Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

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").[1][http%3A%2F%2Ftoolserver%2Eorg%2F~snottywong%2Fcgi-bin%2Fusersearch%2Ecgi%3Fname%3DRejedef%26amp%3Bpage%3DTalk%253AEurope%26amp%3Bserver%3Denwiki%26amp%3Bmax%3D100] Since he has caused disruption repeatedly now, I would suggest reporting him at WP:AE under WP:DIGWUREN, so that he can be given a logged notification of discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He's also the guy who created the hoax-y Zapihanha article about a traditional Mazovian dish made out of avocados and bananas. There's some weirdness going on here.VolunteerMarek 06:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling with how much to say, because unfortunately a lot of my interaction with Rejedef came via email. You can see from his log and the talk page history that I blocked him for 24 on 30 December 2011 for edit warring (block notification diff) on Eastern Europe and Western Europe. As I say there, there was no 3RR breach, but there was consistent edit warring while a talk page discussion was ongoing, especially problematic in that there was at least a clear temporary consensus against Rejedef's additions. The edit warring resumed after the block, so I blocked again on 4 January 2012 (block notifaction diff), this time for 1 week. After that there substantial conversations by email, that I would like to reveal the broad topics of, but probably shouldn't without Rejedef's permission. You can get an idea of the types of issues being raised by the comment in the diff above about how xe asserted an absolute right to blank xyr page per EU law. Those conversations also made it clear to me that I could not help Rejedef, so I've tried to remain hands off since. I do find the recent changes to be a problem, because there appears to be pretty aggressive POV pushing across a wide variety of articles. I simply don't understand this idea that calling a food, a country, an event, etc. "Eastern European" is an insult...but my feeling is that no matter what, we need to use what reliable sources say. I don't know enough about the literature on Europe overall to know what the proper name is for any given instance, but my general impression (just from reading newspapers and general books on history) is that it is not the case that Eastern Europe is somehow a deprecated term, or that there is some well-defined and regularly used term "Central Europe". It never occurred to me that this is a DIGWUREN issue, and if others agree that it is, I strongly encourage the issue be brought up. If someone needs the information, I am willing to send copies of the emails (w/o any private details) privately to a highly trusted admin or Arbcom member. A small note though--there's a good chance I will have only minimal access to Wikipedia for the next 36 hours or so. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know much about WP:DIGWUREN, so I'd feel more comfortable is someone else followed up on this. Can anyone here do so? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The terms both Western and Eastern Europe are very imprecise, according to many scholars (in Discussion page both in W and E Europe articles). Also, they are subtly racial slurs, especially the latter. This is why they are being changed into more precise expressions, particularly when instead of mentioning E Europe, actually one or two countries are meant which makes the article imprecise. I am trying to leave Wikipedia so please let me do it. I really wish if it would be possible. Unfortunately it isn't. My nickname will be illegally (in EU's law) processed by Wikipedia, apparently. --Rejedef (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that you do consider the term "Eastern Europe" to be a "racial slur". Which "race" do you think is being "slurred" by this term? Jayjg

(talk) 02:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While there's some contention around what central Europe is, Western and Eastern are pretty well defined as are the Baltics. "Eastern European" is hardly a slur. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rejedef writes that he has been trying to leave wikipedia, but has still been making unsourced POV-pushing edits to articlea including Europe yet again. His belief that "Eastern European" is some kind of ethnic slur has been affecting his edits to articles. In November 20111 he took up a lot of time on Talk:Europe with this issue and that problem has not been solved at the moment. Since the diruption has not stopped, I will file a report at WP:AE under WP:Eastern Europe. Mathsci (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Racism does not anly relate to race but also ethnic origin et alia. The Slavic-speaking populations are being discriminated. Resources can be found in the report made my mathsci. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 02:41, 5 March 2012‎ (UTC)
  • No reasonable person would ever consider "Eastern European" to be any sort of slur whatsoever. And if there are "resources", you must present them yourself, here, not say "go hunt them down". - The Bushranger _{[[User talk:|One ping only]]} 06:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejedef, if you wish to leave Wikipedia, simply stop posting. If you wish to "disappear" from Wikipedia, follow the instructions in WP:Right to vanish. The fact that you refuse to do so, yet continue making significant changes that appear to be against consensus and possibly POV, indicates to me that you actually have no desire or intention to vanish. It simply doesn't make sense that because we're not disappearing you the way you want that that somehow compels you to keep making the changes you want. I don't know if you don't understand or don't care, but it literally is impossible for anyone other than a bureacrat to do the vanishing. It's very easy--all you have to do is send one email. Basically, you have to chose: simple stop editing, vanish, or be subject to all of our policies--including WP:Consensus. As I have advised you before, if you believe you have some rights according to some EU treaty/law/agreement, you'll have to take that up with the Wikimedia Foundation, probably through either a lawyer or a government agency--none of us here can either tell you if your right or even do anything about it if you are. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There are many resources that will prove you are wrong, The Bushranger - you need to have a proof. have a proof that it is a slur, and it is not only me who thinks that way: http://www.ucm.es/info/antrosim/docs/BuchowskiMichal_The_Specter_Orientalism_In_Europe.pdf

Well, I'm addicted to wikipedia. I asked already to delete me, or to deal with all the hassle, but my request was ignored. It's also uneasy to see so clear bias and errors in so many articles. Please note that my right to vanish includes the right to vanish my nickname wherever it occurred on Wikipedia, in accordance to the EU law. --Rejedef (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The fly in that ointment is that Wikipedia's servers are located in the United States, not the EU. However if you wish to vanish, WP:RTV is how you do it. Which will also remove your username: A bureaucrat changes the username of the account to, for example, "Vanished User 1.". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

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.[2] 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)

He was blocked initially for (in part) WP:HOUNDing me, and subsequently re-blocked for, in part, doing the same. He's now asking to be unblocked so that he can initiate an WP:RFC/U on me.[3] I think there's a fundamental disconnect here between the purpose of Wikipedia (creating an encyclopedia) and Honorsteem's own reasons for editing it (WP:BATTLE/pursuing a grudge). Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Honorsteem explicitly stated, on his own user page, that he was undertaking a WP:CLEANSTART ([4]) contradicts his claims that he was not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

MOS madness

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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,[5] 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,[6][7][8] 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per the diff above, Bugs was topic banned for one month from AN/I on 8th February, except for matters here directly concerning him. He brought the report above which clearly does not directly concern him (never mind its lack of support from others) and really this couldn't be a clearer case of a topic ban violation. I really like Bugs' contributions but AN and AN/I have been a more orderly place this last few weeks. Propose an extension of the topic ban for a further month from today. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 00:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. The complaint is about an incredibly trivial issue, but presented in an incredibly over-the-top manner that exemplifies why Bugs was compelled to take a break from AN(/I) in the first place. I would also endorse an extension of more than one month, given that the original topic ban seems to have done very little to reduce Bugs' taste for drama. (Honestly, a trivial move request is unopposed for a week, Favonian closes the unanimous request and carries it out, and suddenly we need to desysop him for doing something that seems to follow the instructions in the Manual of Style—really?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse I like bugs too but there's no choice here. Not only does the complaint not directly affect him but it seems far away from something requiring admin attention. On top of that it's just plain rude; if this is indicative of an action that makes one unfit to be an admin the I dare say we'll have no admins soon enough. N^oformation ^Talk 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It was a *self imposed* topic ban. So he broke a promise, that is not a reason for a ban extension. We all sometimes make promises we don't keep because of our habits (just think of our New Year's resolutions, which are often negated within two weeks after the year's beginning). Not to mention politicians breaking their promises on a daily basis. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - A self imposed topic ban is unenforcable. Trying to institute a true ban in this instance would be equivalent to proposing a full siteban for someone who retired and then came back and resumed editing later. Night Ranger (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment If it was self imposed, I'd prefer the action taken here to be to convert it to a community sanction, but not extend the length. At the same time, follow it with a "good behaviour bond" where it can be reimposed by any admin (with escalating lengths) if Bugs is judged to have overstepped the mark again. I'd like to think it was a one off and Bugs can demonstrate better self restraint in future. Begoon ^talk 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Bugs should have sat out the entirety of the ban, and chose a fairly trivial conflict to return, but a self-imposed ban cannot be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that BMK and several others take this view; a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all. By this reasoning, anyone can self-impose a ban to get the community off their back, then come back at any time they please with impunity. If this does develop as consensus I shall never be satisfied with voluntary, self-imposed bans on people in the future but will always pursue discussions to a community-enforced decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• There are always other options - WP:RFC/U and WP:ARBCOM being the two most obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• @Kim: Here is my understanding: the community was considering a topic ban for Bugs in regards to AN/I, but that failed when he agreed to a self-imposed ban. The community did not have to accept that, they could have gone ahead with the community ban. If this instance, they did accept it, and Bugs has apparently broken that self-imposed ban. The community now has the option to, once again, consider a community-imposed ban, but there is nothing it can do about a self-imposed ban which is not carried through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - It was self-imposed...but it was self-imposed to end a ban discussion in progress early. Violating a self-imposed ban shouldn't mean a ban (unless that's part of the agreement), but reopening the discussion could be an option. --Onorem♠Dil 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• comment - it was also self-imposed after the unblock. IJS — Ched :  ?  04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Since it was voluntary, no red card, this time. Bumping up to two months would really be better.
  The high volume of gadfly participation on pages such as this one is unhelpful; it results in a frothy mixture of jokes and bullshit that perpetuates a vicious cycle of drama. Alarbus (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  But it was voluntary because the community was already favoring a topic ban for him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  I commented in the prior discussion; even re-read my typo. By no red card I meant no block for the noise over an 'i'. I'm all for less noise from such users. Alarbus (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Kim is quite right: a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all, and it would be not only quite reasonable for the question to go back to the discussion of an imposed topic ban, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude from this that Bugs' word is no good, and that he cannot be trusted to deal in good faith. That being said, said discussion was nowhere near a consensus for a ban, and was running not a whole lot better than a simple majority in favor. In any event, it would be horribly abusive to endorse enforcing and extending a "ban" that the community never approved in the first place. I am quite sympathetic with editors tired of the drama, but as with most other areas of the encyclopedia, if you cannot gain a consensus supporting your POV - however worthy and true you're convinced that POV is - your POV does not prevail. Ravenswing 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bugs is rooly cool on IRC. Anyone who is so funny and makes fun of stuff I don't like and stuff must be perfect to build an encyclopaedia.101.118.20.230 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Effectively, the wrong thing has been asked here. You cannot extend a self-imposed topic ban. However, you COULD have asked for the community to impose a topic ban. None of the !votes above mean squat because the question was the wrong one. As my friend's daughter says "No, try again!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think that semantic arguments cut much ice here. Bugs offered a one-month topic ban (however 'voluntary') as an alternative to more serious sanctions; note the closing summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#Baseball Bugs - Block review and topic ban discussion. Given that the above thread demonstrates both a failure to keep his word and (more seriously) a failure to avoid the sort of inflammatory and pointless rhetoric that led to the first ban discussion, it seems like the original question – should Bugs be banned from these boards – is back before us. Regardless of the precise circumstances of Bugs' original departure from these noticeboards, the intent and meaning of the question before the community in this thread is clear. Casually dismissing the comments above on a legalism is missing the point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: Ahem ... "casually?" There is nothing "casual" about my stance, sir, nor was my POV hastily chosen or delivered. I do the honor of presuming that those who disagree with me do so because they believe in their stance, and don't choose to insult them for it. Would you care to exercise some AGF in your own right? Ravenswing 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  Your comment would make more sense had I been replying to your original remark, and not to Bwilkin's casual dismissal. TenOfAllTrades

(talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins didn't say anything I didn't, and I see nothing in his remarks which can be construed as casually thought up. Ravenswing 13:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• support community imposed indefinite topic ban from all administrator notice boards (except when notified by others that his input is needed)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  your parenthetical is gameable; anyone could ask for his input. Anyway, I support the direction you're suggesting; indef imposed dramaboard ban. Alarbus (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support new or existing implicit ban. User accused an admin of being unfit for changing the case of a single letter in a single article title after a week long discussion in which both participants agreed to the move. Nobody Ent 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support whether it is new or an extension. What was he thinking? This should include all administrator notice boards as per Maunus. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support extension/imposition of one more month on AN* topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support frankly I'm not sure it would be a bad thing to make it indefinite and for him to show a change of behaviour before it is lifted - this move request seems entirely legitimate. With regards to complaints about the ban not being formal, maybe it should. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • With regards to [9] a claim of stonewalling well within 24 hours? That seems more than a tad unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. People have lives outside of Wikipedia... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Baseball Bugs has demonstrated, not for the first time, that he needs a break from drama boards (or, we need the break, if that phrasing is preferred). Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• support with caveat excuse my attempt to start this discussion on the AN noticeboard. I noticed the top part had been closed and didn't scroll down enough to catch this one. The little dramatic and insulting close in the middle really seals it for me, though honestly a month is not enough. He promised a month and couldn't stay away that long. Simply forcing him to stay away a month is really insufficient. What we've learned over the last month before he came back, is as some described, that somethings were easier to deal with without his input. As such this really should be a much longer ban, at least a year.--Crossmr (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per prior reasoning and that this effort did not have consensus in the past, thus the second bite at the apple is counter-intuitive entirely. Collect (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

