위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive741

Wikipedia:
알림판 아카이브
관리자 (검색, 검색)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341
사건 (검색, 검색)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460
461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470
471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500
501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510
511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520
521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530
531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540
541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550
551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560
561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570
571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580
581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590
591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600
601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610
611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620
621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630
631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640
641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650
651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660
661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670
671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680
681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690
691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700
701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710
711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720
721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730
731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740
741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750
751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760
761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770
771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780
781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790
791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800
801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830
831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840
841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850
851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860
861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870
871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880
881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890
891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900
901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910
911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920
921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930
931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940
941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950
951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960
961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970
971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980
981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990
991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000
1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010
1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020
1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030
1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040
1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050
1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060
1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070
1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080
1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090
1091 1092
편집-경전/3RR (검색, 검색)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310
311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320
321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330
331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340
341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350
351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360
361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370
371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380
381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390
391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400
401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410
411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420
421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448
중재집행 (iii)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280
281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290
291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300
301 302
기타 링크

위키백과의 나쁜 습관은 편집을 해친다!

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

원본 섹션 머리글: "나쁜 위키백과 습관은 편집을 해친다.편집하는 거 싫어?양말이라고 불러!나는 히틀러와 스탈린을 좋아하지 않는다.그러므로, 그들은 서로의 양말임에 틀림없다!그러면 히틀러는 구소련의 지도자가 될 것이다!"

나는 보통 위키피디아만 읽는다.내가 조금만 편집하면, 불성실함이 나를 떠나게 한다.나는 편집하기로 결정했지만 나는 다시 그것이 절망적이라는 것을 알았다.관리자로서, 당신은 이 위키백과의 허튼소리에 종지부를 찍도록 노력해야 한다.

문제는 다음과 같다: 1.사람들이 편집자를 좋아하지 않는다면 그냥 양말이라고 불러라.그루초피톤의 양말인 어떤 세즈남자는 내가 마음에 들지 않는 몇 가지 유용한 제안을 했다는 이유만으로 나를 양말이라고 불렀다.

2. 오바마 기사에 아주 좋은 제안을 몇 가지 했지만, 논의조차 하지 않고 되돌리려는 무릎꿇은 반응이 있다.그러면 토론은 붕괴할 수 있는 상자 속에 숨겨진다.그게 무슨 환대냐?그것은 비도덕성에 가깝다.

2a. 이러한 제안들은 인트로에서 해마다 왔다 갔다 하지 않는 것을 포함한다.예를 들어, 마지막 버전은 대학과 로스쿨에서 오바마에 대해 이야기했고, 상원으로 뛰어갔다가 다시 로스쿨로 뛰어올라 하원 선거로 뛰어든다(로스쿨과 그의 상원의원 선거 사이에).만약 이것이 학교 신문이라면, 그 섹션은 F학점을 받을 것이다. 그러나 이것은 특집 기사라고 불린다.진솔하게 내 좋은 제안이라도 생각해 보고 토론해 봐.

2b. 오바마케어는 전혀 언급되지 않는다.그 단어를 싫어해도 정식 명칭이 아닌 수천 개의 기사가 가지고 있다.그래서 '오바마케어'라는 단어에 대한 간략한 언급이 언급되어야 한다.그 부분에는 하원과 상원에서 통과된 날짜에 대한 자세한 설명이 있다.음, 그건 오바마의 전기와는 아무 상관이 없어.그러나 몇 가지 중요한 변화는 생략된다. (FYI, 1099 요건, 메디케이드 공동 급여 제안, 최근 제정된 자유 산아 제한 요건)

경영진 요약 이 글을 읽고 있는 관리자들이 이 난해한 문제, 잘못된 양말 고발 문제, 그리고 나와 같은 좋은 제안들을 할 수 있는 가능한 방법들을 해결하려고 노력하도록 하자. 단지 양말 고발을 되돌리고 대응한 것이 아니라 고려하고 토론하는 것이다.결국, 우리는 나쁜 아마추어 블로그가 아니라 좋은 백과사전을 쓰려고 노력하고 있어!

반면에, 나는 사람들이 잔인하고 나쁜 짓을 하는 것을 좋아한다는 것을 알 정도로 WP를 충분히 읽었다.따라서, 당신은 직접 위키피디아를 편집할 수 있다.나는 그저 그것을 읽고 좋은 일을 하기 위해 힘든 싸움을 하지 않을 것이다.Midemer (대화) 01:28, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자가 필요한 특정 문제가 있으십니까?그게 이 게시판이 필요한 이유야.기사의 내용에 문제가 있으면 기사의 토크 페이지에서 논의하십시오.기사 토크 페이지에서 해결할 수 없는 콘텐츠 분쟁이 있을 경우 WP로 가져가십시오.콘텐츠 분쟁 해결을 위한 DRN.광범위한 정책 관련 문제가 있는 경우 위키백과에서 문제 제기:마을 펌프(정책)그러나 이것은 당신의 문제에 대한 잘못된 게시판으로 보인다 - 그것은 정책을 만들지도 않고, 내용 분쟁을 해결하기 위한 것도 아니다.특이점42 (대화) 01:35, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
또한, 여러분의 제안이 좋은지 결정하는 것은 지역사회에 달려 있다.물론 당신은 그들이 그렇다고 생각하지만, 위키피디아는 그렇게 작동하지 않는다.또한 주제 머리글에 고드윈의 법칙을 즉각적으로 호출하는 것? tsk, tsk... - 부시레인저One ping only 01:42, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
고드윈의 법칙을 읽어라그것은 논쟁이 한 쪽의 신념을 히틀러나 나치에 대한 신념을 비교하는 결과를 가져올 것이라고 말한다.아니, 나는 다른 편집자들이 히틀러거나 비슷한 신념을 가지고 있다고 말하지 않았다.나는 히틀러가 아니고 나치 신념을 가지고 있지 않다.Midemer (대화) 01:52, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

부시 레인저, 나도 동의해.공동체가 결정해야 한다.그러나 지금까지 해왔던 것처럼 토론을 억누르는 것은 비현실적이다.토론이 하나의 상자로 무너지는 것은 본질적으로 그것을 검열하고 닫는 것은 나쁘다.그리고 나서 속이고 속이고 있다.

관리자들은 필요할 경우 차단을 위협하면서 이러한 불친절함을 멈춰야 한다.

알다시피, WP에서 무릎꿇는 반응은 "Bushranger와 특이점42, 너희 둘은 동의해서 서로의 양말이다"라고 말하는 것이다.당신은 그것에 대해 어떻게 비난 받고 싶으세요?

WP는 더 나은 방법을 생각할 필요가 있다.나로서는 불량배들과 광대들이 마음대로 하도록 내버려 두겠다.나는 좋은 제안을 했고 똑똑한 사람들은 채택되지 않더라도 이 문제를 논의할 것이다.아마츄어 위키백과에 행운이 있기를, 그러니까 영어 위키백과에 행운이 있기를.Midemer (대화) 01:48, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

여러분이 도울 수 있는 한 가지 방법은 콘텐츠 분쟁이 여기서 했던 것처럼 공공 기물 파손으로 특징지어지는 것을 피하는 것이다 [1].당신의 편집 요약은 AGF와는 정반대였습니다.Acroterion (대화) 01:54, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
이 편집자가 다른 많은 것들을 삭제한 건 사고였다고 말했어.그 편집자의 편집 요약은 그가 작은 단어에 대해 걱정한다고 했지만 그가 반짝임을 사용했기 때문에 많은 것들을 삭제했다.Midemer (대화) 01:58, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
특정한 편집자에 대한 특정한 사건이나 불만이 없다면, 당신은 단지 여기서 너무 광범위한 불만을 제기하고 있을 뿐이다.아무도 신경 쓰지 않는 것이 아니라, 단지 올바른 방법과 장소에 사람이 밟는 단계가 있다는 것이다.이것은 위키피디아로 향할 수 있는 콘텐츠 논쟁으로 들릴 수도 있다.지역사회가 토론할 수 있도록 이 상황을 제기할 수 있는 분쟁해결 게시판.만약 당신이 Specifc 편집자 또는 편집자에 문제가 있다면 당신은 그것을 여기로 가져와야 한다.불평에 과민하지 말고, 기부가 서도록 놔두지 않기 때문에 그저 화가 난 것처럼 들림으로써 타인에 대한 선의를 보여야 한다.이것은 더 논란이 많은 기사들에서 종종 발생한다.냉정하고 리셋한 다음 콘텐츠 분쟁이 있는지, 개별 행동에 대한 검증이 있는지 결정할 것을 제안한다.--아마디스트(대화) 02:01, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
(충돌 편집)트롤 냄새가 나.첫째, 이 맛있는 편집 요약이다.그런 다음 그는 그것이 '친절한 농담'이었을지도 모른다고 생각했다고 진술한다.내 생각에는.2012년 2월 26일 02:07, (UTC)[응답]
이 사용자는 거의 5년 동안 78개의 수정사항을 가지고 있다.78개 중 26개만이 기사였다.[2]-Bb23 (대화) 02:16, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답] 참조
나는 여기에 SPI 보고서를 제출했다.비슷한 점이 명백하다.지금 인터넷 연결이 안 좋으니, 실수는 용서해 줘.데이브 다이얼 (대화) 02:35, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
사용자:DD2k는 편집에 동의하지 않을 때 양말이라고 거짓으로 비난한 이력이 있다.DD2K는 WP의 방식인 편집에 대해 논의하려고 하지 않는다.DD2K의 토크 페이지를 살펴봤는데, 사용자가 다음과 같이 허위 고발을 했다.잭 패터노 양말.나는 그가 양말이라는 것을 보여주는 CU 자료가 없기 때문에 거짓으로 고발되었다고 말한다.DD2K는 누군가가 "여러 번 말한다면 그것은 사실일 것"이라고 생각할 때까지 크게 소리친다.만약 이것이 WP라면, 나는 WP에 관여하고 싶지 않다.축하해, 너는 좋은 아이디어로 좋은 편집자를 쫓아냈어.Midemer (대화) 03:45, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The BushrangerOne ping only 05:55, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[reply]

여기서 OP에 대해 선의를 갖도록 하자.내게는 기여하고 싶은 사람처럼 보이지만, 시작하기에 아주 좋지 않은 곳을 선택했다(아티클은 저명한 정치인이 매우 까다롭다). 그리고 나서 경멸의 인사를 받았다.미더머, 나는 네가 여기 남아서 위키피디아를 만드는 것을 돕기를 권장한다.당신 자신을 위해서, 나는 당신이 경험을 쌓을 때까지 오바마, 롬니, 산토룸 등의 기사에서 떨어져 있으라고 권한다.이러한 기사들을 다루는 것은 경험 많은 편집자들에게도 완전한 골칫거리다. 왜냐하면 그들은 자신의 편견을 알거나 모를 수도 있는 POV를 가진 사람들에 의해 끊임없이 편집되기 때문이다.이러한 기사에 반드시 기여해야 한다고 생각되는 경우, 가능한 한 가장 직접적인 방법으로 자신의 의견을 표현함으로써 잠재적인 변화에 대해 토론할 것을 제안한다(즉, 타인의 인식 편향에 대해 제로 참조). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

고유한 사용자 페이지의 두 가지 주요 내용:
  1. 이 양말들은 모두 누구야(에세이)
  2. Sockpuppet 고발의 첫 번째 규칙:입 다물거나 입 다물어.사건 접수 또는 STFU
Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 나는 인신공격을 불평하는 사람들에 대한 나의 동정을 인정한다!끝! 끝!그들은, 그렇게 하기 위해 미개한 용어를 사용하는 것은 제한적이다.흔히 그렇듯이, OP는 그가 천사들의 목소리로 글을 쓴다고 믿고 있으며, 그가 뛰어난 정치 평론가라고 추측하기 위해 제공된 제한된 정보에 대해서는 아무런 이유가 없지만, 합의 중심 백과사전의 본질은 때때로 소수파 편에 서게 될 것이고, 따라서 당신의 유일한 선택은 다음과 같다.우아하게 지고 나아가다OP가 그의 토론 시도가 관련 토크 페이지 - 물론 심각한 위반이 될 수 있다고 주장하는 것이 아니라면 - 이것은 AN/I의 문제가 아니다.(그럴 가능성이 더 높아 보이는 것처럼) 아무도 OP의 POV에 주의를 기울이지 않는다면, 위키백과 정책이나 가이드라인에 편집자가 서면으로 그렇게 하도록 요구하는 것은 아무것도 없다. 라벤스윙 17:43, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
우선 축하한다! 머리글을 다시 짜낸 단서 전문 편집자에게, 그래서 이 페이지에서 더 차분하게 토론하는 데 기여했다.이것은 필요하다면 당연히 해야 할 일이다.
둘째로, 나쁜 위키백과 습관은 열등한 기사를 낳는다.이 편집자는 양말 투정을 비난하며 엉덩이부터 찍는 편집자들이 비사교적이라는 정당한 논평을 내기도 했다.위키백과콘텐츠 분쟁을 "이기기" 위해 사용되는 이런 종류의 전술은, 음, 비열한 것이다.그리고 너무 만연해, 위를 봐.
우리는 낯선 사람을 공격하는 것이 아니라 기사 개선에 초점을 맞추고, 기사 개선에 집중할 수 있을까? 뉴비지 (토크) 18:47, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
그렇다면 정말 좋을 것이다. 그리고 만약 OP가 그가 반복적으로 권고한 것처럼 특정 편집자의 행동에 대해 특정한 불만을 가지고 있다면, 그러한 주장은 당연히 적절한 조사를 받을 것이다.하지만 5년 동안 기사스페이스에 편집된 것이 고작 20여 건에 불과해, OP가 정말로 그의 편집에 대한 적대감을 되풀이하는 패턴을 만났다는 회의론에 대해 당신은 틀림없이 사람들을 용서할 것이다. 라벤스윙 23:12, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

상호 작용 금지 어둠샤인즈 탑건

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

최근 커뮤니티는 사용자 다크네스 사이의 상호 작용 금지를 결정했다.빛나고 탑건은 적절한 행동 방침이었다.나는 이에 대해 권한 없는 관리자가 가능한 시스템 게임의 다음 이력을 검토할 것을 요청한다.

사용자 상호 작용에 대해 2012년 2월 24일 11시 54분 Top Gun, 2012년 2월 24일 어둠이 빛난다.

두 사용자 모두 RFC에 광범위하게 그리고 신랄하게 관련되어 있다.나는 두 사용자 모두를 RFC에서 금지할 것을 요청한다.

디비그X레이는 이번 가열된 RFC에서 첫 편집을 한다.2012년 2월 24일 14시 17분 현재 개정.

DBXR 수상 사용자:2012년 2월 25일 04:37에 DS a bannstar.

User:TG가 다음 몇 가지 기사 중 하나를 삭제하도록 지명함:DBXR이 작성되었다.

사용자:DS는 TG의 명백한 삭제(기사 삭제 여부)에 동참한다.

사용자에 대한 Sock Puppet 조사 [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet 조사/DBGXray DBigXray]는 SPI가 더 있었음을 나타내는 것으로 보여, 그것도 조사할 수 있지만, Sockpuppet 조사에 대한 추가 요청이 추가되었다.[3]

다음 사용자에게 요청:TopGun은 삭제 지명을 위해 일정 기간 동안 시스템을 게임하는 동안 차단되며, 두 사용자 모두에게 요청한다.TopGun 및 사용자:어둠빛나고, 그들의 상호 작용 금지를 피해서 차단된다.

나는 두 사용자 모두 RFC에 참여하는 것을 금지할 것을 요청한다.그들은 서로 나쁜 상호작용을 계속하기 위해 그것을 사용하고 있다.만약 정말 근본적인 문제들이 있다면, 그들은 그들 중 어느 한 쪽이라도 논평으로 해결되지 않을 것이다.

사용자나 동료가 작업한 기사를 삭제하거나 AFD를 전혀 삭제하지 못하도록 두 사용자 모두 지명을 금지할 것을 요청한다.나는 두 사용자 모두 다른 사용자가 지명했거나 참여한 AFD에서 상호 작용하는 것을 금지할 것을 요청한다.아마 AFD가 있을거야.

나는 이 사용자들에게 맡길 만한 좋은 믿음이 남아있지 않다.이것은 모두의 시간을 낭비하는 것이다.

Phyofusulina (대화) 02:10, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 결코 상호 작용 금지를 위반하지 않았다.헬프 데스크[4]에서 학교에 관한 게시물(정기적으로 회신하는 곳)을 보았고, 학교 기사는 믿을 만한 출처가 없어 삭제 대상으로 지명했다.DS와의 상호작용은 없었다. 나는 다른 사용자 DBigXray와 내가 그와 기사의 출처를 자세히 논의한 출처에 대해 내 쪽의 논의를 가열하지 않고 약간의 논쟁을 벌였다.비록 DS가 그 논의에 참여했지만, 나는 그에게 아무런 대답도 하지 않았고 그에 대해서도 언급하지 않았다.나는 그가 제공한 자료들을 내 분석에 포함시켰는데, 그것은 또한 어떤 상호작용으로도 이어지지 않았다.또한 이것이 내가 지금까지 지명한 유일한 AFD이며 (그리고 DS에 의해 편집된 적이 없다) 어떤 합리적인 편집자는 이 지명이 정상적이지 않다고 말할 것이다...이 보고서는 근거가 없다. --lTopGunl (대화) 02:17, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
나는 내 보고서가 전적으로 근거가 없다는 탑건에 전적으로 동의한다.나는 그것을 초기 문구에 포함했어야 했다.만약 이것이 지금까지 만들어진 유일한 AfD 탑건이고, 그리고 AfD가 지명한 유일한 AfD로서, 전혀 흐트러지지 않은 것이 아니었다면, 그는 어둠과 교감하는 누군가의 기사에 "현재 지명된 유일한 AfD"를 사용하지 말았어야 했다.빛난다. 나는 위의 모든 요구를 지지한다.Phyofusulina (대화) 02:23, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
내가 Afd에서 응답한 것 중 어떤 것도 열선내지는 DS에 대한 것이 아니라, 창조주 DBigXray에게 한 것이다.그리고 그들은 정책과 출처 주변에 있다.다행히도, DbigXray 자신은 헬프 데스크에 있는 그의 코멘트를 통해 기사에 도달했다고 명시하고 있다. 그래서 이것은 DS에 관한 것이 전혀 아니다. 그는 이전에 아무런 편집도 없이 그곳에 들어간 사람인데, 나는 그것을 예상할 수 없었을 것이다. 여전히 나는 상호작용을 하지 않았다. 그리고 내 금지령은 DS에 있는 것이지 그와 교감하는 임의적인 사람과 있는 것이 아니다. RFC에 대해서는 DS가 거기에 어떤 언급도 하지 않은 것 같고, 다만 다른 누군가가 거기에 올린 참고문헌에 대해서는... 게시물 확인까지 하고 있어?--lTopGunl (토크) 02:26, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 가해자 금지 지지
(내 이름이 위에서 찍혔듯이) 나는 설명을 할 것이다 위의 사용자 탑건이 헬프 데스크에서 내 코멘트를 따라 나를 향해 욕설을 퍼붓고 있었다. 그는 즉시 그 기사를 삭제하도록 지명했다.그리고 그는 나에게 3개의 Sockpuppet 케이스를 열었고, 문제의 3개의 IPS는
  1. 125.63.12.13 어떤 동문들은 자유롭게 확인할 수 있는 것 같다.
  2. 122.252.231.7은 몇몇 동문들이 자유롭게 확인할 수 있는 것 같다.
  3. 180.149.53.194는 로그인하는 것을 잊어버렸을 때 나의 IP로, 나는 그것을 알아차렸고 다음 순간 로그인하여 서명했다[5]
탑건 편집장이 과거에 나와 분쟁을 많이 겪었고 여러 번 막히려고 했었기 때문에 웁건 편집장이 나에게 동기를 부여한 것 같다. 필요하다면 모든 증거를 줄 수 있다.
호킹은 당신의 기고를 따르고 있다. 내가 헬프데스크에서 당신에게 답한 후 기사에 왔다는 것을 분명히 해줘서 고맙다.이것은 우왕좌왕하는 것이 아니고 공천은 나름대로 득이 있었다.나는 거기에 주어진 이유들에 따라 SPI를 신청했다.이 편집자와 어떤 콘텐츠 분쟁도 오랫동안 유휴/해결된다. --lTopGunl (대화) 02:41, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그래 탑건은 내가 아프가니스탄의 인디언들에 대한 RFC에 대한 나의 논평에 따라 편집으로 복귀한 이후로 나를 괴롭히고 있다.
  • 또 다른 주목할 점은, 탑건 편집장이 모든 시도에서 나를 차단하고 비참하게 흔들리게 하기 위해 가능한 거의 모든 방법을 시도했다는 것이다.아마도 이 사건들은 대화 페이지에 대한 나의 논평을 방어하거나, 그의 잘못된 행동으로부터 관리자들을 오도하는 것일 것이다.----EXIGXigaɣ 02:52, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 모두의 정보를 위해 그 RFC를 시작했다.이것은 어떤 접근법으로도 호킹이라고 볼 수 없다. --lTopGunl (대화) 02:59, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
내가 실제로 이 사용자에게 출처를 찾는 방법을 도와주려고 하는 동안, 이것은 내가 회신 받는 코멘트[6]이다.그러다가 갑자기 위키리더가 나타나는데(지금은 정말 의심스럽다), 늘 지금의 위키리더 같은 내용 대신 나에게 코멘트를 하는 위키리더가 등장한다.--lTopGunl (토크) 03:04, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
또 다른 잘못되고 오해의 소지가 있는 시도. 위키리더의 논평의 타임스탬프를 보라. 그것은 나의 논평보다 더 빨랐다.위의 주장과 정반대--HUTCHIGXxa 03 03:10, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답
그것은 공천과 관련된 것이지, 너의 마지막 논평은 아니었다.그것을 언급할 때 특정했다. --lTopGunl (대화) 03:15, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 코멘트 나는 이것에 대해 내 인내심을 심각하게 잃고 있다.다들 진심이야?Phyofusulina - TopGun이 사용자와 상호 작용하는 것이 금지되지 않은 주제 위반인가?다들 ANI에서 내려서 더 좋은 일을 찾으면 모든 사람의 시간을 낭비하는 거야사용자 간에 상호 작용이 금지실제 상호 작용 금지 위반이 있을 때, 다시 돌아올 수 있는 것보다.나머지 RFC 허튼소리는 ANI의 문제가 아니다.--v/r - TP 14:07, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
그들은 서로의 AFD에 대해 상호작용을 하고 있다.만약 당신이 그들의 영역에서 편집하지 않는다면, 당신은 그들이 다른 사람들의 기사를 위해 AFD를 생각해내거나, 그들이 다른 사람이 AFDed (TG)한 기사를 저장하려고 하는 페이지로 가는 즐거움을 얻지 못한다.금지령이 있어도 서로 멀리할 수 없기 때문에 그들의 공간(위키피디아)은 그냥 그들에게 맡기겠다.상호 작용하는 사용자들이 시스템을 게임하는 것을 막는 것을 포함하지 않는 상호 작용 금지는 농담이다.그들이 이것을 하는 모든 곳에서, 그들은 위키피디아에 이런 말도 안 되는 것들을 쌓아놓고 있다. 만약 그것이 AN/I에서 다루어지지 않는다면, 그것이 바로 그곳이 될 것이다. 파키스탄의 모든 기사들, RFCs, AFDs, 토크 페이지들에 걸쳐서.하지만, 나는 편집을 포기함으로써 그것을 해결할 수 있어.난 그렇게 많이 편집하지 않아. 그리고 편집자의 유지는 문제가 아니라, 항상 더 많은 것들이 따라와.Phyofusulina (talk) 17:12, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
그것은 서로 상호작용을 금지한 것이지, 어느 누구와도 내용을 편집하거나 토론하는 것을 금지한 것은 아니다...TP보다 더 선명할 수 없다.넌 우릴 ANI로 끌고 갔어나나 DS가 서로 회신하거나, 서로 언급하거나, 서로에 대한 의견을 제시하는 데 어려움이 있을 때 돌아오십시오.DS가 토론에 들어갔다고 해서 이미 편집하고 있던 주제를 그냥 둘 수는 없다.--lTopGunl (토크) 17:33, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
그들은 상호 작용 금지를 받고 있다.그렇다고 해서 다른 한 명이 이미 연루되어 있기 때문에 그들이 "우선접대"를 받는 것은 아니다.그들은 직간접적으로 서로에게 연설하거나 서로의 행동이나 행동에 대해 논평하는 것이 아니다.이 보고서는 전혀 근거가 없다.--v/r - TP 18:02, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]

