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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  So it would seem. - jc37 06:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to ban from automatically modifying categories

For the past month, SPA User:Algis Kuliukas has been attempting to add mention of his e-book to the article (he self-identifies as one of the editors of the book). The e-book was published by Bentham Scientific Publishers, which has a dubious reputation as a "vanity press" for scientists who have failed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

I, and several others, have been arguing that the citing the latest scientific, peer reviewed, publication on the subject is a significant and helpful inclusion to the text on the subject.

Apart from gossip, what exactly is there to back the slur that a) Bentham is guilt of acting as "vanity press" ever, b) that the authors of the ebook paid to get it published? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the book has undergone any sort of peer review. Per discussion on the article talk page Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, consensus is that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, despite the protests of the author, who is currently crying "slander" and "censorship".

This is just another slur. I know for a fact that it was reviewed by at least one relevant authority. What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The addition is clearly against consensus as it has been reverted by numerous editors, including User:DoriSmith, User:Johnuniq, User:WLU, User:Kwamikagami, User:IRWolfie- and yours truly.

How can citing the latest scientific literature about the subject be deemed "against the consensus"? I guess, only in the sense that the "consensus" wants the idea ignored without any critical thinking or proper refutation in the scientific literature.

Furthermore, the source has been added by two other SPAs, User:Yloopx and User:Mvaneech. The quacking here is pretty loud.

"Quacking"? I note the ad hominem. You guys clearly do not even know what these ideas are and then you censor a simple ref to update the public with latest. The only quackery here is from people so ignorant that they cannot discriminate between the idea that a slight adaptive shift in moving through water might have, for example by wading through shallow water, led to in increase in hominin bipedalism and the idea that some all powerful "God" created the entire universe in six days, just for us. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, "quacking" does not refer to "quackery", but rather to the duck test. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have an administrator look into the situation and take any steps that are needed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please can we have a little impartiality here. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algis actually has two accounts, Algis Kuliukas (talk · contribs) and AlgisKuliukas (talk · contribs), but given the account names it is pretty obvious that this is an error rather than a deliberate effort to get around WP:SOCK.

Thanks for being so reasonable there! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty obvious history of promotion, of Algis' near-200 edits, they're essentially all related to the promotion of the AAH. All but one of the first account's contributions are to either AAH or its talk page; the other account has only edited the following pages:

• Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's talk page
• March 5 and it's talk page (to insert mention of the first publication regarding the AAH [1])
• User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 [2])
• Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
• Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH) [3]
• One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper [4]
• My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage [5]
• His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
• Only one edit [6] appears unrelated to the AAH.

I admit to being very interested in this idea. Sorry. I have a master's degree on the wading hypothesis, started a PhD, had two papers published on the idea and now had a book published. I apologise for imagining that this might have made my input as significant as self-styled, anonymous, Wikipedian lay "experts" on human evolution. Clearly, as long as you support the mainstream view, you must always be right. Algis Kuliukas (talk)

Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.