  The previous discussion was abandoned because of his self-imposed topic ban. Which he's gone back on. This isn't a second bite at the apple so much as it is picking it back up because we thought it would be fine when it wasn't. 40 supports vs 27 opposes, is more than borderline to begin with. There was no attempt to previously finish generating that consensus or even evaluating it because of his offer.--Crossmr (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is picking up the previous discussion? In which case, not only should that be explicitly stated - preferably by Kim - but those editors who previously registered their opinions should strike their votes here, as well. Ravenswing 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• My original post to start this thread was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a self-imposed ban was exactly like a community-imposed ban, and should not be broken without consequences. I don't think it would be right for me to now make any alteration to that proposal, because obviously it would cast into confusion everyone's support or opposition. So just to amplify what I thought I was proposing at the start: Bugs was under a ban (albeit a self-imposed one), broke the term of it egregiously and we are discussing resetting the clock - but this time with the reset imposed by the community rather than Bugs himself. We are not (in my mind) continuing the previously suspended discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• My point was the first discussion was never properly concluded because of Bugs' actions. He can't get away with avoiding a ban or discussion by shutting down a previous discussion by offering to stop the behaviour, then going back on the promise, then trying to claim double jeopardy because he knee-capped the previous discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It is best if BB leaves this board alone, and so we convert this to a community ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If only to counter sort of momentum of the "vote" directly above this one. A community ban? Get yer good shoes on for that one, Graeme. Doc talk 09:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think Graeme meant a "community AN topic ban", rather than a "community ban". I think I lost it in the translation, and I struck my last comment accordingly. I think Bugs' topic ban was meant to deal with what many feel is a long-standing issue with him excessively commenting on pre-existing threads that have nothing to do with him at all; not bringing up new ones (though this one was pretty horridly though out, Bugs) or commenting where he was already mentioned. The writing may be on the wall here, but I do like Bugs even though many don't. It's not a popularity contest, right? He's not ever gonna run for adminship, I betcha ;P Doc talk 09:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Now you're not very clear. You claimed to be opposing it simply because you thought Graeme was advocating for a community ban, which you've realized is not the case. Since that seemed to be your only objection, are your for or against the topic ban of Bugs from this board and AN?--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• And while you say "its not a popularity contest" you also say "I like Bugs" - which isn't really consistent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In context, "community" contrasts with "self-imposed," specifying the agent of the proposed ban, not its scope. Nobody Ent 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to explain my "vote" any further, and I don't see many "Supports" getting a lot of comments compared to the "Opposes". I oppose the topic ban, and 15-9 is not a strong consensus. Doc talk 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

if someone says "I oppose this only because the nominator is wearing blue pants" and the nominator says "I'm actually wearing red pants", we'd need further clarification to your position. You clearly stated above that you were opposing it solely for a reason that was found to be false. Graeme wasn't advocating what you thought he was, so if you've put that forth as your sole reason, it's reasonable that someone may question it and seek clarification. Strong is a matter of opinion, WP:CONSENSUS contains no percentages--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"I think Bugs' topic ban was meant to deal with what many feel is a long-standing issue with him excessively commenting on pre-existing threads that have nothing to do with him at all; not bringing up new ones..." That is my reason. Doc talk 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• oppose - the self imposed restriction was not created to stop BB from bringing issues of his own that he feels require admin attention. Youreallycan 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't really think a closure of a discussion that involved changing an I to an i with a unanimous consensus needed to be bought to administrator attention so quickly that even if it wasn't let go it couldn't be discussed on the closing admins talk page first... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. I get the feeling there was some historic that perhaps BB was more reacting in a straw that broke the camels back manner. Prolly didn't need reporting, but debatable if it violated his restriction imo. - Youreallycan 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- the schtick is old and the drama is counterproductive. Cut it off at the knees. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Crikey - the suggestion is for a months extension, not for any kind of cutting off at the knees - Youreallycan 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As I have said before, BB does not improve the climate here on AN* --Guerillero | My Talk 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to me that I was the one in closest discussion with Bugs when he agreed to step aside for a month, and not once for a second, then or still, did I ever envision it preventing Bugs from bringing forward a genuine complaint. The topic ban part was about Bugs getting in on other (sometimes every single other) threads and mot moving things forward with his contributions. He hasn't gone back to that. Bugs is just as free as anyone else though, to bring forward fresh problems (like spotting a sock) or complaints - even if people find them bogus. In this case there is some substance to the complaint too, where 2 people decide to change something, an admin closes it, and it becomes the new "consensus" version untouchable without another RM. That's wrong, but not sufficient of itself for a desysop, so Bugs was asking for the wrong thing, as many others do also. But Uncle G's advice about the real problem being the MOS-fetishists is sound, so the thread directed the OP in the right way. So it wsan't even that bad of an AN/I thread. I won't support a "no person, no problem" response here. Franamax (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment

FWIW, extending a self-imposed ban (which only Bugs can do) an extra month or imposing a 1-month ban, adds up to the same thing - the ban ending in early April. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to close?

I opened this thread nearly 48 hours ago and would have no objection to it being closed now. I think I count 15 editors in favour of my proposal to make a community-enforced extension of one month to Bugs' original self-imposed topic ban here. I count 9 against. This is clearly a majority and I hope Bugs takes note of that and of the strong feeling his premature return here caused. Whether it is a sufficiently large majority for the closer to declare a consensus is much more debatable and I won't argue whatever the decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trolling of Talk:Hezbollah

We've got some joker apparently using multiple IPs to re-post an inflammatory comment on the talkpage.

• 77.42.224.194 [10]
• 77.42.137.61 [11], [12]
• 77.42.189.248 [13]

I thought it worth mentioning here as the editor has been careful in using the three accounts so possibly has some awareness how AIV works. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how they are inflammatory? The person I was having a discussion with didn't seem to mind, and there are far worse things written on that talk page. And perhaps It didn't cross your mind that I have a dynamic IP address and I'm not "a vandal trying to escape ban through multiple accounts"--77.42.189.248 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Please read them. Arab-Israeli conflict topic area is already bad enough. I don't think your comment helped. If you are concerned about the neutrality of article content you can help to improve it. Your comment won't achieve anything. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Inflammatory" is an exaggeration, and "trolling" is a strong word. Keeping all personal opinion from talk pages is a futile exercise. I agree with Sean, but I see no need here for administrator intervention. Suriel, I think the phantom you're chasing is one of your own imagination. Next matter, please. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice

The discussion at AFD, here [14] and here [15] 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 [16]. 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 ([17]).--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 ([18]) 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 [19] 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 ([20]) 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([21]) a few dots for me (Doc, my talk page), the COI sounds waaaay more plausible. Almost everything he has edited is connected, plus being not willing to deny or confirm that he works for the company. Doesn't change my other points, but more reasons why he is more of a liability than an asset. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good research--glad I brought this here. If it can be established that these accounts are related, the long term intransigence of this editor is clarified. What would then be an appropriate follow-up? 99.136.255.180 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see much that is blockable at this moment on the whole (considering there's been no disruption to truly warrant a block right now, IMHO). I think Cat's stepping away from this topic area for a time would be advisable, in lieu of any serious answer to the COI concerns. But with my experience in these matters, I fear that Cat may stop editing altogether. I hope this isn't the case, personally, as COI editing is not always an automatically bad thing. Doc talk 08:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have a harsher perspective. At the minimum, a topic ban for Chris Innis and any family member or affiliated company is justified, and an explanation of when to mark edits as "minor" and when not to. And while COI editing is not automatically a bad thing, it always is when someone is asked if they have a COI and they won't respond in an honest and open fashion. The fact that they have not responded in this discussion doesn't help their case in my eyes (they have edited elsewhere since this discussion started). Surely, that should count for something. I don't think Cat is stupid, they seem to be pushing it just far enough but staying on this side of an obvious ban, in order to protect their own interests. I'm not worried about losing them, as I don't think their contributions outweigh their disruptive behavior. I keep mentioning competence, not as an insult but as the reality that I still don't think the editor is capable of participating without controversy, and every talk page demonstrates this. The time spent discussing this, and if he stays, monitoring his contributions, could be better spent on worthwhile areas of the project. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. This proves everything I was saying. These two admins are desperately trying to gin up false accusations, and in my opinion, violating Wikipedia policy in doing so. They have been harassing this user and now are trying to reveal the indentity of this user using COI as an excuse (which is yet another violation). They have shown a lack of willingness to collaborate or to "not bite" new articles. It is their duty as admins to try to work in a harmonious way with other users. The reason I don't typically use a lot of talk pages on articles is that most of my contributions have not been controversial. You can see my history that there is a sea of "green" positive entries, where I have helped to improve articles of many different types. Ckatz mentions the dwarf planet page and accuses me of making changes to it. It came to my attention that he was in an edit war on that page, and it is clear by the page's talk page and history that the edit war has been ongoing for probably more than a year now (if you want to talk about bad behaviour, check it out -- has nothing to do with me). I merely agreed with others that an edit war was on going and that a POV tag was needed on that article. My only contribution was that POV tag. By the way, that tag had been previously and recently placed on the Dwarf Planet article by another user and then the date and tag was updated by yet another user, that's TWO PEOPLE who mentioned that the edit war had been going on since as far back as September (I think it's actually older). Ckatz had then removed that tag entirely, which I believe is a conflict of interest violation, since he is an admin himself who is personally involved in the edit war on that Dwarf Planet page. I believe admins are supposed to recuse themselves from getting involved in debates which they have a personal interest, like this one actually. You can see that there is some strange need for these guys to punish this user and they are trying desperately to gin up false accusations to warrant this rash behavior. Frankly, their behavior scares me more. As admins they have to be above the fray. They are not supposed to be kicking over bee hives. I feel threatened and harassed by these guys and their recent behavior, so I apologize if the Afd discussion got heated. I am sorry about that. All apologies. Delete the article if it means so much to these guys to do so. You have to admit, Doc, that their voraciousness to delete this article of all possible articles, is itself questionable and might be evidence of stalking, which is grounds for admins to lose their priviledges. The quote on my talk page by Jimmy Wales was to prove the point that someone with admins tools does not make them more "special" than anyone else. Using their tools to try to thwart the good contributions of good users is an abuse. I am a good user. I make positive contributions. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Which two admins are you speaking of? I'm not clear on that point. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I thought quite a while ago that Cat mistakenly believes you (Dennis) are an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've twice before said I wasn't and hope he would believe that by now, but he might have been referring to Ckatz and JamesBWatson or perhaps someone else, I just didn't want to assume and felt clarity was needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think Cat's response is as noteworthy for what it says as what it doesn't say. What it says: lashes out at admins yet again, worldwide conspiracy against him, "I am not a crook". What it doesn't say: does he have any connection to (possiible conflict with) the articles he edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nor admit any over-reaction, indicating a belief that previous behavior should be viewed as "normal". Dennis Brown (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "...are trying to reveal the indentity of this user using COI as an excuse...". If there were no possible COI, there would be no possible identity of anyone that could be revealed, I would think. I do not think that Catpowerzzz is a "bad" user; but I do think they need to invest more time in edits not related to the subjects mentioned. It's a huge wiki! Doc talk 01:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just can't agree. Telling editors they are gangbanging a female director? Accusing an admin of being a sock of another user? Constantly accusing others of ganging up? I have yet to see these issues addressed, no warning, nothing. All I can assume is that would indicate this is acceptable by Wikipedia standards. I've been here a long time, I'm pretty sure they are not. The difs are above, I wont relist them. At the very least, a topic ban for anything Chris Innis or family related. Otherwise, we are condoning this kind of behavior. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding the "gangbanging a female director" -- which diff is that? Nobody Ent 02:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"...women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors."[22] Doc talk 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes that's over the top. Nobody Ent 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really the one that broke this camel's back, and the impetus for me to start discussion here. But Dennis Brown is right. We give a lot of leeway to users who generally mean well, but this is beyond the pale. And if this is indeed the same user as in the stale accounts mentioned above, there's a longterm pattern of disruption when they don't get their way. Anyone else note the similarities? [23] 99.136.255.180 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just a correction re "I believe admins are supposed to recuse themselves from getting involved in debates which they have a personal interest". Admins are not allowed to use admin tools in issues where they have partaken in a content disagreement (like blocking editors or protecting pages), but providing they do not use admin tools, they're as entitled as any other editor to get involved in content debates. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• On several occasions he has commented on how admins are held to a higher standard, shouldn't "bite new articles"[24] (?), shouldn't get involved, etc. as a rationale for jumping on me. The kicker is, I'm not an admin, and he has been told this a total of three times now. His understanding (and outright hostility) of the role of admins (and policies in general) is misguided. Like many editors, he seems to cherry pick sentences in the guidelines rather than read them as a whole. He has been here since 2009, albeit sporadically, but still long enough to know better. Surely he is on his best behavior since this dicussion started, but his conversations [25] are still confrontational. I literally can not find but a couple instances of any talk page contributions that isn't snarky at best. I still maintain this is a competence issue and that the user is incapable of participating in discussion without claiming others are "ganging up" or similar aggressive speech. Not malice, but his nature, and again, you can't fix this. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion has clearly being pushed too far. Dennis Brown left this comment on his talk page about me, ""when you see someone standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push" That feels like a threat to me. I don't think that it is funny. I hope Wikipedia is taking this seriously. These guys have been given far too much power to harass and vex. whether that is admins powers or rollback powers. This issue should have been resolved on the talk page of the article itself, not on Afd and not here. Instead Dennis Brown nominated the article for deletion, which is supposed to be the last resort, not the first. Ckatz is now making suggestions all over Wikipedia trying to "out" this user's identity, naming names of three or four people he is "guessing" that it might be. That is in violation of Wikipedia's rules, especially for admins. Now, he and Dennis Brown are going to ANI in another attempt to harass and vex this user to "push me over a cliff", so to speak, per Dennis' threat because they haven't gotten their way on Afd. Is that a death threat? If so, I think Wikipedia should consider a permanent ban on user Dennis Brown. Death threats should not be tolerated, in any way, shape or form. Nothing I have said or done with regard to this discussion rises to the level of harassment I am receiving. I think both users Dennis Brown and Ckatz need a break from Wikipedia, frankly. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• When making a claim, it is best to include a diff or a link [26] for context. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I brought the matter here. The attempt to frame the aforementioned discussion as a death threat is hideous, but I gather it's the way Catpowerzzz does business when challenged. The unanswered issues of COI and smearing of other editors are compounded by this kind of nonsense, which is the standard deflection of accountability, redirecting it against contributors who are following guidelines. When I began this discussion it was with a level of concern; that's only been amplified. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think it should be questioned why the above anonymous account (99.136.255.180 talk) just suddenly was created in February of this year, during this dispute, and why they are so involved in this discussion now. Just saying... This account is clearly not the account of a "new user" but clearly shows signs of being an experienced Wikipedia user with a super aggressive agenda. Anonymous, care to identify yourself? Did you just go to use another person's computer and IP address to hide that you are really a sockpuppet of one of the people who have already chimed in here? - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IPs are not accounts, and not created. Some anon's IP address changed; he even identifies some of his previous IP addresses on the talk page so you can get some history; you're right it's not a new user; and it's not pretending to be. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, because I've had enough of this crap--you'll just continue casting aspersions until you're blocked. Now why don't you be a dear and address the multiple issues you've evaded answering? JNW (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• He just left talk on my talk page [27] that demonstrates it as well. He still seems to think I am an admin, and seems to think I am the person that submitted it to ANI. (Admins are free to checkuser me anytime without cause, permission granted.) And that I am getting my buddies to gang up, telling Doc to "be careful" (since he is a known troublemaker....), etc. I politely asked him to restrict conversations regarding this one event to this forum. Again, I believe him 100%, claims that I have a conspiracy, that I am making death threats, that this is an orchestrated and premeditated effort to silence him by a larger group. Catpowerzzz really believes these things are true. You might not want to believe it, but Cat's own words are the only evidence you need, left day after day. This is why I keep bringing up the concern about his having the ability to participate here. Good intentions are not enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I'm asking you politely to please stop all of this nonsense. You submitted the article for deletion, end of story. If it is deletable, they'll delete it, if it is a keeper, then they'll keep it. Let it go. It's not an article you created, so I don't see why you are so obsessed with it (or why you are so obsessed with me, for that matter, either). It's not up to either one of us at this point. Now you are taking it even further by questioning my competence and ability? It's overkill. It's beyond the pale and it is making you and Wikipedia look bad, not me. So please stop. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, differences aside, can I offer a neutral suggestion? Could you please take a few moments and personally review all of the posts, accusations and assertions that you have made with regard to this matter? Once you've done so, could you then ask yourself if they truly reflect what has been going on, or if they even remotely fit with the collaborative nature of this project? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ckatz, I don't want to discuss this with you or Dennis anymore. I see what you guys are doing. You are trying to get me to do something that would provoke a block or a ban. I'm not falling for it. I'm asking you and Dennis and the anonymous user account that was created recently 99.136.255.180 to stop. There is nothing more to discuss. This was a discussion on an article for deletion page and has no business in this forum. You guys can't "double indemnity" your way into ginning up a block or a ban on this user by trying to create more conflict. So please just stop. The article will either be deleted (in which case you'll get your way, at least temporarily) or not. That's not up to us. Let it go at that. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Catpowerzzz, you say you don't want to discuss it with me anymore, but 15 minutes later post again on my talk page([28]), after I politely asked you to not do so, and instead keep discussions on this page. I would agree that the time for discussion is likely over, everyone (including you) has had ample opportunity to express their concerns and their opinions as to the solution to the current situation. I don't see any possible "compromise", as there is no middle ground in this discussion, just two sides, and a conclusion yet to be determined. I do not envy the administrator who draws the short straw and has to close this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have attempted to work this out with Dennis Brown on his (talk) page. On his talk page, Dennis has said that he believes that I'm working in good faith and that he believes I'm making good contributions. Since he believes I was contributing in good faith, I've asked him (and others there) to stop making all of these comments and accusations. At this point, it seems like we might have this worked out and that this was just a misunderstanding between two users who were both trying to work in good faith. I am suggesting here (as I did on his talk page) that we both just "chill out" and walk away from the argument rather than continuing with accusations and/or duplicate ANI or Afd submissions for what is essentially the same argument/misunderstanding. Also considering that this ANI discussion was started by a recently created anonymous/unregistered account, I think this would be a good time and place for this discussion to end. : ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I regret to respond by saying I don't. I'd posit that the disruptions, these interminable threads and multiple accusations, have been produced by Catpowerzzz. I'm sorry, but I find the entire business manipulative--having invited me to shed my IP, which I've done because I didn't want any aspersions to stick to other editors, and at the expense of my own reasons for maintaining greater anonymity, the above account hasn't come close to responding to multiple inquiries, and now seeks a sort of absolution, if you will. Despite the glossing over, this is not about differences in opinion, but about an editor who has been persistently disruptive in the face of disagreement from numerous contributors, who just a few hours ago was imagining death threats and throwing around sockpuppet accusations. Competence is very much at issue, and I'm still requesting administrative assistance, much the same as I did when introducing this topic as an IP several days ago. JNW (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Again, To "Retired" user JNW (talk) who I am presuming is now taking credit for his anonymous postings that he posted as 99.136.255.180. I'm posting this also on the original Afd discussion: I did not try to "out" you. You chose to post anonymously yourself. I merely suggested that posting anonymously with an IP address gives the appearance that you are a sock puppet of another participant. Sorry, if that is not the case, that's just how it "looks." I think if you are going to jump in on discussions with such toxic accusations and ANI nominations, your argument would have had more weight had you been a registered user and not cloaked behind recently "retired" accounts and/or anonymous IP addresses. You mention on your retired user page that you contribute anonymously only "when vandalism" occurs. This is not vandalism. For your arguments to have any credibility, you need to either "un-retire" yourself or step away from the platform. This game appears to be over. Please do not try to "reignite" the debate with more fuel, thank you. Dennis Brown and I seem to be moving on. I hope you can do the same. Either that, or please go back into "retirement." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is not about JNW or 99's identity or IP address or status. It's about you; please don't try to cloud the issue. You're walking a thin line here: I personally think your contribution to this ANI discussion is already combative and disruptive enough. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice closed as delete. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Final reply, please? And I had twice previously asked you to not bring up the topic on my talk page, but on the third request, I went ahead and just answered to put this issue to rest. (anyone can go there and read, by all means) The disagreement is not between you and I. I didn't file this ANI report, someone else did. Your comments to me have been particularly accusatory and harsh, but the problem is bigger than you disagreeing with me. Your actions didn't affect me personally (I have thick skin) but they were highly disruptive to the entire community. I have no idea if you still think I'm an admin, after being told at least four times that I am not, but it shouldn't matter. I still stand by my original and continuing belief that Catpowerzzz is not capable of rationally cooperating in this type of environment. They are not capable of accepting responsibility for their actions or words. Catpowerzz has accused many people of many things, from "gangbanging" female directors, to be sockpuppets, to ganging up, conspiring and more. In all of this, and the volumes that they have written in this ANI, the AFD, and the various talk pages, not once have they admitted any culpability, not once have they tried to do anything except accuse those that disagree with them with various "crimes", and try to get me to "drop" this action (even though I tried to explain that I didn't start it, and I can't end it). Again.....it isn't about malice, it is about the editor genuinely believing the things they say, and yes WP:COMPETENT applies, as it doesn't matter what the cause of the disruption is, if it is disruption, AND the editor is incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing how their actions are disruptive, and yes, I believe Catpowerzz believes they haven't done anything wrong. Catpowerzz keeps clearly demonstrating they do not have the capability of restraining themselves (3rd time I've asked to keep this talk off my talk page....) Catpowerzzz isn't dumb, not in the least, but being an editor at Wikipedia requires more than factual knowledge and ability to add content to articles. I'm sorry Cat, it really isn't personal, but it is my opinion that you are simply not capable of working in an environment like Wikipedia, and yes, I am asking for drastic measures to insure you don't. Dennis Brown (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• It certainly seems to me, looking over the history a bit, that Catpowerzzz is one of those editors constitutionally incapable of ceding the last word to anyone; there are a few too many responses which boil down to "No, YOU stop talking first." That being said, look, Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either. Ravenswing 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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" [29], 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 [30], which of course carries the implication that anyone not lucky enough to make it onto *his and yours* "whitelist" is on some kind of a blacklist.VolunteerMarek 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The "vandal" template is not a "vandal" label, it is a template that offers several actions to admins; blocking, block log, abuse filter log, deleted contribs, logs, etc. I couldn't really come up with a better template, so I chose the "vandal" one. I repeat, I haven't labeled anyone as a vandal. PaoloNapolitano 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You might want to consider something from the {{user}} family of templates. Choess (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to {{userlinks}} on Paolo's behalf. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Per 28bytes, please delete the list. Nobody Ent 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. (My advice above notwithstanding, this is...provocative.) Choess (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated an RfC here. Feel free to comment or make your own statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaoloNapolitano (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather offensive that there's a whitelist section, which implies that all the distinguished Wikimedias not in it are not using it to "defend Wikipedia" or w/e it is. This page should be nuked, it serves no purpose other than be divisive, and in its current incarnation, fairly offensive too. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it will need MFD as the user appears to have no intention of requesting deletion themselves. - The list is clearly provocative and its a shame Prioryman chose to massively expand it after it was brought here for discussion. DCarbuncle raised his concerns with the creator of the page. Youreallycan 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan 23:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't. It was brought here for discussion by DC after I had reworked the list. Check the posting times. Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected - its still a shame you did that, and it only served to create more disruption. Youreallycan 23:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation (and impersonation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Paolo, I happen to be a fan of singer Amie Miriello. I could not fail to recognize her in the image on your user page, which appears to be the same as an image on her MySpace account. You uploaded it on Commons as File:Paoloandgirlfriend.jpg and you claim it as your own work. On your user page you caption it "Me and my girlfriend", although I think the person shown in the image is named "Drew", according to the information on MySpace. Can you explain? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

How entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please take it to the user's talk page instead. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is about PaoloN. I was about to propose an indef ban/WR topic ban for him here, but it looks like it may not be necessary.VolunteerMarek 22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So if I suddenly brought up something about DC here not directly related to Paolo's subpage about WR, it's acceptable. The image has been deleted from Commons and this subsection can now be closed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, DC. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict). No, part of PaoloN's obsession with WR stems from the fact that some people there noticed some sketchy stuff about the account and started sniffin' around. This section just confirms those suspcions, and hence is relevant. Of course, you can SPLIT off this section into a separate one, rather than a sub-section, but just because the image was quickly deleted on commons to hide the evidence is not sufficient reason to close.VolunteerMarek 23:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Come off it, it's obvious retaliation. This is SOP for DC. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You come off it. Speaking of SOP, once again you're trying to make a user who did something wrong - uploaded a copyrighted photo of someone else, pretending that it was him (Poetlister anyone?) - into some kind of a victim, simply because the person who pointed it out is someone you don't like. Sheesh.VolunteerMarek 23:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol.VolunteerMarek 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification (typing fast to avoid multiple ec's): I don't think PN is Poetlister, but that the "I'll pretend to be somebody - who is a person in real life - I'm not" is the same thing that PL got indef banned for.VolunteerMarek 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That is f..in hilarious - what a faker. - Hes nominated it for speedy at commons - I would block him for blatant copyright violation - Youreallycan 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not resolved in the least bit. In fact, it seems to be just scratching the surface. Just because the immediate copyright violation has been dealt with - via deletion - doesn't mean that examination of Paolo's conduct is unnecessary. At the very least an explanation of why he did what he did is in order.VolunteerMarek 23:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is off-topic. The PaoloNapolitano account appears to exist almost solely to agitate about Wikipedia Review is a manner that is so over the top that it is indistinguishable from trolling. I have shown that the person behind the account has no compunction against stealing an image from a website, claiming it as their on work, and misleading other editors about their identity. I have seen similar use of stolen images by GNAA sockpuppets, although it is equally likely that the account is controlled by some WR contributor who is amused by this type of drama-mongering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also someone might want to email this Amie Miriello person to let her know that her boyfriend's identity is being usurped on Wikipedia. If I was that guy I'd be pretty pissed.VolunteerMarek 23:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed - why was this section wanted closed is also beyond me - a user deliberately uploads copyright violations and claims to be the boyfriend of a notable person using the picture to support the claim - he needs to explain this? - Youreallycan 23:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm struggling to find a reason not to indef Paolo, honestly... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then find inner peace and just do it. Lord knows he deserves it.VolunteerMarek 23:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one would like to hear an explanation about this. I can't think of a possible good explanation for this, but I'm open minded. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, let me reiterate this: why isn't PaoloN indef blocked at this point? It's pretty clear that he uploaded a copyright image and claimed it to be his own work. That's enough right there. Then he claimed to be an actual real life person in that image, which it's pretty clear he isn't. That's enough right there as well. If there's some "logical" explanation for all this, I'm sure he can provide it. But until then an indef block seems very much in order. Or is it just because he's picking on people who some of the admins don't like and hence is doing a good job serving as a "useful... user"?VolunteerMarek 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this apparent copyvio took place on Wikimedia Commons, not the English Wikipedia, and is out of scope for AN/I. The image has been deleted and a Commons administrator has given PN a warning, as he seems to be a first-time offender.[31] A second admin has concurred.[32] As such, the matter appears to have been resolved. Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an issue for Wikimedia Commons, where the apparent copyvio was uploaded. PaoloNapolitano has been given a warning by an administrator there [33] and the image has been deleted. Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Note:Prioryman has attempted to hat the discussion with the summary above. I have moved it here instead.ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Username_policy#Real_names covers this pretty well. Impersonation of another real-life person is not permitted on the English Wikipedia. The policy states that "This includes implying a relationship with another person". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The image file was uploaded on Commons, not here. PaoloNapolitano's username does not appear to be a problem here. Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have indeffed Paolo Napolitano for the copyright violation and the attempt at impersonating another living person, which is an even more serious affair, in my opinion. I gave him a couple of hours to provide an explanation, but, since none was forthcoming, I have blocked him. This behaviour is unacceptable. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Poor block The image was removed 12 hours ago from the user page.[34] It's hard to see this as "impersonation", despite the caption. Adding the image was poor judgement and that in fact seems to be true of many of this user's edits to wikipedia unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but this is just lame wikilawyering. The spirit of the policy seems clear enough. It does not say "you're not allowed to impersonate people with your user name, but you're allowed to impersonate them with pictures and captions on your user page." ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
          • This seems to be a minor issue, which has been blown out of proportion. The user page was deleted fairly recently at the user's request; he previously requested a rev-del, having added more personal information than he wished. The present page was created fairly recently. As for supporting this editor, see my remarks below. Thanks, 10:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I kind of hoped Paolo would provide a explanation for the user page image, but if he's going to blow off reasonable inquiries about what he was doing, I have to agree with Salvio here. 28bytes (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Even when he has participated in arbcom cases, PN often seems to have got the wrong end of the stick (not the one used for beating equine corpses). His contributions have been confused and that does not seem to be very much different here. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Mathsci (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Block reduced to 24 hours by Fæ. 28bytes (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not defending what Paolo did, but he did it on Commons, not on the English Wikipedia. Since when have English Wikipedia admins had jurisdiction over things happening on Commons? Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the copyright fraud occurred on Commons, the attempted impersonation occurred here when he added it to his en-wiki userpage with the caption claiming it was him. What you do with your en-wiki userpage is certainly something en-wiki admins can look at. 28bytes (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The copyvio was used here on en.wiki and here is where the impersonation took place. There was enough for an en.wiki admin to act. However, Paolo has now explained it was a serious error on his part and promise it'll never happen. I am satisfied by his response and with Fae's reduction to a day. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) :: The caption "me and my girlfriend" was on his user page here, on the English Wikipedia, not on Commons. Someone keen on impersonation making this proposal about "rehabilitated sockpuppets" does wave a red flag for me, although maybe I'm not AGFing enough. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A reactionary and punitive block. What was the editor going to do next, try to pass of a picture of another attractive couple as themselves? "No, this is really me and my girlfriend"? Who would believe them? If we had a "lame" for behavior as well as for edit wars this would have to be pretty high on the list. It's not a boneheaded stunt someone tries twice. I throw down this challenge to anyone wishing to argue it was a good block: What reasonably anticipated future improper behave did this prevent? Nobody Ent 11:18 am, Today (UTC−5)

More trolling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The indef block has been restored. The block summary blames abuse of multiple accounts [35]. Delicous carbuncle was correct to pursue this here at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If DC knew or had knowledge the user was a sockpuppet they should have file an WP:SPI, not an ANI. The fact the user was committing another infraction doesn't affect the validity of the block for copyright/impersonation. Nobody Ent 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:PaoloNapolitano

User:PaoloNapolitano uploaded an image to Commons which they knew was copyrighted in a deliberate attempt to deceive fellow editors. User:Salvio giuliano indef blocked them for "copyright violation and impersonation", but that block was reduced to 24 hours by User:Fæ in response to an unblock request which said simply "I made a mistake. The image was deleted within 10 minutes per own request and an indef block, with no previous blocks seems harsh. I have almost 1000 constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and I repeat, I apologise, I made a mistake". Note that the image was deleted minutes after it was pointed out here, not minutes after it was placed on the user's page, where it had been for 3 weeks. PaoloNapolitano is now asking for a complete unblocking.

WP:INVOLVED states that admins "may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about". Given that PaoloNapolitano's issue with Wikipedia Review appears to arise from discussions there about User:Fæ, and given that PaoloNapolitano offered an opinion in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ which specifically mentions Wikipedia Review, I question whether or not Fæ can be considered to be uninvolved. I suggest that the block reduction was ill-advised and that it should be obvious to most people that the user is nothing more or less than a troll. Can this unblock be reviewed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You all know the drill, folks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have/had already notified user fae on his talkpage, that imo in relation to anything regarding the wikipedia review I consider him WP:INVOLVED - and he was unwise to have actioned the unblock request. - we have lots and lots of admins, what was the need for an admin that feels attacked through the review reducing a block on a user that is focused on demonising the wikipedia review? - I would suggest the fact is that he made the unblock 'because of his involvement - a poor decision indeed. Youreallycan 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please have a DC/fae interaction ban? DC is doing little more than trolling at this point. *goes back to writing my 3 essays for my classes* --Guerillero | My Talk 21:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The original blocking admin had said that he's satisfied both with PaoloNapolitano's explanation and with the block reduction, so I don't think there's any need for further drama. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstate the indef. The reduction was not improper given the stated rationale for the indef, but PaoloNapolitano has been using Wikipedia as a battleground (which, as some of you might have noticed, is a pet hate of mine) and has an unhealthy obsession with other editors' conduct rather than the encyclopaedia. The way to reduce drama is not to unblock people who keep lists like the one that prompted this thread in their userpsace, or who try to pass themselves off as the boyfriend of a notable, living person, but to remove them from the project as quickly and as quietly as possible, and to get back to writing the encyclopaedia.

  And while we're here, I would also advocate an indef of Delicious carbuncle, who has a similar tendency to treat Wikipedia as a battleground and a very unhealthy obsession with Fae (seriously DC, what the fuck has that man ever done to you?). He's smart enough to save the really spiteful stuff for Wikipedia Review, but like Paolo, seems to have become addicted to stirring up drama—to the extent that he would sit on a copyvio and wait to bring it up until the moment when he thought it would do the most damage to his opponent. That's not the behaviour of somebody whose primary interest here is a high-quality, free-content encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

HJ, your compass seems to be off. You got one user up to no good and another user pointing it out and you want to indef them both? How about this - maybe DC saw the image and then took his time in verifying that it was indeed a copyvio, and that the guy in the picture could in fact NOT be Paolo because... well, because if he brought it up without checking and it turned out that it was Paolo, I'm sure someone like you would be calling for his head. You're setting up a situation where no matter what he does, you want to indef block him. Ridiculous.VolunteerMarek 00:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're very good at cherry picking pieces of my posts and replying to those while totally missing my broader point, but less good at actually explaining why DC is any more of a net positive to this project than Paolo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because hes not a troll!VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. I'd strongly suggest you refactor that comment promptly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the users post to remove the offensive aspects and left him a note to please not repeat. Youreallycan 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be obvious to anyone with enough clue that PaoloNapolitano is a reincarnation of some blocked user who is here simply to troll and using current sentiments about Wikipedia Review to stir things up. Someone was kind enough to draw my attention to this edit which I missed - an IP which geolocates to Oslo, Norway removes the section in which I questioned the user page image. Perhaps the IP's contributions to the French-language Wikipedia will provide a clue to the user's identity. What will it take to show that this is a troll, doing what trolls do? Ridiculous questions on help desk pages? Lulzy redirects? Wake up people! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the same IP on German Wikipedia's [36] Help Desk [37]: == Osmanisches Reich == Aufgabe 2: Beschreiben Sie die Eroberungen des Osmanischen Reiches und ziehen Sie bitte eine Karte des Reiches am größten. which translates as Task 2: Describe the conquests of the Ottoman Empire and draw a map of the kingdom Please greatest. Or this [38] or this [39].........................................VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The IP had two one week blocks on the French for basically -'trolling - diff - Youreallycan 00:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a multilingual troll. Before we hear the "he's attacking WR, therefore he's a good guy" song from multiple admins again, I think a WP:RFAR is needed here. It's doubtful that with so many admins wanting PN on board as a "useful idiot" anything is going to change. After all, his main interest in Wikipedia, as stated on his user page, is Arbitration. So we might as well oblige. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reinstate the indef - Lol. We don't want to feed him with his favorite food do we. The indefinite block was so on the point that its a shame the political infighting over this has returned the user to editing ability on this wikipedia. Reblocking without consensus would be wheel warring - RFAR is not suitable or required imo - we could get a raise to indef poll going - HJ has already supported , I support it, theres a start. Youreallycan 00:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Block both PaoloNapolitano and the outing troll Delicious carbuncle and this will become a better place.--В и к и T 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What outing? PN's name is just as likely to be fake. Are seriously thinking he gave his real phone number on fr.wiki or his real name on de.wiki? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• - seems to have been resolved - Elen has raised the block back to indefinite - there appears to have been some sockpuppetry. Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address as in this diff is a violation of the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Youreallycan 01:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Attacking the messenger, as appeared to take place here with the attacks on Delicious carbuncle, are not helpful. Cla68 (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting meme