금지 위반

  • 한편으로, DS로부터의 명확한 (일방적인) 금지 위반을 보고하고자 하는데, 이에 대해 아무런 응답도 하지 않았다.
이것은 내가 ANI에서 상호 작용 금지로 이어지게 된 기사였다. DS는 이제 이 기사[7]를 삭제(내가 주요 기여자였던 기사)를 기사 토크 페이지 노트에 따라 더 확대하여 나에게 금지 전에 그가 지금 거기서 그것을 인정하도록 지명했다. --lTopGunl (토크) 02:29, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 필자는 Phyof의 추측에 대해 언급할 수 없지만, DS가 Pak Watan에 지명한 AfD에 대해서는 언급할 수 없다(Topyun이 Talk에 기고하고 증거가 있는 기사:DS가 전에 초대받지 않고 그곳에 간 적이 있는 박 와탄), 이것은 어둠의 빛에서 나온 터무니없고 변명의 여지가 없는 것이다.나는 이 기사가 상호 작용 금지가 있는 다른 사용자의 관심사라는 것을 알고 있으면서, (삭제 토론을 위해 기사를 지명하는 것) 게임을 적용할 수 있는 비두뇌적인 것이라고 생각한다.나는 파키스탄과 관련된 모든 기사들(또는 적어도 톱건과 DS가 달갑지 않은 파키스탄 관련 기사들)에 대한 '어둠이 빛난다'는 주제를 정립해야 한다는 나의 제안을 다시 한번 강조할 것이다.3월4일 (토크) 04:04, 2012년 2월26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 논평 - DS는 이번 지명이 iban보다 며칠 전에 이루어질 것 같다고 말했다.Mar4d와 Topyun은 서로 이메일을 주고받고 있다.이 두 가지 모두 틀린 것은 아니지만, 명료성을 위해… - 시투시(토크) 06:02, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 코멘트 DoOnce the interaction 금지가 내려지면, 두 플레이어는 우리가 바보인 것처럼, 그들이 그 금지를 회피하기 위해 그 시스템을 장난으로 이용하고 있고, 어느 누구도 다른 것을 내버려두려 하지 않거나, 커뮤니티 금지를 하지 않는 것처럼 취급하는 것을 중단할 필요가 있었다.그래서 나는 TG만 잡는 DS의 이 게임 플레이를 놓쳤다.나는 TG가 일거리가 필요한 분야에서의 그의 편집기고 때문에 더 많은 관심을 가지고 있다.오케이, 나는 금지를 피하기 위해 5시간 동안 그들의 나쁜 믿음의 상호작용을 정확하게 알아내지는 못했다.OK 그들은 한 게임만이 아니라 게임과 금지 위반 둘 다 유죄였다.서로 AfD에 대한 기사를 지명하지 말고, 서로의 AfD에 대해 언급하지 말고, AfD에 전혀 참여하지 말고, 서로 교류하지 말라.누가 이것에 싫증을 내지 않는가?Phyofusulina (대화) 06:56, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 심지어 원격으로도 금지령을 위반하지 않았다. 너는 WP를 읽어야 한다.IBAN. 혼자서 계단식 IBAN을 암시하지 마십시오.위의 잘못된 보고서에 대한 TP의 의견을 읽어 보십시오. --lTopGunl (대화) 15:53, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
  • Comment I는 Phyofusulina read WP:IBAN. 나는 출처를 찾지 못하면 AFD로 갈 것이라는 기사를 지명하기 10일 전에 통지했다[8] 나는 지금이 용어 공신력 및 기사의 내용인지 여부를 증명하기에 충분한 시간이라고 믿는다.나는 그 기사에 대해 아무도 원망하지 않았다. 나는 여기 파코필리아라는 단어의 글에서 내가 임시직원을 제거했다는 것에서 알 수 있는 연결고리를 통해 거기에 도달했다.그리고 여기서부터 따라온 끝에 화해했다.여기에는 IBAN 위반 사항이 전혀 없다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 09:06, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 어둠 속에서 댓글 달기Slies는 상호 작용 금지 이전에 AfD에 대한 의도를 나타냈는데, 금지령이 내려진 후에 AfD를 지명하는 것은 금지 위반이라고 나는 생각한다.그러나 아마도 현시점에서는 블록보다는 경고가 더 나을 것이다.탑건의 삭제 지명은 기껏해야 뾰족한 수가 있다.그곳의 경고도 마찬가지일 것이다.하지만, 나는 두 편집자가 문제의 RfC에서 나오는 것을 금지하는 것을 지지한다.그들의 견해는 분명하고 그들의 추가 논평은 단지 이슈를 흐트리고 있을 뿐이다. --regents park (comments) 12:49, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[reply]
나는 정식으로 DS와의 상호 작용 금지를 지원해서 우리가 더 이상 (그 말은 내가 원하지 않는다는 뜻) 상호작용을 하지 않도록 했고, 나는 RFC가 시작되기를 요청했으므로 나는 핵심 참가자다.또한 그곳이나 다른 곳에서는 어떠한 상호 작용도 없었다...그 정도면 선의의 믿음을 얻을 수 있다고 생각해.RFC 자체에 관한 한, 내가 지적한 몇몇 심각한 언급 문제들이 있다...순전히 만족한 논쟁금지 위반이 있는 이 afd에 대해서는 다른 금지 위반 편집처럼 완전히 폐쇄/반복되어야 한다고 생각하고 다시는 이런 일이 없도록 해야 한다고 생각한다.--lTopGunl (대화) 15:53, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

2012년 2월 27일 02:29, UTC(University)에서 Xavexgoem 및 기타 수많은 사용자별 보기

Rainbow trout transparent.png

제기랄!

물에 젖은 송어에게 얻어맞았구나.

이 일을 너무 심각하게 받아들이지 마라.누군가 네가 바보 같은 짓을 했다는 걸 알려주고 싶어 해.
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

DD2K는 불침투 및 공격을 위해 차단되어야 함

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

해결됨
- 여기서 볼 만한 것은 없음. 고발자의 자체 편집 요약 공격은 거의 무색하다. 프랭크 토크 04:14, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그의 편집된 내용을 살펴보았다.그는 POV 퍼셔다.

그는 내가 한번도 들어본 적이 없는 편집자라고 나를 속였다.나는 몇 년 동안 WP를 읽고 있다.

편집이 마음에 들지 않고(내 것은 잘 생각해도) 사람들을 속이고 속이고 있을 때, 당신은 미개한 것이며 금지되어야 한다.DD2K가 어른이라면 "나는 너의 제안에 동의하지 않고 편집이 이렇게 되어야 한다고 생각해...." 등의 이야기를 할 것이다.

오직 미개한 사람이나 소년만이 "나는 그를 좋아하지 않아...그는 나쁘고....."라고 생각할 것이다.그는 양말이야."모두가 이런 식이었다면 시리아 아사드 대통령을 보고 '나쁘다'고 생각한 뒤 WP에 "아사드는 양말, 금지하라"고 항의했을 것이다.

편집에 동의하지 않고, 토론하는 대신, 상대방에게 양말이라고 말하는 것은 나쁜 행동이며 DD2K가 차단되는 결과를 초래한다.내가 아는 한 이 게이덴버 편집자(DD2K는 나를 양말이라고 거짓으로 비난한다)는 오바마 1099호(오바마를 좋게 보이게 하는)에 대해 편집한 적이 없다...내가 오바마 팬임을 인정한다)거나 기사(led)를 시간적으로 소개할 것을 제때에 왔다 갔다 하는 대신 제안한다.

개요: DD2K는 편집에 동의하지 않으며, 이에 대해 논의하지 않지만, 잘못된 속편성 비난을 한다.이런 불친절함을 위해서, 그는 막아야 한다.적어도 72시간 동안 SP 조사가 있을 때까지 그를 막아라.Midemer (대화) 03:33, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 DD2K의 토크 페이지에서 그가 "Pete's Sake"의 빈정거리는 편집 요약을 썼고, 사안을 논의하지 않았고, 그 사람이 그와 사물을 논의하려고 한 후(사용자:잭 패터노(Jack Patterno))는 그 사람을 영구적으로 차단하는 데 성공했다.그는 자신을 양말이라고 거짓으로 비난했고 이 주장을 뒷받침할 CU 데이터는 없다.이는 DD2K가 편집에 동의하지 않을 때 양말이라고 거짓으로 비난한 기록이 있음을 보여준다.이런 종류의 행동은 WP에 매우 파괴적이고 해롭다.DD2K는 이런 종류의 추가 중단을 막기 위해 차단되어야 한다.만약 그렇지 않다면, 나는 DD2K가 예전처럼 계속해서 이것을 할 것이라고 예상한다.2011년 11월에, 2012년 2월에, 그리고 계속...이것은 혼란이다.Midemer (대화) 03:39, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

검사자가 응답했다.나는 양말이 아니다.게시물에 따르면, 이 다른 양말 사람은 덴버 시의 직원이다.나는 로스앤젤레스에 있어.DD2K는 게이덴버의 보관된 CU 요청서에서 다음과 같이 사용자를 고발했다.UT교수, 텍사스대 직원(오스틴?).이는 DD2K가 지푸라기라도 잡고 있음을 보여준다.그는 수년에 걸쳐 계속되는 대규모 혼란으로 인해 차단되어야 한다.Midemer (대화) 04:07, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

미더머, 점원(체크유저가 아님)은 그런 종류의 말은 하지 않았다.그는 단지 현재 당신이 양말이라는 것을 증명하는 기술적 불가능을 지적했다.어쨌든, 네 불평에는 장점이 없어.당신은 버락 오바마 기사에 와서 약간의 변화를 주었다.그러한 변화들이 되돌아가면, 당신은 토크 페이지로 가서 기사를 편집하는 모든 사람들을 모욕하는 것 외에, 출처가 전혀 없는 상태에서 당신의 버전이 더 낫다고 주장했다.만약 당신이 특히 당신과 의견이 다른 사람들에게 선의의 판단을 내릴 능력이 없다고 생각한다면, 당신은 내용 논쟁을 피해야 한다. 또는 아마도 위키피디아를 전적으로 피해야 할 것이다.나는 DD2K가 트롤처럼 행동하는 사람에게 나쁜 믿음을 가정한 것을 비난할 수 없다.Sometguy1221 (대화) 04:14, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
아니, 그건 거짓이야.나는 몇 가지 제안을 했다.나는 끊임없이 되돌리지 않고 같은 내용의 편집을 고집했다.편집이 싫을 때마다 여러 차례 허위 고발을 해 온 만큼 DD2K가 차단돼야 할 대상이다.나는 그의 토크 페이지를 보았다.그는 다른 사람의 편집을 되돌렸고 그것을 설명하는 대신 편집 요약본으로 "Pete's Sake"를 썼다.그는 나중에 더 가학적인 사람이 되었고 단지 그 사람을 양말이라고 거짓으로 비난했다.그런 식으로 중단하면 DD2K가 차단될 것이다.
무슨 1221, 너와 나는 지금 의논하고 있다.이래야 한다.DD2K의 양말이라고 비난하기 시작해서 막히는 게 아니에요.봐, 그게 나 같은 민간 편집자와 DD2K 같은 파괴적 편집자의 차이점이야.Midemer (대화) 04:20, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
(EC) 어떠한 링크도 제공하지 않았고 기여 이력(또는 DD2K)에서 명확하지 않지만, 체크유저(및 아마도 점원)가 고려할 정당한 사례가 있다고 느끼고 체크유저 요청을 실행했다면, DD2K가 증거에 대해 거짓말을 하지 않는 한 차단 가능한 조치를 취했다고 상상하기 어렵다.체크 사용자 요청은 낚시에 사용되지 않으며, 대체로 체크 사용자만 실행될 것이며, 그렇게 해야 할 타당한 이유가 있다고 느낀다.타 이용자의 타당한 이유가 있다고 느끼는 것은 그 결정에 유의적으로 영향을 미치지 않는다.즉, DD2K가 여기서 잘못되었을 수도 있다는 사실이 DD2K가 파괴되고 있다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.BTW, 당신은 오렌지 박스가 분명히 당신이 해야 한다고 말했기 때문에 Midemer에게 그 토론을 통보하지 못했다. 나는 당신을 위해 그렇게 했다.닐 아인(토크) 04:24, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
내가 잘못 읽었나봐...이 논의를 시작한 것은 미더머 편집장이 아니었던가? - 수도호스트 04:36, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
맞아, 헷갈려서 사람을 잘못 봤어.Midemer에게 잘못된 클레임에 대해 사과한다.Midemer가 Midemer에게 알리지 않은 부분은 기술적으로는 맞지만, ANI 논의를 시작했다고 스스로에게 알릴 필요는 없다.)닐 아인(토크) 04:41, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 지금 checkuser 요청을 찾았다.게이덴버는 분명히 한 개의 양말풀이 경험이 있는 것으로 보여서 누군가가 게이덴버의 양말뭉치라고 말하는 것 자체가 거의 파괴적이지 않다.증거 없이 계속적으로 사람들을 양말뭉치라고 비난하는 것은 그럴지도 모른다.게이든버 사건이 오래되어 여기서는 관련이 없기 때문에 체크유저 요청이 거절되었다. (위에서 말한 바와 같이, 체크유저 요청이 실제로 실행된다면, 그것은 충분한 증거가 있었음을 의미할 수 있다.)제시된 증거에 대해서는 언급하지 않지만, 이 사건이 차단되려면 한 가지 이상의 사례가 필요하다.이 페이지의 머리글, 그리고 나서 당신이 토론하는 사람들에게 알리라고 말하는 다른 사람들은 당신이 RFC나 WQA와 같은 다른 상대방과 문제를 해결하려고 시도할 수 있는 방법에 대해서도 논의한다.이번 사건을 더 들여다본 것으로 보이는 Someguy1221이 말한 것으로 보아, DD2K와 관련된 문제를 다시 추진하기 전에 WP:Boomerang에 대해 잘 알고 있을 것을 제안한다.닐 아인(토크) 04:38, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
(비관리자 의견).안녕, Midemer, 이 셔츠는 "Mr. 항상 모든 사람에게 친절하고, 조금도 호들갑스럽게 아무 말도 하지 않는다" 58. 다음과 같이 쓰셨습니다.그게 나처럼 시민 편집자의 차이점이야 착각이거나 트롤이다.--셔츠58 (토크) 04:32, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
셔츠, 관리인이라면 무기한 차단하시겠습니까?(논의의 목적으로 이것을 그냥 밖으로 내던지는 것 - "앞으로 나아갈 길"을 찾는 것)Drmies (토크) 04:20, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
Drmies, 내가 WP라면:관리자, 나는 WP와 같은 어떤 sysop 동작으로부터도 즉시 자신을 회복할 것이다.INTERNETED, 편집자로 돌아와 인신공격으로 코멘트를 치고, 편집자에게 사과하고, 프로젝트 개선방안에 대해 이야기한다.---셔츠58 (토크) 11:26, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

오바마:토크

누군가 [9]을(를) 되돌리시겠습니까?WP에는 아무것도 없다.포럼 또는 WP:관련된 편집자의 해트팅이나 마음에 들지 않는 코멘트를 보관소에 채우는 것을 지원하는 TPG.참고: 나는 TPG당 주제를 완전히 벗어난 코멘트를 몇 개 삭제했다.Nobody Ent 04:50, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

음, 왠지 오바마 페이지가 내 감시 목록에서 빠져버렸어.게이든버가 또 다른 양말인가?Tarc (대화) 04:53, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 섹션과 위의 두 섹션을 참조하십시오. - 부시레인저 05:52, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
(ec) 누군가가 a) 비협조적 주장, b) 공격적 항의, c) 개인적 의견이 WP를 위반하지 않는다고 생각하는 경우:포룸, 어서 되돌리십시오.하지만 전례가 될 수도 있다.츄우우우히:2012년 2월 26일(UTC) Seb Az86556 04:55 [응답]
특정 문구에 의해 지지되지 않더라도(당신이 말하듯이 OT 코멘트의 완전한 제거를 허용하고 있지만), 나는 보관, 빠른 보관 등이 논쟁적인 최근의 사건에 관한 것과 같은 특히 활발한 대화 페이지에 사용되는 것을 본 적이 있다.여기서 필요했던지 나는 논평하지 않을 것이다. 그러나 나는 그 논평들을 계속해야 할 충분한 이유가 없다고 느끼기 때문에, 나는 되돌리는 것을 꺼린다.그런데 왜 관리자가 되돌리기를 원하셨습니까?닐 아인(대화) 12:36, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
행정관이 될 필요는 없다; 나는 1rr이고 차라리 다른 편집자가 합의의 정신으로 되돌아가도록 할 것이다.Nobody Ent 20:15, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
내 요점이 분명하지 않았던 것 같아.내 말은 ANI에 있는 거라서, 관리자의 도움을 요청해야 할 것 같은데 만약 그렇지 않다면 ANI에서 이게 무슨 일이야?닐 아인(토크) 16:30, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

보관의 위험성은 그것이 매우 쉽게 남용될 수 있다는 것이다.의견을 좋아하지 마십시오. 특히 의견이 매우 좋은 경우....반복하거나 보관하여 의견을 삭제하십시오.이것은 매우 사악하다.오바마는 자유주의자로 책 태우는 것을 반대한다.나는 책 태우는 것을 반대한다.폭스 뉴스 팬들은 책 태우는 것을 좋아한다.

EXECUTRIVE SUMENT 관리자는 업무 중단을 초래하는 사용자가 신속하게 토크 페이지 의견을 되돌리거나, 요약 의견을 모자에 넣거나(삭제하거나), 신속하게 보관할 수 있음을 알아야 한다.만약 그들이 이렇게 한다면, 그것은 매우 파괴적이고 싸움을 시작할 수 있다.파괴적이기 때문에 이런 일을 하는 사용자들은 즉시 차단되어야 한다.DD2K는 이렇게 하는 사용자다.그가 유일한 사람은 아니다.Midemer (대화) 19:38, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)Midemer (대화) 19:36, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 편집에 대한 타임아웃을 마이더에게 주었다.만약 누군가가 내가 너무 가혹하다고 생각한다면 나는 기꺼이 논평할 수 있다. 그러나 나는 그것이 고전적인 WP처럼 보였다.포인트 위반. --John (토크) 19:57, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 아아아아아, 웨돈도타임블록콤그워프크.좋은 차단이야. - 부시 레인저 20:27, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
나는 또한 Midemer가 DD2K가 괴롭힘처럼 들리기 시작했기 때문에 모든 토론에 DD2K를 제기하는 것을 그만둘 것을 제안한다.DD2K가 초기 보관을 했을지는 몰라도 NotEntEnt가 우리에게 제거하라고 했던 번복은 그들이 하지 않았다.그리고 나는 그들이 이번에 DD2K에 올바른 기여 이력을 확인했다는 사실을 통보하는 데 실패했다는 점에 주목한다. 다른 주제라 이전 논의 통지가 충분하다고 생각하지 않는다. 다만 미더머가 빠르게 차단된 데다 다른 누구도 DD2K에 대한 논의에 관심을 갖지 않는 상황에서 불필요한 통보인 것 같아 신경 쓰지 않을 생각이다.닐 아인(토크) 16:36, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
솔직히 그의 의견을 본 후 나는 미디머가 위키피디아가 협력적인 공동 환경이라는 것을 이해할 수 있을 때까지 더 긴 블록이 필요할 것이라고 생각한다. - 부시레인저 23:27, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

"건강"의 이동 --> "인간 건강"

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

해결됨
베어크의해 뒤로 이동 28바이트 (대화) 07:29, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이전에 '건강'이라는 제목의 기사는 오토매비타스터에 의해 인간 건강으로 옮겨졌다.나는 이 조치에 대한 어떠한 합의도 찾을 수 없다. (그것은 전혀 논의되지 않은 것으로 보인다.)나는 이것이 바람직한 변화인지 모르겠다.하지만, 그것에는 다른 많은 문제들이 있는 것 같다.그 중 가장 중요한 것은 새로운 제목이 첫 단어 뒤에 소문자를 사용하지 않는다는 점에서 기사 제목 형식에 대한 규정을 따르지 않는다는 것이다.리디렉션과 해체에 대한 (많은) 문제들이 있는 것 같다.나는 이 움직임의 의도와 그것이 좋은 방법이라는 일반적인 합의가 있을 때까지 이 변화를 되돌릴 것을 권고한다.선레이 (토크) 07:03, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 바보같이(일부러 도와주려고) 기사의 토크페이지에서 토론할 섹션을 만들었다...그러나 내 포스트에 그 기사를 기존의 방식으로 "변경"하자는 제안과 함께 (shheesh, 그 밤들 중 하나였다.)어쨌든, 내 코멘트를 받아 들였지만, 만약 그렇다면 토론이 이루어져야 할 부분이기 때문에, 제목/재간접적인 것에 대해 정말로 더 많은 제안이 있는 사람이 있다면 섹션은 거기에 있다. 08:20, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것이 "해결된" 것으로 표시되어 있다는 것을 알지만, 나는 그러한 "사건들"에 대해 어떤 미래에도 조언을 해줄 것이라고 생각했다.누군가가 이런 '논의 없이' 행동을 할 때, 이를 대담한 편집이라고 하며, 이의 제기가 있다면 그것을 처리하는 최선의 방법은 단순히 뒤로 옮겨 무버를 초청하여 그 움직임에 대해 논의하도록 하는 것이지, 반칙은 없다.무버가 이 문제를 계속 반복해서 논의하기를 거부하거나 개스킷폭파하는 경우에만 "사건"이 된다.그 다음에야 WP와 같은 공지사항 게시판 중 하나에 해당 조치를 "보고"하는 것을 고려해야 한다.DRN. --Ron Ritzman (대화) 11:25, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

누군가 일부러 페이지를 옮기고 이후의 리디렉션을 편집하여 뒤로 옮겨지는 것을 방지하는 식으로 리디렉션하는 경우에도 여기 가져도 괜찮지만, 그렇지 않으면 론 리츠만이 하는 말이다.북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 12:23, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
"Redirect turning", eh? *files away for later* - The Bushranger 18:52, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

제이콥 브로노프스키

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

나는 그가 2살이었을 1910년에 그러한 순위가 폐지되었기 때문에 수석 랭글러스의 명단에서 그의 이름을 삭제했다.나는 입력을 수정했고 누가 했는지 모른다.그들은 돌아오지 않을 것이다. 80.189.171.149 (대화) 16:59, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]이(가) 추가된 선행 미서명 의견

글에는 "1910년 이후 원로 랭글러"라는 긴 목록이 실려 있어 a) 틀렸고, b) 왜 전체 섹션이 아닌 이 하나의 이름만 지울까?그리고 어떤 경우든 이것은 A의 문제가 아니다?관리자 작업이 적절하거나 요청되지 않기 때문에,롤랑R (토크) 22:18, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

중단 IP

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

해결됨

31.47.9.130(토크 · 기여 · 삭제 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그) 이 익명 사용자는 반복적으로 경고받은 정확한 편집 패턴을 계속한다.BLP(디프·디프)에도 비소싱 소재(디프)를 첨가하고, 되돌릴 때(이력) 재검증해 교란시킨다.사용자의 토크 페이지는 경고와 최종 경고까지 가득하다. --RJFF (토크) 18:50, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

72시간 동안 막혔어Mfield (oi!) 18:55, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

제프리 리히트먼 (편집하다 이야기를 나누다 링크스 역사)

누가 이 기사를 좀 봐줄래?아사드슨(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)은 선의 편집 내용을 되짚어 반달리즘으로 오인하고 명백한 비중립적 자료와 독창적인 연구를 계속 삽입하고 있다.또한 아사드슨은 DiltonDoiley(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)의 속편일 수 있다.클릴리디플로머스+토크 19:28, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

새로 등록된 편집기 사용자:렉스로스1이 내 마지막 롤백을 되돌리기 위한 유일한 편집인 싸움에 돌입했다.나는 아사드슨 페이지에 3RR 경고를 올렸고, WP를 만족시키기 위해:NEWNEW, Lichtman Talk 페이지에 주제를 열었다.--Bb23 (talk) 19:47, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
내 추측으로는 렉스 로스1이 현재 나의 3RR 경고의 타이밍에 기초하여 아사드슨을 대신하여 편집하고 있다.나는 보통 보고서를 열지 않고 양말 인형극 편집자를 고발하지는 않지만, 이 경우 양말 인형극 문제와 관계없이 양말 인형극 편집자 모두를 차단해야 한다.--Bbb23 (대화) 19:53, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
둘 다 막혔고, SPI 이슈와 무관하게 둘 다 3RR에 대한 명백한 위반이다.Mfield (oi!) 20:00, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
그들이 막히는 대로 계속해서 신규 계좌를 개설할 것이 확실하다.도미너스 보비스두(토크) 20:02, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답하라]
만약 둘 다 24시간 후에 다시 온다면, 나는 SPI 보고서를 제출할 것이다.향후의 신규 계정에 대해서는, 하나의 가능성은 SPI 보고서, 또 다른 가능성은 반보호다.--Bbb23 (대화) 20:06, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 이미 그 페이지를 2주 동안 줄였다.건배. 살비오 20:09, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
고마워, 살비오, 처리해야 할 일이 하나 줄었어.--Bbb23 (대화) 20:13, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:78.101.214.226—가능한 법적 위협

이 사용자는 이 편집 요약에서 법적 위협을 한 것으로 보인다.그것은 또한 위키미디어 재단의 사칭 가능성처럼 보인다.너희에게 보고하는 게 최선이라고 생각했어NTox · talk 19:42, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 나는 사용자들이 남용 대응과 같은 것들과 파괴하는 사람들에게 무슨 일이 일어나는지 폭넓게 언급하고 있었다고 생각한다.요약본에는 "고마운트 관할 위키백과"가 나오지만, 요약본에는 자신이 WMF의 일부였다는 것을 전혀 암시하려 했던 것은 아닌 것 같다. 72.137.97.65 (대화) 22:13, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 나는 그 기여를 훑어보고 그가 AIV에 반달신고를 하는 것을 보았다.단순히 반달리즘을 되돌리려는 것 같아. 72.137.97.65 (대화) 22:17, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
도와줘서 고마워.네 말이 맞을지도 몰라.그럼에도 불구하고, 나는 법적 논평에 대해 고민했고 더 경험이 많은 사람이 한번 보는 것이 최선이라고 생각했다.이미 처리된 것 같군NTox · talk 22:23, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

예후다미즈라히

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

예후다미즈라히 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 로그)

예후다미즈라히는 끈질긴 POV 퍼셔다.그는 기사에서 인용한 출처가 그의 POV를 지지하지 않음에도 불구하고 팔레스타인팔레스타인 기독교인들에게 같은 변화를 거듭하고 있다.그는 설명 없이 오프라 하자의 재료를 제거한다.맞닥뜨렸을 때, 그는 롤랑R를 모두 모욕했다. (벤 조나는 "창녀의 아들"을 의미한다.)