In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book [12], [13], [14]. Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical [21], [22], though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The first obvious answer here is to file an SPI, I reckon. That might take care of the above-mentioned two accounts, and perhaps another one. That these are all SPAs seems unquestionable, but issuing blocks with some CU evidence in hand is more comfortable than without. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a recommendation which might help: If anyone supports the damned so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" - ban them immediately. That will solve your problem. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. On that talk page, I couldn't hear the arguments because of all the quack noises. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI came back as no accounts related to each other [23]. The increased interest is probably because of the new book on the subject at Bentham press. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you guys must be geniuses! Incredible censorship of a mild, plausible and evidence-based idea. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the SPAs, User:Mvaneech, has just identified himself as a co-editor of the book (see article talk page). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that a topic ban of Algis Kuliukas would resolve the issue of the disruption on this article because of the amount of SPAs/meatpuppets that are showing up to defend the eBook. The problem here is that we have several editors new to Wikipedia who don't understand WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Algis, if you want your book to be included at all in the article (which doesn't seem very likely considering the publisher), you need to demonstrate that your work has been peer-reviewed or that it has generated any responses from mainstream scientific sources. You can't simply claim that it was peer-reviewed and then not provide any evidence. Listing your CV on your userpage does not lend any additional weight to your book. Additionally, cries of censorship are probably hurting your aim here; there is not right to edit Wikipedia. Imagine, for a moment, that I wrote a book saying that the lights that we see at night are actually not other suns but simply holes in the sky that let in the light of the cosmos. For much of human history, that was a "mild, plausible and evidence-based idea." I can't include my book on the holes in the sky in the article on "star" because it has not been peer-reviewed and it is contradicted by mainstream science. I know that you would probably think that my analogy does not fit your situation at all but realize that this is the way that some Wikipedia editors perceive your claims. You have to provide more than a little-known eBook to change the article. Chillllls (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<irony>Thanks for voting for not banning me.</irony> "Considering the publisher" is just another groundless slur. Why is it up to me to demonstrate that the book was peer reviewed and not the people set against this idea to show there is something amiss with the publisher? This seems a little unfair to me. Most of the contributors to the book are professional scientists, including Philip Tobias, and almost all the others are PhD students at reputable universities studying reputable subjects. I know one eminent scientist who reviewed the book but I am not at liberty to make this public. We are planning to contact the publishers to let them know about these slurs. Your analogy is patronising and offensive. If you (and your lay cohort of Wikipedia editors) cannot discriminate between the idea that some (rather slight) selection from wading, swimming and diving might have affected the human phenotype, as compared to other great apes - and such twaddle, I have to wonder how it is you/they that are a position of authority admonishing/judging/advising me, and not the other way around. The article (remember) is about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" and we have just published a book - the latest book - on that subject. If even this simple, relevant, timely fact is censored out of this page I have to question the agenda of you and your fellow editors. It would seem that informing the public about what the idea is - is not on that agenda. Outrageous! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If I were them, I'd be thinking about taking legal action" comes very close to a legal threat. I'd strongly advise you to strike this if you genuinely want to gather support for your position here and bring fellow editors round to your way of thinking. And you absolutely must not repeat or strengthen this threat if you want to remain an editor here. Either take this problem to the courts or solve it here. You can't do both. Further repetition will lead to a block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Algis Kuliukas has promptly complied, many thanks for the co-operation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please can someone tell me why the page has a ref to Jim Moore's (a lay person who was a partner to Nancy Tanner, not the anthropologist) masquerading web site and bloggs that are not peer reviewed, but our attempt to include a reference to the latest, scholarly, peer reviewed, textbook is blocked and results in the page being locked? I think it is called bias. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Algis: The point that you just made is a variation of something called a Other Stuff Exists argument on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the Jim Moore ref and the material that it supports, remove the material from the article and, if the material is challenged by someone else, discuss it on the talk page (WP:BRD). If you actually cared about the quality of the article, you would do that instead of trying to repeatedly force the inclusion of your own book against talk page and RS/N consensus. Your sarcasm and accusations of bias/censorship will not help you accomplish your goal. Chillllls (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the talk page to ban the ebook reference? I never saw any.Yloopx (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the accounts arguing for inclusion of the book either were the book's editors, or new accounts such as yourself with little apparent appreciation for policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. I did not revert any edits at all

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• This has been an ongoing problem on Europe and elsewhere (he objects to the term "Eastern Europe").[33][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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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 _{One ping only} 06:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[35] 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)[reply]

The fact that Honorsteem explicitly stated, on his own user page, that he was undertaking a WP:CLEANSTART ([36]) contradicts his claims that he was not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of topic ban for BB

