWatson that he is a sockpuppet of mine in a backhanded comment. Like you needed more to read.... Dennis Brown (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I see evidence (not proof, mind you) of possible COI editing, and I'm sure that Ckatz is seeing the same thing I am. Not all this editor's edits are COI, or even related to the area where a case for COI can be shown. Many of the edits to the "I" part don't seem to violate NPOV; but some might. This article would fall into the area where there is a COI, and the reactions from Catpowerzzz would be understandable (but improper) if this were the case. Doc talk 21:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I don't think you're necessarily reading too much into it. I've read the comments at James Watson's Talk page, and I agree with you that accusing someone of sock puppetry is a serious, and in this case unwarranted, accusation. It also confirms my belief that Cat doesn't like being impeded in whatever his quest is here, so he lashes out when that happens. It's also interesting that when Doc asked him to explain any conflict he might have, there was silence - as indeed there is silence here from Cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

They did dance around my question a bit, didn't they? There's really not many edits to analyze, and the first 100 in particular show a strong preference to edits concerning a certain film company and those associated with it. Now, this is a notable film company (and I happen to like their work) and the main people associated with it are notable, being Academy Award winners (a point often reiterated by Catpowerzzz). Let's say they do work for this company in some capacity, and are not just their #1 fan: I've seen editors successfully edit stuff concerning themselves/their company, provided they stick to NPOV and provided they are not promoting it or inflating their notability. Declaring involvement might help, but many would be afraid to for fear of added scrutiny or possible outing. What to do? Doc talk 22:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the question is whether there has been sufficient misconduct by Cat to warrant sanctions. Also, at this point, I think the misconduct has to be fairly fresh, i.e., what he has done to us lately (to paraphrase my mother). He hasn't edited since last night. I don't have a strong conviction either way, so I'll let the admins Cat dislikes decide. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that just limits it to "all of the above". As to freshness, I don't know, I'm just a lowly editor. I do think that requiring too much freshness is like punishing patience and deliberation. To me, the big questions remain "is the editor capable of participating" and "is the editor an asset or a liability to Wikipedia". I'm still not convinced it is malicious or a COI, but it doesn't matter because disruption is disruption. Even being the #1 fan can be problematic if you can't overcome enough to have a discussion, simply because it isn't in your nature. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you may be lowly, but you are pretty busy (over 16,000 edits). :-) Cat could be blocked for long-term disruptive behavior or sufficiently egregious recent behavior ("In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively for that specific incident is usually not seen as appropriate.") - I just don't know if either of those two applies here. But, hey, there's a lot I don't know, which is why, unlike Cat, I accord a lot of respect to admins - it's a tough job.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now I think a block would be hellaciously timed and controversial. Perhaps Cat just wanted to fire a provocative salvo or two before taking off for the weekend. The 'gangbanging' remark was designed to get attention, and who am I to disappoint? I did want to bring this here to get some consensus, and to increase the likelihood that it would stick to a few more serious editors' radars. So in that context the above thoughts are really appreciated. As for COI, it need not be proven; I figure it's a likelihood--on the AFD page they called the suggestion to redirect 'unacceptable', an odd reaction if one is neutral-- but per Bbb23, rather than get hung on that all that's required is to take note of the account's actions. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)I've been aware of, and have had to deal with, Catpowerzzz for quite some time now, as the editor surfaces every so often to make changes to the same articles (Murawski/Innis/Grindhouse and related, as noted above). I can't recall exactly how this editor came to my attention, although I am virtually certain that it is directly related to an overlap with another problem editor, Inurhead, who exhibited similar behaviour with the Hurt Locker article and its related topics. (Innis and Murawski edited Hurt Locker.) From my perspective, there is a strong likelihood of a COI based on the pattern of editing and the nature of the material added to the Innis and Murawski articles. The attitude just compounds the problem; no amount of explanation appears to help. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• You mean ([186]) this one? Eerily similar. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Inurhead (talk · contribs) (as well as the oddly named Cinnis2010 (talk · contribs)) are mighty stale, but the combo of the former editor's voluminous edits to The Hurt Locker, and their creation of the article of one Cynthia Ona Innis (coincidentally the sister of Chris Innis) with some pretty intricate personal-life details... meh. I wish Cat would respond somewhere about any of this. Doc talk 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would also add that now someone has connected([187]) a few dots for me (Doc, my talk page), the COI sounds waaaay more plausible. Almost everything he has edited is connected, plus being not willing to deny or confirm that he works for the company. Doesn't change my other points, but more reasons why he is more of a liability than an asset. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good research--glad I brought this here. If it can be established that these accounts are related, the long term intransigence of this editor is clarified. What would then be an appropriate follow-up? 99.136.255.180 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see much that is blockable at this moment on the whole (considering there's been no disruption to truly warrant a block right now, IMHO). I think Cat's stepping away from this topic area for a time would be advisable, in lieu of any serious answer to the COI concerns. But with my experience in these matters, I fear that Cat may stop editing altogether. I hope this isn't the case, personally, as COI editing is not always an automatically bad thing. Doc talk 08:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have a harsher perspective. At the minimum, a topic ban for Chris Innis and any family member or affiliated company is justified, and an explanation of when to mark edits as "minor" and when not to. And while COI editing is not automatically a bad thing, it always is when someone is asked if they have a COI and they won't respond in an honest and open fashion. The fact that they have not responded in this discussion doesn't help their case in my eyes (they have edited elsewhere since this discussion started). Surely, that should count for something. I don't think Cat is stupid, they seem to be pushing it just far enough but staying on this side of an obvious ban, in order to protect their own interests. I'm not worried about losing them, as I don't think their contributions outweigh their disruptive behavior. I keep mentioning competence, not as an insult but as the reality that I still don't think the editor is capable of participating without controversy, and every talk page demonstrates this. The time spent discussing this, and if he stays, monitoring his contributions, could be better spent on worthwhile areas of the project. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. This proves everything I was saying. These two admins are desperately trying to gin up false accusations, and in my opinion, violating Wikipedia policy in doing so. They have been harassing this user and now are trying to reveal the indentity of this user using COI as an excuse (which is yet another violation). They have shown a lack of willingness to collaborate or to "not bite" new articles. It is their duty as admins to try to work in a harmonious way with other users. The reason I don't typically use a lot of talk pages on articles is that most of my contributions have not been controversial. You can see my history that there is a sea of "green" positive entries, where I have helped to improve articles of many different types. Ckatz mentions the dwarf planet page and accuses me of making changes to it. It came to my attention that he was in an edit war on that page, and it is clear by the page's talk page and history that the edit war has been ongoing for probably more than a year now (if you want to talk about bad behaviour, check it out -- has nothing to do with me). I merely agreed with others that an edit war was on going and that a POV tag was needed on that article. My only contribution was that POV tag. By the way, that tag had been previously and recently placed on the Dwarf Planet article by another user and then the date and tag was updated by yet another user, that's TWO PEOPLE who mentioned that the edit war had been going on since as far back as September (I think it's actually older). Ckatz had then removed that tag entirely, which I believe is a conflict of interest violation, since he is an admin himself who is personally involved in the edit war on that Dwarf Planet page. I believe admins are supposed to recuse themselves from getting involved in debates which they have a personal interest, like this one actually. You can see that there is some strange need for these guys to punish this user and they are trying desperately to gin up false accusations to warrant this rash behavior. Frankly, their behavior scares me more. As admins they have to be above the fray. They are not supposed to be kicking over bee hives. I feel threatened and harassed by these guys and their recent behavior, so I apologize if the Afd discussion got heated. I am sorry about that. All apologies. Delete the article if it means so much to these guys to do so. You have to admit, Doc, that their voraciousness to delete this article of all possible articles, is itself questionable and might be evidence of stalking, which is grounds for admins to lose their priviledges. The quote on my talk page by Jimmy Wales was to prove the point that someone with admins tools does not make them more "special" than anyone else. Using their tools to try to thwart the good contributions of good users is an abuse. I am a good user. I make positive contributions. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Which two admins are you speaking of? I'm not clear on that point. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I thought quite a while ago that Cat mistakenly believes you (Dennis) are an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've twice before said I wasn't and hope he would believe that by now, but he might have been referring to Ckatz and JamesBWatson or perhaps someone else, I just didn't want to assume and felt clarity was needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think Cat's response is as noteworthy for what it says as what it doesn't say. What it says: lashes out at admins yet again, worldwide conspiracy against him, "I am not a crook". What it doesn't say: does he have any connection to (possiible conflict with) the articles he edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nor admit any over-reaction, indicating a belief that previous behavior should be viewed as "normal". Dennis Brown (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...are trying to reveal the indentity of this user using COI as an excuse...". If there were no possible COI, there would be no possible identity of anyone that could be revealed, I would think. I do not think that Catpowerzzz is a "bad" user; but I do think they need to invest more time in edits not related to the subjects mentioned. It's a huge wiki! Doc talk 01:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just can't agree. Telling editors they are gangbanging a female director? Accusing an admin of being a sock of another user? Constantly accusing others of ganging up? I have yet to see these issues addressed, no warning, nothing. All I can assume is that would indicate this is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I've been here a long time, I'm pretty sure they are not. The difs are above, I wont relist them. At the very least, a topic ban for anything Chris Innis or family related. Otherwise, we are condoning this kind of behavior. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding the "gangbanging a female director" -- which diff is that? Nobody Ent 02:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"...women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors."[188] Doc talk 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes that's over the top. Nobody Ent 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really the one that broke this camel's back, and the impetus for me to start discussion here. But Dennis Brown is right. We give a lot of leeway to users who generally mean well, but this is beyond the pale. And if this is indeed the same user as in the stale accounts mentioned above, there's a longterm pattern of disruption when they don't get their way. Anyone else note the similarities? [189] 99.136.255.180 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just a correction re "I believe admins are supposed to recuse themselves from getting involved in debates which they have a personal interest". Admins are not allowed to use admin tools in issues where they have partaken in a content disagreement (like blocking editors or protecting pages), but providing they do not use admin tools, they're as entitled as any other editor to get involved in content debates. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• On several occasions he has commented on how admins are held to a higher standard, shouldn't "bite new articles"[190] (?), shouldn't get involved, etc. as a rationale for jumping on me. The kicker is, I'm not an admin, and he has been told this a total of three times now. His understanding (and outright hostility) of the role of admins (and policies in general) is misguided. Like many editors, he seems to cherry pick sentences in the guidelines rather than read them as a whole. He has been here since 2009, albeit sporadically, but still long enough to know better. Surely he is on his best behavior since this dicussion started, but his conversations [191] are still confrontational. I literally can not find but a couple instances of any talk page contributions that isn't snarky at best. I still maintain this is a competence issue and that the user is incapable of participating in discussion without claiming others are "ganging up" or similar aggressive speech. Not malice, but his nature, and again, you can't fix this. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion has clearly being pushed too far. Dennis Brown left this comment on his talk page about me, ""when you see someone standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push" That feels like a threat to me. I don't think that it is funny. I hope Wikipedia is taking this seriously. These guys have been given far too much power to harass and vex. whether that is admins powers or rollback powers. This issue should have been resolved on the talk page of the article itself, not on Afd and not here. Instead Dennis Brown nominated the article for deletion, which is supposed to be the last resort, not the first. Ckatz is now making suggestions all over Wikipedia trying to "out" this user's identity, naming names of three or four people he is "guessing" that it might be. That is in violation of Wikipedia's rules, especially for admins. Now, he and Dennis Brown are going to ANI in another attempt to harass and vex this user to "push me over a cliff", so to speak, per Dennis' threat because they haven't gotten their way on Afd. Is that a death threat? If so, I think Wikipedia should consider a permanent ban on user Dennis Brown. Death threats should not be tolerated, in any way, shape or form. Nothing I have said or done with regard to this discussion rises to the level of harassment I am receiving. I think both users Dennis Brown and Ckatz need a break from Wikipedia, frankly. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• When making a claim, it is best to include a diff or a link [192] for context. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I brought the matter here. The attempt to frame the aforementioned discussion as a death threat is hideous, but I gather it's the way Catpowerzzz does business when challenged. The unanswered issues of COI and smearing of other editors are compounded by this kind of nonsense, which is the standard deflection of accountability, redirecting it against contributors who are following guidelines. When I began this discussion it was with a level of concern; that's only been amplified. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think it should be questioned why the above anonymous account (99.136.255.180 talk) just suddenly was created in February of this year, during this dispute, and why they are so involved in this discussion now. Just saying... This account is clearly not the account of a "new user" but clearly shows signs of being an experienced Wikipedia user with a super aggressive agenda. Anonymous, care to identify yourself? Did you just go to use another person's computer and IP address to hide that you are really a sockpuppet of one of the people who have already chimed in here? - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IPs are not accounts, and not created. Some anon's IP address changed; he even identifies some of his previous IP addresses on the talk page so you can get some history; you're right it's not a new user; and it's not pretending to be. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, because I've had enough of this crap--you'll just continue casting aspersions until you're blocked. Now why don't you be a dear and address the multiple issues you've evaded answering? JNW (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• He just left talk on my talk page [193] that demonstrates it as well. He still seems to think I am an admin, and seems to think I am the person that submitted it to ANI. (Admins are free to checkuser me anytime without cause, permission granted.) And that I am getting my buddies to gang up, telling Doc to "be careful" (since he is a known troublemaker....), etc. I politely asked him to restrict conversations regarding this one event to this forum. Again, I believe him 100%, claims that I have a conspiracy, that I am making death threats, that this is an orchestrated and premeditated effort to silence him by a larger group. Catpowerzzz really believes these things are true. You might not want to believe it, but Cat's own words are the only evidence you need, left day after day. This is why I keep bringing up the concern about his having the ability to participate here. Good intentions are not enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm asking you politely to please stop all of this nonsense. You submitted the article for deletion, end of story. If it is deletable, they'll delete it, if it is a keeper, then they'll keep it. Let it go. It's not an article you created, so I don't see why you are so obsessed with it (or why you are so obsessed with me, for that matter, either). It's not up to either one of us at this point. Now you are taking it even further by questioning my competence and ability? It's overkill. It's beyond the pale and it is making you and Wikipedia look bad, not me. So please stop. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, differences aside, can I offer a neutral suggestion? Could you please take a few moments and personally review all of the posts, accusations and assertions that you have made with regard to this matter? Once you've done so, could you then ask yourself if they truly reflect what has been going on, or if they even remotely fit with the collaborative nature of this project? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, I don't want to discuss this with you or Dennis anymore. I see what you guys are doing. You are trying to get me to do something that would provoke a block or a ban. I'm not falling for it. I'm asking you and Dennis and the anonymous user account that was created recently 99.136.255.180 to stop. There is nothing more to discuss. This was a discussion on an article for deletion page and has no business in this forum. You guys can't "double indemnity" your way into ginning up a block or a ban on this user by trying to create more conflict. So please just stop. The article will either be deleted (in which case you'll get your way, at least temporarily) or not. That's not up to us. Let it go at that. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Catpowerzzz, you say you don't want to discuss it with me anymore, but 15 minutes later post again on my talk page([194]), after I politely asked you to not do so, and instead keep discussions on this page. I would agree that the time for discussion is likely over, everyone (including you) has had ample opportunity to express their concerns and their opinions as to the solution to the current situation. I don't see any possible "compromise", as there is no middle ground in this discussion, just two sides, and a conclusion yet to be determined. I do not envy the administrator who draws the short straw and has to close this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have attempted to work this out with Dennis Brown on his (talk) page. On his talk page, Dennis has said that he believes that I'm working in good faith and that he believes I'm making good contributions. Since he believes I was contributing in good faith, I've asked him (and others there) to stop making all of these comments and accusations. At this point, it seems like we might have this worked out and that this was just a misunderstanding between two users who were both trying to work in good faith. I am suggesting here (as I did on his talk page) that we both just "chill out" and walk away from the argument rather than continuing with accusations and/or duplicate ANI or Afd submissions for what is essentially the same argument/misunderstanding. Also considering that this ANI discussion was started by a recently created anonymous/unregistered account, I think this would be a good time and place for this discussion to end. : ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I regret to respond by saying I don't. I'd posit that the disruptions, these interminable threads and multiple accusations, have been produced by Catpowerzzz. I'm sorry, but I find the entire business manipulative--having invited me to shed my IP, which I've done because I didn't want any aspersions to stick to other editors, and at the expense of my own reasons for maintaining greater anonymity, the above account hasn't come close to responding to multiple inquiries, and now seeks a sort of absolution, if you will. Despite the glossing over, this is not about differences in opinion, but about an editor who has been persistently disruptive in the face of disagreement from numerous contributors, who just a few hours ago was imagining death threats and throwing around sockpuppet accusations. Competence is very much at issue, and I'm still requesting administrative assistance, much the same as I did when introducing this topic as an IP several days ago. JNW (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Again, To "Retired" user JNW (talk) who I am presuming is now taking credit for his anonymous postings that he posted as 99.136.255.180. I'm posting this also on the original Afd discussion: I did not try to "out" you. You chose to post anonymously yourself. I merely suggested that posting anonymously with an IP address gives the appearance that you are a sock puppet of another participant. Sorry, if that is not the case, that's just how it "looks." I think if you are going to jump in on discussions with such toxic accusations and ANI nominations, your argument would have had more weight had you been a registered user and not cloaked behind recently "retired" accounts and/or anonymous IP addresses. You mention on your retired user page that you contribute anonymously only "when vandalism" occurs. This is not vandalism. For your arguments to have any credibility, you need to either "un-retire" yourself or step away from the platform. This game appears to be over. Please do not try to "reignite" the debate with more fuel, thank you. Dennis Brown and I seem to be moving on. I hope you can do the same. Either that, or please go back into "retirement." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is not about JNW or 99's identity or IP address or status. It's about you; please don't try to cloud the issue. You're walking a thin line here: I personally think your contribution to this ANI discussion is already combative and disruptive enough. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice closed as delete. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Final reply, please? And I had twice previously asked you to not bring up the topic on my talk page, but on the third request, I went ahead and just answered to put this issue to rest. (anyone can go there and read, by all means) The disagreement is not between you and I. I didn't file this ANI report, someone else did. Your comments to me have been particularly accusatory and harsh, but the problem is bigger than you disagreeing with me. Your actions didn't affect me personally (I have thick skin) but they were highly disruptive to the entire community. I have no idea if you still think I'm an admin, after being told at least four times that I am not, but it shouldn't matter. I still stand by my original and continuing belief that Catpowerzzz is not capable of rationally cooperating in this type of environment. They are not capable of accepting responsibility for their actions or words. Catpowerzz has accused many people of many things, from "gangbanging" female directors, to be sockpuppets, to ganging up, conspiring and more. In all of this, and the volumes that they have written in this ANI, the AFD, and the various talk pages, not once have they admitted any culpability, not once have they tried to do anything except accuse those that disagree with them with various "crimes", and try to get me to "drop" this action (even though I tried to explain that I didn't start it, and I can't end it). Again.....it isn't about malice, it is about the editor genuinely believing the things they say, and yes WP:COMPETENT applies, as it doesn't matter what the cause of the disruption is, if it is disruption, AND the editor is incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing how their actions are disruptive, and yes, I believe Catpowerzz believes they haven't done anything wrong. Catpowerzz keeps clearly demonstrating they do not have the capability of restraining themselves (3rd time I've asked to keep this talk off my talk page....) Catpowerzzz isn't dumb, not in the least, but being an editor at Wikipedia requires more than factual knowledge and ability to add content to articles. I'm sorry Cat, it really isn't personal, but it is my opinion that you are simply not capable of working in an environment like Wikipedia, and yes, I am asking for drastic measures to insure you don't. Dennis Brown (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly seems to me, looking over the history a bit, that Catpowerzzz is one of those editors constitutionally incapable of ceding the last word to anyone; there are a few too many responses which boil down to "No, YOU stop talking first." That being said, look, Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either. Ravenswing 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Point taken. While he has rebutted every comment everyone has made, I don't need to do the same. The record is long but speaks for itself, I will leave it to the community to offer their input. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Page speedily deleted per WP:IAR. If anyone disagrees, feel free to take to deletion review. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

User:PaoloNapolitano has made some rather strong statements about Wikipedia Review, a forum which is widely read by Wikipedia editors, going so far as to suggest that the WMF pursue legal action for "libel" against Wikipedia itself. Although their attempts to revive the WP:BADSITES policy have been rebuffed by more reasonable editors, they continue to try to fan the flames. Their latest provocative action is the creation of User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list.