예후다미즈라는 편집-워링에 대한 경고를 받았을 때, 자주 로그아웃하여 익명으로 계속 편집한다.WP 참조:Sockpuppet 조사/예후다 Medina Mizrahi/아카이브에서 자세한 정보 확인

누군가 관련 역사를 검토하고 예후다미즈라에 대해 적절한 조치를 취해주겠나?감사합니다.말릭 샤바즈 Stalk/ 22:49, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

이 편집자가 여러 IP를 이용해 오프라 하자에서 자주 빼내는 소재는 예멘 출신이라는 점, 예멘 인플루언스 음악을 연주한다는 점이다.이 편집자는 또 말라와치, 자흐눈, 스컹크 등 많은 음식 기사에서 '예메니'(혹은 히브리판 '테이마니'로 대체한 경우도 있다)라는 단어를 삭제했으며, 예멘인의 스텝, 호라(댄스), 플라멩코, 화이뇨 등 많은 무용 기사를 교란적으로 편집했다.이것들은 많은 다른 편집자들에 의해 역전되었고, 그들 중 몇몇은 다른 분야에서 파괴적인 편집을 눈치채지 못했다.나는 그를 속이기 위해 두 번이나 신고했다.내 보고서가 정확하고 정당하다고 인식되었지만, 이 편집자의 편집 패턴은 메인 계정과 여러 IP(모두 온타리오 해밀턴에 등록)를 사용한 활동의 스패스를 포함하며, 그 다음에 비활성 기간이 뒤따르기 때문에 어떠한 조치도 취해지지 않았다.그래서 보고서가 검토될 때쯤이면 편집자는 실제로 편집하지 않고 있다.그러나 전체적인 패턴은 가식적이고 파괴적이며, 말릭과 나 둘 다에 대한 불성실함 그 자체는 제재를 받을 만하다.롤랑R (토크) 23:27, 2012년 2월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 방금 WP를 호출했다.NOTHERE 및 외설적인 예후다미즈라히(토크 · 기고)는 건방진 편집에 기여한다.내가 너무 강압적이라고 생각하는 관리자가 있다면, 블록 설정을 자유롭게 변경하십시오. 살비오 10Let's talk about it!:51, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
그래서 관리자인 Salvio Giuliano는 다음과 같은 가장 논쟁적인 주제 영역에 참여하는 편집자를 차단했다.
(1) 영어 이외의 문구를 반복적으로 사용하여 다른 편집자를 "창녀의 아들", "창녀"라고 부른다.
(2) 영어와 영어 이외의 문구를 사용하여 다른 편집자에게 "kiss my ass"라고 말하고 "go go yourself"라고 말한다.
(3) 로그아웃을 계속하기 위해, 다양한 IP에 의해서, 복수의 기사에서 「예메니」라는 단어를 삭제하는 장기 캠페인을 실시한다.
WP:NOTHERE는 정확한 평가인 것 같다:블록에서 좋은 판정을 받았다, 아이모. –오하이오 스탠다드 (토크) 11:18, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:말릭 샤바즈 & 사용자:RolandR - 편향된 사용자는 소싱된 정보를 허용하지 않지만 다른 사용자의 비소싱 정보는 허용

Malik Shabazz(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) RolandR(토크 · 기여 · 로그 삭제 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) 사용자가 다음과 같이 유튜브 기사에 많은 정보를 제공했다.말릭 샤바즈는 심지어 지키기로 결정했다.처음에 그는 내 정보원 하나를 허락했지만, 2달 후에 그는 그것을 가져갔다. 내가 걱정했기 때문에 나는 내 정보원을 다시 넣었고 그는 이미 그가 나를 차단할 것이라고 위협하며 나에게 응답했다.그는 매우 무례하고 강압적이다.

사용자:롤랑드르, 그는 출처도 없이 오프라 하사 기사를 남기고, 오프라 하사의 기사에 비소싱적인 문장을 허용해 왔지만, 내가 오프라 하자의 데이마니 배경과 출처들에 대한 문장을 붙이자, 그는 그것을 벗어버렸고, 바로 그가 나를 막으려던 무례한 방법으로 나를 협박하는 나를 속였다.내가 하는 일이라곤 위키백과에 기여하려고 하는 것뿐인데, 그는 또한 사실이 아닌 다른 일들에 대해서도 나를 비난하고 있다.그는 문제가 있고 그의 기사는 명백히 편향되어 있다. 왜냐하면 그는 비소싱 정보를 허용하고 있기 때문이다.관심 있는 분은 Ofra Haza 기사를 확인해 보십시오.나는 이미 이 사용자들을 보고했어.비바이어스 위키백과에 대해 이 사람들을 보고하십시오. 예후다미즈라히(토크 기여) 02:06, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]추가한 선행 미서명 코멘트

이것이것은 용납할 수 없다.그의 반응은 네 반응에 비하면 완전히 예의 바르다.(첫 번째 출처가 가리킨) 젠틀한 기독교도들이 함께 있었다면 그것을 유대교 기독교인들로만 한정하는 것은 불균형한 일이니, 말릭이 당신을 되돌리고 그만두라고 한 것이 옳다.
누군가말라카라고 부르는 것 또한 전혀 용납할 수 없다.이것에 대해 말하자면, 우리의 일은 정말로 우리의 일이다. 왜냐하면 여기서 sockpuppetry를 위해 다른 주소를 사용하는 것은 용납될 수 없기 때문이다.그가 미등록 자료를 허용하고 있다고 주장하는 에 대해, 기사의 첫 번째 소식통은 "하자 씨가 예멘인 유대인으로서의 자신의 배경을 자랑스럽게 주장했다"말한다.또 다른 한 명은 "오프라 하자는 1957년 11월 19일 텔아비브의 하티크바 구역에서 예멘에서 이민 부모들에게 태어났다"고 말한다.예멘 비트가 완전히 부정확하다는 너의 주장.게다가, 당신이 여기서 되돌리려 했던 변화는 하자가 예멘에서 이민부모에게서 태어난 9명의 아이들 하나라고 다시 언급하는 출처를 인용하고 있다." 그리고 어느 순간에도 "테마니"라는 단어는 당신이 인용하는 출처 어디에도 나타나지 않는다.
요컨대 말릭과 롤랑R이 당신을 되돌리고 당신이 그것을 계속하면 차단될 것이라는 것을 알려주는 것이 옳았을 뿐만 아니라, 당신은 출처를 오용하고, 다양한 인신공격을 하고, 그들이 소싱 문제를 야기시켰다고 주장하는 것이 잘못이었다.
나는 물러설 것을 권한다. 그렇지 않으면 관리자가 한 번 더 망친 후에 너를 완전히 차단할 수 있을 것이다.Ian.thomson (대화) 03:26, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
이 사용자와 그의 많은 삭푸펫이 "예메니"라는 단어를 삭제하는 것은 Ofra Haza뿐만 아니라, 보아즈 마우다, 말라와치, 이스라엘 민속춤, 아키노암 니니, 자흐눈, 예멘인 스텝 등 여러 가지 다른 것들로부터도 찾아볼 수 있다.이 느리게 움직이는 건방진 편집은 극도로 파괴적이며, 매우 많은 편집자들의 시간을 낭비하고 있다.롤랑R (토크) 08:52, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

이상한 양말 및 편집 마찰

몇 주 전에 여기서 논의된 이 이상한 편집 전쟁이 다시 고개를 들었다.69.171.160 범위의 Revertorium(토크 · 기여)과 여러 IP가 서로 싸우고 있는데, Revertorium은 IP가 금지된 사용자 Jeffrey Vernon Merkey(토크 · 기여)의 양말이라고 주장한다.아는 사람 있어?둘 다 막을까?(WT: 참조):플랜트#Orchid_wars) SmartSE (대화) 00:15, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그 두 가지를 모두 24시간 차단했다(IP 69.171.160.116 (대화·기여)).하지만 이 문제에 대해 아는 사람이 있다면 블록을 해제하거나 필요에 따라 블록을 해제하십시오.SmartSE (토크) 00:21, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
조사도 안 하고 무릎까지 막는다고?잘못된 움직임. 140.247.141.165 (대화) 00:48, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
예 - WP에 따른 처벌이 아닌 예방적 조치였습니다.블록. SmartSE (대화) 00:50, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

다음은 서로 확인됨:

이와 같이 나는 Revertorium의 블록을 무기한으로 만들었다. --MuZemike 00:52, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이 비난은 명백히 거짓이다.몇몇 관리자들은 어떤 금지된 사용자가 나를 고소하는 것을 좋아하는지 정확히 알고 있고, 나는 그것이 69.171.160.0/24 범위의 특정 편집의 배후에 있다고 말한다.내 추측으로는 위에 이름이 붙은 양말은 User:경계하라.내 추측에 50센트가 너에게 콜라를 사줄 것 같아.나는 지금 이 계정을 일종의 도플갱어(이 편집과 같은 매우 드문 예외를 가지고 있음)로 유지하고 있으며, 나는 새로운 계정으로 정기적으로 편집한다. ; 이름은 이미 WP사에 공개된 지 오래다.Pfagerburg (대화) 01:23, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

도대체 요즘 50센트짜리 콜라를 어디서 찾으십니까? --넬리블리 (대화) 04:27, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[답글]
2003년의 어느 날 당신은 그것을 1센트짜리 동전으로 얻을 수 있었다.[10] - 부시레인저 04:52, 2012년 2월 27일(UTC)[답글]
너희 둘 다 무슨 일인지 설명해줘서 고마워.는 WP에 있는 우리 중 아무도 없다.FORTS는 금지된 사용자가 자신과 역전을 꾀하는 것으로 의심했을 것이다.Circéus (talk) 01:54, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
불행히도, 이런 정확한 일이 종종 놀랍게 일어난다(이상하게?) - 부시랜저 02:05, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
금지된 두 명의 사용자.하나는 위에서 언급한 IP 범위를 사용하고 다른 하나는 비질런트, 리버토륨 등을 사용한다.두 사람 모두 서로 편집전을 벌인다.지난 1년 동안 나는 아무런 증거도 없이 그 금지된 사용자들 중 한 명으로부터 많은 다른 계정(그 중 한 명은 사칭에 서투른 시도였다)과 IP 주소를 빼앗았다는 비난을 받아왔고, 그것이 내가 이번에는 개입하여 반박하기로 선택한 이유다.그는 가는 곳마다 내가 틀림없는 양말을 보는 것 같지만, 안타깝게도 착각하고 있다.나는 이제 나의 정규(그리고 오래 전에 제대로 정보공개된) 계정으로 돌아가서, 이것을 다시 도플갱어로 남겨둘 것이다.
코카콜라는 90년대 초반부터 50센트였습니다.나는 인플레이션을 따라가지 못했다. 왜냐하면 "그것과 25센트가 너에게 콜라를 사줄 것이다"라는 반지가 그것과 같지 않기 때문이다.파게르부르크 (대화) 15:30, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 6개월부터 69.171.160.xx 범위를 다시 차단했다.WT에서 몇 가지 논의가 있었다.식물들, 그러나 그것은 아마도 현명한 행동 방침일 것이라는 것에 동의했다.그때 다음과 같은 대화가 일어났다.사거리가 막혀서 의미가 없는데, 왜 "Can't We have ADIALOG?"가 더 이상 할 말이 없는 거지?내 말은, 그는 분명히 IP/사용자들을 옹호하지 않는다는 거야.IP 확인과 가능하다면 IP 블록도 받을 수 있을까?나는 어떤 종류의 트롤링이 여기서 작동하고 있다는 묘한 느낌을 가지고 있지만, 내가 개인적으로 누군가에게 언급했듯이, 나는 지금까지 몇 년 동안 실제로 시행을 하지 않았다(걸레는 내가 보통 그렇게 잘 다루는 것으로 판명되지 않았다).Circéus (대화) 15:02, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워 - 누군가에게 부탁하려고 했어!SmartSE (대화) 18:14, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
WT에서 토론 이동:식물

이 단원에서만 이 문제에 대해 얘기할 수 있을까? 방황하는 사람이 당장 쓰러지지 않고?

다음은 WP를 편집하기 위해 69.171.160.* 범위에서 사용된 IP들이다.플랜트 기사, 거의 독점적인 난초 기사:

군사용 브래트와 모르몬교 방지 재료가 식물 용품과 혼합된 일반적인 실도 참고하십시오.

Merkey의 심장과 가까운 거리에 있는 동일한 범위의 IP 편집 항목:

여기에 정리한 증거들을 보십시오.Jeff Merkey는 저작권이 있는 텍스트를 그의 작품을 가리기 위해 광범위한 IP 주소를 사용하여 많은 기사에 삽입(아마도)하기 위해 많은 노력을 기울였다.

여기랑 ANI에 대해 얘기하면 안 될까?

편집 창 바로 아래에 "저작권을 위반하는 내용은 삭제됨"이라는 텍스트가 있다는 점에 유의하십시오.백과사전적 내용은 검증가능해야 한다."

우리는 ADIA로그를 할 수 없는가?(talk) 05:31, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

자기 소개를 먼저 하는 게 예의라고 생각하지 않으세요?이게 다 무슨 일이야?애초에 머키는 누구야?그의 이름을 사용하는 것은 대량 반전을 위한 충분한 명분이 되지 않는다. -- OBSIDIAn 28SOUL 05:35, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
[11] 머키의 역사.주위를 두리번거리다.수많은 양말 퍼펫들, 20번이나 레즈비언에 변명을 했고, 법적 협박을 했고, 사람들의 일을 부르고, 게이들과 모르몬들에 대한 미친 짓들, 작품들.또한 [12] Merkey를 검색한다.
그는 광범위한 IP 주소에 인용문/소스가 없는 수 많은 편집문헌을 추가함으로써 당신의 난초 기사를 효과적으로 오염시켰다.하고 싶은 대로 해라.우리는 ADIA로그를 할 수 없는가?(talk) 05:44, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
Obsidian, 이 사용자는 User의 또 다른 sockpuppuppet이다.Revertorium사용자:제프머키 입니다위 난초전쟁 토론의 유풀스.--톰 헐스 (토크) 06:27, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
섹션 제목을 읽지 않으셨습니까?우리는 ADIA로그를 할 수 없는가?(토크) 06:37, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
농담이지?ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ양말 퍼펫을 사용하고 금지된 상태에서 편집하는 동안?네 게시물이 얼마나 우스꽝스러운지 모르겠니?무료 접대에 감사드리고 싶다.이것은 연속극보다 낫다, lol.;) --톰 헐스 (대화) 09:29, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
위키피디아에 있는 수백 개의 기사에 수천 개의 편집된 저작권 상태를 삽입한 건 나라고?차이를 모르겠어?우리는 ADIA로그를 할 수 없는가?(토크) 2012년 2월 28일 10시 19분 (UTC)[응답하라]

사용자:마인드주이서 및 양말퍼피트리 허위 고발

마인드주이서(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 최근 AN/I의 상단을 향한 나사산당 알트 메디 기사 사용이 금지된 주제였다.그는 나 자신에 대한 양말 퍼피에 대한 거짓 비난을 하기 시작했다. 사용자:SummerPhD사용자:그의 토크 페이지에 있는 유명한 개.나는 여기서 그에게 이것은 괴롭힘으로 해석될 수 있다고 경고했고 우리 셋은 모두 많은 페이지를 편집하는 기성 편집자라고 설명했다.그는 아무런 대답 없이 나의 메시지를 삭제했고 그의 토크 페이지에 그 비난들을 남겼다.나는 사용자를 차단하도록 요구하는 것이 아니라, 이러한 비난이 제기되거나 WP에 넘겨졌으면 한다.SPI를 한 후 양말이 없다는 것이 확인되었을 때 충격을 받았다.나는 이 토론을 사용자에게 즉시 통지할 것이다.Nformationo 01:54, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에게 알렸지만 여기서 알림을 제거했다는 점에 유의하십시오.NformationoTalk 02:10, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
WP를 떠날 예정이라 당신을 괴롭히진 않았지만 언제 멈춰야 할지 모르는 것 같아. --Mindjuiser (토크) 02:18, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
나갈 거면 토크 페이지를 비우고 가십시오.네가 여기 있고 나와 다른 편집자들에 대한 잘못된 비난이 있는 한, 그건 처리해야 할 일이야, 미안해.Nformationo 02:21, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

"양말 인형극의 의심"과 WP가 있는 경우:SPI는 "양말 인형뽑기 의혹에 관한 중앙집중식 포럼"인데, 우리 중 한 사람(또는 "나 중 한 사람"이어야 하는 것)이 MJ의 고발로 거기에 실타래를 시작함으로써 이 문제를 처리할 수 없는 이유를 알 수 있을지 모르겠다.(내가 생각하기에 짧을 것 같은) 수사관의 시간을 완전히 낭비하는 것 외에는 이의가 없을 것이다.그렇지 않으면, 어쨌든.MJ는 사라졌다고 한다.문제, 즉 해결되었다고 한다. - SummerPhD (대화) 03:20, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

블록 검토 요청

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

사용자 Jehochman은 48시간 동안 IP 편집기를 차단했는데, 이는 사용자:jehchman에 의해 촉발된 문제였다.48시간이 너무 많은 것 같다.사실 그 블록은 더 이상 합리적인 설명 없이 징벌적으로 보인다. 뉴비지 (토크) 02:57, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

블로커, 블록키, 그리고 급박한 사건을 분산시킬 수 있다면 매우 도움이 될 것이다.플루퍼넛은 샌드위치! (토크) 03:00, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
죄송합니다, 광대역이 재생되고 있습니다,IP 편집기 90.179.235.249 토크 페이지를 참조하십시오. 고마워 NewbyG(토크) 03:03, 2012년 2월 27일(UTC)[응답]
편의 링크: Jehochman (토크 · 기여), 90.179.235.249 (토크 · 기여)두 편집자에게도 알렸지 네가 하지 않은 일을 말이야플루퍼넛은 샌드위치! (토크) 03:06, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
무엇 때문에 불평하는 겁니까?내 블록 메시지에서 설명한 것처럼 IP는 중단되었고, 두 가지 모두 거부된 두 가지 차단되지 않은 요청을 게시했다.제호Talk 04:10, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
난 이 특별한 실마리를 추구하지 않을거야, 뉴비게이스.좋은 일은 없을 것이고, 나는 이 문제에 대해 적절하게 다루어지지 않고 있는 정당한 좌절감이 있는 것으로 알고 있다.나도 답답하다; 하지만 실이 완전히 망했다는 것을 알고는 이런 실을 열려고 하지 않는다.일이 저절로 풀릴 것이다. 괜찮을 것이다.건배...Doc talk 04:16, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
내 토크 페이지를 방문하여 우려 사항을 침착하게 상황 및 관련 증거를 제시하십시오.여기서 바로 토론하는 것보다 토론하는 것이 가장 좋다.제호만 04:22, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • FWIW, 나는 제호크만이 이성적이거나 객관적으로 행정가의 결정을 내릴 수 없다는 것을 암시하는 "부정"의 증거가 없다고 본다.Drmies (토크) 04:25, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 헤-음, 내 생각엔 네가 이 의 첫 단락을 어떻게 읽느냐가 다인 것 같아.아마도 모호한 언어는 "망명"되어야 할까?나는 특히 관리자들 사이에서, 아마도 다른 어떤 정책적 관점보다 "인볼루션"에 대한 오해가 더 많다고 본다.Doc talk 04:32, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 간단한 블록이라도 합법화를 시도하기 위해 너무 자주 "인플레이션"이 호출된다.IP가 많은 장애를 일으켰다는 것은 내게 꽤 명백해 보인다.그리고 티데롤스가 차단 해제 요청을 거절한 건?아니면 ANI의 모든 블록을 검토할까?Drmies (토크) 04:45, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 제기랄!나는 NBG가 여기서 이것을 추구해서는 안 된다고 말했다. - 실을 닫아라.Doc talk 04:49, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
(충돌 편집)"Involided!"의 외침과 "Drive-by-admining!"의 외침 사이의 영역이 불안정하게 좁다는 것이 나의 관측이다. - 부시레인저 04:50, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[답글]
"관리자 학대"를 잊으셨군요.문서 대화 04:52, 2012년 2월 27일(UTC)[답글]
    • 여기서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 내가 가장 희미하게 알고 있는 것이 아니라, 만약 그 제안이 대답할 사례가 없어서가 아니라, 그것보다 "정의는 이루어지지 않을 것"이기 때문에 실을 닫아야 한다는 것이라면. - 애런 브레네만 (토크) 04:54, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
      • 아, 30초짜리 리뷰는 이것이 검토를 견딜 수 있는 블록이라고 내게 암시한다.물론 내가 편견을 갖고 있다는 말은 아니지만, 이것은 검토가 있을 정도로 충분히 지저분해 보인다는 것이다. - 애런 브레네먼 (대화) 05:02, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
재검토가 필요한데, 내가 진지하게 받아들일 기회가 없고, 장점이 없어서가 아니라 생각했기 때문에 폐지를 건의한 게 맞아.Doc talk 05:12, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 관리자 남용에 대한 Re:Doc의 논평개인적으로는 행정관까지.학대에 지치다우리를 베면 피를 흘리지 않지?… 한숨 쉬어…Ched : ? 06:55, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 "관리자 학대"라고 외치는 것은 관리자가 정말로 학대받고 있다는 것을 의미한다고 여러 번 말했다.Doc talk 07:01, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
IP가 다른 편집자들을 공격하는 것을 멈추고, 다른 편집자들이 정책을 위반하도록 부추기는 것을 멈추는 것에 동의하고 행동한다면, 나는 그들의 블록을 일하는 시간으로 단축시킬 수 있다.제호Talk 07:17, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
다른 사람들이 정책을 위반하도록 공격과 격려해 주시겠습니까?(증거 없이 그런 주장을 하는 고소인에게 우리가 얼마나 가혹한지 주목한다.) - 애런 브레네만 (대화) 08:56, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
Jehchman이 그를 위한 차이점을 찾는 것에 내가 개의치 않는다면, 여기 있다: North8000과 S Marshall에 대한 Clear PA: "당신과 S Marshall은 트롤링 중이거나 명확한 판단을 할 수 없다." [13] [14].정책을 위반하도록 부추기는 것은 더 스케치하지만, 나는 여기서 [15] [16]의 논평이 앞의 토론과 관련하여 언급되고 있는 것이라고 추측한다. - 부시 레인저 09:11, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
운영 중단 사용자가 IP로 편집하기 위해 로그아웃한 것을 잊지 말자. 사용자:Jehochman 13:11, 2012년 2월 24일 (UTC) NewbyG (토크) 09:33, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
뉴비, 당신은 IP와 같은 편에서 WP:V 분쟁에 연루되어 있지 않은가?단순히 같은 전투의 연장선상에만 참여하지 않고 어떻게 참여는 어떠세요?(동일한 코멘트는 해당 분쟁에서 여기까지 흘린 다른 모든 사람에게 적용된다.)제호만 12시 10분, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]


나는 IP의 토크 페이지에서 사용자들이 Jehochman과 그들의 차이점을 토론하도록 격려했다.나도 여기 블록에 대해 궁금한 게 있었어.나는 부시 레인저에 의해 언급된 논쟁의 여지가 있는 PA가 분쟁 해결의 맥락에서 일어났고, 그것은 그 논의를 전혀 격화시키지 않았으며, 제3자의 DR 중재자에 의해서도 언급되지 않았다는 것을 주목한다. 즉, 그러한 맥락에서 사용자들이 그들의 차이를 배열할 수 있는 약간의 여유가 있어야 한다.알란스코트워커 (대화) 13:11, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