92.148.172.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I suspect to be an IP hopper, has engaged in personal attacks and incivility targeting me and Edward321 (talk · contribs) today on the Whisper of the Heart talk page and in his/her edit summaries, involving baseless claims that "the previous edits are wrong", "my editing is poor", asking for my actual name, denying that he/she is an IP hopper, that I am "keen to maintain control of a fairly unimportant Wiki page, to the point of being wildly, blatantly, openly rude" and "owning the article" while I don't know Edward321 and follow WP:OWN, and also shouting in edit summaries which are not allowed and completely disrupting the article with a non-NPOV information (this also occurred on the Take Me Home, Country Roads article ([42]) and The Cat Returns article ([43])), which we tried to help bring it down to a more concise version, and bloating up the plot summaries in the relevant film articles per WP:FILMPLOT. The edits by the IP are a clear violation of the relevant policies: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:TPO, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:SOAPBOX. The attacks continued despite the notice at the Film WikiProject talk page and Betty Logan (talk · contribs) requesting an WP:RFPP on Whisper of the Heart. I started this discussion to help resolve the dispute, but the IP remained incivil and attacked me and Edward321, and added an non-NPOV statement at the Yoshifumi Kondō article. These are differences showing his incivility and issues with the policies in question: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. The NPOV and NPA issues are urgent, and I cannot tolerate these insults anymore. I had to bring the case here due to the IP's abusive behavior per the suggestion of Betty Logan and I need a solution to help resolve these issues. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 77.42.224.194 [50]
• 77.42.137.61 [51], [52]
• 77.42.189.248 [53]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

The discussion at AFD, here [54] and here [55] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That this business is inappropriately personal, and goes outside of this particular article, can be seen here [56]. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([57]).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([58]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [59] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• You mean ([60]) this one? Eerily similar. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I would also add that now someone has connected([61]) 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• "...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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

"...women filmmakers need to be supported by the Wikipedian community and not gangbanged by overzealous editors."[62] Doc talk 02:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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? [63] 99.136.255.180 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• On several occasions he has commented on how admins are held to a higher standard, shouldn't "bite new articles"[64] (?), 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 [65] 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Diff: [66] HandsomeFella (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright violation (and impersonation)

Blocked for 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC) - and returned to indefinite diff - Youreallycan 02:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[69] A second admin has concurred.[70] As such, the matter appears to have been resolved. Prioryman (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue for Wikimedia Commons, where the apparent copyvio was uploaded. PaoloNapolitano has been given a warning by an administrator there [71] and the image has been deleted. Prioryman (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • Poor block The image was removed 12 hours ago from the user page.[72] 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The indef block has been restored. The block summary blames abuse of multiple accounts [73]. Delicous carbuncle was correct to pursue this here at ANI. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here is the same IP on German Wikipedia's [74] Help Desk [75]: == 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 [76] or this [77].........................................VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• - 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

Interesting meme

He asked at refdesk and answered himself of sorts: [78]. He also asked it on fr.wiki [79] And this looks like has been asked way back in 2005 [80] [81]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [82]. 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. [83] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 [84] [85]. 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)[reply]

Here he says he is a return of User:MikeNicho231, which sounds plausible enough [86]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good question. As for the OP, have you filed at WP:SPI? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not filed a WP:SPI. Would you recommend I do so now? Skippydo (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

An IP edit claiming to be from Dr Eubanks[87] 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.[88] The article looks like self-promotion to me too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Resolved

- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

Accounts to be blocked:

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

ȹ (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs of the edits producing the signatures are [89] and [90]. I hereby confirm that at the time these two edits were made I was in control of those two accounts. T Y 09:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.185.239 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The discussion above 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.[91] On 2 November 2011, Nick Brunson, the web-admin for Scentura began deleting references in the article.[92][93][94][95][96] Nick Brunson's connection to Scentura was revealed by editor OlYeller21.[97] When Nick Brunson received a lot of criticism, he disappeared and OregonDucks97401 appeared. OregonDucks97401 is a Single Purpose Account[98] 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]