I left a message on thier talk page expressing concerns that it could easily be seen as an "enemies list" (the original list singled out eight Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia Review contributors although there are over 1,500 users) and that it likely violated WP:OUTING. It has since been expanded by another user, so I think it is best to bring it here rather than wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Can someone please take a look at the page in question to see if it should be deleted?

Additionally, User:Prioryman has since responded to my message by suggesting that PaoloNapolitano tell me to "fuck off", and then adding my name to the list with an edit summary of "add notorious outer". Attacks on me seem to be a recurring pattern with Prioryman. I would like to request that Prioryman be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While I share Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing, I would indeed support deleting it on the basis of outing and it being easily perceived as an enemies list. However, there are likely going to be strong opinions on both sides, so if you're unable to convince PaoloNapolitano to {{db-user}} it himself (which I sincerely hope he will do), MfD is probably the best approach. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

While I assume you are referring to this, it is not "outing" if a user has self-identified, as in that case. I suspect the page exists for no other purpose than to create drama. An MfD will only be a drama magnet, so I would prefer that the page simply be deleted and the drama nipped in the bud. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'd guess he's referring to your earlier action of posting another editor's personal name, home address and telephone number in the course of a campaign against him. Mind if I take a screenshot of this, DC? You're arguing against creating drama? Interesting how the standard seems to be different when the boot's on the other foot, isn't it? Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course we all know that the best way to prevent something from turning into a drama is to start a thread about it on AN/I ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

DC claimed on PaoloNapolitano's talk page that the list constituted WP:OUTING, which is beyond absurd considering that the WR users concerned have identified their own Wikipedia accounts, or vice-versa. There cannot possibly be any outing when they have voluntarily disclosed that information, very prominently, for anyone to see. Additionally DC is the very last person who can credibly express concern about "outing" considering that they have self-admittedly engaged in it themselves in the course of a harassment campaign (see here). I can't speak for PaoloNapolitano's reasons for creating the list, since I've not discussed it with him, but personally I found it quite a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. It's fascinating that DC seems to be objecting to an initiative that improves accountability and scrutiny. By the way, it can't possibly reasonably be described as an enemies list. The only distinction made in the list is between blocked/banned en.wiki users and those in good standing, and the list makes no suggestion that any of the latter have done anything wrong. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it's outing, it's clearly an attack page and constitutes harassment. Which is probably why you found it "useful" personally. Jerk.VolunteerMarek 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fascinating to see how the users of a website dedicated to harassment and outing suddenly don't like it when someone connects their en.wiki identities to their WR identities. Maybe if you people didn't want that information to be publicised, you shouldn't put it next to every post you make on WR? They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, so I suppose one would expect that the germs wouldn't like it. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to know what purpose this list serves. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we could wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Nobody Ent 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480044620&oldid=480044418 – @Prioryman: Can you please be more careful? You labeled an user in good standing as being an user in bad-standing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He links from his WR account to an en.wiki account (Nastytroll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) that is indeffed, hence the confusion. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that it isn't the first time you've been confused, and what is with this "he" business? John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of the {{vandal}} template isn't exactly flattering, either. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&action=edit&oldid=479959016 – Prioryman was only following the trend established by PaoloNapolitano. Prioryman was the one who decided to switch to Template:Userlinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480025013&oldid=480024707. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay. Thanks Michael and Prioryman. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I thought Paolo's use of the {{vandal}} template could be misinterpreted. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I endorse Prioryman's statements. This is not outing, it is a list of users who have disclosed their connection between WP and WR and every connection is sourced. The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR. Several of the users on the list have posted information of a private nature about WP users to WR (address, telephone number, real name, job, etc.) and creating a list of users of a website that is notorious for posting such information will make it easier to identify outing or personal attacks posted to WR. Our editors are our main resources - imagine how it feels to have sensitive information about yourself posted to the web - just because you want to contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia.

• Please note: DC, Volunteer Marek and Michaeldsuarez are all WR users. PaoloNapolitano 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As am I. You have an account there too! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Originally PaoloN labeled all these users as "vandals" [195], which is a personal attack, but then put in the weaselly disclaimer that "Please note that the list is incomplete and may include blocked or banned users and users who defend Wikipedia at WR". Let me guess. He'll show up here and demand that everyone assumes good faith towards him.VolunteerMarek 22:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Paolo, glad you're here. I'm going to strongly recommend you take this list offline (i.e. to your hard drive) if you find it useful, and request its deletion here. Posting such a list here is a very divisive thing to do, regardless of whether what WR regulars may do over at their site. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 28bytes and depending on the purpose of the list WP:ATTACK may be relevant. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Since it doesn't exist "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" I don't think that's relevant at all. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you say so, but "On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that it's a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did'? As far as I can see, it's simply a directory of WP user names with corresponding WR accounts. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is in the fact that he labeled various users as vandals. *Smack head with hand*!VolunteerMarek 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What purpose do you believe the directory serves? Paolo stated "The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR"; given this edit, I'd suggest it very much is a list of 'enemies', or 'undesirables', especially in the list's first iteration. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it could serve multiple purposes. As I said above, I found it to be a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. The directory is just a list without any suggestion of "badness" in it, other than for the blocked and banned individuals of course. Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm afraid it looks to me as if the list was meant maliciously. You can say it's "just a list", but clearly it is provocative. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Righhhhhhtttttt.... which is why Paolo just added a "whitelist" section to the page [196], which of course carries the implication that anyone not lucky enough to make it onto *his and yours* "whitelist" is on some kind of a blacklist.VolunteerMarek 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The "vandal" template is not a "vandal" label, it is a template that offers several actions to admins; blocking, block log, abuse filter log, deleted contribs, logs, etc. I couldn't really come up with a better template, so I chose the "vandal" one. I repeat, I haven't labeled anyone as a vandal. PaoloNapolitano 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider something from the {{user}} family of templates. Choess (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to {{userlinks}} on Paolo's behalf. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Per 28bytes, please delete the list. Nobody Ent 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. (My advice above notwithstanding, this is...provocative.) Choess (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated an RfC here. Feel free to comment or make your own statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaoloNapolitano (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather offensive that there's a whitelist section, which implies that all the distinguished Wikimedias not in it are not using it to "defend Wikipedia" or w/e it is. This page should be nuked, it serves no purpose other than be divisive, and in its current incarnation, fairly offensive too. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it will need MFD as the user appears to have no intention of requesting deletion themselves. - The list is clearly provocative and its a shame Prioryman chose to massively expand it after it was brought here for discussion. DCarbuncle raised his concerns with the creator of the page. Youreallycan 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan 23:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. It was brought here for discussion by DC after I had reworked the list. Check the posting times. Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected - its still a shame you did that, and it only served to create more disruption. Youreallycan 23:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation (and impersonation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Paolo, I happen to be a fan of singer Amie Miriello. I could not fail to recognize her in the image on your user page, which appears to be the same as an image on her MySpace account. You uploaded it on Commons as File:Paoloandgirlfriend.jpg and you claim it as your own work. On your user page you caption it "Me and my girlfriend", although I think the person shown in the image is named "Drew", according to the information on MySpace. Can you explain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please take it to the user's talk page instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is about PaoloN. I was about to propose an indef ban/WR topic ban for him here, but it looks like it may not be necessary.VolunteerMarek 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So if I suddenly brought up something about DC here not directly related to Paolo's subpage about WR, it's acceptable. The image has been deleted from Commons and this subsection can now be closed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, DC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict). No, part of PaoloN's obsession with WR stems from the fact that some people there noticed some sketchy stuff about the account and started sniffin' around. This section just confirms those suspcions, and hence is relevant. Of course, you can SPLIT off this section into a separate one, rather than a sub-section, but just because the image was quickly deleted on commons to hide the evidence is not sufficient reason to close.VolunteerMarek 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Come off it, it's obvious retaliation. This is SOP for DC. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You come off it. Speaking of SOP, once again you're trying to make a user who did something wrong - uploaded a copyrighted photo of someone else, pretending that it was him (Poetlister anyone?) - into some kind of a victim, simply because the person who pointed it out is someone you don't like. Sheesh.VolunteerMarek 23:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol.VolunteerMarek 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification (typing fast to avoid multiple ec's): I don't think PN is Poetlister, but that the "I'll pretend to be somebody - who is a person in real life - I'm not" is the same thing that PL got indef banned for.VolunteerMarek 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is f..in hilarious - what a faker. - Hes nominated it for speedy at commons - I would block him for blatant copyright violation - Youreallycan 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not resolved in the least bit. In fact, it seems to be just scratching the surface. Just because the immediate copyright violation has been dealt with - via deletion - doesn't mean that examination of Paolo's conduct is unnecessary. At the very least an explanation of why he did what he did is in order.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is off-topic. The PaoloNapolitano account appears to exist almost solely to agitate about Wikipedia Review is a manner that is so over the top that it is indistinguishable from trolling. I have shown that the person behind the account has no compunction against stealing an image from a website, claiming it as their on work, and misleading other editors about their identity. I have seen similar use of stolen images by GNAA sockpuppets, although it is equally likely that the account is controlled by some WR contributor who is amused by this type of drama-mongering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also someone might want to email this Amie Miriello person to let her know that her boyfriend's identity is being usurped on Wikipedia. If I was that guy I'd be pretty pissed.VolunteerMarek 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed - why was this section wanted closed is also beyond me - a user deliberately uploads copyright violations and claims to be the boyfriend of a notable person using the picture to support the claim - he needs to explain this? - Youreallycan 23:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm struggling to find a reason not to indef Paolo, honestly... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then find inner peace and just do it. Lord knows he deserves it.VolunteerMarek 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear an explanation about this. I can't think of a possible good explanation for this, but I'm open minded. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, let me reiterate this: why isn't PaoloN indef blocked at this point? It's pretty clear that he uploaded a copyright image and claimed it to be his own work. That's enough right there. Then he claimed to be an actual real life person in that image, which it's pretty clear he isn't. That's enough right there as well. If there's some "logical" explanation for all this, I'm sure he can provide it. But until then an indef block seems very much in order. Or is it just because he's picking on people who some of the admins don't like and hence is doing a good job serving as a "useful... user"?VolunteerMarek 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this apparent copyvio took place on Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia, and is out of scope for AN/I. The image has been deleted and a Commons administrator has given PN a warning, as he seems to be a first-time offender.[197] A second admin has concurred.[198] As such, the matter appears to have been resolved. Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for Wikimedia Commons, where the apparent copyvio was uploaded. PaoloNapolitano has been given a warning by an administrator there [199] and the image has been deleted. Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note:Prioryman has attempted to hat the discussion with the summary above. I have moved it here instead.ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names covers this pretty well. Impersonation of another real-life person is not permitted on the English Wikipedia. The policy states that "This includes implying a relationship with another person". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The image file was uploaded on Commons, not here. PaoloNapolitano's username does not appear to be a problem here. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have indeffed Paolo Napolitano for the copyright violation and the attempt at impersonating another living person, which is an even more serious affair, in my opinion. I gave him a couple of hours to provide an explanation, but, since none was forthcoming, I have blocked him. This behaviour is unacceptable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Poor block The image was removed 12 hours ago from the user page.[200] It's hard to see this as "impersonation", despite the caption. Adding the image was poor judgement and that in fact seems to be true of many of this user's edits to wikipedia unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but this is just lame wikilawyering. The spirit of the policy seems clear enough. It does not say "you're not allowed to impersonate people with your user name, but you're allowed to impersonate them with pictures and captions on your user page." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
          • This seems to be a minor issue, which has been blown out of proportion. The user page was deleted fairly recently at the user's request; he previously requested a rev-del, having added more personal information than he wished. The present page was created fairly recently. As for supporting this editor, see my remarks below. Thanks, 10:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I kind of hoped Paolo would provide a explanation for the user page image, but if he's going to blow off reasonable inquiries about what he was doing, I have to agree with Salvio here. 28bytes (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Even when he has participated in arbcom cases, PN often seems to have got the wrong end of the stick (not the one used for beating equine corpses). His contributions have been confused and that does not seem to be very much different here. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours by Fæ. 28bytes (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not defending what Paolo did, but he did it on Commons, not on the English Wikipedia. Since when have English Wikipedia admins had jurisdiction over things happening on Commons? Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the copyright fraud occurred on Commons, the attempted impersonation occurred here when he added it to his en-wiki userpage with the caption claiming it was him. What you do with your en-wiki userpage is certainly something en-wiki admins can look at. 28bytes (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The copyvio was used here on en.wiki and here is where the impersonation took place. There was enough for an en.wiki admin to act. However, Paolo has now explained it was a serious error on his part and promise it'll never happen. I am satisfied by his response and with Fae's reduction to a day. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) :: The caption "me and my girlfriend" was on his user page here, on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. Someone keen on impersonation making this proposal about "rehabilitated sockpuppets" does wave a red flag for me, although maybe I'm not AGFing enough. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A reactionary and punitive block. What was the editor going to do next, try to pass of a picture of another attractive couple as themselves? "No, this is really me and my girlfriend"? Who would believe them? If we had a "lame" for behavior as well as for edit wars this would have to be pretty high on the list. It's not a boneheaded stunt someone tries twice. I throw down this challenge to anyone wishing to argue it was a good block: What reasonably anticipated future improper behave did this prevent? Nobody Ent 11:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

More trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The indef block has been restored. The block summary blames abuse of multiple accounts [201]. Delicous carbuncle was correct to pursue this here at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If DC knew or had knowledge the user was a sockpuppet they should have file an WP:SPI, not an ANI. The fact the user was committing another infraction doesn't affect the validity of the block for copyright/impersonation. Nobody Ent 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:PaoloNapolitano

User:PaoloNapolitano uploaded an image to Commons which they knew was copyrighted in a deliberate attempt to deceive fellow editors. User:Salvio giuliano indef blocked them for "copyright violation and impersonation", but that block was reduced to 24 hours by User:Fæ in response to an unblock request which said simply "I made a mistake. The image was deleted within 10 minutes per own request and an indef block, with no previous blocks seems harsh. I have almost 1000 constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and I repeat, I apologise, I made a mistake". Note that the image was deleted minutes after it was pointed out here, not minutes after it was placed on the user's page, where it had been for 3 weeks. PaoloNapolitano is now asking for a complete unblocking.

WP:INVOLVED states that admins "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Given that PaoloNapolitano's issue with Wikipedia Review appears to arise from discussions there about User:Fæ, and given that PaoloNapolitano offered an opinion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ which specifically mentions Wikipedia Review, I question whether or not Fæ can be considered to be uninvolved. I suggest that the block reduction was ill-advised and that it should be obvious to most people that the user is nothing more or less than a troll. Can this unblock be reviewed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You all know the drill, folks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have/had already notified user fae on his talkpage, that imo in relation to anything regarding the wikipedia review I consider him WP:INVOLVED - and he was unwise to have actioned the unblock request. - we have lots and lots of admins, what was the need for an admin that feels attacked through the review reducing a block on a user that is focused on demonising the wikipedia review? - I would suggest the fact is that he made the unblock 'because of his involvement - a poor decision indeed. Youreallycan 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please have a DC/fae interaction ban? DC is doing little more than trolling at this point. *goes back to writing my 3 essays for my classes* --Guerillero | My Talk 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The original blocking admin had said that he's satisfied both with PaoloNapolitano's explanation and with the block reduction, so I don't think there's any need for further drama. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstate the indef. The reduction was not improper given the stated rationale for the indef, but PaoloNapolitano has been using Wikipedia as a battleground (which, as some of you might have noticed, is a pet hate of mine) and has an unhealthy obsession with other editors' conduct rather than the encyclopaedia. The way to reduce drama is not to unblock people who keep lists like the one that prompted this thread in their userpsace, or who try to pass themselves off as the boyfriend of a notable, living person, but to remove them from the project as quickly and as quietly as possible, and to get back to writing the encyclopaedia.

  And while we're here, I would also advocate an indef of Delicious carbuncle, who has a similar tendency to treat Wikipedia as a battleground and a very unhealthy obsession with Fae (seriously DC, what the fuck has that man ever done to you?). He's smart enough to save the really spiteful stuff for Wikipedia Review, but like Paolo, seems to have become addicted to stirring up drama—to the extent that he would sit on a copyvio and wait to bring it up until the moment when he thought it would do the most damage to his opponent. That's not the behaviour of somebody whose primary interest here is a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

HJ, your compass seems to be off. You got one user up to no good and another user pointing it out and you want to indef them both? How about this - maybe DC saw the image and then took his time in verifying that it was indeed a copyvio, and that the guy in the picture could in fact NOT be Paolo because... well, because if he brought it up without checking and it turned out that it was Paolo, I'm sure someone like you would be calling for his head. You're setting up a situation where no matter what he does, you want to indef block him. Ridiculous.VolunteerMarek 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very good at cherry picking pieces of my posts and replying to those while totally missing my broader point, but less good at actually explaining why DC is any more of a net positive to this project than Paolo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because hes not a troll!VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. I'd strongly suggest you refactor that comment promptly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the users post to remove the offensive aspects and left him a note to please not repeat. Youreallycan 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious to anyone with enough clue that PaoloNapolitano is a reincarnation of some blocked user who is here simply to troll and using current sentiments about Wikipedia Review to stir things up. Someone was kind enough to draw my attention to this edit which I missed - an IP which geolocates to Oslo, Norway removes the section in which I questioned the user page image. Perhaps the IP's contributions to the French-language Wikipedia will provide a clue to the user's identity. What will it take to show that this is a troll, doing what trolls do? Ridiculous questions on help desk pages? Lulzy redirects? Wake up people! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the same IP on German Wikipedia's [202] Help Desk [203]: == Osmanisches Reich == Aufgabe 2: Beschreiben Sie die Eroberungen des Osmanischen Reiches und ziehen Sie bitte eine Karte des Reiches am größten. which translates as Task 2: Describe the conquests of the Ottoman Empire and draw a map of the kingdom Please greatest. Or this [204] or this [205].........................................VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP had two one week blocks on the French for basically -'trolling - diff - Youreallycan 00:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a multilingual troll. Before we hear the "he's attacking WR, therefore he's a good guy" song from multiple admins again, I think a WP:RFAR is needed here. It's doubtful that with so many admins wanting PN on board as a "useful idiot" anything is going to change. After all, his main interest in Wikipedia, as stated on his user page, is Arbitration. So we might as well oblige. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstate the indef - Lol. We don't want to feed him with his favorite food do we. The indefinite block was so on the point that its a shame the political infighting over this has returned the user to editing ability on this wikipedia. Reblocking without consensus would be wheel warring - RFAR is not suitable or required imo - we could get a raise to indef poll going - HJ has already supported , I support it, theres a start. Youreallycan 00:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Block both PaoloNapolitano and the outing troll Delicious carbuncle and this will become a better place.--В и к и T 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What outing? PN's name is just as likely to be fake. Are seriously thinking he gave his real phone number on fr.wiki or his real name on de.wiki? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• - seems to have been resolved - Elen has raised the block back to indefinite - there appears to have been some sockpuppetry. Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address as in this diff is a violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Youreallycan 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Attacking the messenger, as appeared to take place here with the attacks on Delicious carbuncle, are not helpful. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting meme