이 IP는 전혀 관련이 없는 페이지로 나를 따라갔고, 차단 해제된 상태를 유지하는 방법에 대한 나의 충고를 무시하기 위해 차단 해제된 상태라고 사용자에게 말했다.그것은 다른 사용자들에게 파괴적이고 완전히 잔인했다. 왜냐하면 그것은 그가 다시 막히도록 강요하고 있었기 때문이다.내가 편집 이력을 확인했을 때 IP가 다른 편집자들을 상대로 인신공격하는 것을 보았을 때, 무게의 균형은 IP를 차단할 필요가 있다는 것이었다.(아마도 IP가 나를 괴롭히도록 동기를 부여한) IP에 대한 나의 이전의 언급은 그 방정식을 전혀 고려하지 않았다. 왜냐하면 나는 그 당시에 이 IP와 그 IP가 동일하다는 것을 인식하지 못했기 때문이다.IP 번호는 사용자 이름처럼 기억에 남지 않는다.IP가 인신공격과 교란, 교란 등을 포기하면 조기에 차단을 해제할 수 있다.그렇지 않으면 블록은 다른 날이 지나면 만료된다.제호Talk 13:46, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
어? 나한테 말한 거야?나는 어떤 "측면" 사용자도 아니다.제호크만.그리고, 우리가 이걸 하루 더 토론할 수 있는 사치를 가지고 있는 것 같군. 그리고 모든 게 끝나버렸어.그러나 당신은 상당히 차단되어 있던 또 다른 기억에 남는 사용자를 차단 해제하기 위해 서두르셨습니다.
이런 모순이 내가 이 페이지의 분노를 이겨낸 이유지, 어떤 "측면"이 아니라, 마치 네가 그렇게 생각하고 싶어하는 것처럼 말이야.그리고 나는 "바닥 위의 피"를 원하지 않는다. 나는 특히 행정관들이 너무 불공평한 비난에 직면하고 그것을 견뎌야 하는 것이 어떤 재판이 되어야 하는지 알고 있다.아니, 난 그런거 전혀 원하지 않아 그리고 내 생각엔 이건 이기는게 아니라 그냥 공정하고 효율적인 과정을 보는거야 뉴비지 (토크) 14:01, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
알았어. 더 잘 이해한 것 같아.내가 IP를 독려한 것처럼 J와 IP가 잘 풀렸으면 좋겠다.IP는 반사되어야 한다.나는 J가 성실하고 너그러운 목적을 가지고 너의 말을 들을 것이라고 확신한다.바라건대 너도 그렇게 하길 바란다.알란스코트워커 (대화) 15:50, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
다시 한 번 말하지만, 만약 내가 이 문제에 대해 잘 알지 못한다면, 미안한데, "제호크만 조언에 반대한다"는 것이 "다른 사람에게 정책을 위반하도록 부추겼다"는 것이 무슨 뜻이었을까?내가 좀 두툼한 편인데 거기에 대해 명시적인 답변을 할 수 있을까? - 애런 브레너먼 (대화) 15:57, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
아니. 문제는 다음 번, 이미 항균제 POV를 밀어내는 데 문제가 있는 사용자에 대한 심술궂은 반동 선동이었다. [17] 나는 심지어 사용자가 왜 차단되었는지 이해할 수 있도록 내 블록 메시지 [18]에 이 차이를 인용하기도 했다.제호Talk 16:00, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
그 모든 것이
"그리고 네 말이 맞아, 많은 기사들은 유대인의 편견이 심하고, 특히 이스라엘의 역사에 관한 기사들이야.그들 대부분은 구약성서를 믿을 만한 자료로 인용하며 유대교 신앙의 요소를 사실인 것처럼 묘사한다.그것은 다른 곳에서는 용납할 수 없을 것이다."
나는 그 인용문이 유대인에 대한 증오를 조장하는 것으로 합리적으로 정의될 수 있다고 믿지 않는다.같은 질문을 여러 번 하는 것 같은데, 그게 어떻게 "다른 사람에게 정책을 위반하도록 부추기는" 것인지 모르겠다. - 애런 브레너먼 (대화) 03:36, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그것이 의미하는 바는, 그것이 나머지 토론의 맥락에서, 그것이 그것에 대한 대응으로서 추가된 것이 선동이라고 생각되었다. (나는 그것이 실제로 있는 것인지 아닌지를 오핀으로 토론을 훑어볼 시간이 없었지만, 나는 지금 여기서 말하고 있는 것이라고 생각한다.) - 부시레인저One ping only 06:48, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
딩, 딩, 딩, 네가 상을 타.제호Talk 07:08, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
그것은 터무니없는 논쟁이다.문맥상으로도, 이것은 IP 사용자들을 괴롭히는 문제일 뿐이다. 왜냐하면 그것은 매우 하기 쉽기 때문이다.나는 아직도 그것이 부끄러운 일이라고 생각한다. NewbyG (토크) 09:31, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 선의의 편집자인 체코 IP 90.179.235.249가 부당하게 차단됐고, 어제 03시 이후로는 24시간, 그것도 40시간이나 너무 길다.엉터리 삭푸펫 조사가 마무리된다.
    사용자:Jehochman, 나는 당신에게 이 문제에 대한 몇 가지 단서를 보여주고 체코 IP 90.179.235.249를 차단해제를 요청한다.어리석은 실수를 고쳐라.
    만약 당신이 신경 쓰지 않는다면, 우리는 여기서 더 이상의 의견을 기다리고, 당신이 잘못 제정한 체코 IP 90.179.235.249의 블록에 대한 합의를 분별해야 한다. IMHO 감사(Talk)-- NewbyG (토크) 16:32, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

사용자:Noozgroop

1년 내내 누즈그롭(토크 · 기여)은 위키백과 스타일 매뉴얼(MOS)을 위반해 왔다.MOS는 "두 가지 이상의 스타일이 받아들여질 수 있는 경우, 편집자들은 실질적인 이유 없이 그러한 스타일 중 하나에서 다른 스타일로 기사를 변경해서는 안 된다"고 말한다.변경되고 있는 MOS 규칙은 MOS:NUM(WP:오디날(ORDINAL))은 "일반적으로 한 글의 본문에서 0부터 9까지의 한 자릿수 정수를 단어로 표기하고, 9보다 큰 숫자는 한 두 단어로 표현하면 숫자 또는 단어로 표기할 수 있다(16, 16, 16, 84, 84, 200, 200 또는 200).많은 사람들이 '6대'보다는 '16대'를 쓰는 것을 선호한다는 것을 알고 있지만, MOS는 두 가지 용도를 모두 수용하고 있으며, 변경해야 할 실질적인 이유가 없는 한 기사 스타일에 도전하는 것은 다소 혼란스러운 일이다("중재위원회는 편집자들이 하나의 가이드라인 정의 방식에서 '16대'로 기사를 변경해서는 안 된다고 판결했다.단순한 스타일 선택과 무관한 실질적인 이유가 없는 것).2011년 2월 이후 Noozgroop은 동일한 것에 대해 여러 번 경고를 받은 것을 고려하면, 사용자 대화:Noozgroop#2011년 2월, 사용자 대화:Noozgroop#Edit warring, User talk:Noozgroop#편집 내용에 대해 사용자 대화:누즈그루프#2011년 7월, 사용자 대화:Noozgroop# 2011년 10월, 사용자 대화:Noozgroop# 2011년 10월 2일 사용자 대화:누즈그루프#편집, 사용자 대화:Noozgroop# 2011년 11월사용자 대화:누즈그로프# 2012년 2월그리고 그가 다른 사람들과 의사소통할 관심이 매우 낮다는 것(또는 전혀) 나는 이 사람과 무엇을 할 수 있는지 모르겠다.트보치.문법적으로 틀리십니까?정답!약관을 참조하십시오.2012년 2월 27일 07:57 (UTC)[응답하라]

아야! 저 툴서버는 살인자야.아무한테도 말 안 해?우리는 봇을 가지고 있고, 그것들은 필요할 때 꺼질 수 있다.인간 편집자들은 기본적인 수준에서 의사소통을 시도해야 한다.Doc talk 08:03, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
그래. 내가 48시간 동안 주의를 끄는 블록을 발행했어. (그들이 그것을 알아차릴 만큼 충분히 길었으면 좋겠다.)아이세렌talk 10:01, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

에스콰이어

해결됨
- 편집자 인데버가 차단되었으며, 이를 인정했다. 편집자가 시간을 내어 (토크→ BWilkins ←트랙) 15:10, 2012년 2월 27일(UTC)[응답]
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.후속 코멘트는 새로운 섹션으로 작성되어야 한다.

Escuir(토크 · 기여 · 블록 로그)의 일반적 행위에 대해 WP를 근거로 매우 부정적으로 논평하였다.EW, WP:V, WP:경쟁력EdjonstonBwilkins의 편집필요하다.

최근 편집-전쟁에 대한 불만이 아무런 조치도 취하지 않은 채 보관된 상태여서, 그는 아직 고소장이 공개되어 있는 동안 자신이 완화했던 활동을 재개했다(라이오넬트 코멘트).

이제 내가 여기서 언급한 모든 편집자들에게 알리겠다.에소글루 (대화) 09:31, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 파괴적인 편집으로 복귀한 것은 교과서적인 시스템 게임이다.리오넬 09:41, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 "교과서"라고 말하지는 않았지만, 충분히 보았다.나는 불행히도 외설적이었지만, 매우 심층적이고 개인화된 블록 알림 (talkBWilkins tracktrack) 11:51, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]을 제공했다.
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

보리스 말라구르스키

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

다음과 같이 수정했다.

  1. WP에 따르면, 과도한 인용구를 산문으로 접었다.롱쿼트
  2. 또한 같은 것에 대해 이야기하는 작은 단락들을 병합한다.
  3. 모방, 일시적 및 공작 용어 손실
  4. 주목할 만한 비평, 토크당.

그리고 즉시 빵빵

  1. rv

Talk에 게시된 설명:보리스 말라구르스키#보리스 말라구르스키 기사는 기껏해야 납득할 수 없고, 최악의 경우 사용자가 조작한 일련의 양말 퍼펫을 나타낸다.보말라구르스키 - 사용자:Cinéma C, 사용자:어반빌라거.다른 사람들은 이것이 단지 너무 지나친 WP라고 생각하는가?사고라고? --조이 [shallot] (대화) 09:54, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 그럴 수도 있지그러나 당신이 지적한 편집 내용은 2011년 11월이다.보말라구르스키는 2006년 이후로 편집하지 않았고, 시네마 C는 2010년 이후로 편집하지 않았다.당신이 옳을 가능성은 전적으로 있지만(UrbanVillager는 다른 관심사가 없는 SPA이고, 어딘지 모르게 괜찮은 편집 기술을 가지고 나왔다) SPI가 지금 할 수 있는 것은 아무것도 없으며, 보말라구르스키와 시네마 C는 처음부터 차단되지 않는다.기사를 편집하거나 다시 편집해서 어떻게 되는지 볼 수 없니?WP를 사용할 경우:NPOV가 자네를 지원하겠네아니면, 나는 여기서 행정 개입이 어떤 도움이 될 수 있는지 모르겠는데, 그 외에 다른 보증되지 않은 블록도 있다.Drmies (토크) 14:48, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

REVDEL 이해

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

궁금함: 템플릿에서 다음 [19] 편집 사이의 REVDEL을 참조하십시오.모두 Smallcaps(토크 내역 링크 감시 로그 편집)편집자의 이름/IP까지 삭제하도록 사이트를 위협하는 편집이 있었는가?레브델 노트는 아니고?내 편집일 수도 있어!뭐가 잘못됐어? -DePiep (대화) 13:35, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

관련 로그 항목이 여기에 있음.그 행정관은 역사 병합 중에 우연히 만든 자신의 편집본을 숨기고 있었다.리퍼 이터널 (토크) 13:39, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
삭제된 편집 내용은 기록 병합 프로세스(01:04, 2012년 2월 27일) 이전인 2012년 2월 25일 13:22부터입니다.또한 편집자 id를 rm으로 하는 것이 필수적이며 revdel-reason을 제공하지 않는 것이 그러한 경우인가? -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
나도 잘 이해가 안 가, 내 생각엔 RevDel이 활성화되기 전에 편집은 단순히 옛날 방식대로 삭제되었을 것 같아.하지만 거기엔 "논쟁적인"게 없어, 정말로.확실히 현장에 위협이 되지 않는다.ap 15:47, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

사용자 Xelba.davi의 동작

새로운 사용자 Xelba.davi(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 BLP Eliyahu rips성경 코드의 매니페스토(성경 텍스트에 숨겨진 미래에 대한 알림 메시지)로 바꾸고 있다.립스는 이 코드들의 지지자지만, 새로운 텍스트는 위키피디아의 거의 모든 규칙을 위반한다.이 차이점은 문제의 덧셈을 보여준다.그것은 WP를 심각하게 위반하고 있다.NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SINTH, WP:NOR, 이것만 보면 "토라는 세계가 창조되기 전에 창조되었다" "우주의 진화(그리고 지구의 진화)는 위키피디아의 중립적인 목소리로 쓰여진 토라의 문자들을 무한히 조합하여 얻은 것"과 같은 것을 발견할 수 있을 것이다.당신은 페이스북과 자체 출판된 웹사이트인용문을 찾을 것이다.당신은 살아있는 사람들의 의견의 심각한 왜곡을 발견할 것이다: "로버트 아우만: 이것은 3백 년의 과학 연구 중 가장 위대한 발견이다."또한 비평가들이 반체제 인사라는 주장도 있다: "엘리야후 립스는 정교회 유대인이기 때문에 그의 연구에 편향된 것으로 비난 받는다."Xelba.davi는 자신의 작업이 그저 괜찮다고 주장하는 것 외에, 의견과 논거 없이 모든 변화를 되돌린다 [21]의 반대에도 대답하거나 토론에 참여하지 않는다.(이력) 나는 관리자 보조 외에는 앞으로 나아갈 길이 보이지 않는다.

사용자가 알림: [22]

공개:페이지에 내 실명이 나타나듯이, 나는 회의론자로서 "Bible code" 논쟁에 관여하고 있다.비록 내가 이 페이지에 내 의견을 삽입한 적은 없지만, 나는 정말로 완전히 아무런 의도도 없는 사람이 그 페이지의 변호를 맡았으면 좋겠다.

구하고자 하는 구제 방법:페이지는 이 버전과 같이 유해한 자료를 포함하지 않는 버전에서 보호되어야 한다.사용자 Xelba.davi는 편집을 차단해야 한다.매케이(대화) 03:09, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 나는 되돌렸고, 검증되지 않은 편집에 대한 경고를 남겼고, 여기에 별도의 메모를 추가할 것이다.그런데 맥케이, 이거 꼭 ANI에 갖다 줘야 해? (아니오) FWIW, 둘 다 여기서 편집전을 좀 하고 있잖아.다음 번에는 BLP 게시판도 아마 더 좋은 장소일 것이고, 더 심해지면 편집전광판도 더 좋은 장소일 것이다.오, 안돼... 젤바는 아직 봉쇄되지 않을거야.드레이미스 (대화) 03:31, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • FWIW, 나는 그러한 도살 행위에 대한 최선의 방어는 기사를 더 좋게 만드는 것이라고 생각한다; 이 기사는 믿을만한 참고자료 한 장도 없이 꽤 빈약한 상태에 있었다.드레이미스 (대화) 03:48, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

눈, 제발

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

요아힘 가우크에 대한 흥미로운 편집.IP(217.23.69.206 (토크 · 기여 · WHOIS))는 Gulag--Gauck의 아버지가 한 사람에게 보내졌다는 단어 주위에 계속 인용 부호를 덧붙인다.여러 출처가 있다. 하나는 "ein Straflager nach Sibirien"이고 하나는 Gulag의 철자를 말해준다.IP는 후자가 틀렸다고 주장하며 우리는 "부처"를 다루고 있다.나는 이것을 반달리즘이라고 부르고 싶다. 그리고 IP의 다른 많은 편집들은 의심스럽다고 생각한다. 그러나 나는 3R에 있기 때문에 나는 더 이상 되돌릴 수 없다. 그것은 BLP이다. 하지만 문제는 아버지가 걱정하신다.주목해 주셔서 감사하다.Drmies (talk) 05:47, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

최근에 이 IP의 차단을 해제한 후, 나는 다시 잠겼다.Toddst1(토크) 06:06, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
고마워. 그리고 되돌아갔어?드레이미스 (토크) 06:10, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

신의 진실된 삶: 반달리즘 가능성?

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

신의 참다운 삶은 내가 발견했을 때 단조로운 기사였기 때문에 나는 다음과 같은 두 부분을 추가했다.글쓰기 스타일동방 정교회의 입장.로마 가톨릭 교회의 입장이라는 단면보다 더해졌다.로마 가톨릭 교회의 스탠스 섹션 아래 는 바술라 라이덴 기사의 다음 단락을 추가했다.

앞서 언급한 신도들에게 2000년 라이덴의 요청이 있은 후, 라칭거 추기경은 2002년 그녀의 메시지와 성경과 성스러운 전통과의 관계에 대한 다섯 가지 질문에 답하기 위해 라이덴을 초대했다.라이덴은 같은 해 말에 회중에게 회답을 보냈다.이 대화가 끝날 때, 전 CDF 회장인 조지프 라칭거 추기경 - 현재 교황 베네딕토 16세는 공식적으로 자신과 CDF 간의 완전한 서신을 TLIG 출판 책에 발표해 줄 것을 요청했다.이후 추기경은 2004년 7월 10일자 서한을 라이덴의 5개 성공회 총회에 보냈다. 그녀는 자신의 글과 참여에 대해 "그녀의 결혼 생활에 대한 유용한 설명뿐만 아니라 상기 통지에서 제시된 어려움에 대해 상세히 설명했다"고 밝혔다.성찬의 티온"이라고 말했다.이 모든 과정은 1999년 당시 라칭거 추기경과 닐스 크리스티안 뷔트 박사가 처음 대화를 요청했던 개인 청중으로 마무리됐다.<참조>바술라 라이덴과 CDF 사이의 대화 - http://www.cdf-tlig.org</참조).

그 후 단락을 조금 편집한 후 참조 웹사이트(http://www.cdf-tlig.org)로 가 보기로 했다.위키백과 지침에 맞지 않는 셀프 참조 또는 자체 발행 웹사이트라는 것을 알게 되었다.나는 그 문단을 그렇게 삭제하고 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:True_Life_in_God에서 내가 왜 그렇게 했는지 설명했다.

그리고 나서, 토크 페이지에서, 나는 사용자 페이지가 없는 것처럼 보이는 사용자로부터 편향에 대한 잘못된 비난을 받기 시작했다.사사낙.나는 그에게 그 단락을 삭제한 이유를 설명했다.

새스낵은 "수정안 479107697"(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_Life_in_God&action=history)과 다른 사용자인 아르카타코르바술라 라이덴 기사에 실린 글과 관련된 내용을 삭제했다며 나를 거짓으로 비난했다.

이 두 사용자에 의해 기사가 파손되는 것 같아, 나는 지금 어떻게 해야 할지 모르겠어.아래는 TLIG 기사의 편집 목록으로, 당신은 디프트를 볼 수 있다.

TLIG: 내 첫 번째 편집

TLIG: 두 번째 편집

TLIG: 세 번째 편집

TLIG: 81.153.103.78의 첫 번째 편집

TLIG: 81.153.103.78의 두 번째 편집

TLIG: 내 네 번째 편집

TLIG: 내 네 번째 편집(세 번째 편집과 비교)

TLIG: 내 다섯 번째 편집

TLIG: 내 여섯 번째 편집

TLIG: 일곱 번째 편집

TLIG: 여덟 번째 편집, 대화 웹 사이트가 자체 참조라는 것을 깨달았을 때

TLIG: Sassanack의 첫 번째 편집

TLIG: Sassanack의 두 번째 편집

TLIG: 내 아홉 번째 편집

TLIG: Sassanack의 세 번째 편집

이 글의 상황은 이렇다.10월 13일 (토크) 14:01, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

그들에게 알렸니?내가 문밖으로 나갈테니까 그렇게 안할거야. 하지만 그들은 WP:SPA와 다른 사람들은 그것에 문제가 있었다.더그웰러 (대화) 14:06, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그들이 사용자 페이지가 없으면 어떻게 하는지 모르겠다.10월 13일 (토크) 14:12, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
당신을 대신해서 두 편집자에게 통지했다. -- Scjesy (대화) 14:16, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
고마워! 하루빨리 해결됐으면 좋겠어.10월 13일 (토크) 14:18, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
위키피디아의 작업을 이해하는 척 할 수는 없지만 위에서 언급되는 상황은 터무니없다!만약 누군가가 그 기사를 파손하고 있다면 그것은 '10월 13일'이다.그는 분명히 '하나님의 참된 삶' 메시지를 부정적인 방식으로 묘사하기를 원하고 있으며 긍정적인 것은 무엇이든 삭제하고 있다.지금 그 페이지는 성리학에 대해 논술하고 있기 때문에 나는 바술라와 바티칸의 대화에 대한 정확한 정보를 다시 삽입할 것이다.사사낙(대화) 16:41, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
대화를 위한 더 좋은 웹사이트를 찾으십시오.자체 게시 또는 자체 참조 웹 사이트를 사용하지 마십시오.그런데, 신앙의 교리를 위한 회합은 로마 가톨릭 교회의 입장 섹션에 있는 기사에서 인용한 문서에서 바술라와 그 자신 사이에 대화가 이루어졌다고 진술했다("전 질문에 대한 차분하고 주의 깊은 검토...앞서 언급한 오류들이 라이든의 후기 저술에서 더 이상 나타나지 않는다는 사실...";; 그래서 나는 기사에 게시된 대화를 반대하는 것이 아니라 나쁜 웹사이트가 언급되는 것을 반대한다.10월 13일 (토크) 17:39, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
당신은 "나는 그 기사에 올려진 대화에 반대하지 않는다"고 말한다.그럼 내가 대화 자체를 위키피디아로 복사하는 것에 반대하지 않으세요?이 대화는 바슐라에 대한 증오심이 너무 크기 때문에 바티칸에서 출판한 적도 없고 제3자에서도 출판된 적도 없다.하지만, 당신도 알다시피, 대화는 이루어졌다.그래서 여러분과 같은 사람들이 '나쁜 웹사이트'가 참고용으로 사용되는 것에 반대한다면 위키피디아는 이 문제를 어떻게 다루는가?문제가 된 웹사이트는 옥스퍼드대 출판부가 펴낸 예언서 저자와 교황 베네딕토 16세가 선서한 책이라는 점을 지적하고 싶다.사사낙 (대화) 19:40, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
다른 웹사이트를 찾으십시오.10월 13일 (토크) 20:13, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
참고: 여기에서 논의되고 있는 두 편집자의 링크는 부정확하다.올바른 링크는 다음과 같다.

-- Scjessey (대화) 14:22, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 흥미로운 주제.형편없는 물건.나는 아직 "반달리즘"이라고 생각되는 것에 도달하지 못했지만, 나는 당신이 다섯 번째 편집에서 이 링크를 추가했다는 것을 주목한다. 예를 들어, 그것은 확실히 믿을만한 출처가 아니다.나는 또한 기독교 예언의 서투른 패러프레이싱 - 성서전통 후기; 당신이 이전 버전에서 지킨 그녀의 글씨에 대한 구절은 그 책(AFAIK)에서 찾을 수 없지만 당신의 단락은 그것을 암시했다.더 자세히 봐야겠지만, 지금으로서는 블록버튼을 가진 관리자들이 그 위에 던져지기 전에 엄격한 편집으로 처리해야 할 문제인 것 같다.Drmies (토크) 19:36, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • BTW, 누가 파일 좀 봐줄래?바술라리덴.jpg. 그리고 이 72세 할머니가 언제 이렇게 생겼어야 했는지 말해줄래?아니면 단순히 기적일까?Drmies (토크) 19:40, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 바술라 라이덴 기사에서 크리스천 예언과 antiochian.org에 관한 정보를 베꼈다.그러나 나는 그들이 믿을 수 없는 출처인 줄 몰랐다.미안하다.10월 13일 (토크) 20:13, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]
라이덴의 외모에 대해서는:화장품과 수술은 큰 진전을 가져올 수 있다.1013 (토크)2012년 2월 28일 (UTC) 20:17[응답]
옷과 헤어스타일(그리고 사진의 기본 톤)은 그녀가 30대였을 1975-80년의 우리의 주요 사진의 날짜를 가리킨다.더 중요한 것은 이 글의 참조가 잘 되어 있지 않다는 것이다.주요 참고 문헌은 주요 출처인 사사낙이며, 그것이 에세이나 논문의 경우 괜찮겠지만(더욱 선호된다) 위키백과 기사에는 적절하지 않다.위키피디아는 신문, 잡지, 리뷰, 학술지, 심지어 TV나 라디오 프로그램이나 편집 통제 기능이 있는 독립 웹사이트 등 신뢰할 수 있고 완전히 독립적인 제3자에 대한 기사를 참조할 것을 요구한다.True Life 웹사이트는 독립적이지 않고, 독립적이고, 자발적이지 않은 편집 통제가 없기 때문에, 그것은 우리의 목적을 위한 믿을 만한 출처가 아니다.결국, 누구든지 자신에 대해 어떤 것이든 주장할 수 있다.나는 내일 웹사이트를 만들 수 있다. 내가 - 엉뚱한 예를 들자면 - 덴마크의 정당한 여왕이라고 주장하는 것이다.그렇다고 해서 내가 덴마크의 여왕이 되는 것도 아니고, 누군가가 내 웹사이트를 출처로 삼아 나에 관한 기사를 쓰는 것은 위키백과 정책에 어긋나는 일일 것이다.나의 주장은 예를 들어 코펜하겐 신문이나 왕실 계보에 대한 학자적 저널 등 신뢰할 수 있고, 책임감이 없는 제3자에 대해서만 언급될 수 있다. 어느 경우든, 그러한 출처는 적절할 것이다.내 웹사이트는 그렇지 않을 것이다. --넬리블리 (대화) 00:59, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
참고 사항으로서, 1차 출처사용할 수 있지만, 주의를 기울여 사용해야 하며, BLP에는 사실적 데이터의 가장 빈약함 이상에 적합하지 않다. - 부시레인저 05:46, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

바술라 라이덴 기사가 TLIG와 연결되지 않는다는 걸 방금 깨달았어.TLIG가 기사와 합쳐야 할까?10월 13일 (토크) 20:40, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

TLIG는 내가 토크 페이지에서 토론을 시작한 후 이제 리디렉션된다.그것은 라이덴의 전기에서 나온 내용 포크일 뿐이었다.더그웰러(토크) 17:37, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

이슬람교

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

해결됨
검은 연에 의해 차단된 삭푸페트리
⋙-베레안
헌터2012년 2월 29일 01:41, (UTC)[응답]

나는 뛰어야 하기 때문에 간략하게 말해야 한다: 일주일 또는 그 이상 전에 나는 차단했다.Wowletruth123이슬람교에 대한 편집-전쟁과 논쟁적이고 비중립적인 등의 삽입을 위한 것이다.Wowletruth는 같은 기사로 돌아와서 SPA 부업자를 고른 것 같다, 사용자:사이다심.나는 둘 다 무기한 차단되어야 한다고 생각한다. 하나는 POV 전사고 다른 하나는 양말이나 고기다.하지만 그건 내 생각일 뿐이야누가 좀 조사해줬으면 좋겠어.고마워, Drmies (대화) 01:05, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

친애하는 Drmies에게
나는 수다떨었다.내가 편집한 내용은 단순히 이슬람이라는 용어 자체가 중립적이지 않으며 이슬람교도들이 이전 용어인 모하맛단주의와 마찬가지로 분개하고 있다는 것이다.사용자가 대체 pov를 볼 수 있도록 단순히 추가한 참조는 삭제하지 않았다.
그들의 토크 코멘트에 반응하는 것조차 귀찮게 하지 않고 단순히 사람들을 금지하는 것은 불공평하다.
wt
Woletruth123 (대화) 01:21, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
좋은 블럭이야, 블랙 카이트.
⋙-베레앙-헌터2012년 2월 29일 01:41, (UTC)[응답]
(e/c) Wowletruth가 블록마다 편집전을 계속한다고 해서 일주일 동안 차단한 것은 Saadasim 인데버트를 시끄럽게 꽥꽥거리는 양말처럼 막았다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 01:44, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

근거 없는 제재 및 관리 도구 남용 가능성

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

실에서 WGFinley 행정관이 나에게 부과한 제재안을 보고하러 왔습니다 (FkpCascais 섹션 FkpCascais.나는 내가 정책을 위반했다는 것을 증명하는 단 한 번도 나에게 제시되지 않은 채 6개월 동안 주제에서 쫓겨났다. 토크 페이지(User_talk:FkpCascais#Arbitration_강제)와 함께, 내가 문제의 글 (!!!)에서 단 한 편도 편집하지 않은 것에 대해 감히 호기심이라고 말할 수 있다.내 모든 행동을 연대기적으로 보여 주겠다.