He asked at refdesk and answered himself of sorts: [40]. He also asked it on fr.wiki [41] And this looks like has been asked way back in 2005 [42] [43]. If anyone can point out the specifics of that first round of trolling, we might get a better idea who reincarnated in the PN account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Throughout this whole thing I've had the sense that this is an account which wants to be caught - to get the credit for successfully trolling Wikipedia, to see who's been dumb enough to fall for it, etc. In that context, the fact that he invited even more trouble when it was in his best interest to lay low, his uploading of the copyright image, his comments on non-en Wikipedias (a lot of which have been pretty recent) and all that make a lot of sense. I have no idea what the actual agenda here was, but I do think there's some meta-trolling going on.VolunteerMarek 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The amusing part is that he got confused on fr.wiki and trolled their refdesk with his main account, but reverted himself with an IP from the same Norwegian telco [44]. Also, long history of sockpuppetry and trolling the fr.wiki refdesk using multiple Norway ISPs. See this. So much for this being a new user. [45] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Parthian shot? Promises to do what he's been doing already: socking for the "greater good" of Wikipedia. On the French Wikipeidia he went around with a similar story saying how he was saving them form Anonymous (group) by ... showing them how vulnerable they are to the trolling he was himself doing [46] [47]. LOL. You have to appreciate the chutzpah of that on top of simultaneously being a Polish electrician, Canadian pizza chef and I forget what else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Here he says he is a return of User:MikeNicho231, which sounds plausible enough [48]. That sock farm was blocked on no.wiki before it was blocked here, again for initially for trolling, then socking. See no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for MichaelJackson231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Account blocked indefinitely as a bad-faith, cross-wiki troll by Elen of the Roads. Block endorsed by me. Because the block is based in part on checkuser findings and some other non-public evidence, any appeal is to the Arbitration Committee only. Per WP:DFTT, no further posts should be made to this or any related thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for topic ban for Prioryman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although the main topic has been hatted, no action was taken on my request for Prioryman to be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. I think their comments in the sections above demonstrate quite well why I am requesting this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you, an individual known for harassing and outing others, making a bogus complaint about someone else "outing" WR users who voluntarily disclose their WP accounts with every post they make on WR. 28bytes said above that he "share[s] Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing". Do you want him topic-banned too? I suggest you drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

My "bogus" complaint resulted in the deletion of the page and others here appear to agree that it was intended as an "enemies list". I have asked you to stop making wild accusations about me. I have even asked for you to be blocked after you posted what you knew was false information in an effort to have me banned. Neither of those seem to have had any effect. I have no interest in stifling your ability to file some kind of dispute resolution, just your attempts to drive me off the project. I am willing to accept a mutual topic ban (with the exceptions of dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement processes) if it increases the chances of support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't seem proper at this point. The statements made above by Prioryman, while more negative than necessary, are still making a good point. Silverseren^C 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - a two way interaction ban, as requested by DC. Clearly there is a massive dispute between these users and they will be more constructive apart. Youreallycan 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose but I would also like to note that I find it interesting that DC created an article for Amie Miriello three days after Paolo uploaded the hoax image of Ms. Miriello. In the three days before creating the article, DC also edited Stalking and Wikipedia:Harassment. Did DC notice the copyright violation and, instead of trying to get the image deleted immediately, wait for the "perfect time" to expose Paolo? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I told () above, SOP. I'd like to point out that DC's request is self-serving cynicism, as he is right now maintaining a "diary" on WR in which he's accusing me of corrupt financial dealings with Wikimedia UK. As I said in a previous discussion about DC, he is a serial harasser who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By making this request he's quite blatantly trying to stop me pointing out his abusive conduct. It's deeply cynical behaviour but unfortunately entirely typical of this person. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eages247, can you explain how my edit which removed newly added original research in Stalking is in any way related to this? Or how reverting the addition to WP:Harassment of a link that has been deprecated for nearly four years is germane to a discussion of a topic ban? Your suggestion that I created Amie Miriello as part of some Machiavellian trap for PaoloNapolitano seems far-fetched, to say the least. This is not only assuming bad faith, it is actually attempting to make edits which unambiguously improved the state of Wikipedia into something negative. This is not the type of conduct that we should expect from admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very difficult to assume good faith with a user who cannot do the same for others. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Your ability to assume good faith is compromised by someone else's inability to do so? I would appreciate an answer to my questions about your comments in regard to why you brought up my edits to stalking and WP:Harassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just interesting, and I think you know the answer to your question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - though a WR topic ban may be more appropriate.VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Somebody indef both Paolo and DC and be done with it. Wikipedia is not a battleground (nor a place to look for ammunition to continue on-wiki battles off-wiki)—a concept which both of them seem to have totally failed to grasp. I'd do it myself, but I'm probably involved wrt to Delicious carbuncle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh, so one user uploads a copyrighted image under "my own work", pretends to be somebody else - a real life person, and engages in attacking and harassing other users. The other user points this out. And you propose they BOTH be banned? Seriously?????VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that the other user (DC) also engages in attacking and harassing other users, including outing, among other things. But then, Marek, this is all just defending other WRers like yourself, isn't it? Silverseren^C 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I didn't forget anything, because it's simply not true, except in the imaginations of a couple users who have axes to grind with him. Also, seeing you refer to others as "WRers like yourself" is pretty funny, considering that you post over there way more than I do. And you probably already know that I'm quite happy to criticize WR people when they deserve it. Can we skip the hypocrisy please?VolunteerMarek 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As i'm sure you know, practically all of my comments over there are either A) discussing how I improved something, B) discussing how Wikipedia does work, or C) arguing with someone over there about Wikipedia. I don't engage in the attack Wikipedians gimmick everyone else does there. Silverseren^C 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you forget the posts whining about admins, the ones boasting about winding things up, and snivelling about people that are mean to you and what the horrid ArbCom members thought of you, as revealed in last years leaks. John lilburne (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, (), didn't you post a comment on WR a few days ago about how you think Wikipedians are stupid people who deserve only contempt, or something like that? I can't find it now, it seems to have been removed or tarpitted. It did make me wonder why you bother to post here given what you think of us. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Prioryman, quit being a dick and purposefully referring to me by my RL first name. I have a Wikipedia user name - Volunteer Marek and that's how you should address me (or VM if you prefer). Since I'm asking you this explicitly, any further such provocations by you will be considered personal attacks, harassment and taunting.

And if you "can't find it", then how about you don't make the accusation in the first place? I saw somewhere where you said that you hate children and puppies and kittens and think Jimbo Wales is a douchebag but I can't find the comment right now - but you still better defend yourself here and now!!!!! Quit being so obviously sleazy.VolunteerMarek 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll respect your wishes, but I suggest that you stop calling me a "jerk" repeatedly - last time I looked that was considered a personal attack. Prioryman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Priory, it looks like Tarantino did some digging and outing of you on WR. The Wikipedia stuff everyone pretty much knows, but he also listed your real name and some other websites that you were involved in. I'm not sure if your real name is commonly known or not, I don't remember. Silverseren^C 01:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no surprise. Outing and harassment is WR's raison d'etre. Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, at this point the same thing can be said for you presence on Wikipedia itself. With the difference that it'd be accurate, whereas your claim is anything but.VolunteerMarek 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@Prioryman - You have a large Internet footprint - your real name is well known - through that and editing under a username closely related to your real name and through editing this project in relation to your internet position (one of the 25 most well known anti scientologists) you outed yourself - thankfully - arbitration has removed you from your COI contributions to that sector of wikipedia forever. - As a failed and dubious clean start you should be happy to have the privilege of editing at all. Worse still about your account is that even though you have been restricted by multiple Arbitrations - you are an enabler of other similar violating users, such as User:Cirt and User:Will Beback, now both thankfully restricted at arbitration as well. I suggest the best position for you is to just write your quality articles and steer clear of all this battlefielding. Youreallycan 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one systematically attacking and harassing other editors on WR. Do you have any words of advice for DC? I'm sure he could use them. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would point DC to Harry's comment (a position there seems to be a degree of support for) as a warning for him to direct his energy in a more productive direction. Youreallycan 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? How can a request for a limited topic ban be anything other than an attempt to reduce the battleground atmosphere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The battleground atmosphere is being created by your own actions on WR. Ordinarily I would agree to Youreallycan's suggestion of a voluntary two-way moratorium on interaction. The problem is that you are simply going to slope off to WR and continue your attacks on me there. You're already maintaining an open thread on me, accusing me - without any provocation on my part whatsoever - of financial corruption (which is libellous, by the way). You would have been blocked on Wikipedia if you made claims like that here. You routinely use WR to evade Wikipedia's conduct policies, and I see no reason to expect that it would be any different in this case. In practice a "limited topic ban" would leave you free to continue your abusive behaviour, while I would be muzzled from pointing out what you are doing. I'm certainly not willing to consider such a one-sided approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to "muzzle" you. I specifically excluded dispute resolution processes so that you would be able to take action should you have a legitimate complaint with regard to my actions. With regard to your contention that I have made "libellous" accusations of "financial corruption", this is simply not the case. If I were any other user, your making such a claim on ANI would result in a block for gross personal attacks, but we both know that nothing will be done about it. I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia's conduct policies apply to Wikipedia, but that off-wiki activities can be taken into account in dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I would only agree to such a thing if you undertook to cease commenting on me on WR, closed or tarpitted the "diary" thread that you started, and did not participate in any future discussions about me on WR. Any breach of those conditions would end the agreement. Agreeing to those conditions is a pretty good test of your sincerity; your past record suggests that you wouldn't hesitate to do an end-run around restrictions on Wikipedia, so if you want an interaction moratorium it needs to extend off-wiki as well. The ball's in your court. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not asking you to agree - I am asking that a limited topic ban be imposed upon you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested a reasonable compromise, you've rejected it and you've implicitly indicated that you have no intention of stopping your abusive off-wiki behaviour. I think others can draw the necessary conclusions. I'm done here. Prioryman (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Facepalm - Can't you two (or three, or four, or...) find something better to do on a Saturday night? There must be some Dallas reruns or something on TV. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is this being transformed into a WR thread? Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought I pretty much asked the same thing, but in a more subtle manner.

      PN has a laserlike focus WR, afaIct, which of course brings the circus into town (or at least a different circus than the one that's usually here on AN/I). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I say it who shouldn't (currently topic banned myself), maybe we need a seperate noticeboard where we propose editors for topic banning - something like AfD. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

EfD: Editors for Deletion. I love it, it'll be like a Klingon High Council debate. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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[49] 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.[50] The article looks like self-promotion to me too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All my edits have been thoroughly supported by published references and don't see the problem. Please be more specific. PorkoltLover60 (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I had included User:PorkoltLover60 in the list due to his combative style in editing the article in question. Ironically, his defence here further raises suspicions. Here's the timeline:

• Special:Contributions/DrEubanks is created and edits the article on March 1st.
• Special:Contributions/G_chime is created and edits the article on March 3rd.
• Special:Contributions/Repep has no edits since January 24, edits the article on March 3rd.
• Special:Contributions/PorkoltLover60 has no edits since Feburary 17, posts here on March 4th.