He asked at refdesk and answered himself of sorts: [206]. He also asked it on fr.wiki [207] And this looks like has been asked way back in 2005 [208] [209]. If anyone can point out the specifics of that first round of trolling, we might get a better idea who reincarnated in the PN account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Throughout this whole thing I've had the sense that this is an account which wants to be caught - to get the credit for successfully trolling Wikipedia, to see who's been dumb enough to fall for it, etc. In that context, the fact that he invited even more trouble when it was in his best interest to lay low, his uploading of the copyright image, his comments on non-en Wikipedias (a lot of which have been pretty recent) and all that make a lot of sense. I have no idea what the actual agenda here was, but I do think there's some meta-trolling going on.VolunteerMarek 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The amusing part is that he got confused on fr.wiki and trolled their refdesk with his main account, but reverted himself with an IP from the same Norwegian telco [210]. Also, long history of sockpuppetry and trolling the fr.wiki refdesk using multiple Norway ISPs. See this. So much for this being a new user. [211] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Parthian shot? Promises to do what he's been doing already: socking for the "greater good" of Wikipedia. On the French Wikipeidia he went around with a similar story saying how he was saving them form Anonymous (group) by ... showing them how vulnerable they are to the trolling he was himself doing [212] [213]. LOL. You have to appreciate the chutzpah of that on top of simultaneously being a Polish electrician, Canadian pizza chef and I forget what else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Here he says he is a return of User:MikeNicho231, which sounds plausible enough [214]. That sock farm was blocked on no.wiki before it was blocked here, again for initially for trolling, then socking. See no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for MichaelJackson231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Account blocked indefinitely as a bad-faith, cross-wiki troll by Elen of the Roads. Block endorsed by me. Because the block is based in part on checkuser findings and some other non-public evidence, any appeal is to the Arbitration Committee only. Per WP:DFTT, no further posts should be made to this or any related thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for topic ban for Prioryman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although the main topic has been hatted, no action was taken on my request for Prioryman to be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. I think their comments in the sections above demonstrate quite well why I am requesting this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you, an individual known for harassing and outing others, making a bogus complaint about someone else "outing" WR users who voluntarily disclose their WP accounts with every post they make on WR. 28bytes said above that he "share[s] Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing". Do you want him topic-banned too? I suggest you drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My "bogus" complaint resulted in the deletion of the page and others here appear to agree that it was intended as an "enemies list". I have asked you to stop making wild accusations about me. I have even asked for you to be blocked after you posted what you knew was false information in an effort to have me banned. Neither of those seem to have had any effect. I have no interest in stifling your ability to file some kind of dispute resolution, just your attempts to drive me off the project. I am willing to accept a mutual topic ban (with the exceptions of dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement processes) if it increases the chances of support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't seem proper at this point. The statements made above by Prioryman, while more negative than necessary, are still making a good point. Silverseren^C 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - a two way interaction ban, as requested by DC. Clearly there is a massive dispute between these users and they will be more constructive apart. Youreallycan 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but I would also like to note that I find it interesting that DC created an article for Amie Miriello three days after Paolo uploaded the hoax image of Ms. Miriello. In the three days before creating the article, DC also edited Stalking and Wikipedia:Harassment. Did DC notice the copyright violation and, instead of trying to get the image deleted immediately, wait for the "perfect time" to expose Paolo? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I told () above, SOP. I'd like to point out that DC's request is self-serving cynicism, as he is right now maintaining a "diary" on WR in which he's accusing me of corrupt financial dealings with Wikimedia UK. As I said in a previous discussion about DC, he is a serial harasser who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By making this request he's quite blatantly trying to stop me pointing out his abusive conduct. It's deeply cynical behaviour but unfortunately entirely typical of this person. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eages247, can you explain how my edit which removed newly added original research in Stalking is in any way related to this? Or how reverting the addition to WP:Harassment of a link that has been deprecated for nearly four years is germane to a discussion of a topic ban? Your suggestion that I created Amie Miriello as part of some Machiavellian trap for PaoloNapolitano seems far-fetched, to say the least. This is not only assuming bad faith, it is actually attempting to make edits which unambiguously improved the state of Wikipedia into something negative. This is not the type of conduct that we should expect from admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult to assume good faith with a user who cannot do the same for others. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Your ability to assume good faith is compromised by someone else's inability to do so? I would appreciate an answer to my questions about your comments in regard to why you brought up my edits to stalking and WP:Harassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just interesting, and I think you know the answer to your question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - though a WR topic ban may be more appropriate.VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Somebody indef both Paolo and DC and be done with it. Wikipedia is not a battleground (nor a place to look for ammunition to continue on-wiki battles off-wiki)—a concept which both of them seem to have totally failed to grasp. I'd do it myself, but I'm probably involved wrt to Delicious carbuncle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, so one user uploads a copyrighted image under "my own work", pretends to be somebody else - a real life person, and engages in attacking and harassing other users. The other user points this out. And you propose they BOTH be banned? Seriously?????VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the other user (DC) also engages in attacking and harassing other users, including outing, among other things. But then, Marek, this is all just defending other WRers like yourself, isn't it? Silverseren^C 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't forget anything, because it's simply not true, except in the imaginations of a couple users who have axes to grind with him. Also, seeing you refer to others as "WRers like yourself" is pretty funny, considering that you post over there way more than I do. And you probably already know that I'm quite happy to criticize WR people when they deserve it. Can we skip the hypocrisy please?VolunteerMarek 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As i'm sure you know, practically all of my comments over there are either A) discussing how I improved something, B) discussing how Wikipedia does work, or C) arguing with someone over there about Wikipedia. I don't engage in the attack Wikipedians gimmick everyone else does there. Silverseren^C 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you forget the posts whining about admins, the ones boasting about winding things up, and snivelling about people that are mean to you and what the horrid ArbCom members thought of you, as revealed in last years leaks. John lilburne (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, (), didn't you post a comment on WR a few days ago about how you think Wikipedians are stupid people who deserve only contempt, or something like that? I can't find it now, it seems to have been removed or tarpitted. It did make me wonder why you bother to post here given what you think of us. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Prioryman, quit being a dick and purposefully referring to me by my RL first name. I have a Wikipedia user name - Volunteer Marek and that's how you should address me (or VM if you prefer). Since I'm asking you this explicitly, any further such provocations by you will be considered personal attacks, harassment and taunting.

And if you "can't find it", then how about you don't make the accusation in the first place? I saw somewhere where you said that you hate children and puppies and kittens and think Jimbo Wales is a douchebag but I can't find the comment right now - but you still better defend yourself here and now!!!!! Quit being so obviously sleazy.VolunteerMarek 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll respect your wishes, but I suggest that you stop calling me a "jerk" repeatedly - last time I looked that was considered a personal attack. Prioryman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Priory, it looks like Tarantino did some digging and outing of you on WR. The Wikipedia stuff everyone pretty much knows, but he also listed your real name and some other websites that you were involved in. I'm not sure if your real name is commonly known or not, I don't remember. Silverseren^C 01:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no surprise. Outing and harassment is WR's raison d'etre. Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at this point the same thing can be said for you presence on Wikipedia itself. With the difference that it'd be accurate, whereas your claim is anything but.VolunteerMarek 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Prioryman - You have a large Internet footprint - your real name is well known - through that and editing under a username closely related to your real name and through editing this project in relation to your internet position (one of the 25 most well known anti scientologists) you outed yourself - thankfully - arbitration has removed you from your COI contributions to that sector of wikipedia forever. - As a failed and dubious clean start you should be happy to have the privilege of editing at all. Worse still about your account is that even though you have been restricted by multiple Arbitrations - you are an enabler of other similar violating users, such as User:Cirt and User:Will Beback, now both thankfully restricted at arbitration as well. I suggest the best position for you is to just write your quality articles and steer clear of all this battlefielding. Youreallycan 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one systematically attacking and harassing other editors on WR. Do you have any words of advice for DC? I'm sure he could use them. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would point DC to Harry's comment (a position there seems to be a degree of support for) as a warning for him to direct his energy in a more productive direction. Youreallycan 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? How can a request for a limited topic ban be anything other than an attempt to reduce the battleground atmosphere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The battleground atmosphere is being created by your own actions on WR. Ordinarily I would agree to Youreallycan's suggestion of a voluntary two-way moratorium on interaction. The problem is that you are simply going to slope off to WR and continue your attacks on me there. You're already maintaining an open thread on me, accusing me - without any provocation on my part whatsoever - of financial corruption (which is libellous, by the way). You would have been blocked on Wikipedia if you made claims like that here. You routinely use WR to evade Wikipedia's conduct policies, and I see no reason to expect that it would be any different in this case. In practice a "limited topic ban" would leave you free to continue your abusive behaviour, while I would be muzzled from pointing out what you are doing. I'm certainly not willing to consider such a one-sided approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to "muzzle" you. I specifically excluded dispute resolution processes so that you would be able to take action should you have a legitimate complaint with regard to my actions. With regard to your contention that I have made "libellous" accusations of "financial corruption", this is simply not the case. If I were any other user, your making such a claim on ANI would result in a block for gross personal attacks, but we both know that nothing will be done about it. I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia's conduct policies apply to Wikipedia, but that off-wiki activities can be taken into account in dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would only agree to such a thing if you undertook to cease commenting on me on WR, closed or tarpitted the "diary" thread that you started, and did not participate in any future discussions about me on WR. Any breach of those conditions would end the agreement. Agreeing to those conditions is a pretty good test of your sincerity; your past record suggests that you wouldn't hesitate to do an end-run around restrictions on Wikipedia, so if you want an interaction moratorium it needs to extend off-wiki as well. The ball's in your court. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking you to agree - I am asking that a limited topic ban be imposed upon you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested a reasonable compromise, you've rejected it and you've implicitly indicated that you have no intention of stopping your abusive off-wiki behaviour. I think others can draw the necessary conclusions. I'm done here. Prioryman (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm - Can't you two (or three, or four, or...) find something better to do on a Saturday night? There must be some Dallas reruns or something on TV. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is this being transformed into a WR thread? Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought I pretty much asked the same thing, but in a more subtle manner.