  • 나의 감시자 유고슬라비아 파르티잔인들 밑에 있는 기사에서 다른 편집자들 사이에 논쟁이 벌어지고 있다.나는 기사 편집에는 참여하지 않지만, Talk에서 보는 바와 같이 양측의 토론을 촉진함으로써 기여한다.유고슬라비아_파르티잔스#중재대화:유고슬라비아_Partisans#Content_dispute, 편집자에게 출처와 기사 내용에 집중하도록 요청.그 사이 코사수이는 3일 동안 기사를 보호했다.
  • 나는 논쟁적이고 비협조적인 텍스트의 삽입에 반대했다(소스는 편집 중인 내용을 포함하지 않았다).나는 출처를 분석해서 노출시켰지만, 사용자들이 출처에 문제가 있다고 감탄했음에도 불구하고 출처를 가져올 것이라고 발표하는데 한계가 있었다.나는 그러한 출처를 요청했지만, 토론을 피하기 위해 (이미 다른 기사에서 논의된 것과 동일한 출처가 되고 다른 사용자들에 의해 강한 우려가 표출되었기 때문에) 의도적으로 제공되지 않고 있었다.누진네).기사는 코사수이가 3일 동안 보호했지만 사용자들은 토론을 피하고 보호가 만료되기를 기다리면서 논란이 되는 동일한 내용을 복원할 수 있도록 시스템을 게임하고 있었다.
  • 위키피디아에서 보고서를 만들었는데Administrators_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Trolling_and_disperimate_behavior_in_토론, 그러나 첫 번째 비실력자로부터 긍정적인 개입을 한 후, 다른 사용자인 Admin Animate를 비난하고, 여러 번 "savi"를 개입시켰다.ING"DRECTOR" 과거 보고서에서 모든 면에서 동일한 작업을 수행했으며, 심지어 최악의 경우 이미 제시된 출처에 대해 잘못 알고 있었다.나는 다소 거칠게 반응했고, 나는 어떤 출처도 토론에 나오지 않았다고 폭로했지만, 그는 두 번째 논평에서 다시 한번 잘못된 정보를 제공하고 그것을 나에게 부메랑으로 만들기 위해 최선을 다했다고 주장했다.
  • 애니메이트의 그런 무책임한 행동에 놀란 나는 짐보 토크 페이지에서 그 특정 관리자와 그의 문제적 개입에 대한 조언을 구하는 실마리를 열었다.
  • 그 동안 기사의 보호 시간이 거의 다 되어가고 토론에서 진척이 없어 코사수이에게 보호를 확대해 달라고 부탁했지만, 코사수이는 토크에서 보듯이 "토론의 가치"에 대해 토론에서 메모를 남기고 나의 요청을 거절했다.유고슬라비아_파르티잔스#보호.애프터워즈, 나의 노력에도 불구하고, 토론에서 아무런 진전이 없었고, DRERECTOR가 편집 전쟁을 복구하는데 단 5시간밖에 걸리지 않았다. 전체적으로 동일한 비지원적이고 논쟁적인 국가 기반의 텍스트(새로운 출처는 없지만, 그들이 심지어 그 편집에 대해 잘못 알고 있는 이전 텍스트)를 삽입했다.
  • 그 후, 그리고 어떤 행정관도 이 사건과 나의 우려에 주의를 기울이지 않는다는 것을 알고 난 뒤, 나는 되돌리지 않고 편집하지 않고 잠시 토론을 계속하며 잠시 휴식을 취하며 나 자신을 완전히 제거한다.
  • 다음 주 동안 사용자 중 한 명은 소스를 개선하려고 노력하고 다른 한 명인 PRODUCT는 먼저 ANI 보고서 하나를 가지고 나를 영구적으로 제거하기 위한 전면적인 캠페인을 시작하고, 그 한 명이 실패한 후 "친절한" 조언자 애니메이트의 추천을 받아 WP에 가져갔다.AE(FkpCascais 섹션).

나는 내 자신을 변호했고 토론과 논쟁 해결을 선호했다. 내 모든 개입, 기사 토론과 보도에서 분명히 알 수 있듯이, 나는 그 에피소드를 통해 이러한 태도를 유지했다.그때쯤이면 그 토론에서 나의 마지막 논평이 있은 지 벌써 2주일이 지나 있었다.그리고 얼마 후 나는 놀랍게도 6개월의 주제 금지에 의해 제재를 받았다.이 금지는 위키피디아에 근거하고 있다.TE위키백과:포룸샵.그들은 또한 내가 다른 이상한 실에서 1RR/48시간 제한으로 제재를 받았다는 사실로부터 약간의 뒷받침을 제공하는데, 그 실에서는 2회 되돌림과 1회 수정은 편집 전쟁으로 간주되었고, 4회 번복은 반대편으로 무시되었으며, 그 실에서는 실에 대한 메모도 받지 않은 채 제재를 받았기 때문에 나는 c가 없었다.내 자신을 방어할 수 있는 능력관리 사용자:자이언트 스노우맨은 당시 그것에 대해 우려를 표명했지만, 제재에 대한 수정은 이루어지지 않았지만, 나는 어느 쪽도 항소를 꺼리지 않았다. 나는 편집쟁이가 아니었고, 제재는 정말 나에게 아무런 고통도 없었고, 그것은 나에게 완전히 무참히 전달되었다.자이언트 스노우맨도 User_talk에서 보듯이 최근 이 에피소드에서 에드존스턴에게 이 사실을 알렸다.에드존스턴/아카이브_25#FkpCascais.

그러나, 한 번의 부당한 제재를 가하는 것은 용인될 수 있지만, 한 번의 디프가 지원하지 않는 두 번째 제재는 허용되지 않는다. (그리고 나의 모든 문제는 한 명의 사용자와 관련된 전방위적 문제였고, 14번의 DREVCTOR 차단이었다.)내가 여기서 불평하고 있는 이 제재는 내가 내 쪽에서 유일하게 적극적인 참여자였기 때문에 논쟁에 분명히 개입했고, 다른 3명의 이용자들은 그들의 행동 중 일부는 제재할 수 있고 내가 다른 것들을 제공했던 것이 무시되었다는 것을 말하지 않고 분명히 행정 조치의 혜택을 받았다.설상가상으로, 나는 모든 차이점을 제공하는 WGFinley 행정관에게 모든 것을 상세히 설명했고("부탁한다" 참조), 그리고 에드존스턴이 제재의 근거를 지지하고 "합작"했기 때문에 그 실에 대해 알려주었다.WGFinley는 며칠 동안 결석했고, 그 동안 User_talk에서 EdJohnston에게 모든 것을 설명했다.에드존스턴/아카이브_25#WP:AE.

여기서 내가 강조해야 할 것은 관리자인 WGFinley와 EdJohnston 둘 다 나에게서 모든 사건에 대한 통지를 받았고, 나는 그들에게 필요한 모든 것을 제공했다는 것이다.두 사람 모두 내가 기사를 편집하지 않았다는 통보를 받았으므로 위키백과는 다음과 같이 말했다.TE는 여기에 잘못 적용되었고, 또한 나는 어느 곳에서도 실을 두 배로 늘리지 않았다는 것을, 그래서 위키피디아에 대한 혐의는 다음과 같다.포룸샵 또한 거의 이해할 수 없다.6개월간의 엄격한 제재가 무엇에 대한 지지를 받고 있는가?나는 그들이 안내를 받지 못한 것을 안타까워했고 그들이 모든 것을 청산한 후에 그들의 결판을 바로잡기를 바랐지만, 나는 그들 두 사람으로부터 더 이상의 변명을 하는 태도를 보고 몹시 당황했다.그 변명은 그들의 대답에서 알 수 있고, 그들은 내가 참여했던 RfM의 사용료를 내게 청구하는 것에서부터, 동료 관리자에 대해 불평하는 나의 실마리를 "실토"하는 것으로부터, 내가 그들 두 사람의 대화 페이지에서 제재에 대해 논의한다는 핑계로 포럼 쇼핑 요금을 지지하려고 하는 또 다른 불합리한 것으로까지 이어진다.내가 요점을 증명할 때마다, 그들은 단지 사실을 피하고 나의 주장과 질문을 무시했다.

그들은 둘 다 나에 대한 선의가 없었고, 그들의 비난을 뒷받침할 차이도 없었고, 어떤 정책도 분명하게 보여주지 못했고, 그들은 논쟁의 한 면을 직접적으로 선호했고, 게다가 그들은 나를 제재할 때 까지 2주간 논쟁에서 활동하지 않았기 때문에 분명히 나를 징벌적 제재로 돌렸다.Animate는 ANI 보고서에 거짓말을 했다고 폭로한 후 WP에 다음과 같이 권고했다.AE는 ANI에서 보고서가 실패했다는 것을 인지한 후, 개별적으로는 WGFinley와 EdJohnston은 나에게 한 가지 명백한 혐의 없이 6개월의 제재를 가했다.그들이 나를 처벌하기 위해 가능한 모든 (그리고 불가능한) 핑계를 써서 시스템을 교란시켰기 때문에, 나는 여기서 나의 제재가 해제되도록 요청하고 있고, 두 행정관은 이런 종류의 보복 행위에 대해 걱정해야 한다.FkpCascais (대화) 07:17, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]

아니다. 여기에는 "관리자 학대"가 없다. WP 위반으로 보고된 경우:ARBMAC. 두 명의 무권한 행정관이 당신의 이력을 살펴보고, 당신이 (그들은 또한 위반하는 다른 당사자들이 있다는 것에 동의하지만) 동의하고, 당신을 주제별로 금지시켰다.그것이 바로 ARBMAC이 의미하는 바- 마케도니아 기사들은 문화 전사들의 보금자리여서 한 번 이상 줄을 서지 않는 사람은 누구나 화제 금지를 받는다.두 분 다 반년 이상 싸워왔다는 데 동의하셨고, 그래서 판결을 집행하셨습니다.앞으로 6개월 동안 다른 기사 편집하기. --PrsN 19:34, 2012년 2월 29일(UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

AFTv5 댓글.조치가 필요한가?

안녕, 누군가 Date 강간 약물에 대한 AFTv5 피드백 로그에 "날짜 강간 약물을 받았다는 증거가 있는지 검사받으려면 어떻게 해야 하지"라는 글을 올렸어.위키백과 헬프 데스크에 게시물이 아닌 만큼 이에 대해 조치가 필요한 것은 없을까.고마워!리퍼 이터널(토크) 17:06, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

확실하지는 않지만, 만약 당신이 이것의 성격으로 볼 때 여기서 빠른 응답을 받지 못한다면, 나는 emergencywikimedia.org@으로 이메일을 보내는 것이 정당화될 수 있다고 생각한다.케빈 (토크)20:26, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

블루프

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

2주 전, 블루페가 일본 슈퍼 센타이 프랜차이즈와 관련된 거의 모든 토크 페이지에 영어 자막있는 온라인에서 불법으로 TV 보러 있는 곳을 묻는 글을 올린 것을 발견했다.그는 나와 다른 편집자에게도 같은 요청을 하면서 연락을 취했다.나는 이 모든 것을 되돌리고 나서 그에게 잘못을 충고했다.그는 거의 모든 페이지에서 나를 되돌리기 위해 계속했고(위처럼 다른 페이지를 스팸으로 보내지 않을 것이다), 내가 왜 그를 되돌렸는지 물었고, 왜 그가 물어볼 수 없었는지 계속 물었고, 나는 그에게 그 이유를 말하고 그의 토크 페이지 메시지를 다시 삭제했다.오늘, 나는 가 두 개의 새로운 페이지에서 정확히 같은 요청을 했다는 것을 알게 되었다.나는 그를 다시 되돌렸고 그의 토크 페이지에 엄중한 메시지를 남겼다.나는 Blope가 "이 쇼들을 어디서 볼 수 있을까?"라고 묻는 것 외에는 아무 것도 할 수 없을 거라고 생각한다. 그리고 그는 지역 사회의 시간과 자원을 낭비하는 것이다.율롱 (竜龙) 20:34, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자는 확실히 스팸 발송 및 WP 위반:비사회적인 네트워크.류룽은 토크 페이지는 백과사전을 협력하고 개선하기 위한 것이며 사소한 부적절한 대화를 허용하고 있다고 말하는 것이 옳지만, 그가 위키피디아에 기여하기 위해 이 비디오를 사용할 계획이 아니라면 그가 사용하는 방식을 사용하려는 것은 아니다.또 다른 예로, 그러한 편집은 15일 전에 이루어졌는데, 이는 내가 이 이슈를 STISTY로 간주한다는 것을 의미한다.—사이버파워 (Chat) (WP 편집: 519,718,088) 21:02, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
류룽이 말끝에 말한 것처럼 블루페는 최근 두 페이지로 다시 물었다 [23][24]. 그래서 별로 진부하지 않은 것 같다.이 ANI 스레드 후에, Blope는 마침내 그것이 적절하지 않다는 것을 인정한 것으로 보인다.닐 아인(토크) 21:27, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
그가 다시 사방에 게시하지 않는 한 난 저 두 사람을 무시하겠어.사이버파워 (Chat)(WP 편집: 519,735,640) 22:43, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 솔직히 그가 그것을 이해하지 못한다고 생각한다.그는 2주 전에 17페이지에 걸쳐서 스팸메일을 보냈고 오늘 다시 물었다.하지만 그 점에서, 그는 내가 또한 제거했던 NOTFORUM 질문을 복원해 달라고 요청하고 있는 것 같다.율롱 (竜龙) 02:44, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 동의한다.WP:NOTHERE, 벌써 막아라. - 부시 레인저One ping only 02:55, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
완성. 북방빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 06:02, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

행정적 고압성

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

해결됨
RM Nobody Ent 18:51, 2012년 3월 1일(UTC)[응답]

다음 사용자:키스 D는 같은 에 대한 어떠한 논의도 개시하지 않고 H. P. 워드를 험프리 워드로의 편집-워링과 리디렉션하는 것을 반복해 왔다.이렇게 하면 사용자:키스 D는 또한 내가 편집한 내용을 10-15번 정도 되돌려서 내가 추가한 인포박스와 인용문, 그리고 내가 했던 복사 편집 작업을 반복적으로 제거했다.그런 행위는 유치하고 도도하게 굴며 행정관이 맡지 않는다.우리는 아논으로부터의 공공 기물 파괴에 맞서기 위해 많은 조치를 취한다.하지만 만약 관리자 자신이 공공 기물 파손에 탐닉한다면 어떨까.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:28, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 WP를 볼 필요가 있다고 생각한다.RM과 적절한 조치 요청 - 당신이 하고 싶은 변경은 일단 험프리 워드에서 해야 한다.
의사소통이 완벽하지 않은 동안에도 그리 나쁘지도 않고 편집도 반달리즘이 아니다. -- 지우개헤드1 <토크> 18:32, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
(충돌 편집)그것은 분명히 공공 기물 파손이 아니며 키스 D는 편집 요약에서 번복에 대해 설명했다.그의 토크 페이지에서 그와 토론하십시오.2012년 3월 1일(UTC) 18시 34분 아무도 참여하지 않는다[응답하라]
괜찮아그러나 그는 내가 했던 복사 편집 작업과 인포박스를 추가하는 것을 포함한 다른 편집 15개를 다시 수정했다.그건 확실히 좋은 취향이 아니지, 그렇지?반전에 대한 설명 없음(이동 제외)나는 관리자가 기사의 역사를 더 잘 살펴본 후에 되돌리기를 기대한다.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:39, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
(충돌 편집)아니, 문제를 일으킨 건 너야.그가 원칙상 당신의 움직임에 반대하는 것이 아니라, 당신이 "복사-붙여넣기"를 하려는 것처럼 보이기 때문에 위키피디아의 절차를 위반하는 것인데, 이것은 위키피디아의 리스트 작성 요건에 문제를 일으키기 때문에 매우 문제가 있다.같은 문제를 되돌리는 대신에, 여러분이 해야 할 일은 키스 D의 조언을 따르고 위키피디아를 사용하는 것이다.문서를 새 제목으로 이동하도록 요청하는 요청된 이동.여기 보이는 것은, Ravi, 당신이 WP라는 약자로 알려진 그 당시의 기본 원칙을 어겼다는 것이다.AGF. 당신은 키스 D.가 "당신을 잡으려고" 나갔거나, 아니면 뭔가 잘못된 행동을 하고 있다고 가정했겠지요.대신, 그가 하는 일은 당신이 원하는 것을 하기 위해 잘못된 방법 대신 올바른 방법을 사용하도록 하는 것이다.미래에는, 자신을 되돌리는 사람들이 나쁜 행동을 하고 있다고 가정하는 대신에, 대신 자신의 일을 보고, 자신이 잘못했을 수도 있는 것을 보려고 노력하는 것이다.이 경우 분명히 잘못한 것이 있다(잘라서 붙이는 동작을 한다).대신 올바른 방법(요청된 이동 방법 사용)을 사용하여 문제를 올바르게 해결하십시오. --Jayron32 18:37, 2012년 3월 1일(UTC)[응답]
그래, 인포박스가 없는 기사, 참조가 적은 기사가 이 권리보다 더 낫다.키이스가 내 행동을 되돌리고 싶다면 그건 괜찮지만 왜 내가 편집한 모든 것을 되돌린 거지?그리고 왜 나는 누군가가 나를 잡으러 나간다는 느낌을 받지 말아야 하는가?RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:45, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
멋지다!나 혼자 행동하지 말고 앞으로 움직여야겠다.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:47, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
AGF는 양방향이다.Ravichandar84는 문제를 만든 것이 아니라, 그들은 단지 기사들로 하여금 공통의 이름을 사용하도록 함으로써 백과사전을 개선시키려 하고 있다.그가 시도했던 방법은 명백한 방법이다; 카피 페이스트에 문제가 있다는 것을 알기 위해서는 저작권과 위키피디아 라이센스에 대한 난해한 지식이 필요하다.Nobody Ent 18:43, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
(분쟁 편집) 누구도 관여하지 않는 것을 절대적으로, 누구도 참여하지 않는 것을 수정하십시오.너는 빈틈없는 관찰자야.라비가 위키피디아를 개선하려는 첫 시도를 했을 때, 그는 나쁜 믿음으로 행동하지 않았다.그가 불평하러 왔을 때, 그리고 키스 D.의 행동을 "고손"이라고 불렀을 때, 그것은 불성실한 행동이었다.알다시피, 노바디 엔트, 한 가지 경우에 한 사람의 행동이 선하고 욕구가 있을 수 있으며, 다른 상황에서 같은 사람이 그렇게 좋지 않은 행동을 할 수 있다.사람들은 일차원적이지 않고, 그것은 일어날 수 있는 일이다.이 경우 라비는 위키피디아를 개선하려고 노력하는데 도움을 주려 했던 사람들을 꼬치꼬치 캐물어서는 안 되더라도 칭찬을 받아야 한다.선의의 답변은 키스 D.에게 연락해서 어떻게 하면 제대로 할 수 있는지 물어보는 것이었을 것이다.여기서 일어난 일은, ANI에 행정관의 고압적인 비난으로 곧바로 오기 전에 키스 D와 직접 그 문제를 논의하려고 시도하지 않았던 것으로, 키스 D가 선의로 일하고 있었다고 가정하지 못한 것을 나타낸다.그 실패는 키스 D의 토크 페이지에 있는 키스 D와 직접적인 의사소통의 부족에서 명백하다.다음 말을 전제로, Yes Keith D도 라비에게 연락을 하지 않았고, 그도 그랬어야 할 것이 분명하지만, 그는 또한 라비를 어떤 나쁜 믿음의 행동이라고 비난하지 않았다.사실, 그는 라비를 맹목적으로 되돌리지는 않지만, 편집을 통해 정확한 동작을 할 수 있는 다른 방법을 제공한다.그래, 그게 가장 좋은 의사소통 방법은 아니니까 누구에게도 말하지 않아도 되고, 어쩌면 키스 D가 라비의 사용자 토크 페이지를 이용하여 더 나은 노력을 할 수도 있었을지 모르지만, 그렇다고 해서 라비가 관리자 높은 손재주에 대한 비난(특히 키스도 행정관조차 쓰지 않았다는 사실에 비추어)을 이리저리 던지는 것도 용서하지 못한다.r 툴이나 위협적인 행동을 하지 말라.) --Jayron32 18:59, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
어떻게 그것이 명백한 방법인가?분명한 방법은 페이지를 올바른 제목으로 옮기는 것이지 새로운 페이지를 만들고 이전 페이지를 리디렉션하는 것이 아니라 상식이다. -합피사일러 18:57, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

오, 이런!나는 단지 내가 좋아하지 않는 것에 대한 나의 항의를 여기에 등록하고 싶었다.나는 그것에 더 깊이 관여하고 싶지 않다.WP를 따르도록 주의하겠다.미래의 RM.아마도 키이스는 그렇게 나를 되돌리기 전에 내가 어디서 잘못했는지 설명하려고 신경을 썼을지도 모른다.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:50, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그랬지, 넌 그냥 이해를 못했어.앞으로는 이곳에 오기 전에 기사토크 페이지나 관리자토크 페이지에서 정중하게 묻는다.Nobody Ent 18:54, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
관리자들은 선의의 편집을 되돌릴 때 우리가 여기서 보는 것보다 더 나은 의사 소통을 해야 한다. 가장 작은 것은 선의의 편집자가 자신의 작품이 왜 되돌아가는지를 확실히 이해하도록 노력하는 것이다.그들이 거들먹거리지 않고 그렇게 할 수 있다면 그것은 훨씬 더 좋다.선의의 편집자가 "문제를 만들었다"고 말하는 것은 무리다. 따라서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 합리적으로 설명할 자격이 없다.커트 앤 페이스트 동작을 되돌리는 것에서부터 좋은 생각이 아닌 이유를 편집자에게 설명하기 위해 애쓰기를 꺼내는 것, 그리고 올바른 절차는 무엇인가?·2012년 3월 1일(UTC)/snunww·18:56, 응답하라]
Maunus, 너는 그것에 대해 전적으로 옳다.편집자들은 왜 그들이 하고 있는 일을 하고 있는지를 설명하는 시간을 가져야 한다.그것이 그들이 하지 않을 때 "행정적인 높은 손"이 되는 것은 아니다.세상에는 "해야 할 일을 하지 않는다"는 레벨이 많은데, 이번 것은 그 규모로는 다소 낮았다. --Jayron32 19:01, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
오만과 행정 오만의 차이는 후자는 행정관이 한다는 점이다.그리고 그렇다 우리는 더 많은 행정가들을 기대해야 한다.·2012년 3월 1일(UTC)/snunww·19:11, 회신

나는 편집 요약을 사용하여 되돌리는 이유를 설명했고 경험이 많은 편집자에게 충분하다고 느꼈다.키스 D (토크) 19:04, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 합리적인 행동 방침이었다.라비는 그것을 얻지 못하고 좌절하여 이곳에 와서 엉뚱한 자리를 만들었지만 그렇다고 그들을 거세할 이유는 아니다.침착한 설명과 그들을 리디렉션하는 것이 전부였다.아무도 참여하지 않음 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)
[편집 충돌]그것은 합리적인 사고방식이며, 이 경우 라비가 단순히 이해하지 못한 것을 설명해 달라고 부탁하는 것이 더 잘했을 것이 분명해 보인다.그러나 나는 이것이 항상 선의의 편집자들과의 의사소통에 있어서 추가적인 노력을 기울이도록 상기시켜주는 것으로 받아들여야 한다고 생각한다. 왜냐하면 그것은 차이를 만들기 때문이다.·2012년 3월 1일(UTC)/snunww·19:29 [응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

관리 및 POV 푸싱과 관련된 심각한 문제

Hello: 사용자와 심각한 문제가 있음:Sitush와 관리자인 그의 친구들.이 차이점을 보라:[26] 제임스 프리에타그, 자일스 틸로슨, 리처드 사란, 노먼 지글러의 의견을 유념하라.Sitush와 그의 친구들은 Tod가 "나빴다"는 단 하나의 POV를 추진하고 싶어하고 박사들과 미국 일류 학교 교수들의 반대 의견은 이 무리들에 의해 거부된다.그들은 전쟁을 편집하고 나를 금지시키겠다고 협박한다.제발 도와주세요.Ror Is King (토크) 08:26, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