In fairness, there may be some notification system triggered by my posting in PorkoltLover60's talk page which brought him here, I'm not sure. If they aren't the same person, they appear to be in communication. Skippydo (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippy, why don't you just look at my talk page and see your notification? What's all this "I'm not sure" business? You are being disingenuous. I think you are the guilty one that is using sock-puppets and doing aggressive/manipulative POV editing. Everything you say seems to be projection of what you are in fact doing. All I have been doing is strictly editing according to referenced published articles. What axe are you grinding? Can you come clean please?PorkoltLover60 (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to express the fact that a change to your talk page may have prompted an email notification or something of the sort. I don't know if such a thing exists. Skippydo (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While a change to a user talk page can in fact trigger an email notification (see WP:EMAIL; this feature was enabled in 2011 for the English Wikipedia), an editor must have enabled email for his/her account for this to happen. You can see if an editor has done this by looking for a link of "E-mail this user". The page User talk:PorkoltLover60 doesn't (now) have that link (nor does your user talk page, at the moment.) By contrast, you can see such a link here, for an editor that I just picked from the Recent changes page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, that was interesting. User:PorkoltLover60 is  Unrelated. User:DrEubanks has edited talkpages as an IP but the IP has not edited the article so, benefit of doubt, I'd say it's a logging out error, especially as the IP acknowledged who he was. I cannot connect User:G_chime technically to any of the others. User:Repep however appears to edit the article also as User:Piszkosfred. While it is quite ok to have another useraccount to edit in an unrelated area (some people don't want to admit they are My Little Pony fans...), it is definitely not allowed to have two accounts editing the same article. I have blocked both accounts pending some explanation. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Repep edited from Texas A&M University, so there is a possible link with Kish, who I believe is based there.
• User:Skippydo and the 67.117 IP are  Unrelated.
• I believe User:Htavroh is Horvath - this is because I think someone has told me this in the past, rather than any use of magic pixie dust. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspected bias of Skippydo toward quantum informatics and related repeated vandalism

Moved to subsection of Kish cypher discussion Hasteur (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippydo proposed an investigation that Repep, Porkoltlover60, G Chime and Dr Eubanks are the same person, see above. I support the investigation. At the same time, I propose to investigate multiple vandalism by Skippydo: in many of his edits, not only at the Kish cypher, he shows heavy bias toward quantum informatics and suppressing opinions challenging it. Examples can be found in the Kish cypher talk page where it is discussed that he removed a fully referenced comparison with quantum encryption when the quantum system was inferior according linked other wiki pages about it. His last such an action is questioning the objectivity of peer review processes of international scientific journals at the talk page of Kish cypher. Thus an investigation against Skippydo's correctness in following the wikipedia rules is proposed. User:Repep —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

We don't investigate people for "correctness in following the rules". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippydo's contributions to that talk page look fine to me. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like there may be a nest of COI articles related to Laszlo B. Kish. See the infobox and other links from that page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Skippy has certainly been editing boldly. Which is what he supposed to do. However, it seems to me that Skippy isn't strictly going by cited references (which I am). Also it seems to me 67.117.145.9 (talk) and Skippy are puppets of each other. There is a correlation in their activity and timing. I suspect Skippy is guilty of projection and is the one using puppets. I challenge you guys to check that one out.PorkoltLover60 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The references for that article "Kish Cypher" are mostly by Kish (some co-authored with someone named Horvath, which spelled backwards is the username of occasional contributor to Kish-related Wikipedia articles User:Htavroh, hmm....), several published in Fluctuation and Noise Letters, a journal founded by Kish himself, what a coincidence. The article has zero references authored by anyone working in information security as far as I can tell, and the claim it makes is bogus on its face for reasons explained by Aram Harrow on the talk page. WP:REDFLAG documentation is needed for something like this and it just isn't there. We may need a content RFC and/or COIN discussion. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The Laszlo B. Kish article's only reference is a pdf: "Publication list of Laszlo B. Kish" [http://www.ece.tamu.edu/~noise/publist.pdf. Not exactly confidence-inspiring. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Beneficial Edits Added by DrEubanks

I added beneficial edits to the Kish Cypher page that more accurately describe the concept while removing some of the anti-bias against it. Skippydo agreed with my edits on the talk page while undoing them in the history. I'm going to restore my original edits since they are agreed upon. DrEubanks (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD instead of engaging in a WP:EW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Rolling back Occupy Wall Street, what else can be done here.

I was looking at this article and noticing that although there are many editors helping to fix it, there are still some technical problems. Some of the people helping or having trouble fixing things, in case I refer to them, are in alphabetical order..notified

• Amadscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Becritical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Penyulap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

On one hand there is good work going on to fix it, but on the other hand there are still bad problems. I suggested rolling back the article, and other editors have suggested ideas which may help as well, plus, the more you read the article's history the more problems you can see that go on and on and on, but I think there may be lots of ways to help out here, any ideas ? Penyulap _talk 09:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Two ideas. 1) Wrong venue, possible content dispute? 2) Need more diffs. Actually, three ideas. 3) Name less editors in the complaint with no diffs. Actually, four ideas: discuss this with the individual editors further before bringing it here. I'm trying to make this easy, here. What do you think this is, the Spanish Inquisition? Monty Python reference: not to be taken literallyDoc talk 09:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

I think it's more than just a Spanish elephant. Penyulap _talk 09:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is not the place for technical problems. If there is an issue with the editing of any of the people you named, say so. If there is not, don't name them at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While I have no doubts as to the good faith of the nominating editor, I'm not sure what he/she is getting at... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

topic ban of single purpose account on pyramid sales scheme

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please correct me if I am doing this wrong. Wikipedia:Topic ban is rather vague, and I have never done this before. I am pursuing a topic ban on User:OregonDucks97401.

Scentura is a "pyramid sales scheme" according to the Illinois Appellate Court.[51] On 2 November 2011, Nick Brunson, the web-admin for Scentura began deleting references in the article.[52][53][54][55][56] Nick Brunson's connection to Scentura was revealed by editor OlYeller21.[57] When Nick Brunson received a lot of criticism, he disappeared and OregonDucks97401 appeared. OregonDucks97401 is a Single Purpose Account[58] who continues to remove the same references as Brunson did. Numerous editors have reverted and argued with him and he continues to remove these references. I would like to propose a topic ban, or know what the next steps are. Filed a checkuser too. Notified all recent talk page participants and people I named. Proposing topic ban.

• support as proposer. Calendar2 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• comment Some sort of action looks to be called for, but probably a regular block would be a simpler solution for this SPA - I think topic bans are usually reserved for editors who are making useful contributions elsewhere. That said, I note that you've also filed a sockpuppet investigation; if that's confirmed it's likely to result in permanent blocks that would make this issue moot. --GenericBob (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment thanks GenericBob, I am new to this. If anyone wants to close this they can. If any admin would like to warn or ban this SPA, that would be really appreciated. I don't edit here often and I really don't want to have to police a well referenced article from an employee of the pyramid scheme. Fortunately the community has been so wonderful in assisting every step of the way. Calendar2 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• support as proposer and/or as GenericBob. Disclaimer: I've been active on this page in reverting this users removal of content, making me an involved user. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• strong support for a topic ban or block. I have no involvement with this article or with any editor involved in this dispute. But I've now spent 45 minutes looking into it, and conclude that either a topic ban or a WP:DUCK block would be an appropriate result, regardless of the outcome of the SPI, for which purpose some similar accounts will now be "stale". The single-article account OregonDucks97401 is the latest in a long line of accounts and IPs ( originating in the San Francisco Bay Area ) that, beginning in 2007, have been campaigning to remove well-sourced negative information from this article. A quick stroll through article history shows similar behavior from Evs215 in 2007, Hornmarket in 2008, TJArandon1223 in 2010, and multiple IP editors in other years, as well as the already mentioned NickBrunson. Based on multiple factors, it's my strong impression that the person behind the OregonDucks97401 account is likely to be affiliated, at least, with this long line of similarly-motivated single-purpose accounts and IPs.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block evasion by Walter55024

Resolved

 – Socks washed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Walter was blocked under his Walter55024 account. He was repeatedly reminded not to evade the block when he first evaded it. Now Walter is again evading his block here with an account named Walter55034. Cloveapple (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

He's hardly hiding it. Perhaps rather than a reflexive block, an attempt could be made to engage with him and see if he is willing to be productive?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my first reaction too. Unfortunately, it's far from reflexive. I was one of several people that tried to help him. User:Worm That Turned tried harder. Worm adopted him and then had to block him when it became clear he just wasn't able to contribute.

In any case the latest name is now blocked. Cloveapple (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel sad. Obviously, Walter had the potential to become a great editor, but he had repeatedly created hoaxes and engaged in edit wars. He does not show a basic understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as this shows and so he was blocked indefinitely. His talk page access was revoked due to the fact that he would not be unblocked for at least one year. He was repeatedly asked to email WP:BASC but he continued to evade the block with a new IP and an account. Walter's behavior is becoming more and more disruptive, and it's making my very anxious. --Bmusician 15:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Abuse by editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Yeti personally abused me, telling me "Fuck off, idiot" when I pointed out in Talk:John Carter (film) that one should not post copyrighted material regarding film plots if the studio has explicitly said so. Please suggest some corrective measure. You can refer to the talk page to check it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

While The Yeti clearly shouldn't have written that, you are totally wrong regarding the copyright issue, and striking through another's talk page comments is against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What Andy said. I've left a note on his talk page (The Yeti's, not Andy's). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. While The Yeti might not have followed the best etiquette, I don't see anything to take action based on his conduct. Ankit should probably be careful that he hasn't just gone tossing a boomerang by starting the AN/I thread, since it looks like he provoked the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell me why? Disney has clearly stated that there is an embargo on all matter containing the film details until March 2, 2012. After that, the embargo has been lifted and several professional reviews have also come. Since the comment was January 29, 2012 I struck it out.

I have witnessed the deletion of edit histories when non-copyrighted stuff has found its way onto Wikipedia pages, I don't understand why such a simple matter like striking out is evoking such reactions. The point being, "Fuck off idiot" is a plain personal attack. There are certainly better ways to discuss issues.

And this is insane, somebody is saying that "conduct" is not wrong. So even I can go around telling editors to "Fuck off" and then I can't be charged with "bad conduct"? Is that what you are saying? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where has Disney stated this clearly and in such a way that it applies to all venues? The immediate question is whether the embargo prevents editors from commenting on the movie. Since it's not clear copyright infringement, striking out the comments is not clearly appropriate.

I did not say his conduct was not wrong; it was an inappropriate comment. My point was that AN/I is not the venue for that issue at this time; WP:Wikiquette assistance is. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Update : The user is now going and saying that abusing on his/her personal talk page is justified. I will be quite put off if this sort of attitude gets support. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Now you want to issued veiled threats too ? With added glee ?" Veiled threat? Abusing is a very serious issue, especially such explicit ones that can't be taken up in any different way. And what exactly does the user mean by biting newcomers regarding the original poster? I was never present on this article when the issue came up; the user is inventing details and pushing POV to justify his/her stand, another quite wrong tactic. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell me why? Because you don't strike out comments made by other users. This rule is independent of any alleged copyright issues. HabitKabit (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking out copyrighted content is not allowed, but deleting edit histories regarding copyrighted material is? Find some better explanation. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking out material of other users is not allowed, full stop. Go ahead and delete the edit history, if you have the privs. HabitKabit (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the underlying issue, Ankitbhatt, the problem is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright here. If you'd like to understand better, I can explain later (about to go do something in real life), or maybe ask someone else, but you were wrong about striking out the comments. Regarding the rudeness, re-read this thread. No one is condoning the phrase used, we're saying that we don't block for every minor instance of someone losing their temper. It's possible to be wrong about being rude, or wrong about striking out someone else's comments, without getting blocked for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm sorry to see that some editors are brushing this issue off, and as somebody stated this issue can warrant severe consequences. I expect a solution to be placed here, and I do expect some punishment for this; ANI has been less lenient previously, I see no reason why it should be so forgiving now. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The solution is that The Yeti has been clearly warned that his/her language was inappropriate. I'm afraid that is as severe as it is going to get, no further punishment is likely unless the behaviour is repeated. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to think that discussion of a film's plot is a violation of copyright. That is simply not true. You state that 'Details of the film plot are copyrighted,' but you simply aren't correct about that, at least in the context of discussion on Wikipedia. It might possibly be a violation of Disney's copyright for you to make a film with the same plot and sell it, but it isn't a violation of their copyright for you to discuss the details of a film's plot. That would be true of any film, but in this case, your position is even less correct, since the plot of the film is based on a book, A Princess of Mars, that has long been in the public domain. You demand a solution and some punishment; the best solution would be for you to relax a little bit and stop trying to prevent discussion of the plot of the film 'John Carter' at Talk:John Carter (film). I don't think any punishment will be necessary for you, though, since you meant well and simply didn't understand what 'copyright' meant in this context- there's no need for any of us to punish you simply for making a mistake. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Actually, there really WAS an embargo , per Disney, on the plot for John Carter mulitple references attest to this The embargo was lifted 3/1/2012. Ankit struck out the plot 2/29/201, prior to the embargo being lifted. I'm not sure how Wiki deals with someone else's embargo, but I believe he may have been right to do this in this situation. Just my .02. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be really fantastic if people would, at least, read our article news embargo (we don't actually have a review embargo article, but the concept is the same) before commenting on things they don't understand. No one is disputing that the comments were made before the review embargo was lifted. Embargos have nothing to do with copyright; you should never quote directly from an "official" plot summary, not just during the period it's embargoed, but that isn't what happened here. It would be very difficult to put something about the plot in the article, sourced to reliable sources, during an embargo, but that isn't what happened here. Wikipedia is under zero obligation to enforce silence about a plot summary during a movie's review embargo. 86.3% of the problem with places like ANI is caused by people who don't know what they're talking about, but feel compelled to say something anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unless you are a government and have given yourself special powers, an embargo is basically a no more than an instruction to your own press office to hold off on talking about something - or by extension, to request news outlets to hold off printing - until a specified time. It has no legal force - news media abide by embargos because otherwise they don't get stories. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Periodic disruption by User:Buddhafollower

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

EdJohnston blocked blocked Buddhafollower for 48 hours on 24 January for persistent failure to abide by our policies. I have just had a trawl through their contributions since that date and have had to remove everything that had not already been reverted etc by someone else. The user is still pushing a Kashmiri Pandit pov, is still failing to source a single thing and is still conducting clear original research.