      PN has a laserlike focus WR, afaIct, which of course brings the circus into town (or at least a different circus than the one that's usually here on AN/I). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I say it who shouldn't (currently topic banned myself), maybe we need a seperate noticeboard where we propose editors for topic banning - something like AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

EfD: Editors for Deletion. I love it, it'll be like a Klingon High Council debate. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

topic ban of single purpose account on pyramid sales scheme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please correct me if I am doing this wrong. Wikipedia:Topic ban is rather vague, and I have never done this before. I am pursuing a topic ban on User:OregonDucks97401.

Scentura is a "pyramid sales scheme" according to the Illinois Appellate Court.[215] On 2 November 2011, Nick Brunson, the web-admin for Scentura began deleting references in the article.[216][217][218][219][220] Nick Brunson's connection to Scentura was revealed by editor OlYeller21.[221] When Nick Brunson received a lot of criticism, he disappeared and OregonDucks97401 appeared. OregonDucks97401 is a Single Purpose Account[222] who continues to remove the same references as Brunson did. Numerous editors have reverted and argued with him and he continues to remove these references. I would like to propose a topic ban, or know what the next steps are. Filed a checkuser too. Notified all recent talk page participants and people I named. Proposing topic ban.

• support as proposer. Calendar2 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• comment Some sort of action looks to be called for, but probably a regular block would be a simpler solution for this SPA - I think topic bans are usually reserved for editors who are making useful contributions elsewhere. That said, I note that you've also filed a sockpuppet investigation; if that's confirmed it's likely to result in permanent blocks that would make this issue moot. --GenericBob (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment thanks GenericBob, I am new to this. If anyone wants to close this they can. If any admin would like to warn or ban this SPA, that would be really appreciated. I don't edit here often and I really don't want to have to police a well referenced article from an employee of the pyramid scheme. Fortunately the community has been so wonderful in assisting every step of the way. Calendar2 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• support as proposer and/or as GenericBob. Disclaimer: I've been active on this page in reverting this users removal of content, making me an involved user. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• strong support for a topic ban or block. I have no involvement with this article or with any editor involved in this dispute. But I've now spent 45 minutes looking into it, and conclude that either a topic ban or a WP:DUCK block would be an appropriate result, regardless of the outcome of the SPI, for which purpose some similar accounts will now be "stale". The single-article account OregonDucks97401 is the latest in a long line of accounts and IPs ( originating in the San Francisco Bay Area ) that, beginning in 2007, have been campaigning to remove well-sourced negative information from this article. A quick stroll through article history shows similar behavior from Evs215 in 2007, Hornmarket in 2008, TJArandon1223 in 2010, and multiple IP editors in other years, as well as the already mentioned NickBrunson. Based on multiple factors, it's my strong impression that the person behind the OregonDucks97401 account is likely to be affiliated, at least, with this long line of similarly-motivated single-purpose accounts and IPs.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lapianoisrael is at it again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

77.124.156.158 is quacking just like Lapianoisrael was earlier... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whapped for 48 hours. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan of Wikipedian's apparent misrepresentation of sources

Fan of Wikipedian's (talk · contribs)

The user has created a number of articles about Indian models. At first blush they appear to be sourced, to reliable sources such as The Times of India. However when checking the actual "links" of the sources, they are going to sites other than the reliable sources named in the visible citation, non reliable celebrity gossip sites etc.

I have left a message about the acts on the users page, but I someone should check all of the articles and I dont have time today. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For example at this article: [223] and [224] -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need administrator attention. I bet they are copying citation templates from other articles without realizing all the fields they have to change. If they don't meet WP:RS, remove them and any contentious information they are attached to since we are dealing with BLPs. If the editor is creating articles without any reliable sources, you can add reliable sources, or tag the articles for deletion with {{Prod blp}}. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User Brews ohare forum shopping again

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having only recently been warned about forum shopping, is again wasting editors time by starting an RfC and posting to the Village pump over exactly the same issue, As he's already been warned it seems necessary to bring this to administrator attention. Both the warning two weeks ago and the recent activity concern the same page, WP:Formal organization, and his repeated attempts to insert it into the Wikipedia article, move it into mainspace and now link to it from mainspace.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Racist death threats.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is clearly not acceptable behavior or acceptable discourse on Wikipedia. Can some administrators take a look, please? Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, you didn't notify him of this thread, so I've done it. Calabe1992 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defeated Sanity - genre warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since Feb 24, an IP with a changing address (175.110.xxxxx) has been adding a non-existent genre (Technical brutal death metal) to the infobox and lead of Defeated Sanity, without discussion, sources, etc. I have reverted this multiple times, and even added a hidden note in the infobox asking for discussion or sources, to no avail. See the recent history here. I submitted the page to WP:RFP here, but was declined, told to leave more warning messages, and then to bring it to AIV (but since this isn't vandalism according to WP:VAND, I'm bringing it to the main ANI). I have left more warnings that were ignored, so here I am. Can this IP range be blocked for some reasonable period of time? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully they'll get bored and find something else to do. Welcome to the world of anonymous genre editors—they run rampant over all music articles. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polemic material at User talk:Tiamut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Permalink for the archive

The text at the top of this talk page appears to fit WP:POLEMIC. At the very least, it is extremely partisan, political, and not conducive to a collaborative environment. I tried to remove it once, but this action was reverted as vandalism. I'm not going to edit war over this... I'd like some other neutral administrators to weigh in on this text. --Chris (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (Another administrator has already expressed an objection to this content. --Chris (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

I was the one who reverted. Yes, it is political, but whether it is "very offensive and divisive" or not is very subjective. Illegal settlers are singled out, but that is not exactly controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris's removal of it wasn't vandalism, though. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've raised that point too. --Chris (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of userspace is what I was referring to, not to articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The term vandalism can only be applied with evidence of intent to disrupt the project, no matter the namespace. --Chris (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not neutral, but I don't think the quotes at the top of the Talk page are "very divisive or offensive material". I think a community that tolerates User:GHcool and his subpages can also put up with Tiamut's three quotes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly, I would say that both of those talk pages need to be blanked. There's no need for such incendiary talkpages. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Phrases like "the villainy you teach me, I will execute" directed towards Jews is a grotesque rewrite of the past. A Shakespeareian twist on the standard technique/theme of equating Jews with Nazis. It is extremely polemical and offensive. It immediately raises strong feelings and just as strong arguments on the other side of the political spectrum. Many schools no longer ask Holocaust survivors to tell their stories, because Muslim students treat them with this type of "very subjective" offenses. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Take that up with Shakespeare. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This uncreative, changed version ("Hath not a Palestinian eyes?") has little to do with him or with the purpose of the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC) +clarify 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the three quotes as beyond the pale. They are extracts from well-known published works by others, not personal rants. They also serve the purpose of very clearly illustrating the editor's POV so at least they have the virtue of honesty. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They show that the user holds a particular political opinion, that is neither uncommon nor extremist. This is not hatespeech for example or endorsing violence or oppression of other viewpoints, which I would find problematic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is quite the extreme to pretend that the Jewish bid for statehood is somehow akin to the Nazi and/or the French killings of millions. Also, "sharpen the weapons" seems quite a violent declaration. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the last deletion of the text by Jaakobou (see the subsequent discussion here). In my opinion, Jaakobou should be asked to justify his undiscussed deletion of the text against the talkpage guidelines. Personally, I don't regard the text as a polemic, nor so grossly insulting as to justify Jaakobou's action, which, of itself, I would say was disruptive (from looking at Jaakobou's own talkpage, I'd say that objectionable editing of those of others has become a bit of a nasty habit for him/her). It's in the nature of areas of Wikipedia as confrontational as the IP area that the comments of each "side" are going to seem vile to at least some members of the opposition. It would obviously be unrealistic to delete every comment that someone found offensive. A bar for determining what is acceptably or unacceptably offensive is required and I think that Tiamut's quotes should pass on the acceptable side.     ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz. Tiamut's page ought to be tolerated. --GHcool (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes are mostly taken out of their original context and given an Arab-Israeli conflict wikilink and/or subtext that says 'Jews are bad' let's "sharpen the weapons" against them. Sample: "It is not enough for the [[Israeli settlements|settler]] to delimit physically". This wikilink, which is twisting the source in order to equate the Jewish struggles for statehood with French colonialism in Algeria (1,500,000-960,000 Algerians died in their fight for emancipation), is a good sample to show that it is a bad idea to leave a group of editors who think alike to decide what they consider offensive. I'm sure they would all throw fits had the content been reversed. In that respect, comments from neutral parties are more helpful.