기사의 토크 페이지에서 토론을 시작하셨군요, 잘 하셨습니다.하지만 몇 분 전이었어AN/I에 빨리 콘텐츠 분쟁이 발생하기 전에 먼저 토의 기회를 주어야 할까?우리는 당신이 이용할 수 있는 분쟁 해결의 많은 다른 장소들을 가지고 있다. -- œ 08:36, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
난 이 무리들과 몇 주째 문제가 있어.그들은 모두 공모해서 Tod가 "나쁜" 단일 POV를 밀고 싶어한다.반면 리차드 사란 박사, 노르말 지글러 박사, 틸로츠온(왕립아시아학회 전 이사), 프리타그 박사(이타카대 교수: http://faculty.ithaca.edu/jfreitag/)) 등은 시투시와 그의 친구들이 유일한 권위자인 것처럼 댓글을 삭제한다.그리고 Qwy와 Boing 관리인은 그의 POV를 지지하고 나를 여러 번 금지하겠다고 협박했다.나는 왜 제임스 토드의 비평 섹션에 있는 위의 저자들로부터 인용하는 것이 허락되지 않는지 이해하지 못한다.Ror Is King (talk) 08:50, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
아마도 나는 충분히 구체적이지 않았을 것이다; 나는 xe가 그러한 변화를 만들고 싶다면 xe가 분쟁 해결을 추구해야 한다고 Ror가 King이라고 말했다.내가 토크 페이지에서 언급했듯이, 그 기사는 지난주에 특집 기사 지위로 막 승격되었다.FA 토론에는 10명 이상이 참여했고, 기사 토크 페이지에 댓글이 달렸다.다른 편집자는 로르의 우려가 설득력이 있다고 생각하지 않았다.비록 지금 당장은 그 문제에 대해 강한 의견 일치가 있는 것처럼 보이지만 우리는 분명히 그 문제를 논의할 수 있다.또한 FA 토론의 편집자 중 상당수가 인도나 카스트 관련 기사의 정상적인 편집자가 아니기 때문에 '시토쉬와 그의 친구들'의 자격이 없다고 생각한다.Qwyrxian (대화) 08:43, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
는 여기서 사란과 지글러에게 무엇이 잘못되었다고 생각하는지, 틸로츠온에게 무엇이 잘못되었다고 생각하는지에 대해 질문을 했다.당신은 응답하지 않는다.전쟁을 편집해서 날 금지시키겠다고 협박하는 것뿐이야언제부터 위키피디아에 대해 잘 알고 있는 작가들을 인용하는 것이 범죄가 되었는가?Ror Is King (토크) 08:52, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
만약 9명의 편집자가 한 가지 관점을 가지고 있고, 다른 관점을 가지고 있다면, 여러분은 아마도, 단지, 문제는 그들이 아니라, 여러분 자신일 수도 있다는 것을 고려해야 한다.그리고 비록 당신이 옳다고 하더라도, 당신은 침착하게, 특히 방금 홍보한 특집 기사에 대한 중대한 변경 제안과 함께, 토크 페이지에서, 문제를 논의할 필요가 있다. - 부시 레인저One ping only 09:05, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
9명의 편집자 중 누구도 지글러와 사란, 프리타그, 틸로톤이 토드에 쓴 글을 알지 못했다.그들은 그저 시투시의 노선을 견인하고 있을 뿐이었다.내가 Qwyrxian에게 나를 비판하는 그의 논평에 대해 질문했을 때, 나는 아무런 반응이 없다.여러분은 *단 한*의 편집자와 그의 친구들(일부 관리자)이 운동회를 하고 있다는 것을 알 수 있다.만약 내가 본아피드 소스를 추가한다면, 나는 내가 금지될 위협을 받고 있기 때문에 실수를 범하는 사람이다.Ror Is King (talk) 09:35, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
@Qwyrxian:"FA 토론에서 편집자 중 많은 수가 인도나 카스트 관련 기사의 정상적인 편집자가 아니다"라고 지적해 준 것에 감사한다.그들이 정말로 그 기사를 검토해야 하는가?그 분야에 대한 지식은 없지만 위키피디아의 품질 기준에 능한 편집자는 거의 없다는 이다.그러나 그러한 유형들 중 많은 것들이 이상하게 들린다.나는 많은 경험을 가지고 있지 않다. 따라서 많은 영화학자들의 편집자들이 위키피디아와 관련된 FA 지명을 검토해도 되는지 모르겠다.위키프로젝트 레피도프테라.나는 또한 그 기사가 모든 토론과 함께 FA 지위를 받은 것이 이상하다는 것을 알았다. 사용자:Ror Is King은 토크 페이지와 Sitush의 토크 페이지도 가지고 있었다.(사실 시투시 역시 FA 지위에 놀랐다.)RIK(Ror Is King)의 질의는 대부분 시투시, 때로는 너에 의해 회답된다.왜 평가자들은 이러한 것들을 RIK와 토론하는 것이 중요하다고 생각하지 않았는가?그들이 그의 진술들을 논할 가치가 없다는 것을 알았기 때문이었을까, 당신이 기사에 포함시킬 가치가 없다는 것을 알았기 때문이었을까?아니면 그들이 너희 둘이 어떻게 해서든 그것을 해결할 것이라고 믿었기 때문이었느냐?이제 Tod의 기사에 포함된 이 특별한 경우를 제쳐두자.'팀'으로 불리는 건 이번이 처음인가?아니면 많은 편집자들이 이런 의견을 가지고 있는가?일부 편집자가 '시투시와 그의 친구들'에게 금지 명령을 받은 것은 이번이 처음일까.현재 인도 게시판에는 한 편집자가 같은 말을 하고 있다.나는 대부분의 경우 너의 "팀"의 요점이 옳다고 생각한다.하지만 왜 모든 편집자들을 협박해야 하는가?이것 좀 봐줄래?이미지:Qxz-ad15.gif. -Animeshkulkarni (대화) 09:38, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
이는 콘텐츠 분쟁으로 보이며 기사토크 페이지에서 시작된 토론은 두 곳에서 진행되기보다는 그곳에서 계속 진행되어야 한다.여기서 필요한 행정 조치(블록, 페이지 보호 등)도 없고, 행정 권한 남용도 보이지 않는다.관리자는 다른 편집자와 마찬가지로 편집이 가능하며 모든 편집자가 사용할 수 있는 권한을 사용할 때 더 이상 또는 더 적은 권한을 가질 수 없다.김 덴트브라운 09:52, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 사용자를 차단한 경우:로르 이스 제임스 토드와 24시간 동안 노골적으로 의견 일치를 반대하는 편집전을 벌였다.그것은 새로운 FA이고, 우리는 그것에 대해 이 정도의 혼란을 가질 수 없다.또한, 나는 Ror Is King에게 WP를 따르는 것을 용납할 수 없는 거절에 대해 경고만 했을 뿐, 내용 불일치에는 전혀 관여하지 않았다.AGF(그의 토크 페이지에서 볼 수 있다)는 점에서 나에 대한 그의 비난은 상당히 거짓이다.나는 내가 여전히 WP와 일치한다고 생각한다.여기선 아무 말도 하지 않았다. -- 보잉! 제베디가 10:49, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]말했다.
그래서 그가 여기서 반응하지 못하게 되는 겁니까?아니면 차단된 편집자가 이 페이지를 편집할 수 있는가? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:06, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
만약 그가 원한다면, 그는 자신의 페이지에 응답할 수 있고,{{adminhelp}} 는 그의 답장을 여기로 옮겨달라고 요청할 수 있다. 살비오 11:16, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
(ec) 그는 여기서 차단된 상태에서 응답할 수 없으며, 내일 기사의 토크 페이지에 계속 토론할 수 있을 것이며, 이 토론은 그때까지도 열려 있을 수 있다(아마도 그렇지 않을 것이다).나에 대한 당신의 위의 질문에 대해서는, 공평하게 말하자면, 예스 시투시와 나는 한 팀으로 불려온 적이 있고, 연도와 특정 기사에 따라, 다른 편집자들이 한 팀의 일원으로 지명되었다.어떤 의미에서, 나는 우리가 위키백과 편집자들이 특히 WP: 정책을 따라야 한다고 믿는 상당히 큰 편집자 집단의 일부라는 점에서 자유롭게 "팀"이라는 것을 인정한다.NPOVWP:V... 모두가 신뢰할 수 있는 소스만을 사용하기 위해 최선을 다해야 한다는 것...그리고 사람들은 소식통의 말을 잘못 전하기 위해 긴 구절 중에서 몇 마디 말이나 구절을 골라서는 안 된다는 것(정확히 이 마지막, btw는 현재 문제가 되고 있는 기사에 대한 왕의 요청이다).때때로 "팀"의 일부로서 시투시 혼자 또는 시투시 혼자 비판받기도 하는데, 사람들은 그들의 지식이 믿을 만한 출처에 의해 뒷받침되지 않더라도, 그들이 알고 있는 사실이 사실이라는 것을 포함하기를 원하기 때문이다.이것은 그들이 반드시 "잘못"하다는 것을 의미하지는 않지만, 그들이 위키백과 기사에 그런 의견/입장을 포함시킬 수 없다는 것을 의미한다.Qwyrxian (대화) 11:20, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
아, 미안, WT만 보았어네가 말한 INB 주제.나는 '팀'에 속해 있지 않지만, 그 경우에도, 그 행동들은 100% 정확했다: 한 편집자가 만든 기사는 저작권 침해로 가득 차 있었다(사실, 참고문헌 이외에는 저작권 위반밖에 없었다).다른 출처로부터 복사하여 붙여넣는 것은 위키피디아의 규칙에 어긋나는 것일 뿐만 아니라, 그것이 얼마나 광범위한지에 따라 불법이 될 수도 있다.귀하 또는 다른 사용자가 기사에서 저작권 위반을 발견하면 즉시 삭제해야 하며, 편집 요약이나 토크 페이지에 설명이 남아 있어야 한다.카피비오가 제거된 후 글에는 아무것도 남아 있지 않았기 때문에, 그것은 바로 속히 삭제되었다.Qwyrxian (대화) 11:24, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 Ror Is King의 Talk 페이지에서 여기까지 어떤 코멘트를 베끼면 행복할 것이다 - 나는 매우 빨리 그에게 알릴 것이다.그리고 어떤 행정관이든 나의 블록을 검토하는 것은 환영할 만한데, 그것은 이 ANI 보고서의 결과가 아니라, 분명한 합의에 반대하는 편집전으로 새로운 FA를 교란시킨 것이다. (그의 일반적인 선의의 거부에 더해, 그는 비협조적인 POV를 추진하기 위해 명백히 출처를 잘못 말하고 있다.) 보잉은 말했다. -- 제베디는 말했다.(talk) 11시 40분, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]
릭은 확실히 전쟁을 편집하고 있었지만, 또한 이 과정을 이용하여 문제를 해결하려 하고 있었다.만약 그가 전쟁을 편집하지 않는다면, 그는 차단되지 않아야 한다고 제안한다.새로운 FA로서의 위상은 다소 문제가 있는데, 우리는 새로운 FA를 지역사회의 관심에 끌어들이기 위해 싸인포스트를 통해 홍보하고, 커뮤니티 구성원들이 적절히 대응하여 편집하는 것에 놀라서는 안 된다.'분란'은 손가락질할 때 쉽게 사용할 수 있는 비정형이기 때문에 피해야 할 용어라고 생각한다.--위활트(대화) 11:47, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
확실히 하자면, 이 사람은 그 과정에 새로 온 사람이 아니야.지금 RiK가 바꾼 모든 것은 FA 절차가 진행되는 동안 제안된 변화 xe였다.당시 기사를 본 편집자는 RiK 편집에서 장점을 발견하지 못했다.게다가, 어느 순간, RiK는 그의 말을 뒷받침하기 위해 소식통을 인용했다.그러나 시투쉬가 그 출처의 전체 사본을 입수했을 때, 리크가 (원고를 충분히 읽지 못하거나 혹은 단순히 원고를 충분히 읽지 못했기 때문에) 가지고 있었다는 것이 밝혀졌는데, 나머지 단락을 읽었을 때, 출처의 의미는 리크가 기사에 포함시키려 했던 입장과 정확히 정반대였다.게다가, 편집자는 그 문제가 이미 많은 다른 편집자들에 의해 논의되고 거부되었음에도 불구하고 오늘 xyr 선호 버전으로 3번 되돌렸다(나 혼자 두 번, 시투시에게 한 번 되돌렸다, 세 번째 편집자는 내가 먼저 되돌리지 않았더라면 xe가 되돌렸을 것이라고 이야기하면서, 일주일 전에 다시 되돌아왔다).이와 같이, 그 블록은 리크가 그 변화가 합의에 반한다는 것을 알고 있었고, 이전에 편집 전쟁에 대한 경고를 받은 적이 있었기 때문에 보증되었다.그렇긴 하지만, Boing!은 RiK의 토크 페이지에서 RiK가 편집 전쟁을 중단하겠다고 약속하면 블록이 서비스되는 시간으로 줄어들 수 있다고 말했다.Qwyrxian (대화) 12:54, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
동의. FA에 대해 특정 지점에서 일반 FA로 전환하는 것이 더 명확했어야 했다.--Wehwalt (토크) 13:03, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
레 "만약 그가 전쟁을 편집하지 않는다면, 그는 봉쇄를 해제해야 한다고 제안한다."나도 동의해, 그리고 사실 블록 당시 그에게 정확히 그렇게 말했어. 다른 누군가가 더 이상의 편집 전쟁이 일어날 것 같지 않다고 믿는다면 차단을 해제할 수 있어 기쁘다 - 보잉! (토크) 제베디 (토크) 13:50, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
@Qwyrxian: 나는 이미 대부분의 경우 당신의 "팀" 포인트가 옳다고 말했다.그러나 분쟁을 처리하는 방식은 때때로 잘못된 것이다.편집 전쟁은 단지 한 정당 때문에 일어나는 것이 아니다.전쟁에는 둘이 걸린다.나는 언젠가 그나 내 것이나 기사에 대해 이야기하지 않는 편집자와 마주친 적이 있다.그가 내 편집 내용을 되돌렸을 때 요약 편집을 통해서만 말했다.그것만이 그가 사용하고 싶었던 수단이었다.하지만 이 사건에서 RIK는 너희들과 이야기를 나누고 있었다.그가 그 기사에 썼던 자료는 당신이 의논할 때까지 그대로 있을 수도 있었다.그가 추가한 자료는 심지어 법적으로 논쟁을 일으키거나 명예를 훼손하지도 않았다.오히려 그 주제에 대해 좋게 말하고 있었다.데드 토드는 일어서지 않고 위키피디아에 대해 좋은 점을 몇 시간이나 며칠 동안 보관하고 있다고 고소할 예정이었다. -아나메슈쿨카르니 (토크) 14:05, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
여기서 중요한 구절은 "너희들"이다. (어떤 의미든 간에, 그것이 모욕이라면, 그들은 아마도 그것을 내버려둬야 할 것이다.) 여기서 전쟁을 벌이거나 하는 것은 두 사람이 아니다.온통 편집자들로 북새통을 이루고 있는데, RiK는 지금 꽤 오랫동안 기사를 교란하고 있다.어느 순간엔가 충분하다.반복된 편향성 주장, 합의에 반하는 신뢰도를 빌려주는 것은 사실상 FA 절차의 엄격함을 조롱하는 것이다.Drmies (토크) 14:54, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
글쎄, 난 너와 논쟁하지 않을거야. 하지만 FA는, 우리 둘 다 알다시피, 돌판 위에 배달되지 않아.확실히, FAS는 분쟁해결책이 아니다.말하자면, 이 문제에 있어서 그러한 점을 고려하기를 원할지도 모른다...--Wehwalt (대화) 15:05, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
물론, 그들은 석판은 아니지만, 적어도 그들은 주어진 순간에 합의를 제안한다.RiK는 이 점에 있어서 그곳의 반체제 인사였지만, 그들의 반대는 승진의 길을 가로막는 것이 아니었다--나는 이 편집 화면에서 토크 페이지의 이 토론이 여기서 연결되는지 아닌지 볼 수 없다(FA 리뷰에서 시투시가 언급함). 그러나 그것은 통찰력이 있다.Drmies (토크)20:11, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

대체 해상도

  • 내가 보기엔 이건 콘텐츠 논쟁으로 확대되었어.사용자:Ol English의 제안.본 건을 컨텐츠 분쟁 통지 게시판으로 이전하고 양측이 제기한 컨텐츠의 문제로 인해 행동적 주장/관심을 배제하도록 제안해도 되겠는가?
  • 쌍방이 그쪽으로 사건을 옮기기로 동의하는 경우, 나는 또한 차단 관리자에게 이 과정에서 영향을 받는 당사자들이 분위기가 유리하지 않도록 행동하기로 동의하는 경우 차단을 해제해 줄 것을 요청한다.
  • 또한 분쟁의 모든 당사자들은 이 문제를 해결하기 위한 평화로운 분위기를 유지하기 위해 어떠한 이유로든 제임스 토드를 편집하지 말아달라는 요청을 받고 있다.애슐린 (토크) 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC) 14:12 [응답]
좋아, 이제 여기서 무게를 잴게.이 기사는 조금 전에 FAS를 거쳤는데, 이것은 꽤 엄격한 과정이다.한 사람은 편견이 있다고 주장되는 문제를 가지고 있었다.그들의 우려는 조사되었고, 관련 논점의 전문은 입수되었다. 그리고 그들이 그 본문을 잘못 전달했다는 것은 분명해 보였다.그 후, 그 기사는 홍보되었고, 그 후 기고자는 홍보 전과 정확히 같은 방식으로 그들의 파괴적인 편집을 복귀하고 재개하며, 정확하게 잘못 전달된 출처를 인용했다.지난 11월에도 그들이 나를 이곳에 보고했을 때 비슷한 행동이 일어났다.다음 중 WP 비트를 선택하십시오.IDHT가 여기에 적용되지 않는 것은?나는 토론을 계속할 수 있어서 기쁘지만 새로운 것을 테이블에 올리지 않는 한 그것이 기사 토크 페이지에서 이루어지든 간에 그것은 다소 무의미해 보인다, WP:DRN 또는 다른 장소에서. - 시투시(대화) 14:36, 2012년 2월 27일(UTC)[응답]
@AshLin I는 이미 RIK가 컨센서스(FA 논의 과정에서 엄격하게 도달한 컨센서스)와의 편집전을 중단하기로 동의하는 즉시 그 블록을 해제하기로 합의했다.내 판단으로는 다른 어떤 정당도 어떤 정책도 위반하지 않았듯이, 내게 필요한 합의는 다른 정당도 없다. -- Boing!2012년 2월 27일 (UTC) 17:39, 17:39, 27 (토크)라고 Zebedee가 말했다[응답]
우리는 또한 WP에 새로운 "정치적, 민족적, 종교적 갈등 알림판"을 설치했다.ECCN. 위에서 "caste"라는 단어를 봤는데, 이게 관련이 있을 것 같아.Nformationo 21:20, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

콘텐츠 분쟁이 아님

예 1

나는 나의 불만이 내용적인 논쟁이 아니라는 것을 지적하고 싶다.시투시와 친구들은 토드에 대한 부정적인 의견을 선별적으로 인용하고 긍정적인 의견을 지우고 있다.예를 들어, "비판" 섹션에서 후속적으로 "Reception"으로 이름이 바뀐 Jason Freitag은 다음과 같이 인용된다.

보낸 사람: [28]

  • 프리타그에 따르면 이러한 요소들은 왜 실록이 "매니페스트하게 편향되었는지"에 기여한다고 한다.

다음 인용구를 삽입하려면 같은 출처인 Freitag에서 확인하십시오.

  • 토드의 연보는 남아시아에 대한 현대 장학금의 기초에 있다.(참조:프리타그(2001), 페이지 7)
  • 프리타그는 박사학위 논문에서 "오늘날 라자스탄의 역사적 연구는 2세기 전에 정의한 Tod의 틀 안에서 계속 운영되고 있다."(참조 프리타그(2001년), 페이지 6.

나는 Sitush가 인용한 것과 같은 박사 논문에서는 그렇게 할 수 없다. 왜냐하면 그의 관리 친구들이 WP를 만드는 것을 돕고 있기 때문이다.Sitush와 그의 관리 친구들만이 그들의 POV가 Tod 기사에 대표될 것이라고 결정할 이다.아무도 감히 반대하지 않거나 그들은 끔찍한 결과로 너를 위협하고 결국 너를 금지한다(이틀 전에 나에게 일어난 일처럼).로르 이스 킹 (토크) 13:17, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

기사의 토크 페이지(또는 거기서 링크)에서 우리는 그것을 포함시키는 것을 고려하기 위해 그 논문으로부터 확장된 부분을 제공해야 할 것이다.이 경우, 6-8페이지의 사본을 제공하는 것으로 충분할 것이다.보통은 선의로 가정하겠지만, 과거에 당신이 저자가 실제로 의미했던 것이 아닌 작은 부분을 골라 출처를 잘못 알려줬기 때문에, 우리는 단지 이것이 프리타그가 주장하는 것이라고 당신의 말에 의존할 수는 없다.Qwyrxian (대화) 13:23, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
당신이 여기서 시작된 출처를 잘못 알려고 나를 고발한 것은 이번이 네 번째다. [29]와 나는 여기서 [30]과 여기에서 [31]에 응답했고, 이 게시판에서 내가 어떻게 사란과 지글러를 잘못 표시했는지를 다시 한번 물었다. [32].지금까지 나는 당신이 내가 이 작가들을 잘못 말한 것에 대해 대답하는 것을 보지 못했다.내가 어떻게 그렇게 했는지 모두에게 말해줄 수 있겠니? (나는 당신이 이것을 콘텐츠 논쟁으로 만들고 싶어한다는 것을 알지만, 나는 모든 사람들이 이것이 관리자의 POV 밀기, 위협, 금지 등의 사례라는 것을 알게 되기를 바란다.)로르 이스 킹 (토크) 13:44, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

예 2

POV가 Sitush와 그의 관리 친구들이 전쟁과 위협을 밀고, 편집하는 예를 계속한다.

미시간대, 앤아버대, 시카고대 박사 출신인 리처드 사란 박사와 노먼 지글러 박사의 다음과 같은 말을 덧붙였다.그들은 모두 20년 이상을 라자스탄에서 토드가 사용한 자국어 문서들을 연구하며 보냈고, 미시간 대학 출판부에서 출판한 책 [33]을 썼다.라자스탄 메르토르의 메르티요 라토르스 1462-1660, 제1-2권 ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3.이 책에는 다음과 같이 쓰여 있다.

토드는 라즈푸트와 라자스타니 사회를 심층적으로 관찰한 19세기 초 최초의 영국군 장교들 중 한 명이었다.라자스탄과 그 지역 왕국들에 대한 그의 포괄적인 역사는 이 지역과의 수년간의 연계를 통해 얻은 그의 지식과 지역 문서들을 잘 보여준다. (참고: 위에 주어진 그들의 책 1페이지)

Sitush와 그의 관리 친구 WP는 다음과 같이 말하고 있기 때문에 나는 이 인용구를 추가할 수 없다.페이지를 소유하고 그들 자신의 POV를 밀고자 한다.이 단체들은 자신들과 의견이 다른 사람들을 위협하고, 전쟁을 편집하고, 금지한다.

더 많은 FYI.1978년 사란이 옹호한 논문의 주제는 "Conquest and Collanding: Rajputs and Vasis in Marwar"이었고 지글러의 논문은 1973년 옹호한 "라자스타니 문화의 행동력과 서비스:라자스탄 중기의 라자스푸트의 사회사"라고 말했다.나는 이 자료를 여기 [34]의 제임스 토드 페이지에 삽입했는데, 시투시와 그의 관리자들이 삭제했다.로르 이스 킹 (토크) 06:04, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

상호 작용 금지에 대한 설명이 필요함

내 토크 페이지에 나와 "그나 그의 행동에 대해 언급하거나 논평하는 것"이라고 이름 붙여서는 되는 나와 그 사이의 상호 작용 금지에 대해 게시한 내용에 따르면 위반이다.다음이 내 행동에 대한 코멘트에 해당하는지 명확히 해줬으면 좋겠어.[35][36] [37] I ask as what asking to my talk page에서 IBAN에 대한 설명이 필요한 경우, 여기서 질문을 해야 하는 것이지, 일부 랜덤 관리자 대화 페이지에서는 질문을 해서는 안 된다.또한 IBAN 때문에 나는 이 일에 대해 이름이 알려지면 안 되는 사람에게 알릴 수 없으니, 다른 사람이 해 주면 고맙겠다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 2012년 2월 28일(UTC) 12:00[응답]

됐다. 아이디(토크) 12:22, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 상호 작용 금지의 명확화를 요구하는 것은 완전히 상식이며 금지 위반이 아니라고 생각한다.나는 위에서 지적한 바와 같이 관리자에게 문의했다.그 문제들 중 하나는 나중에 ANI에 제출되었다.새로운 것들은 여전히 불분명해서 나는 ANI 보고서에 대해 논평한 관리자에게 물었다.나는 그것이 잘못된 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.그러나 나는 그 질문들이 지금 여기에 들어왔기 때문에 그 질문들에 대해 분명히 하고 싶다.

  • 나는 RFC의 폐쇄를 요청했다. (폐쇄가 해결되기 전에, RFC가 재가동되었다. [38]에서 그에 대한 언급도 추가했다.)내가 인터랙션 금지령을 내렸으니 너는 그 링크에 있는 그 발언들을 읽을 수 있어, 관리자에 의해 RFC는 그에 따라 폐쇄되었다.이 권한 없는 관리자 폐쇄(내 요청)는 내가 상호 작용 금지한 사용자에 의해 되돌아갔다.[39] 이것은 간접적인 금지 위반인가 아니면 단지 형식적인 폐쇄의 잘못된 회귀인가?후자의 경우라면 어떻게 해야 할까?
  • (성취된 합의와 무관하게) 내 지명을 마감하는 것은 금지 위반이 아닌가?[40]...그 반대도 할 수 있을까?

