Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

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

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)

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)

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 [1])
• User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 [2])
• 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) [3]
• One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper [4]
• My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage [5]
• His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
• Only one edit [6] 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 [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. 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 [12], [13], [14]. Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. 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 [21], [22], 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 [23]. 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)

DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) persistently fails to cite sources at articles Unitary National Liberation Front and Yugoslav Partisans. BoDu (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? GiantSnowman 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

...and this requires immediate blocking? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]... BoDu (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like attempted retaliation by BoDu due to his recent blocking for repeated unsourced edits on the Draza Mihailovic and Chetniks articles. Thought it was worth mentioning. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't help but note that User:FkpCascais, who has been previously contacted by BoDu [29] regarding this, and has a history on the articles BoDu was edit-warring on, is simultaneously lobbying to have his topic ban removed on grounds of "admin abuse" (see above). I speculate they've concluded that had they acted together, they could have gotten away with enforcing their changes by edit-warring.

I want to state for the record I'm fairly certain User:FkpCascais will resume his edit-warring very quickly upon the expiration of his topic ban. -- Director (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Both BoDu and DIREKTOR have been edit warring at the Unitary National Liberation Front article, but it has died down now. I'd advise both editors to go & edit other articles for a while. GiantSnowman 09:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I've noticed you're being constantly contacted by FkpCascais and BoDu. I'm not implying they've impeded your objectivity in this matter, but I feel its kind of irregular - we're not talking to anyone. I'm sure you realize there's a bit more to this?

BoDu decided to start about a half-dozen intensive edit wars simultaneously, against three other editors. The edits were simply outrageous in that they deleted well referenced info (and succeed in keeping it deleted through incessant reverting). BoDu had the gall to actually cite WP:BRD in support of his edit-warring, in the sense that when this sourced info was added at some point (years ago when the template was created), it was done without a talkpage consensus and therefore he has the "right" to revert it indefinitely unless there is a consensus on the talkpage ("WP:BRD has no time limit"). Great stuff, right? With that "logic" one could justify reverting every single piece of information on Wikipedia. Of course, he did not consider three other opposing users sufficient to satisfy his perceptions of a "consensus". When asked to provide a source for his changes he actually falsified references, listing random page numbers and apparently hoping noone would check [30].

He finally got blocked for this, and now that he was unblocked "on parole" (a grave error imo), his first order of business is to harass me and others by posting these sort of reports. He probably thinks "I got him blocked", just like User:FkpCascais holds others responsible for his topic ban ("they got me topic-banned"). -- Director (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Pardon my outburst above, its my last post on this thread. I certainly agree to move away from the article in question. In fact I edit it very rarely anyway. -- Director (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, this is about WP:OR:"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.". In my opinion, administrators should remove the original research by User:DIREKTOR, and then warn him that a block will be applied, if he again returns the unsourced material. BoDu (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't make content decisions in articles. If you have a content disagreement with another editor you should discuss it with them, and if necessary follow the steps outlined at WP:DR. I see nothing requiring admin attention here. EyeSerene^talk 11:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Direktor - no, you HAVE implied that my objectivity has been influenced and I'd like an apology please. I've advised you BOTH to edit elsewhere, and I reiterate that.

BoDu - don't like what's on the article? Take it to the talk page or WP:DR should you need to. GiantSnowman 11:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've Afd'd Unitary National Liberation Front as it lacks any references. Nobody Ent 11:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman. That was certainly not my intention, and if it was perceived as such I do sincerely apologize. As you've pointed out very accurately, you've in no way displayed any sort of bias, and I am (and was) aware of that. Why would I make such an implication? -- Director (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Through some discussions on my talk page about FkpCascais's topic ban I became aware of this case here. BoDu (talk · contribs) was recently blocked per ARBMAC for a dispute on other articles and as a condition of his unblocking he agreed to follow the DR process. Diving right back into an edit war may have violated that so I have notified the blocking admin to chime in. My take on the case it it seems both parties are at fault here: the article has no references but changing unreferenced material with further unreferenced material is de facto battlegrounding and subject to ARBMAC sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the link here, Wgfinley! Personally, I do think BoDu has violated his unblocking agreement – he was unblocked on the 28.02 and agreed to follow WP:DR; instead, he escalated one of the content disputes he was involved here, by starting a thread here.

That said, I agree with Wgfinley that both parties are at fault here, however. I don't know what the best approach to this issue would be, frankly. In my opinion, a topic ban on both BoDu and Direktor does not appear unwarranted... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano, I did not violate the unblocking agreement because:

1. I did not revert any edits at all

2. there is no time limit when should I open discussion on WP:DR

3. According to WP:DE persistent fails to cite sources can be reported on this noticeboard BoDu (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio, I don't want to seem like I am persistently supporting Direktor, I barely know the guy and I forget which dispute I started getting involved with him another another editor I won't name. However, this seems to me a case of someone drowning and pulling whomever they can down with them.--v/r - TP 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Direktor is a good user and he's often right policywise, but sometimes he shows a problematic battleground mentality. When I blocked BoDu, I was about to also impose a revert restriction on Direktor, because he had been edit warring just as much as BoDu, but, in the end, I opted not to... Direktor and BoDu edit in a very difficult area; I believe they'd both profit from a short break... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Um.. the edit war is long over and done with, at least for my part. I withdrew about a week ago (well before you blocked BoDu) [31], and I certainly have no intention of playing BoDu's game again. Punitive sanctions? And no I don't think I would particularly benefit from being effectively blocked. Interestingly, though, as I stated on my talkpage two days ago [32], I'm going on Wikibreak anyway (I've only postponed it because one of the smaller articles I mostly wrote has an afd, and because of this thread). -- Director (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rejedef and European geography

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").[33][34] 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)

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

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: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]).

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)

Honorsteem again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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.[42] 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. 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)

MOS madness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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,[43] 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,[44][45][46] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extension of topic ban for BB

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)

• 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)

• 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 [47] 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)

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 ([48]) and The Cat Returns article ([49])), 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: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. 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)

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)

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 [56]
• 77.42.137.61 [57], [58]
• 77.42.189.248 [59]

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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice

The discussion at AFD, here [60] and here [61] 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 [62]. 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 ([63]).--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 ([64]) 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 [65] 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 ([66]) 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([67]) 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)

X!'s accounts locked

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)

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. [68]. 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. 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 [[69]] 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: [[70]]. User:liamfoley also uses the term "bona fide" in a subsequent post: [[71]].

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. 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)

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: [72] 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)

User:Lapianoisrael

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. 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" [73], 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 [74], 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)

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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation

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)

Request for topic ban for Prioryman

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

Pikachu virus

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)

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[75] 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.[76] The article looks like self-promotion to me too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 01:44, 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)

User:Itismesoleavemypagealone

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)