p.s. if the text wasn't such a grotesque rewrite, it could have been tolerated but only if it wasn't boldly used as a meet-and-greet propaganda for anyone who steps on Tiamut's talkpage.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh really! If you think Tiamut's use of the quote is an offensive "grotesque rewrite", you should see the award-winning Israeli film Avanti Popolo[225], and take the issue up with Rafi Bukai.RolandR (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiamut's version, unlike the film, is different than the original and quite offensive (see above). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RolandR, that is a red herring. We are discussing the appropriateness of content in userspace, not some movie. What some movie says about anything is irrelevant to this discussion. --Chris (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I admit I'm not seeing what's wrong about those quotes, and the irony inherent in believing that the paraphrased Shakespeare quote is objectionably divisive and offensive is palpable - considering that the original is quoted in its entirety in The Merchant of Venice article. Should we conclude, following Jaakobou's reasoning, that such a text constitutes an offensive and divisive diatribe against Christians? Ravenswing 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for advocating our political opinions. If Tiamut wishes to do that, then I suggest they start a blog and keep it there, but any remotely objectionable content in userspace that is not directly related to improving the encyclopaedia should be removed in my opinion (regardless of whose userspace it is in and what it is advocating). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Remotely objectionable" is not the test, happily, or any editor could get held hostage to such absurdities. I could, for example, find the photograph of you on your userpage "objectionable" - you're trying to put yourself over as more important than the rest of us! - and call for its removal. I hope and trust that neither of us would be comfortable with such a lowest common sensitivity Wikipedia. Ravenswing 04:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Calls for sharpening of weapons in a current real-world conflict are not comparable to a mundane self-portrait. Besides being offensive, this welcoming mat promotes the enhancement of a like-minded "NPOV" clique, united against "pro-Israeli agenda editors".[226] Some of the most common members of this clique have chosen to comment here as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hardly. It is a common fallacy - but no less a fallacy for all of that - to equate "failure to explicitly condemn" with "promote." I see no reason why Wikipedia ought to be hijacked to that POV. That there is an editor whom some might construe as not being favorable to Israel does not therefore follow that his mere, unmolested existence is a loaded weapon pointed at so-called "pro-Israeli" editors. What about his quotes do you fancy prevents such editors from working on such articles as they see fit, in the manner in which they choose? Ravenswing 05:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• The text at the top of that talk page fits WP:POLEMIC. It is extremely partisan, political, and not conducive to a collaborative environment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is partisan, yet not "extremely divisive and offensive", that's the threshold. In any case, if her page is eventually blanked somehow, User:GHcool's page should be too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When I looked at this earlier for Jaakobou I found the text disturbing and disagreeable. However most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages, so I did nothing about it. (In part so as not to draw even more attention to it). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a top of the talkpage hallmark alluding the Jewish bid for statehood is akin to the French killing of 1 million Algerians. Legal or not, it is a disturbing brand of propaganda. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaakobou has deleted the material again, dishonestly claiming "5:0 admin support". Jaakobou is not entitled to decide what the consensus is and not entitled to enforce it. Jaakobou is actually an extremely "involved" editor, being an editing enemy of Tiamut over a long period who makes no effort to hide his political opinions. Now he has put a blatantly dishonest "summary" below; it is getting ridiculous. He lists Graeme Bartlett as his supporter right after GB wrote "most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages". Can the uninvolved admins here please instruct Jaakobou to keep his hands off Tiamut's talk page? Zero^talk 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Significant leeway is given in user space for editors to say, well, what they like. In an ideal world soapboxing like this would be removed; but if we start down that route where does it end? There are a huge number of editors in the Israel/Palestine battleground (sigh) with similar polemics - and pursuing the removal of all the various pieces of commentary can only really end in a disastrous fall out. The commentary in this case, whilst strong, is not very extreme and seems more to reflect a feeling of upset or anger along the lines of "we will endure", rather than any expression of violence or hate. As others have pointed out, this also provides a sharp and clear representations of the feelings in this topic area.

What I do suggest, though, is that the existence of commentary such as these on talk pages is often grounds for an investigation into the related editors work, and potential grounds for topic bans if problems are found. (though in this case I haven't investigated any of the people involved, including GHCool, so wouldn't like to comment on whether that is needed or not). --Errant ^(chat!) 12:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins (summary of this discussion)

• In the opinion that the text is soapboxing/partisan/objectionable/disturbing/etc.:
  • foxj
  • Chris
  • Black Kite
  • HJ Mitchell
  • Graeme Bartlett
  • Errant
    • Total: 6.
• In the opinion that the text is not offensive:
  • Kim Dent-Brown
    • Total: 1.

That's not an accurate summary. There are a number of editors above who think the text is not offensive. I'm not going to remove it, especially not after Jaakobou has tried to blank it twice. Anyone who knows my history with Jaakobou would understand why. Tiamut^talk 11:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur, that is a completely incorrect summary. I'm an admin, I'm uninvolved (except for having expressed an opinion here) and I don't find the text offensive. Please strike the text above, Jaakobou. Apart from anything you are not helping your own case by pursuing it so singlemindedly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive either, I merely opined that both the userpages contained material that may not be useful to a collegial editing environment (which IMHO is borne out by the discussion above). Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm aware that not all the admins were themselves offended. However, you expressed that "both of those talk pages need to be blanked." and now maintain that it may not be useful to a collegial editing environment. In that respect, I figure I listed your name in the proper category, no?

p.s. sincere apologies to Kim Dent-Brown for missing his username from the 'not-offensive' list. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes the list confusing is that you've now included me :S by virtue of adding "soapboxing" to the list. Problematic if you are using this list to show support for removing the text... (which is what you did previously). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please just strike the list which as you see is now becoming a new focus for discussion and disagreement. You are not the closing admin and are in no position to summarise the discussion objectively. The person who does close this will do their own due diligence about who said what and doesn't need your help. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is closed already in the sense that uninvolved admins presented a consensus on the nature of the text. That one or two admins disagree with a policy -- WP:UP#POLEMICS -- is something they need to take to the wider administrative community. Obviously, I don't expect my summary to be taken without further inspection but I do think it would be a waste of time to wait for someone uninvolved try and gather from the discussion who is an uninvolved admin and, in that respect, my listing was a good idea to help promote this issue towards resolution.

p.s. it wouldn't hurt you to empathize with the reasons that make the text is extremely offensive to Jewish people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jaakobou, I suggest you drop the stick now. The issue is not whether or not you or anyone else finds something offensive - that is an infinitely variable standard. The only issue this page can deal with is whether or not this content should be removed from Tiamut's talkpage - and the consensus is that it should not be removed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Elen of the Roads,
    Even if I assume you are correct about the policy related issue, your other assertion can't be right. Perhaps to resolve the matter, you should compile a list of the uninvolved admin opinions -- this should help explain why your assertion can't be right.
    Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC) +clarify 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userpage

I have raised Serbia100's, use of their userpage with them but they appear to have ignored me, what is the next step that should be taken with them? Mo ainm~Talk 09:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked Serbia100's contributions (going back to 2010). He/she appears to be quite confused about Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

351 edits and only three in article space. Block per WP:NOTHERE and delete per WP:WEBHOST. N^oformation ^Talk 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the "article-ish" portion and left a welcome. Let's not be hasty with th eblock button unless they decide to revert. If nobody ever discussed the purpose of Wikipedia, or told him he was doing wrong, it's not easy for him to guess (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they did revert, and removed the note. I've reverted them and left one more note which I think we should consider a final final warning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Misguided school project... or more?

While patrolling Special:NewPages today, I came across a whole stack of articles created by users with very similar usernames, all of the form "OI-11-" followed by the first initial, then full stop, then last name, all of which sound Spanish or South American (Lopez, Diez, Ruiz etc.). Here's the list of articles and users:

• Alava´s regions by User:OI-11-m.lopez - deleted under CSD A1
• Elguea eolic park by User:OI-11-I.ruiz01
• Festval by User:OI-11-e.diez
• Izki Natural Park by User:OI-11-a.llop2
• Arlobi menhir by User:OI-11-a.gainzarain
• Vitoria-Gasteiz jazz festival by User:OI-11-z.zubiaguirre
• Conservatorio jesus guridi by User:OI-11-Y.ruiz
• Ataria by User:OI-11-j.castellano

Does anyone know if we've got an unannounced school project on our hands here? If so, they are doing it very wrong. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Judging by the contents of the articles, I'd start looking at schools and universities in Vitoria-Gasteiz. Googling isn't very productive, though. MER-C 13:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly a class project at Basque educational institution. Some have already been bitten - those who have talkpages mostly have deletion warning templates and even an SPI. I'm going to give them handwritten hello messages and will try to track down the tutor. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: They've all been welcomed. I found a couple more similarly-structured names in the user log. Haven't identified a tutor yet, waiting for responses. bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the increasing prevalence of this edit pattern, it would be helpful to have a standard template that could be applied in situations for these ... I'm not wiki-saavy enough on the practices regarding education project editing to leave an appropriate message myself. Do we have a standard policy? Nobody Ent 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. At least a couple of previous projects have had their own dedicated templates (which made sense because there was a large group of students and it was appropriate to centralise some things on a project-specific page in wikipedia-space). However, it would be great to have a general "hey-are-you-part-of-a-school-project-please-talk-to-us" welcome template. I will write one when I have a few minutes spare. Surely there are other editors who have more time on their hands and stronger template-design skills than me (a set of editors which fills about 90% of the venn diagram) so I won't complain if somebody else gets there first... bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We appear to have place for template requests. Nobody Ent 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I found that we already have templates for this:

• {{subst:Welcome student|article}} for apparent students;
• {{subst:Welcome teacher|article}} for apparent instructors.