--lTopGunl (대화) 12시 30분, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 나는 어둠을 풀었다.역전을 빛내다.관리자에게 설명을 요청하거나 심지어 조치를 취소하도록 요청하는 것은 상호 작용 금지의 위반이 아니다.너희 둘은 서로 총질하지 않을 때 좋은 편집자니까 당분간 서로 팔을 뻗는 거리를 두는 게 좋을 것 같아.또한 어둠빛나고 뾰족한 행동(앞서 RfC를 닫은 직후에 새로운 RfC에서 무언가를 다시 하는 것 등)은 쉽게 파키스탄 주제에 대한 주제 금지로 이어질 수 있으므로 각별히 주의할 것을 제안한다. --regentspark (토론) 13:19, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
고마워. JCLA에 의해 다시 되돌아갔어...[41] 관리종결은 폐쇄 상태를 유지하도록 되어 있지 않은가?(특히 닫힘 세 번 [42][43][44])JCAla의 복귀를 최종 관리자에게 알려줬지만. --lTopGunl (대화) 15:34, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
탑건의 논평의 첫 문장에 동의해야 한다. 금지 그 자체를 언급할 수 없다고 말하는 것은 위키백과의 정신에 어긋난다.우리는 여기서 초인종을 발행할 일이 아니다.이 문제를 전적으로 적절한 방식으로 제기해줘서 고마워.Nyttend (대화) 02:51, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 내가 개선하고자 했던 기사가 삭제 후보로 지명되었는데, 나는 그것이 초안에서 올바른 내용으로 다시 만들기 위해 그것을 내 할 일 목록에 두었지만, 그것은 다시 만들어 졌다. [45] - 상호작용 금지가 "첫번째 서브"를 의미하는 것이 아니라고 들었다. -lTopGunl (talk) 01:53, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)회답]
원하신다면 초안이 준비되면 다른 기사(간단한 이동, 삭제, 복원하여 기록 병합 완료)로 내용을 이동시킬 수 있다.같은 페이지를 편집한 유일한 이유가 역사 병합 때문이라면 당신은 누군가와 교류하지 않는 것이다.만약 네가 이것을 원한다면 내 강연을 통해 내게 알려줘.Nyttend (대화) 02:18, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
좋아...출처를 더 추가해서 이전을 요청하겠다.현재 내용을 초안에 넣어 문제가 없도록 했다.--lTopGunl (대화) 02:33, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
위 사례에서 내가 편집한 내용을 참고로 하자면, 내 자신의 사용자 공간 초안이었는데, 이 초안은 내가 작성하고자 했던 기사의 위 니튼드 제안서에 의해 병합되었고, 니튼드가 병합 편집 요약에서 분명히 했다. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
방금 삭제된 기사를 메인 스페이스(BTW용으로 삭제된 단어 포함)에 다시 넣었다는 사실과 별도로, 내가 작성한 콘텐츠를 사용자 공간에 복사하여 붙여넣은 다음 관리자가 복원하도록 하는 것은 어떻게 상호 작용 금지 사항이 아닌가?그는 내가 쓴 내용을 편집했는데, 그게 어떻게 위반이 아니지?어둠은 빛난다(토크) 10:42, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

경고 후 두 번째 위반

위의 위반 보고서가 있었는데, 관리자(지역 공원)가 위반이라고 동의하고 경고로 충분하다고 언급했다[46].이제 또 다른 위반이 있었다."그나 그의 행동에 대해 언급하거나 언급하는 것"이 아니라, 상호 작용-반(interaction-ban)의 줄기에 의해 내 강연 페이지에 언급된 금지 조건이었다. 이것은 여기에서 명백하게 위반되었다[47].그것은 금지를 명확히 하거나 위반 사실을 신고하는 것을 금지하는 예외의 하나가 아니라, 나에게는 BLP 문제조차 쿼리되는 것이 아닌 내용 문제(내용이 출처되거나 국민이 살고 있지 않음)의 하나였다.족제비 단어인 "이름을 받아야 하는 사람"으로 나를 언급하는 것은 금지령을 둘러싼 변호사들에게 내 행동에 대한 명백한 언급으로 사용되어지고 있다.또 다른 의심스러운 것에 대해서는 별로 언급하지 않겠지만, 위에서 논의되고 있는 기사는 신학 타이틀을 가진 기사가 삭제된 이후 관련 내용으로 만들어지기 위한 레드링크로서 나의 할 일 목록에 올라 있었고, 나이튼의 내 초안 병합 제안이 이 문제를 해결한 지금, 나는 나를 막기 위해 선제적으로 만들어진 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 든다.문제, 이 위반이 발생했다. --lTopGunl (대화) 12:08, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

어둠은 3일 동안 차단된다. 살비오 12시Let's talk about it! 19분, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 코멘트 나는 여전히 내가 전에 말했던 것을 고수하고 있고 그것을 세 번째로 반복하고 있다.파키스탄 관련 기사에 대한 '어둠의 빛'에 대한 주제 금지는 필수 사항이다.만약 주제 금지나 어떤 종류의 제재가 순서였다면, 우리는 이것을 보지 못했을 것이다.3월 4일 (토크) 12시 28분, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

하셈 스파림과 시칠리아

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

하셈 스파림(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그)과 나 자신도 시칠리아의 첫 문장에 대해 콘텐츠 분쟁이 있다.그 토론은 나 혼자 Talk에 있다.시칠리아#리드 문장, 여기서 나는 그의 버전이 언어 문제와 중복된 정보를 가지고 있다고 설명했다.사용자:Bejnar는 대부분 나의 추론을 지지했고, 형식에 타협을 시도했다[48].

나나 베즈나르의 토크 페이지[49]에 올리지 말아달라는 나의 호소에도 불구하고, 하셈은 나의 토크 페이지[50]에 디아트리브를 올리고 있다(그것은 십여 개의 별도 편집이다). 그 중에는, "그리고 오직 "지중해에서 가장 큰 섬"이라는 바보 같은 레드를 넣는다 [...] "2: 난 너나 다른 사람을 "바보"라고 부른 적이 없어. 그걸 어디서 보는지 모르겠어." "그러니까 나에게 편견을 갖고 오만하게 굴지 마." "이후에,너랑 끝이야." 마지막으로, "넌 선을 넘었고, 난 널 잊었어. 하지만 기사에 대한 어떤 편집도 취소한다면, 다시 아무 이유 없이 그냥 취소해버릴 거야. (하지만 3RR에 보관할 테니까, 바보같이, 네가 내 얼굴에 던질있는 24시간 블록은 얻지 못할 거야.)"

그 중 절반은 내가 그에게 더 이상 내 토크 페이지에 올리지 말라고 부탁한 였다.[51]은 편집 요약과 함께 제거되었으며 내 페이지에서 가비지를 제거하였다.그래, 하셈 스파림은 편집 전쟁을 위해 24시간 블록에서 막 돌아왔다.

P.S. 나는 그에게 내 토크 페이지에 이 실에 대해 알렸다.; 나는 더 이상 그의 글에 게시하는 것을 원하지 않는다.해당 사용자 없음(대화) 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC) 14:05, 응답 없음[응답]

P.P.S. 그리고 나는 6월에 있었던교환에서 태도와 문구의 유사성을 발견하지 않을 수 없다: 오직 Hashem만이 그가 원하는 대로 기사를 바꿀 수 있고, 다른 모든 사람들은 토론해야 한다.그가 포기하도록 설득하는 데는 사용자 2명이 4회만 되돌리면 되었다.해당 사용자 없음(대화) 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC) 14:39, 응답 없음[응답]

그가 내가 말한 다른 것들은 생략하고, 이것과 무관한 과거의 일들을 끄집어내서 나에게, 네 마음 속에 있는 우물을 독살하려 하고, 오늘 내가 어떻게 (다른 편집자가 정정한 문제를 넘어) 오늘에만 반응했는지가 우습다. 왜냐하면 그는 오늘 MY 페이지에 처음 글을 올렸기 때문이다.나는 그에게 그와 끝났고 다시는 그와 상대하지 않겠다고 분명히 말했다.모든 이야기의 양면.
나는 LEDE가 어떤 사람도 아닌 "이상한 단어"라고 말했다.
그가 MY 페이지에 이런 무례한 글을 쓴 후, 마치 이것과 상관없는, 마치 그가 하는 버릇이 있고, 편견을 가지고, 마치 그것이 그의 사건을 강화시키는 것처럼, 이 현재의 문제에서 제기되는 실제적인 세부 사항들을 피하는 동안, 내내:
그는 "첫 문장에서 무슨 일이 벌어질지 다투는 상황에서도 다른 사람을 바보로 부르는 것을 자제할 수 없다면 48시간 동안 진행된 편집전쟁에서 돌아온 후 협력사업에 참여한다면 재고해야 한다"고 말했다.더 이상 내 토크 페이지에 올리지 말아줘.해당 사용자 없음(대화)"
내가 쓴 것은 이것뿐이다.
우선, 저 블록은 이것과 아무 관련이 없다 (그리고 그것은 48시간이 아니라 24시간이었고, 다른 사람도 3RR을 위반했다는 이유로 막혔다.)두 번째:난 너나 다른 사람을 "바보"라고 부른 적이 없어.어디서 그걸 보는지는 잘 모르겠네그러니 거짓말은 그만하고 환각은 그만둬.세 번째: 당신은 MY 페이지에 글을 올렸지만, 어찌된 일인지 내가 당신의 페이지에 글을 올리는 것은 잘못된 것이다.4번: 1번 정도, 상대편도 내가 신고한 3RR 위반으로 차단된 것을 알고 있는가, 또한 48시간이 아니라 24시간 차단된 것을 알고 있는가?다시 말하지만, 그것은 이것과 아무 상관이 없다.난 다른 것에 대해 차단당했을 수도 있고, 이 문제에 대해 넌 여전히 기술적으로 틀릴 수도 있어.그러니 나에게 편견을 갖고 오만하게 굴지 마.그리고 내가 한 번도 안 그랬을 때 내가 "바보"라고 불렀다고 비난하지 마.이 일이 끝나면 난 너랑 끝이야.나는 네가 나에게 쓰거나 하는 어떤 말도 인정하지 않을 거야.예전에 네가 사진에 대해 터무니없는 허튼소리를 하면서 레드와 아무 상관없는 얘기를 꺼냈다는 걸 알고 있었어.넌 선을 넘었고 난 널 잊었어하지만 그 기사에 대한 어떤 편집도 취소한다면, 다시 아무 이유 없이 그냥 취소해버릴 거야. (하지만 나는 그것을 3RR에 보관할 테니, 바보같이 네가 내 얼굴에 던질 수 있는 24시간 블록을 얻지 못할 거야.)잘먹었습니다.하셈 스파림 (토크) 13:50, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)
그는 내가 "바보"라고 불렀다고 말했는데, 난 절대 그러지 않았어.행동이나 말을 '이성적'이라고 표현하는 것은 (어떤 사람들에게는) 너무 무뚝뚝할 수도 있지만, 사람을 '바보'라고 부르는 것과 꼭 같은 것은 아니다.난 절대 그렇게 하지 않아.나는 그렇게 이름 부르는 것으로 WP 정책을 위반하지 않는다.그리고 나는 그저 설명 없이 되돌아가는 것이 WP 정책에 따라 어떻게 되지 않는지, 그리고 또한 논의 중인 기사가 이 문제에 관해 다른 기사들이 일반적으로 어떻게 리드하고 있는지와 어떻게 일치하지 않는지를 설명하고 있었다.난 여기까지다.나는 그가 칭얼거리고 이런 것들에 대해 재잘거릴 시간이나 인내심이 없다.이것은 내가 이미 알고 있던 그가 어떤 사람인지를 보여줄 뿐이다.
그는 이것과 무관한 과거의 일을 꺼내는 것은 도가 지나치다.결점이 있는 성격을 보여준다.나는 이 사람을 더 이상 상대할 수 없다.그게 내가 그에게 분명히 말한 거야.그러나 그는 무뚝뚝하다고 칭얼거린다.나는 그에게 더 이상 그와 관계하고 싶지 않다고 말했다.그렇게 간단하다.내가 비합리적이라고 생각하는 사람들을 끌어들이지 않는 것은 내게도 그럴 권리가 있다.없는 것을 보고, 과장하고, 왜곡하고, 괴롭히려고 하고, 그 사람의 기분을 나쁘게 하기 위해 쓸데없는 과거의 것들을 얼굴에 던지며, 마치 관련이 없는 것처럼 과거의 잡동사니를 끄집어낸다.편견과 자포자기 속에서.나는 그것을 참을 수 없다.그는 내 페이지에 먼저, 여러 번, 어제와 오늘에 걸쳐 글을 썼고, 나는 그 후 그의 페이지에 간단히 답장을 보냈는데, 그는 자신의 오류와 논쟁의 결점을 지적하면서 내가 한 말이 마음에 들지 않았다.그래서 그는 여기로 달려온다.원래 문제가 다른 편집자에 의해 해결되었을 때, 나는 이미 어제부터 옮겨가고 있었다.그래서 오늘 이 일로 나를 귀찮게 할 필요는 전혀 없었다.그리고 나서 여기로 달려오려고.그리고 기본적으로 나를 곤경에 빠뜨리려고 욕을 해.계급 행위.
그는 나에게 대항하여 우물을 독살하려고 여기 다른 문제들을 제기한다.일반적인 전술과 논리적 오류.속아서는 안 된다는 것.나는 최근에 (3RR의 경우) 24시간 블록을 가졌는데, 그는 물론 이것에 관련된 것처럼 이야기를 꺼낸다. 그리고 물론 다른 사람도 3RR을 위반했다는 이유로 막혔다는 것을 보지 못한다. 그리고 나는 처음부터 그것을 보고한 사람이다.나는 무언가에 대해 차단할 수 있었고, 여전히 이 문제에 있어서 완전히 옳을 수도 있었다. 그리고 No South User (설명 없이 되돌아가기를 좋아하는)는 완전히 틀렸다.내가 완벽하다고 말하는 것은 아니지만 요점은 그도 완벽하지 않다는 것이다.투 투 탱고.과거의 사소한 일에도 불구하고 이 문제와는 무관하다.최근에 누군가가 막혔고, 나중에 내가 편집자와 가정적으로 어리석은 논쟁을 벌이게 된다면, 나는 그의 과거 블록을 이 사건에서 그가 틀려야 한다는 것을 증명하는 것처럼 꺼내지 않을 것이다.진짜 설 다리가 없는 절망적인 사람들만이 그렇게 한다.나는 오직 현재의 문제에 대한 구체적인 사항만을 다루려고 한다.과거의 허튼소리가 아닌, 그건 전혀 상관없는 일이야.하나는 다른 것과 아무 상관이 없다.하지만 그는 그것을 보지 못한다.
그러나 그가 어떤 타입인가 하면, 그는 나를 욕하고, 사물에 스핀을 걸고, 내가 한 말을 왜곡하고, 어제 이미 다른 편집자가 이 일을 해결했다는 사실을 다루지 않고, 나는 이미 넘어갔지만, 그는 내 성격과 평판을 암살하려 하고, 이 일과 관계없는 과거의 일을 단번에 끄집어내려고 한다.ll, 우물을 독살하기 위해서, 자기 사건이 약하다는 것을 증명하면서 혼자 이 일을 처리할 수는 없기 때문이다.어떤 잘 속거나 바쁘거나 편파적인 행정관이 그것에 속아 넘어갔으면 하는 바람. 물론 그럴 수도 있다. (그가 무엇을 이루려고 하는지 모르지만, 나를 막으려고 하는 것에 앙심을 품고 그냥.그것은 내가 아무것도 위반하지 않았고, 내가 LEDE가 어떤 사람도 "이상적으로" 말하지 않았다고 말했듯이, 아무도 이름을 부르지 않았기 때문에, 그가 어떤 사람인지를 다시 보여준다.해결된 문제에 대해.그는 다른 편집자가 이미 거래를 끝냈을 때, 오늘 내 페이지에 처음 올린 사람이다.나는 단순히 그가 기사 토크 페이지에서 내가 연설하기를 원하는 것을 말했고, 그가 내 페이지를 했던 것처럼 그의 페이지에서 그에게 알려주었다.그리고 이것이 내가 지금 처리해야 할 난센스다.하셈 스파림 (대화) 15:33, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
저장 후 다시 편집하는 대신 미리 보기 단추를 사용하는 방법을 배우십시오.그리고 반복적으로 반복하는 경향이 있어현재 보고서에서 차단된 동작의 연속성을 나타내는 경우, 이전 블록은 관리자가 관련성이 있는 것으로 간주한다.여기 게시물과 당신의 토크 페이지만 봐도 아주 작은 것에 불똥이 튀는 경향이 보인다.이것은 위키가 가져야 할 기대되는 대학 환경(아마도 이상주의적인 관념은 있지만, 여전히, 무언가를 희망해야 한다)과 일치하지 않는다.당신이 보여 준 종류의 배틀그라운드 행동은 여기에서 매우 희미하게 보인다.관리자들은 당연히 그들이 원하는 대로 조사할 것이지만, 당신이 가장 먼저 살펴봐야 할 것은 수사력을 줄이는 것이다.블랙매인 (대화) 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC) 16:33[응답]
아니, 그건 중요하지 않아. 왜냐하면 그것은 단지 전에만 3RR을 넘었기 때문이지, 여기서는 그렇지 않아. 내가 주장하는 바에는 아무것도, 모호하지 않은 정책이나 어떤 것도 위반하지 않았으니까. 그리고 여기서 언급할 수 있는 것은 도를 넘었어. 단지 입만 나쁘고 우물을 독살할 뿐이지.물론 많은 사람들과 함께라면, 그 잘못된 전술은 효과가 있다.나는 3RR만 위반해서 차단당했다.다른 것은 없어요그래서 여기서는 관련이 없다.나는 여기서 3RR을 전혀 위반하지 않았기 때문에.반복적으로 말하자면, 다른 문제들과 관련하여 더 많이 이루어졌지만, 어떤 사람들은 강조와 기억력 보유를 위해, 그리고 이 문제를 아주 명확하게 하기 위해 그것을 높이 평가한다.그건 WP 정책이 아니라 취향의 문제니까 그런 얘기를 꺼내거나 불평할 필요는 없다.또한, 나는 무례하고 왜곡되고 무례하며 불필요했던 이 등장인물의 행동에 대해 "기분 좋게" 할 권리가 있다."전투장"에 대해 얘기하면, 글쎄, 나는 이 "전투"를 시작한 사람이 아니었고, 나는 그저 내 자신을 방어하려고 노력하고 있다.그래서 어쩌라고정확히 어떻게 예상하십니까?아무 말도 없이 쓰레기를 가져가려고?그건 네가 틀렸지만, 놀랄 일은 아니야.나는 당신이 직설적인 어투에 입을 다물지 않고 내 사건을 진술할 권리가 있다.이건 어때?실제 물질에 초점을 맞춰보시겠습니까?욕하는 것도 아니고 그렇게 터지는 것도 아니다.그러니 그 점을 과장하지 말자.(당신이 행정관이라고 해도 의심스럽지만, 당신이 틀릴 수도 있다...넌 절대 틀리지 않아어쨌든, 이것은 어제 다른 편집자에 의해 해결된 문제였고, 나는 다음 단계로 넘어갔다.또한, 나는 네가 나의 어투에 대해 하소연만 하는 것이 싫고, 구체적인 내용은 물론 내가 화낼 권리가 있다는 맥락을 무시하고, 내 말투에 하소연하는 것도 싫고, 한편 이 사람은 허튼소리와 잘 신경질적인 비논리적인 전술의 투덜거림과 독살로, 장미냄새를 풍기며, 너는 그의 허튼소리에 대해 아무 말도 하지 않는다.그러나 (솔직히) 나는 여기 있는 관리자들로부터 대부분 더 나은 것을 기대하지 않았다.미안, 그냥 솔직하게 말했어.하지만 다시 말하지만, 내 최근 블록은 3RR을 넘었고 그 이상은 아무것도 아니었기 때문에 그것은 관련이 없다.그래서 그 얘기를 여기서 꺼내는 것은 소름끼치고 한심하고, 솔직히 말해서, 논리적으로 잘못되고, 그리고 약간 절박하다, 왜냐하면 그것은 그가 여기서 내게 불평하고 있는 것과 특별히 관련이 없기 때문이다.
작년 6월부터는 전혀 상관없는 얘기를 꺼냈어그는 몇 달 전 나의 과거 편집사를 사실 스토킹식으로 대충 훑어보았지만, 나는 그와 전혀 함께 하지 않았다. 왜냐하면 나는 당면한 문제만 다룰 뿐, 누군가의 과거는 결코 다루지 않기 때문이다.요점은 그가 내가 과거에 했던 어떤 논쟁도 내가 틀렸음에 틀림없다고 가정하는 것이다. 단지 그가 지금 나에게 가지고 있는 개인적인 편견 때문이고, 단지 그가 나를 좋아하지 않기 때문이다.작년 6월에 내가 100% 잘못한 게 틀림없어.그에 따르면.그러나 그가 나의 과거 물건을 훑어본 사실(지금 무뚝뚝하게 굴어서 미안하다)은 다소 무섭고 소름끼치고 신경질적이다. (그러나 그것은 내가 이미 알고 있는 그런 타입의 사람을 말해주는 것이기에 나는 지금 그를 피하고, 편집 코멘트에 있는 한, 그 정도일지라도, 다시는 그와 직접 엮이지 않을 것이다.)그는 과거의 잡동사니를 가지고 와서 물건을 찾아다닌다.우물을 독살하려고 하는 것. (그리고 그것은 분명히 당신에게 효과가 있고, 그래서 자주 사용되는 전술이다.)하지만 그것은 관련이 없다.여기서의 일은 큰 일도 아니다.그는 단순히 내가 "바보처럼 말"이라고 말했기 때문에 이 위원회(계급 행위)로 달려가고 있을 뿐이고, 또 내가 그의 페이지에 다시 글을 썼기 때문이기도 하다(아마도 몇 번 내 페이지에 글을 썼음에도 불구하고 내가 가져서는 안 된다는 것을 인정한다).여기 완벽한 사람은 없어하지만 그가 확실히 그렇지 않다는 것을 보면 좋을 것이다.안부 전해요하셈 스파림 (대화) 16:43, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
불행히도, 장황한 점은 종종 WP의 반응을 이끌어낸다.TLDR. 특히 뒷부분이 첫 번째 부분과 같은 경우, 텍스트의 벽이 읽기 보다는 대충 훑어본다는 제안으로서, 나는 당신이 반복할 의도가 있다면 문제가 되지 않는다.이전 블록이 이 보고서와 관련이 있는지 여부는 관리자가 결정할 것이며, 여기서 내 진술을 올바르게 읽으려면 "현재 보고서에서 차단된 행동의 연속성을 보여주는 경우 이전 블록은 관리자가 관련성이 있다고 간주한다"고 분명히 명시되어 있다.만약 관련이 있다면, 당신에게 불리하게 작용할 것이고, 그렇지 않으면 그렇지 않을 것이다.사실, 나는 이 경우에 편집 전쟁을 위한 블록은 실제로 관련이 없지만, 블록의 원인은 당연히, 이것은 관리자가 결정할 일이다.과거로부터의 차이도 당신의 행동의 증상일 경우 관련이 있는 것으로 간주된다.하지만, 다시 말하지만, 행정관이 결정할 것인지 아닌지는, 이곳의 여러분의 어조가 여러분을 뜨거운 물속에 빠뜨릴 수 있는 그런 종류의 것임을 발견할 수 있다.인신공격으로 가득 찬 회답도 아주 희미하게 보일 것이라고 나는 생각한다.그리고 아니, 나는 행정관이 아니라 그저 지나가는 말을 하기로 결정한 바쁜 사람일 뿐이다.블랙매인 (대화) 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC) 17:05 [응답]
그게 문제야.주의력이 부족한 사람들이 너무 많은데, 만약 그들이 중요하다면, 그들은 시간을 내어 이러한 것들을 읽고 숙고해야 한다.내가 쓴 것은 그리 길지 않다.No Thous User가 여기서 실행될 수 있을 만큼 중요한 경우.나는 단지 내 사건을 진술하고 있었을 뿐이다.그리고 만약 어떤 바쁘거나 성급한 행정관이 "블록"에 필요한 이런 터무니없는 것을 발견한다면, 음, 그것은 위키백과에 대한 나의 입장을 전반적으로 더 확인할 뿐이다.WP는 분명 장점과 단점을 가지고 있다.그리고 나는 매 순간 완벽하지 않다는 것을 안다.그러나 이와 같은 짜증나는 헛소리(그리고 No South User의 불합리한 것)는 그런 사소한 것들 중 하나에 불과하다.안부 전해요하셈 스파림 (대화) 17:18, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
또한, 당신이 소리 지르기 시작하면 사람들은 당신의 사건에 관심을 잃기 시작한다. - 부시 레인저One ping only 22:58, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
내가 실제로 소리를 지른 것이라면 동의하지만, 당신은 가끔 한 두 단어의 모든 캡을 여기 저기서 언급하고, 실제로 소리를 지르는 것이 아니라, 강조하기 위해서, 이탤릭체(나도 가끔 쓰는 말)와 비슷한 것을 말하고 있는 것이다.만약 그것이 실제로 외치는 소리였다면, 당신은 모든 문장들을 모든 모자로 볼 수 있었을 것이다. 하지만 당신은 그것을 보지 못한다.그래서 아니, 그 가정(및 고발)은 거짓이거나 오해다.나는 어떤 고함도 하지 않았다.하나 또는 두 개의 분리된 단어의 모든 모자는 (거기서 다시 한 번 한 것은) 반드시 "고함"을 의미하지는 않지만, 단순히 강조를 의미한다.알라 이탤릭체.다시 말하지만, 전체 문장이 모두 대문자라면 진정한 "소리"가 분명할 것이다.하지만 난 그렇게 하지 않아.그냥 기록을 바로 세우는 거야.사실, 나는 소리치지 않았다. 왜냐하면 나는 모든 모자에 있는 고립된 단어를 소리치는 것으로 의미하지 않았기 때문이다.건배.하셈 스파림 (대화) 23:24, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
인터넷에서는 ALL CAPS = 고함소리.단어를 강조하려면 이탤릭체를 사용하십시오.그리고 위에서 설명한 것과 같은 코멘트로 세 번(혹은 네 번인가?) 설명만 하면 된다. - 부시레인저One ping only 23:28, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
제안은 괜찮고, 당신은 심지어 일리가 있을지도 모른다.하지만 그들을 독단적으로 만드는 것은 좋지 않다.다시 말해, 상식은 만약 그것들이 모든 캡에 들어 있는 고립된 단어라면, 그것이 반드시 "yelling"을 의미하지는 않는다는 것을 말해 주어야 한다.소리지르는 것은 일반적으로 전체 문장에 적용된다.또한, 명확성을 위해 가끔씩 반복하는 것은 아마도 과장하지 말고, 개인적인 취향을 강요하는 것을 멈추고, 마치 그것이 딱딱한 WP 규칙이나 그 무엇인 것처럼 칭얼거리지 않도록 하라.그건 네가 할 일이 아니야. 게다가 그건 실제 상황과는 좀 무관해.난 소리지르지 않았어.마침표.만약 당신이 독단적으로 모든 모자에 단 한 단어라도 사실적인 고함이라고 생각한다면, 그리고 만약 당신이 다른 모자에 없는 문장이나 단락에 있는 모든 모자에 있는 한 두 개의 가끔 단어들이 논리적으로 고함치는 것이 아니라, 단지 약간의 강조점(이탤릭체들과 유사하지만, 약간 더 강하게, 그러나 여전히 고함치지 않는 것)을 볼 수 없다면, 나는 요요를 어쩔 수 없다.u. 또한 나는 그렇게 사소한 것에 대해 언쟁하고 싶은 욕구도 가지고 있지 않다.내가 지금 너에게 조금 짜증나는 이유는 여기 있는 나에게 한 너의 코멘트가 전부였기 때문이야.다른 것은 없어요실속은 없고, 사소한 것에 대해 투덜거리기만 하고, (당신이 A라는) 오해, 또는 B가 과장하는 것)내가 말했듯이, 네 말에도 일리가 있겠지만, 연방 문제인 것처럼 계속 지껄이는 건?만약 여러분이 "여유"로 전혀 의미하지 않았던 "모든 말"에 있는 하나 또는 두 개의 분리된 단어와 몇몇은 보존과 명확성을 위해 몇 가지 점을 반복하거나, 혹은 어쩌면 그 "반복된" 요점을 더 상세히 기술하는 것 외에 더 중요한 것을 말할 수 있다면, 신경 쓰지 마십시오.나는 여기에 있는 피카유네 미누티아에 질렸다.요점을 알았다.감사합니다.하셈 스파림 (대화) 02:35, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
OP, No that user는 이것이 본질적으로 콘텐츠 논쟁이며 따라서 정말로 기사의 토크 페이지에서 해결되어야 한다고 지적한다.나는 거기서 많은 논의가 있어 편집자들이 정말로 이것을 가려내려고 노력해왔다는 것에 주목한다.그럼에도 불구하고 AN/I는 이와 같은 불협화음을 해소할 수 있는 곳이 아니라 블록, 페이지 보호 등의 행정조치를 요청하는 곳이다.콘텐츠 분쟁에 대해 명시적으로 설정된 올바른 이사회는 WP:DRN. 나는 OP나 Hashem sfarim 중 한 쪽이 가서 이 문제를 해결하는 데 도움을 청할 것을 제안한다.
그러나, 경고의 한 마디.당신의 기여의 매너와 어조가 당신의 논쟁의 내용만큼이나 중요할 것이라는 것이 나의 조언이다.Hashem sfarim, 여기와 기사 토크 페이지에 있는 당신의 기고문은 장황하고 반복적이며 대립적인 경향이 있다.WP는 공동의 노력이며, 당신이 다른 편집자들과 함께 노력한다면 당신의 요점을 훨씬 더 잘 이해할 수 있을 것이다.지금까지 그래왔던 것을 계속하는 것은 파괴적인 것으로 보여지기 시작할지도 모른다. 이것을 기회로 삼아 자신의 접근 방식을 재고해 보십시오.다른 편집자들이 이 문제를 계속 열어두라고 제안하지 않는 한, 12시간 안에 종결된 것으로 표시하겠다.김 덴트브라운 22:55, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