Since then they have made a further 29 edits in small batches, all of which relate to Kashmiri Pandits in one way or another, all of which are unsourced and not a few of which appear to be original research. They have been reverted pretty much 100%, as here and here. Most of them are minor pov-y issues but, as at Kalhana, Saraswat Brahmins, and Kashmiri people, they just keep returning with with reinstatements of similar stuff

Although they have only made 204 contributions, this is starting to look like long-term incompetence. They have never engaged with anyone on any talk page. I've just revisited the issue with EdJohnston, who suggested raising it here if I think that they are being sufficiently disruptive. To be honest, it is a bit borderline, but if only they would talk! What do we do? - Sitush (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • If they're being consistently disruptive and refusing to talk despite multiple attempts at talking (I assume this has been done?), an 'attention getting' block on the grounds of WP:IDHT might be in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, mea culpa. I and others have mostly been templating, mainly because it is so blatant. EdJohnstone did attempt to explain when they blocked the user for the 48 hours. Perhaps I should go back to the drawing board? My experience in this sphere of WP tells me that it will make no difference but, hey, perhaps it is worth me just chattily asking them to talk about things. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• There was already an 'attention-getting' 48-hour block of Buddhafollower on 24 January but it seems to have had no effect. As you might have expected, Buddhafollower has ignored this ANI thread and is continuing to add unsourced material to articles. He just made the important Indian Army general T. N. Raina be a Kashmiri Pandit with no source whatever. This seems to be part of his ongoing program to add unsourced promotion of the Kashmiri Pandits. If there is to be any hope of changing his editing pattern, or getting him to respond to questions, a longer block is surely required. Such a block could be lifted if he is willing to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indef, until they start to discuss their edits. Any admin is welcome to unblock without talking to me first if it looks like that's begun to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KittyKo'sCute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• KittyKo'sCute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This editor has persistently tried to add information with unreliable sources. On several occasions, I have asked the editor to stop this and find sources verified as reliable or to bring a possible to the corresponding talk page, but the editor has chosen to ignore all messages on the matter and continues their actions. Sarujo (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A few things

1. Please provide DIFFs for the offending edits by KKC
2. Please provide DIFFS for your warnings
3. What admin action are you asking for?

140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Must be something in the water, this is the same problem as the previous thread. User blocked indef; block can be lifted as soon as they start discussing their edits. Any admin welcome to do so without discussing with me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing community ban on Aawjgnekr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Ban Aawjgnekr?

 – Wrong venue per suggestion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing a community ban on the user Aawjgnekr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been causing serious disruption to the project and ater his indefinite block in 2010, he has created 47 sock puppets to date. He continually uses these to constantly harass other users and makes contradictory edits to our policies and guidelines. He has participated in a campaign to create hoax and attack articles, not to mention mis-nominating articles for speedy deletion. This abuse by Aawjgnekr has been seriously disruptive to our collaborative project. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Venue WP:AN is thataway. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by an IP editor

174.97.175.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This anonymous editor is removing templates from various articles with no explanation. The most frequent example is the Luke Cage article. Two days ago, after restoring the templates, I issued a warning to the user. Today, the user responded with a personal attack on my talk page. The user then went the Biohazard (band) article, where I had a dispute and discussion with an editor over something, and made the same exact edits the other editor had removed, as well as some unconstructive deletions. I suspected possible sock puppetry but can't be certain. NJZombie (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• User removes templates for the first time.
• User removes templates for the second time.
• User attacks me on my talk page.
• User removes templates for the third time.
• User makes exact same edits as another user did today and unconstructively deletes part of citation.

Have you notified this person of this thread? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not comment on the matter, but you have forgotten to notify the IP editor about this discussion. (No worries, I've already notified him/her.) --Bmusician 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my oversight. Thank your for doing so Bmusician. NJZombie (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning. If their disruptive behaviour resumes please report them to WP:AIV where the appropriate action will be taken quickly. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor has returned to making the same exact obvious reversions but has taken to using a different IP address (173.226.92.195) as a sock puppet. This now involves vandalism, personal attacks AND sock puppetry. I've reported it on the vandalism board but not sure if I should have reported it as sock puppetry instead. NJZombie (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Article needs help

Sorry to just drop this here, but I don't currently have the time to look very deeply into the issue. Maldives#2012 Resignation of President Nasheed is a mess. There are appears to be copyvios and bias and a lack of any valid resources. I'm not sure if it's better to just hack off a majority of the section or try to salvage it and I don't feel that I'd be able to devote enough time to come to a good decision either way. I was hoping someone here wouldn't mind looking into it, or forwarding it on to someone that could. Thanks, Shep^Talk 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of administrative intervention are you asking for? If you feel that an article needs editorial assistance then you may want to consider asking for that in one of the many venues available. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are copyright violations then that very well may be an admin issue. N^oformation ^Talk 02:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have flagged that section for a copyvio. I saw that parts of the section were copied from another site. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 02:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Lapianoisrael is at it again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

77.124.156.158 is quacking just like Lapianoisrael was earlier... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Whapped for 48 hours. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Length of IP block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

92.12.105.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The IP was blocked by Addshore (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for vandalism on Philip Madoc. In [63] [64] these edits at my talk page, the IP flagrantly contravened WP:NPA and went as far as making threats of personal violence against me. A longer block length therefore appears appropriate under all the circumstances. ISTB351 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That is because the IP is on an extremely dynamic /11 range, so a longer block would do nothing because the vandal would most likely be on another IP after a couple days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It seems propitious for this thread to be closed. For the record, I was not implying any criticism of the blocking admin. ISTB351 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan of Wikipedian's apparent misrepresentation of sources

Fan of Wikipedian's (talk · contribs)

The user has created a number of articles about Indian models. At first blush they appear to be sourced, to reliable sources such as The Times of India. However when checking the actual "links" of the sources, they are going to sites other than the reliable sources named in the visible citation, non reliable celebrity gossip sites etc.

I have left a message about the acts on the users page, but I someone should check all of the articles and I dont have time today. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For example at this article: [65] and [66] -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably doesn't need administrator attention. I bet they are copying citation templates from other articles without realizing all the fields they have to change. If they don't meet WP:RS, remove them and any contentious information they are attached to since we are dealing with BLPs. If the editor is creating articles without any reliable sources, you can add reliable sources, or tag the articles for deletion with {{Prod blp}}. --Laser brain (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User Brews ohare forum shopping again

Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), having only recently been warned about forum shopping, is again wasting editors time by starting an RfC and posting to the Village pump over exactly the same issue, As he's already been warned it seems necessary to bring this to administrator attention. Both the warning two weeks ago and the recent activity concern the same page, WP:Formal organization, and his repeated attempts to insert it into the Wikipedia article, move it into mainspace and now link to it from mainspace.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Racist death threats.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is clearly not acceptable behavior or acceptable discourse on Wikipedia. Can some administrators take a look, please? Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, you didn't notify him of this thread, so I've done it. Calabe1992 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defeated Sanity - genre warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since Feb 24, an IP with a changing address (175.110.xxxxx) has been adding a non-existent genre (Technical brutal death metal) to the infobox and lead of Defeated Sanity, without discussion, sources, etc. I have reverted this multiple times, and even added a hidden note in the infobox asking for discussion or sources, to no avail. See the recent history here. I submitted the page to WP:RFP here, but was declined, told to leave more warning messages, and then to bring it to AIV (but since this isn't vandalism according to WP:VAND, I'm bringing it to the main ANI). I have left more warnings that were ignored, so here I am. Can this IP range be blocked for some reasonable period of time? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully they'll get bored and find something else to do. Welcome to the world of anonymous genre editors—they run rampant over all music articles. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polemic material at User talk:Tiamut

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Tiamut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Permalink for the archive

The text at the top of this talk page appears to fit WP:POLEMIC. At the very least, it is extremely partisan, political, and not conducive to a collaborative environment. I tried to remove it once, but this action was reverted as vandalism. I'm not going to edit war over this... I'd like some other neutral administrators to weigh in on this text. --Chris (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (Another administrator has already expressed an objection to this content. --Chris (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

I was the one who reverted. Yes, it is political, but whether it is "very offensive and divisive" or not is very subjective. Illegal settlers are singled out, but that is not exactly controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris's removal of it wasn't vandalism, though. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've raised that point too. --Chris (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of userspace is what I was referring to, not to articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The term vandalism can only be applied with evidence of intent to disrupt the project, no matter the namespace. --Chris (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not neutral, but I don't think the quotes at the top of the Talk page are "very divisive or offensive material". I think a community that tolerates User:GHcool and his subpages can also put up with Tiamut's three quotes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Frankly, I would say that both of those talk pages need to be blanked. There's no need for such incendiary talkpages. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Phrases like "the villainy you teach me, I will execute" directed towards Jews is a grotesque rewrite of the past. A Shakespeareian twist on the standard technique/theme of equating Jews with Nazis. It is extremely polemical and offensive. It immediately raises strong feelings and just as strong arguments on the other side of the political spectrum. Many schools no longer ask Holocaust survivors to tell their stories, because Muslim students treat them with this type of "very subjective" offenses. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Take that up with Shakespeare. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This uncreative, changed version ("Hath not a Palestinian eyes?") has little to do with him or with the purpose of the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC) +clarify 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the three quotes as beyond the pale. They are extracts from well-known published works by others, not personal rants. They also serve the purpose of very clearly illustrating the editor's POV so at least they have the virtue of honesty. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They show that the user holds a particular political opinion, that is neither uncommon nor extremist. This is not hatespeech for example or endorsing violence or oppression of other viewpoints, which I would find problematic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is quite the extreme to pretend that the Jewish bid for statehood is somehow akin to the Nazi and/or the French killings of millions. Also, "sharpen the weapons" seems quite a violent declaration. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the last deletion of the text by Jaakobou (see the subsequent discussion here). In my opinion, Jaakobou should be asked to justify his undiscussed deletion of the text against the talkpage guidelines. Personally, I don't regard the text as a polemic, nor so grossly insulting as to justify Jaakobou's action, which, of itself, I would say was disruptive (from looking at Jaakobou's own talkpage, I'd say that objectionable editing of those of others has become a bit of a nasty habit for him/her). It's in the nature of areas of Wikipedia as confrontational as the IP area that the comments of each "side" are going to seem vile to at least some members of the opposition. It would obviously be unrealistic to delete every comment that someone found offensive. A bar for determining what is acceptably or unacceptably offensive is required and I think that Tiamut's quotes should pass on the acceptable side.     ←   ZScarpia   00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Malik Shabazz. Tiamut's page ought to be tolerated. --GHcool (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The quotes are mostly taken out of their original context and given an Arab-Israeli conflict wikilink and/or subtext that says 'Jews are bad' let's "sharpen the weapons" against them. Sample: "It is not enough for the [[Israeli settlements|settler]] to delimit physically". This wikilink, which is twisting the source in order to equate the Jewish struggles for statehood with French colonialism in Algeria (1,500,000-960,000 Algerians died in their fight for emancipation), is a good sample to show that it is a bad idea to leave a group of editors who think alike to decide what they consider offensive. I'm sure they would all throw fits had the content been reversed. In that respect, comments from neutral parties are more helpful.

p.s. if the text wasn't such a grotesque rewrite, it could have been tolerated but only if it wasn't boldly used as a meet-and-greet propaganda for anyone who steps on Tiamut's talkpage.

Regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh really! If you think Tiamut's use of the quote is an offensive "grotesque rewrite", you should see the award-winning Israeli film Avanti Popolo[67], and take the issue up with Rafi Bukai.RolandR (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiamut's version, unlike the film, is different than the original and quite offensive (see above). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

RolandR, that is a red herring. We are discussing the appropriateness of content in userspace, not some movie. What some movie says about anything is irrelevant to this discussion. --Chris (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I admit I'm not seeing what's wrong about those quotes, and the irony inherent in believing that the paraphrased Shakespeare quote is objectionably divisive and offensive is palpable - considering that the original is quoted in its entirety in The Merchant of Venice article. Should we conclude, following Jaakobou's reasoning, that such a text constitutes an offensive and divisive diatribe against Christians? Ravenswing 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not for advocating our political opinions. If Tiamut wishes to do that, then I suggest they start a blog and keep it there, but any remotely objectionable content in userspace that is not directly related to improving the encyclopaedia should be removed in my opinion (regardless of whose userspace it is in and what it is advocating). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Remotely objectionable" is not the test, happily, or any editor could get held hostage to such absurdities. I could, for example, find the photograph of you on your userpage "objectionable" - you're trying to put yourself over as more important than the rest of us! - and call for its removal. I hope and trust that neither of us would be comfortable with such a lowest common sensitivity Wikipedia. Ravenswing 04:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Calls for sharpening of weapons in a current real-world conflict are not comparable to a mundane self-portrait. Besides being offensive, this welcoming mat promotes the enhancement of a like-minded "NPOV" clique, united against "pro-Israeli agenda editors".[68] Some of the most common members of this clique have chosen to comment here as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hardly. It is a common fallacy - but no less a fallacy for all of that - to equate "failure to explicitly condemn" with "promote." I see no reason why Wikipedia ought to be hijacked to that POV. That there is an editor whom some might construe as not being favorable to Israel does not therefore follow that his mere, unmolested existence is a loaded weapon pointed at so-called "pro-Israeli" editors. What about his quotes do you fancy prevents such editors from working on such articles as they see fit, in the manner in which they choose? Ravenswing 05:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• The text at the top of that talk page fits WP:POLEMIC. It is extremely partisan, political, and not conducive to a collaborative environment. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 06:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is partisan, yet not "extremely divisive and offensive", that's the threshold. In any case, if her page is eventually blanked somehow, User:GHcool's page should be too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When I looked at this earlier for Jaakobou I found the text disturbing and disagreeable. However most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages, so I did nothing about it. (In part so as not to draw even more attention to it). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about a top of the talkpage hallmark alluding the Jewish bid for statehood is akin to the French killing of 1 million Algerians. Legal or not, it is a disturbing brand of propaganda. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaakobou has deleted the material again, dishonestly claiming "5:0 admin support". Jaakobou is not entitled to decide what the consensus is and not entitled to enforce it. Jaakobou is actually an extremely "involved" editor, being an editing enemy of Tiamut over a long period who makes no effort to hide his political opinions. Now he has put a blatantly dishonest "summary" below; it is getting ridiculous. He lists Graeme Bartlett as his supporter right after GB wrote "most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages". Can the uninvolved admins here please instruct Jaakobou to keep his hands off Tiamut's talk page? Zero^talk 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Significant leeway is given in user space for editors to say, well, what they like. In an ideal world soapboxing like this would be removed; but if we start down that route where does it end? There are a huge number of editors in the Israel/Palestine battleground (sigh) with similar polemics - and pursuing the removal of all the various pieces of commentary can only really end in a disastrous fall out. The commentary in this case, whilst strong, is not very extreme and seems more to reflect a feeling of upset or anger along the lines of "we will endure", rather than any expression of violence or hate. As others have pointed out, this also provides a sharp and clear representations of the feelings in this topic area.

What I do suggest, though, is that the existence of commentary such as these on talk pages is often grounds for an investigation into the related editors work, and potential grounds for topic bans if problems are found. (though in this case I haven't investigated any of the people involved, including GHCool, so wouldn't like to comment on whether that is needed or not). --Errant ^(chat!) 12:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins (summary of this discussion)

• In the opinion that the text is soapboxing/partisan/objectionable/disturbing/etc.:
  • foxj
  • Chris
  • Black Kite
  • HJ Mitchell
  • Graeme Bartlett
  • Errant
    • Total: 6.
• In the opinion that the text is not offensive:
  • Kim Dent-Brown
    • Total: 1.

That's not an accurate summary. There are a number of editors above who think the text is not offensive. I'm not going to remove it, especially not after Jaakobou has tried to blank it twice. Anyone who knows my history with Jaakobou would understand why. Tiamut^talk 11:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur, that is a completely incorrect summary. I'm an admin, I'm uninvolved (except for having expressed an opinion here) and I don't find the text offensive. Please strike the text above, Jaakobou. Apart from anything you are not helping your own case by pursuing it so singlemindedly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive either, I merely opined that both the userpages contained material that may not be useful to a collegial editing environment (which IMHO is borne out by the discussion above). Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I'm aware that not all the admins were themselves offended. However, you expressed that "both of those talk pages need to be blanked." and now maintain that it may not be useful to a collegial editing environment. In that respect, I figure I listed your name in the proper category, no?

p.s. sincere apologies to Kim Dent-Brown for missing his username from the 'not-offensive' list. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What makes the list confusing is that you've now included me :S by virtue of adding "soapboxing" to the list. Problematic if you are using this list to show support for removing the text... (which is what you did previously). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaakobou, please just strike the list which as you see is now becoming a new focus for discussion and disagreement. You are not the closing admin and are in no position to summarise the discussion objectively. The person who does close this will do their own due diligence about who said what and doesn't need your help. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is closed already in the sense that uninvolved admins presented a consensus on the nature of the text. That one or two admins disagree with a policy -- WP:UP#POLEMICS -- is something they need to take to the wider administrative community. Obviously, I don't expect my summary to be taken without further inspection but I do think it would be a waste of time to wait for someone uninvolved try and gather from the discussion who is an uninvolved admin and, in that respect, my listing was a good idea to help promote this issue towards resolution.

p.s. it wouldn't hurt you to empathize with the reasons that make the text is extremely offensive to Jewish people. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jaakobou, I suggest you drop the stick now. The issue is not whether or not you or anyone else finds something offensive - that is an infinitely variable standard. The only issue this page can deal with is whether or not this content should be removed from Tiamut's talkpage - and the consensus is that it should not be removed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Elen of the Roads,
    Even if I assume you are correct about the policy related issue, your other assertion can't be right. Perhaps to resolve the matter, you should compile a list of the uninvolved admin opinions -- this should help explain why your assertion can't be right.
    Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC) +clarify 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tagremover

Tagremover (talk · contribs) has taken a sudden interest in my past edits in the last 6 hours in a type of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, reverting (sometimes some very old) edits of mine[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76], digging up other old edits of mine at Nikola Tesla[77] and Head-up display[78] and reverting them three times (Tesla[79][80][81]) (Head-up display[82][83][84]) but stopping short of a technical 3RR each time, probably Gaming trying to get me to bite into a 3RR... and accusing me of it anyway[85][86]. Also uncivil comments[87] and general accusations against me of vandalising articles[88] and vandalising Wikipedia[89][90][91]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine-structure constant

An IP 172.129.127.235 and 172.130.107.77 is intent on telling the rest of the world that the theoretical physicists that use the ESU statcoulomb and the cgs system are wrong when they say that α = e²/(ħc) without the 4πε₀ (which gets set to 1 when using ESU). This guys is both stupid and proud of it. I put a note in the article talk page, but he doesn't read either. Dunno what you admins want to do about it, but might you lock down the page for a while until he gives up and goes away? Thanks. (From another IP 71.169.191.83 (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)).

You may want to consider very carefully whether it's a good idea to make a blatant personal attack against other editors on a page watched by lots of admins. --Chris (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick check of the history of Fine-structure constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that a) 71.xx's description of the situation seems to be accurate, b) attempts at discussion have been made (mostly via edit summary, granted), and c) at least two editors one editor in good standing from WT:PHYS has been reverting the 172.xx's changes (with the aforementioned edit summary explanations).

The next steps are to issue warnings (either templates or polite hand-crafted ones) on the 172.xx talk pages for edit-warring, and if disruption persists, to report 172.xx to WP:AIV. I'm not sure why this came to AN/I at all.--Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected two weeks (although I've clicked on the wrong reason....protection is still valid). Have noted same on IP talkpage. Next time, try requests for page protection if he's still going at it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we please reduce that to semi-protection. IP mischief should not be a reason to prevent productive editors from working on an important physics article. In physics we have a chronic problem with cranks trying to push fringe theories. Everybody wants to be smarter than Einstein. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is only semi-protection - didn't warrant protection. It's the reason that I picked the wrong selection for - it says BLP issues and it should have been your bog standard disruption. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

IP vandalism/edit war on Resource-based economy

An IP using a wide IP-range is making repeated deleted of sourced material on Resource-based economy: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101].

IP addresses used so far has been 175.100.40.163 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.40.104 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.40.92 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.41.47 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.41.37 (talk · contribs · email), 175.100.40.10 (talk · contribs · email) and 175.100.40.252 (talk · contribs · email).

This has been going on since the 17th of February, despite two protections of the article, [102], [103] and several warnings: [104], [105] and [106].

The removal of the material has been reverted by OpenFuture (talk · contribs · email) (that's me), Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · email) and Loremaster (talk · contribs · email), so the IP knows that the consensus is against him, but to this he responds with conspiratorial claims that we are all in fact members of the two organisations mentioned that cooperate in what he calls "tandem editing", in other words accusing us of WP:MEATPUPPETRY.

Other than the above accusations the IP does not engage in discussion, although he writes on the talk page. But his writing on the talk page are not discussion, just repeated claims that are patently false, such like the article being a copyright violation, that organisations The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement not being notable (which in that case is a question for those articles, which he has been told), that the phrase is a neologism, and lately when I added more references in an effort to get a stop on this, simply claims that the references didn't support the statements, which is untrue.

There simply is no reasoning with this person, and administrator action is needed to stop this. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You mis-represent what happened. If any one here is interested in this I suggest they read the talk page of the article for a true account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy Open-Future originated the article which looks to be an excuse to highlight the 'groups' in question and the information could be in their own articles. Maybe this article would be better as a redirect. It was speedily deleted at least once before.

The two citations added recently by Open-future are not having anything to do with the subject. The information on Venus Project and Zeitgeist and J. Fresco all comes from a Fresco website so it is a primary source. Neologism is no longer an issue and has not been for a while.

Adding two sources to cite information that have nothing to do with the subject is what Open-Future has done. Being called a vandal for trying to improve the article? Lot of name calling on the talk page from Open-Future. 175.100.40.163 (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Userpage

I have raised Serbia100's, use of their userpage with them but they appear to have ignored me, what is the next step that should be taken with them? Mo ainm~Talk 09:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked Serbia100's contributions (going back to 2010). He/she appears to be quite confused about Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

351 edits and only three in article space. Block per WP:NOTHERE and delete per WP:WEBHOST. N^oformation ^Talk 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the "article-ish" portion and left a welcome. Let's not be hasty with th eblock button unless they decide to revert. If nobody ever discussed the purpose of Wikipedia, or told him he was doing wrong, it's not easy for him to guess (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they did revert, and removed the note. I've reverted them and left one more note which I think we should consider a final final warning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Misguided school project... or more?

While patrolling Special:NewPages today, I came across a whole stack of articles created by users with very similar usernames, all of the form "OI-11-" followed by the first initial, then full stop, then last name, all of which sound Spanish or South American (Lopez, Diez, Ruiz etc.). Here's the list of articles and users:

• Alava´s regions by User:OI-11-m.lopez - deleted under CSD A1
• Elguea eolic park by User:OI-11-I.ruiz01
• Festval by User:OI-11-e.diez
• Izki Natural Park by User:OI-11-a.llop2
• Arlobi menhir by User:OI-11-a.gainzarain
• Vitoria-Gasteiz jazz festival by User:OI-11-z.zubiaguirre
• Conservatorio jesus guridi by User:OI-11-Y.ruiz
• Ataria by User:OI-11-j.castellano

Does anyone know if we've got an unannounced school project on our hands here? If so, they are doing it very wrong. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Judging by the contents of the articles, I'd start looking at schools and universities in Vitoria-Gasteiz. Googling isn't very productive, though. MER-C 13:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly a class project at Basque educational institution. Some have already been bitten - those who have talkpages mostly have deletion warning templates and even an SPI. I'm going to give them handwritten hello messages and will try to track down the tutor. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: They've all been welcomed. I found a couple more similarly-structured names in the user log. Haven't identified a tutor yet, waiting for responses. bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the increasing prevalence of this edit pattern, it would be helpful to have a standard template that could be applied in situations for these ... I'm not wiki-saavy enough on the practices regarding education project editing to leave an appropriate message myself. Do we have a standard policy? Nobody Ent 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. At least a couple of previous projects have had their own dedicated templates (which made sense because there was a large group of students and it was appropriate to centralise some things on a project-specific page in wikipedia-space). However, it would be great to have a general "hey-are-you-part-of-a-school-project-please-talk-to-us" welcome template. I will write one when I have a few minutes spare. Surely there are other editors who have more time on their hands and stronger template-design skills than me (a set of editors which fills about 90% of the venn diagram) so I won't complain if somebody else gets there first... bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

We appear to have place for template requests. Nobody Ent 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)