Which is convenient. bobrayner (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Those really should be added to the 'Welcome' tab on Twinkle. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Duly requested. bobrayner (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Adambluekc

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can someone please talk to this user? He was blocked for spamming his website and he is now tracking my information. I believe this user is threatening legal action (and has been indeffed already), but for the most part I believe he is confused. I need immediate assistance. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Per WP:RBI, I recommend summarily disabling the blocked user's talk page access and moving on. If the user is indeffed, we're beyond the point of educating them. Indeed, they've responded to attempted education with legal threats and outing. We're not going to make progress here. --NYKevin @115, i.e. 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I'm concerned about my own safety though due to the outing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC) The user has responded to me, and I believe we're going to talk about it. I will not be revoking talk page access unless this escalates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:DeFacto

Administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has invited six editors, who opposed me in a bitter dispute at "Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story" recently, to participate in an WP:ANI against me, to put forward their views as to whether I should receive a topic ban from that very article (diffs: [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]), with, I believe, the intention of influencing the outcome of that discussion in a particular way contrary to the provisions laid out in WP:Canvassing. Note: he did also invite two other token editors to contribute, one who was a mediator in a previous dispute in that article and one who was involved in a previous dispute in that article, but who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for several months (contribs: [233]). He did not however invite any of the editors who have supported my edits or made similar edits to me in the articles in question.

This breech is all the more serious because:

• a) he is an administrator
• b) of the aggravating circumstances; that if he is successful with this, I will lose my freedom to edit.

Note: I did first warn him about this (diff: [234]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [235]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I notified all the folks at the most recent DRN as well as AQ who moderated a dispute on the same topic related to this user as well as the person identified as aligning with DeFacto. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as I wrote; but none of the other editors who have also worked on that, or any of the other articles now also implicated in that action, in the meantime. -- de Facto (talk). 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrongful in Toddst's actions; they complied with policy. As he was not acting as an administrator in this situation, that is not an aggravating factor. Also, Wikipedia does not do due process, so that is not an aggravating factor either. If DeFacto continues this tendentious behavior in his interactions with other editors, I will block him as a separate action apart from the topic ban being discussed above. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on. This discussion should be closed already. Calabe1992 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing predominantly amongst those known to be likely to support your favoured result is in direct conflict wiyh WP:Canvass. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And now asking another administrator, one involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action, to support him here (diff: [236]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [237]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [238]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to be blunt, but lay off. Calabe1992 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Block review request

• Actually, I'd prefer for this thread to be left open, at least for a little while, for review of my action and for discussion of any possible compromise.

  I looked at the above thread yesterday and considered indeffing DF, but decided to see if things would improve if the topic ban was enacted. That total misrepresentation of a situation above (JamesBWatson actually unblocked DF, yet DF calls him an admin involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action) was, however, the final straw. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

de Facto's responses so far to your block aren't the sort that should lead to anyone unblocking. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was writing a careful and detailed comment about the problems with DeFacto's editing, but I have just turned to Special:Contributions/DeFacto, and found that HJ Mitchell has indef-blocked the account, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that I think HJ Mitchell was quite right. For some time it has been a matter of when DeFacto would be blocked, not whether, and I agree that the time has come. DeFacto has been given as much AGF and ROPE as anyone could reasonably expect, if not more, and has persisted in his/her disruptive and time-wasting nonsense. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• JamesBWatson's remark about "when" is on the money. DeFacto had more rope than anyone ever needed to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is this not the sort of situation where a topic ban would be helpful? DeFacto has been here a long time with only one previous minor block prior to this mess. I agree that their behaviour has not been acceptable and has been a big timesink recently but would a topic ban on anything to do with metrication (including commenting on talkpages) be a way to keep them on the straight and narrow? Polequant (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (eta) I realise this was being discussed above when DeFacto shot themselves in the foot with this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the disruption is limited to metrication issues or if there are other problems as well. Polequant (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a huge WP:Competence issue. It wasn't limited to metrication. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Their recent responses don't show any evidence that they've spent any time or effort trying to understand why they were blocked—largely I think because the necessity hasn't even occurred to them. Such a lack of perception and self-awareness, wilful or otherwise, is impossible to reconcile with working in a collaborative environment. EyeSerene^talk 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that someone who's been here for 6 years and only been blocked the once before has been indeffed without things like RFC/U or evidence of previous ANI threads etc. If they were as bad as you are saying then I would have at least expected something prior to all this. Either they've slipped under the radar for a long time (which is certainly possible as wikipedia is normally crap at dealing with "civil" disruption) or their behaviour has got worse recently. This seems like they were at least willing to think about what they were doing, and between that and getting indeffed their only action was complaining that there had been some canvassing going on in the topic ban discussion. They clearly aren't correct with the canvassing but I can't see that it was particularly disruptive to start that section.

In general it doesn't work very well expecting people to apologise for their actions. If the block had been for a week then that shows that what they are doing won't be tolerated. It would give the opportunity for them to modify their behaviour when they come back without being forced to make what they might think are humiliating retractions. They shouldn't have to agree with the reasons for blocks and why people are getting frustrated with them so long as their behaviour changes. Polequant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No-one's mentioned a need for them to prostrate themselves, that would be silly. Rather, the issue is that they've become so fixated on their notion that the block was an "abuse of power" that there seems to be no likelihood of them even acknowledging, never mind addressing, the real reason they were blocked. While that 'it's everyone else that's the problem, it's not me' attitude stands, unblocking would serve no purpose because we'd just see the same problematic behaviour repeated. EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

People lash out when they feel threatened, which isn't an excuse but a reason at least. A week block together with a broadly construed topic ban from metrication is a pretty severe penalty and has the potential to at least keep someone who has contributed considerably. Unless the majority of their contributions haven't been helpful I don't see why it wouldn't be worth trying. I don't care what someone's attitude is unless it colours their editing and in that case it would be easy enough to block again. Polequant (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this editor is that they seem to be unable to grasp one of the basic concepts here: Wikipedia is a team effort that necessitates consensus building and the acceptance of consensus. That they haven't been blocked earlier is because such disruptive tendencies don't automatically lead to blocks--they are not easily templated, and require a measure of judgment on an administrator's part that can be challenged in ways a block for vandalism can't. I'm glad to see that Todd and others stuck their neck out, and I'm glad to see that for the most part HJ's decision is supported by the community (including me). Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And to think this all started over some damn strawberries :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse block: In case it wasn't clear from my comment above. It's clear that this editor has some serious issues interacting in an unstructured environment and a profound lack of self-awareness that has led to protracted disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block I reviewed the situation by skimming a couple of pages, but just browsing User talk:DeFacto is sufficient to show that the reports above are correct: the user is currently unable to participate in a collaborative project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Fine block Nobody Ent 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block The more I see of this user's behavior, the more I'm surprised it was tolerated this long. We need to get out of the business of hosting this kind of volunteer on Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block: Serious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality here. The proper response to being blocked for violations isn't "Helllp! I'm being opppressed!!!". It's "My apologies, and I won't do it again." Do people lash out when they feel threatened, as Polequant says? Indeed they do ... and we do not condone that behavior on Wikipedia. As far as that table goes, by the way, I don't think it's overly objectionable on the face of it, but it has no business being on a user talk page, which is supposed to be for discussion on how to improve the encyclopedia, not as a forum or a billboard. Ravenswing 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto requests assistance

DeFacto is requesting on his talk page that an uninvolved admin take a look at the actions of Drmies and Laser Brain on his talk page. He believes he is being threatened for the table he has added to the page. Drmies and LB believe it should be removed because it violates WP:NPA. Any help would be greatly welcomed. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note to reviewer(s): the current table on the talk page has had much of what appears to have been the objectionable material redacted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite having had WP:NOTTHEM pointed out to him, DeFacto still totally fails to understand that any unblock request needs to address his behaviour, and not the behaviour of other editors. The material he keeps adding to his talk page is thus not relevant to any valid unblock request. It seems to me that Drmies and Laser Brain were each perfectly justified in saying that DeFacto's talk page access should be removed if he again added this irrelevant material, but he is continuing to play games and make a point and I therefore see no reason why this removal of talk page access should not now be implemented. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A major part of DeFacto's behaviour that continually frustrated other editors was his ubiquitous presence. He was always there. Other editors, either through choice, or probably the pressures of real life, came and went. DeFacto didn't. He was always there. No matter what others said, at any time, if DeFacto disagreed, he would respond with more of his ongoing wall of words, forever insisting that consensus had not been reached, and demanding that other editors go away and find more evidence to disprove what he, and increasingly only he, believed. On his Talk page he has continued this behaviour. He has continued posting, in this case a catalogue of what he saw as evil sins against him. I posted there, suggesting that he give himself a holiday. He politely thanked me, and just kept posting. Sadly, I saw a distinctly different and ironic meaning in his heading "In desperate need of help please" to the one I'm sure he intended. DeFacto sees no problem in his behaviour. I doubt that any of us here can convince him that there is a problem. He must remain blocked because of the damage he has done (and continues to do), but we cannot reasonably expect a sudden acceptance of fault and reversal of direction. He should also be blocked on his Talk page. I strongly doubt that he can stop doing what he is doing voluntarily. A block there (presumably of some limited time - maybe a month or two) will be good for both Wikipedia and Defacto in the long term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse Action: by both Drmies and LB in the context of this editor's recent history. However as one of its primary subjects, (see above) I didn't find the history matirx very objectionable. We all know that NPA doesn't apply to discussing admins. I also think it's time to close the block review above and put an end to the drama around this editor. I'm sure Defacto will want to have any closing admin's action reviewed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto's user talk page block reveview

I'm guessing that DeFacto would also like to have the usage block on his/her own talk page reviewd. DaftEco (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you would know that, or why you would think that ... except, that based on the timing of the creation of this account, it's similarity in name (DaftEco = DeFacto), and the fact you only are editing related to this issue - with no apparent understanding of any of the policies surrounding it - I have blocked as per WP:DUCK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)