189.60.0.0/14에서 탈루 차단

방금편집에서 IP가 회피 차단을 인정한 것 같아.불행히도 IP는 189.60.0.0/14 내에서 동적으로 보인다; 이 동일한 사용자가 비교적 최근에 189.61.24.117을 사용한 것으로 보인다.나는 IP블록탈출기를 다루는 데 익숙하지 못하며, 특히 이렇게 큰 블록 안에서 깡충깡충 뛰어다니는 것을 잘 모르기 때문에, 이 자리에서 그러한 것들을 다룰 수 있는 좀 더 친숙한 사람을 부탁한다.고마워요.Anomie 15:39, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

Checkuser note: A /14는 너무 커서 확인할 수 없다(또는 차단할 수 없다). 내가 한 더 작은 범위 검사(기껏해야 무딘 기구)는 현재 실행 가능한 어떤 것도 드러나지 않았다. 프랭크 토크 18:44, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

차단 회피는 차단 회피로 차단해야 하지만 모든 IP를 차단하면 부수적인 피해가 발생하고 프로젝트에 타격을 줄 수 있다.만약 이것이 내가 결정을 내린 것이라면, 이 사용자가 지금 아무런 잘못도 하지 않는 한, 나는 그것을 그대로 둘 것이다.그게 옵션 1이다.덜 유리할 것 같은 옵션 2는 CHATE CREATION INVENT으로 레인지 블록을 수행하여 그 범위의 일반 IP 편집자가 계정을 생성하고 블록 회피기를 관리하면서 편집을 계속할 수 있도록 하는 것이다.사이버파워 (Chat)(WP 편집: 519,724,130) 21:36, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
내 계산에 따르면 /14의 범위 블록은 256K(2^18) 주소일 것이다...계좌 수가 얼마나 되는지 상상조차 할 수 없어나는 어떻게 그것이 합리적인지 모르겠고, 계좌생성을 가능하게 하는 것이 반달도 계좌생성을 가능하게 할 것이라는 것은 말할 것도 없다.사실, 우리는 그러한 계좌를 차단할 수 있지만, 잠재적인 부수적인 피해는 엄청나 보인다. 프랭크 토크 03:10, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

힌두 근본주의자 반달?

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

나는 힌두 점성술 페이지에서 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 혼란스럽다.사용자 Dbachmann은 참조 자료를 파괴하고 미등록 쓰레기를 삽입하고 있다.나는 여기서 그와 대화하려고 노력했지만, 네가 볼 수 있듯이 나는 대화 때문에 매우 혼란스러워.AssociateLong (토크) 20:23, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

그런데, 이것은 그 기사에 있었던 자료다.나는 그것을 넣지 않았다.AssociateLong (토크) 21:03, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
기사 토크 페이지나 관련 편집자와 이 문제를 논의하기 위한 어떠한 현실적인 노력도 하지 않으셨습니다.그것은 확실히 공공 기물 파손이 아니다. 당신이 링크에서 볼 수 있듯이 여기서 꽤 특별한 의미를 가지고 있다; 그것은 AN/I가 해결할 수 없는 내용 분쟁에 가깝다.다브는 천편일률적인 편집 스타일을 가지고 있고 종종 퉁명스럽게 보일 수 있지만, 개인적인 경험으로 볼 때 그는 정책을 면밀히 따르고 좋은 출처를 바탕으로 이치에 맞는 토론을 할 수 있다고 잘 인용되어 있다.기사 토크 페이지로 돌아가서 왜 한 버전을 선호하는지, 그리고 여기서 타협해야 할 부분이 있는지 제대로 된 논쟁을 벌여야 한다.김 덴트브라운(Talk) 21:09, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 정크림을 넣지 않은 재료를 넣으니 믿기 어렵다.당신의 링크를 읽어보면, 이건 완전히 반달리즘이다.그리고 다시 말하지만 이것들은 내가 편집한 것이 아니다.AssociateLong (토크) 21:30, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그것들이 너의 편집물이라고 말하지 않았다.나는 당신이 한 버전을 선호하는 것 같고, dab은 다른 버전을 선호하는 것 같다고 말했다.나는 너희 둘 다 기사토크 페이지로 가서 거기서 이 콘텐츠 분쟁을 해결할 것을 제안한다.김 덴트브라운 23:13, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
AssociateLong(토크 · 기여 · 카운트)은 2월 23일부터 편집한다.그의 기여에 따른 모순된 증거에도 불구하고, 나는 그가 이전의 사용자 이름 없이 진정으로 새로운 사용자라고 믿고 있다.BTW, 우리는 WP라고 불리는 정책을 가지고 있다.AssociateLong이 거쳐야 하는 Civil.그는 또한 과감한 편집이 공공 기물 파손이 아님을 알아야 한다. --SupernovaExplosion 06Talk:29, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 게시판이 만들어질 당시 어떻게 유용했는지를 기억한다.이제는 트롤들이 "반복적인 공공 기물 파괴 행위"라는 편집 요약을 하지 않았기 때문에 불평하는 포럼인 것 같아?아마도 사람들은 어떤 종류의 불평이 심지어 여기에 서도록 허락되는지에 대해 더 배타적이어야 할까?그렇지 않으면 어떤 진짜 이슈도 그냥 모든 논점에만 묻힐 위험이 있다. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

솔직히 말해서, 우리는 사람들이 여기에 게시하기로 선택한 것에 대해 배타적일 수 없다.하지만 그들이 잘못된 곳에 관련 없는 자료를 가져다 줄 때 우리는 단호하고 분명하게 사람들과 대처할 수 있고, 나는 그것이 우리가 여기서 한 일이라고 생각한다.어소시에이트로 달려가는 사람이 보이지 않는다.이 그들의 불만을 떠받치고 있어!김 덴트브라운 14:27, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다면 모든 UNICATED 재료의 삽입에 대한 설명은 무엇인가?누가 설명해줄래?AssociateLong (토크) 14:43, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그 질문을 기사 토크 페이지로 가져가십시오.그것은 내용상의 논쟁이며, 이 게시판의 상단에 분명히 나와 있듯이, 우리와는 상관없는 일이다.김 덴트브라운 16:00, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

우스틴푸흐스, '유고슬라브스' 기사에서 파행적 편집

사용자:Wustenfuchs위키백과의 정책을 위반했다.컨센서스, 위키백과:까다로운 편집 위키백과:들었어.사용자의 편집은 WP의 위키백과 정책에 위배된다.방해하다.유고슬라비아에서는 복수의 사용자가 편집 내용을 되돌리는 방법으로 지지해 온 유고슬라비아의 조항에 유고슬라비아에 관한 자료의 포함을 거부하고, 편집에 찬성하는 주장을 받아들이지 않으며, 편집 내용을 뒷받침하는 증거의 수용을 거부하며, 다른 이용자를 진지하게 받아들이는 것을 거부하고 있다.한 논평에서 그는 유고슬라비아인들이 존재한다는 것을 부인했고, 이 거짓 주장을 반증하는 명백한 여러 증거에도 불구하고, 사용자는 이것을 받아들이지 않았다.사용자는 이러한 행동을 계속하지 말라는 경고를 받았으며, 다른 사용자로부터 스틱을 떨어뜨리라는 요청을 받았으며, 관련 자료에 대한 공감대를 형성하는 데 도움이 되도록 다른 사용자와 협력할 것을 권고받았다.사용자가 이를 받아들이지 않고 계속 파행적 편집을 하고 있다.

Wustenfuchs의 행동에 대한 추가 증거를 위해, 사용자가 이러한 파괴적인 편집을 시작한 이후 다음과 같은 사용자들이 이 사용자와의 대화에 참여했으며, 관리자가 증거를 위해 그들에게 연락하기를 원할 경우, 다음은 그들의 이름이다.사용자:Biblbroks, 사용자:Evlekis, 사용자:PD님.

보고서 작성자: --R-41 (대화) 03:09, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 왜 그것이 파괴적인 것으로 간주되는지에 대한 설명과 함께 특정한 편집에 대한 링크의 형태로 증거를 제공하고 당신이 취하기를 원하는 행정 조치를 명시할 필요가 있다.그렇지 않으면 그것은 단지 너의 의견일 뿐이고 이 토론의 실마리가 아마도 닫힐 것이다.TFD (대화) 03:19, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

다음은 파괴적 편집이 발생한 섹션에 대한 링크 [52], [53]여기 Wustenfuchs의 편집이 있다. 무국적 국가가 존재한다는 것을 부인한다. [54]

유고슬라비아 기사 편집에 대한 2주 블록을 사용자에게 요청하며, 사용자가 다른 기사를 자유롭게 편집할 수 있도록 블록은 해당 기사와만 관련될 것이다.그 후에 나는 사용자가 기사를 편집하기 위해 돌아올 수 있다고 제안하지만, 기사에 복귀한 후 그러한 행동을 계속한다면, 더 오랜 기간 동안 사용자를 다시 차단하는 것을 고려해야 한다.--R-41 (대화) 03:37, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

다시 말하지만, 당신은 특정한 편집에 대한 링크를 제공하고 그것이 왜 파괴적인지에 대해 설명할 필요가 있다.TFD (대화) 03:51, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
이건 농담이야. --Wustenfuchs 09:16, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
여기 예시가 있다: [55] - 이 예시는 우스틴푸흐스가 단순히 국가 없는 국가들이 존재한다는 것을 그에게 증명된 후, 단지 명시적으로 받아들이기를 거부하는 것이다.우스틴푸흐스는 유고슬라비아인들이 존재한다는 사실을 전혀 부인하며 "어떻게 국적에 대해 말할 수 있는가, 어떻게 존재하지 않는가? 글은 그때 지워져야 한다." - 사용자 Wustenfuchs[56]의 진술 - 복수의 사용자가 이를 강력히 거부하고 이를 반증하는 증거를 제공했지만 - 통계를 포함하여, 그는 그들을 인정조차 하지 않았다.여기서 그는 유고슬라비아 국가가 있다는 증거를 받은 후 다시 한 번 부인하였다. [57].사용자:PDURDER는 Wustenfuchs의 편집에 좌절했고, Wustenfuchs의 편집이 편집-전쟁에 관여했을 뿐만 아니라 Teddy로 식별한 첫 번째 사용자: [58].이 후, 우스틴푸흐스는 나중에 그에게 주어지는 소식통을 원했지만, 프로듀서에 대해 불필요하게 공격적이고 잘난 체하는 발언을 포함시키면서, "내가 신경쓰는 것처럼, 당신이 원하는 것은 무엇이든 믿을 수 있다"고 말했다.[59] 다음은 사용자:에블레키스는 유고슬라비아인들이 존재한다는 내용의 기사에 유고슬라비아인들이 존재한다는 증거가 있다고 말하며, 토론이 해결되었고 그것이 왜 계속되는지 이해하지 못한다고 말한다.[60] Wustenfuchs는 사용자들과 매우 전투적이었다.Evlekis사용자:프로듀서, 이들과 함께한 그의 태도는 그것이 위키피디아에 대해 일하고자 하는 의도가 아님을 보여준다.위키피디아에 종사하고 있다는 에 동의한다.건방진 편집.앞서 말한 바와 같이, 추가 증거를 위해: 기사에 대해 그와 의논한 세 명의 이용자에게 간단히 다음과 같이 물어보아라.사용자:Biblbroks, 사용자:Evlekis, 사용자:PD님.--R-41 (대화) 10:23, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
이봐, 난 정보원에 스트로스마이어와 라치키를 추가하는 것에 동의할 수 없어.그리고 그들이 유고슬라비아인이라고 혼동할 만한 근원은 없고, 다만 그들의 정치적 이념인 wich를 설명하는 근원은 국적과 같지 않다.다른 모든 것은 토크페이지에서 논의되었으며(문제는 국적 여부) 기사에 영향을 미치지 않았다. --Wustenfuchs 12:30, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
이러한 편집 중 어떤 것도 일반적으로 제재로 이어지지 않으며 다른 편집자들이 우려를 표명했다는 것을 보여주는 편집도 관련이 없다.다른 편집기로 해결할 수 없는 문제가 있는 경우 RfC를 설정하는 것이 가장 좋은 방법이다.그동안 여러 차례 기회가 있었음에도 불구하고 행정소송을 제기하지 않으셨습니다.TFD(대화)
와 같이 위키백과의 위키백과 정책 위반을 보여주는 증거를 제시하였다.컨센서스, 위키백과:까다로운 편집 위키백과:들었어.내가 말한 내용을 확인하기 위해 요청할 수 있는 이슈와 관련된 사용자 이름: 사용자:Biblbroks, 사용자:Evlekis, 사용자:PD님.사용자: 프로듀서(PRODUCTSER)가 처음으로 위키백과에 다음과 같이 언급했다.편집 워링과 함께 가식적인 편집, 여기를 참조하십시오: [61]--R-41 (대화) 18:46, 2012년 3월 1일(UTC)[응답]
네, 3가지 차이점을 제공하셨습니다.[62][63][64] 함께 그들은 어떤 패턴도 나타내지 않는다.당신과 아마도 다른 편집자들이 패턴이 있다고 생각하는 사실은 당신이 그것을 제공할 수 없는 한 관련이 없다.TFD (대화) 05:42, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:아뮤엘 진스

AIV에서 복사 중.

물질과학자.토론의 주체가 되는 사용자는 반드시 통지해야 한다는 규정을 어긴 것을 방금 알아챘다.네가 ANI에서 이런 얘기를 꺼냈다는 소식을 듣지 못했어.
내 편집 내용은 다른 사용자의 손상을 수정하기 위한 것이었다(사용자:탱카족 기사 전체에 난해한 단어를 삭제한 워리어스프라이드655)는 이후 문법적으로나 사실적으로 잘못된 정보를 미스유전화인종간 결혼에 추가했다.짐1138이라는 또 다른 유저는 (구글 북 링크와 인용문으로 된) 나의 큰 참조 템플릿들을 내가 그 기사에 엄청난 양의 자료를 추가하는 것으로 착각하고, 즉시 내가 파괴하고 있다고 생각했다.
물질과학자는 또한 Tanka 사람들에 대한 나의 수정 사항을 되돌렸고 WarriersPride6565에 의해 파괴된 버전으로 되돌아갔다.가서 사용자 대화를 보십시오.워리어스프라이드6565.그는 공공 기물 파손에 대한 협박을 받았다.농담이 아니야, 그는 기사에 있는 단어들을 다 지웠는데 아무도 고치지 않았어.나는 물질과학자에게 그가 파괴된 버전으로 되돌아갔다고 통지했지만, 그는 내 모든 메시지를 무시했다.내가 직접 고쳤다.아무엘 긴스 (대화) 23시 2분, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
아뮤엘 진스, 당신이 편집한 몇몇은 이름이 붙은 많은 참고문헌의 "목적지" 또는 "ref name"을 삭제했다.<ref name="xxxxx"/>와 같은 것을 볼 때 이것은 동일한 소스에 대한 여러 참조에 사용된다.참조 이름(예: 여기[65])을 삭제하면 오류: Cite error/Cite error reference no text.도움말을 참조하십시오.각주#동일한 각주에 대한 다중 참조이러한 참조 자료의 많은 수가 손상되었기 때문에, 이것이 당신이 편집한 모든 내용을 되돌린 이유의 일부일 가능성이 높다.또한 인용 부호에서 회수 날짜의 표준 형식은 예를 들어 2012-03-01이다.2012년 3월 1일로 전환할 필요가 없다.--Racerx11 (대화) 01:18, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그것을 알고 있다.내가 그렇게 할 수 밖에 없는 이유는 12월 3일 Rjwilmsi에 의해 "목적지" 템플릿이 추가되었기 때문이다.워리어스프라이드와 세비루메데이는 11월 30일, 워리어프라이드가 편집한 것 중 하나이며, 문법을 엉망으로 만들어 문법적으로 부정확한 단어를 삽입했다.
나는 워리어스프라이즈 반달리즘 이전부터 기사에 이르기까지 수정본을 선택해야 했다.따라서, Rjwilmsi의 해결책은 가야만 했다.그는 지금 당장 그것을 다시 고칠 수 있다.
그리고 이 ANI 섹션은 아무런 목적도 없다. 첫째로, 물질과학자가 AIV에서 나에 대한 입장을 삭제했기 때문에, 관리자들은 그 사건을 검토했고, 아무것도 하지 않았기 때문에, 분명히 그들은 내 편집에 아무런 문제가 없다는 것을 발견했기 때문이다.물질과학자 또한 의례에 어긋난다는 통보 없이 이 모든 일을 내 뒤에서 해냈으며, 게다가 그는 선의를 지키는 데 실패했다.나는 이전에 기사를 파손한 적이 없고, 나는 새로운 계정이 아니다.나는 이미 내가 편집한 내용을 재료학자에게 설명했지만 그는 나를 무시했다.아무엘 진스 (토크) 02:26, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
토론 범위를 제공된 범위까지 좁히는 것은 공공 시설 파괴 행위라고 주장하는 경우:
WarriersPride의 11월 30일자 편집에서 [66] 사용자는 플래기콘 템플릿에 익숙하지 않아 다소 어려움을 겪고 있었다.다른 변화들은 합리적이다.이런 종류의 어떤 것도 공공 기물 파손이나 어떤 의도 같은 것을 암시하지 않으며, 자연에 지장을 초래한다.
당신이 Sevilldade에 의해 [67]번 다른 차이점은, 글쎄, 나는 이 편집이 약간 어색하다는 것 말고는 전혀 잘못된 것이 없다고 본다.잘못된 문법?그래, 그렇게 불러도 돼.그러나 그것은 확실히 공공 기물 파손은 아니었다.
WP:반달리즘이 정확히 무엇인지에 대해 잘못 알고 있는 것 같아. --Racerx11 (토크) 05:17, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]을 참조하십시오.
솔직히 말하면, 이상하고 혼란스러운 수정들이 너무 많아서 도대체 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 알아내는 데 어려움을 겪고 있고 그것을 정리하는 데 흥미를 잃고 있다.만약 당신이 위에서 언급한 사용자들이 이 모든 것의 시작과 그 수정사항들만이 당신이 가지고 있는 문제였다면, 그것은 상당히 앞으로 나아가는 일련의 수정사항이었어야 했다.대신, 지금 당신이 가지고 있는 것은 완전히 엉망진창인 편집 기록이다.아니면 그냥 피곤하고 짜증이 날지도 몰라.잠시 종료, 안녕히 계시고 행운을 빌어. --Racerx11 (대화) 05:40, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
BTW, 난 관리인이 아니야. 난 단지 네가 편집한 내용을 되돌리는 것에 대해 가능한 설명을 하려고 여기 온 거야.내가 한 말을 너무 깊이 생각하지 말고 관리자가 회신할 때까지 기다리세요.잘 지내세요.--Racerx11 (대화) 05:53, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
Racerx11, 당신은 여기에 더 많이 올릴수록 (더 이상 존재하지 않는) 이슈가 더 오래 끌린다는 것을 알고 있는가?나는 이 실을 보관해 달라는 부탁으로 글을 올렸는데, AIV가 해임되고 짐1138이 이제 더 이상 내 편집이 잘못되었다고 주장하지 않기 때문이다. 그리고 나는 물질과학자가 나를 무시하는 것과 나의 수정을 그가 내 편집에 더 이상 잘못된 것을 보지 않는다는 것을 인정하는 것으로 받아들인다.그는 더 이상 나를 돌아보지 않는다.
워리어스프라이드는 무작위 단어를 공백으로 만들어 반달리즘 경고를 반복적으로 받았고, 그 자신도 자신의 브라우저가 그것들을 삭제하고 있다는 것을 인정했다.
User_talk:워리어스프라이드65#랜덤리_리모빙_words
User_talk:WarriersPride65#Randomly_removing_words_and_other_matters
User_talk:워리어스프라이드65# 2011년 12월
User_talk:워리어스프라이드6565#I_will_have_to_block_you
나는 또한 WarriersPride6565가 한 번 이상 편집했다고 말했는데, 그는 반복적으로 기사 전체에 임의의 단어를 삭제했고, 그것들은 모두 11월 30일에 완성되었다 [68][69][70][71][72][74][75][76][77][77]
세비라데는 실제로 다른 편집자로부터 탄카 기사의 단어 삭제에 대한 통지를 받았다.그는 메시지를 무시하고 난장판을 수리하기 위해 아무것도 하지 않는 쪽을 택했다.아무엘 긴스 (대화) 06:41, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
모든 기사들은 이미 수정되었고 물질과학자는 더 이상 나를 되돌리지 않는다.세비루레이드와 워리어스프라이드는 더 이상 기사를 편집하지 않고 AIV는 해임되고 더 이상 문제가 없다.이 실을 그냥 내버려두고(즉, 더 이상 반응하지 말라는 뜻) 봇이 보관할 때까지 기다리세요, 굳이 수작업으로 할 사람이 없다면.아무엘 긴스 (대화) 06:44, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:EnRealidad 다른 사용자가 아티클 토크 페이지 게시물 삭제

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

토론 게시물 형태로 주제를 논의하거나 그 주제나 일부에 대한 사용자의 의견을 개진하는 토크 페이지 게시물을 삭제하는 것에 대한 공감대와 정책적 뒷받침이 있다.단, 게시물이 고쳐야 할 글에 오류나 편견이 있다고 주장하는 등, 기사의 개선에 중점을 두는 경우, 해당 게시물을 삭제하는 것은 부적절하다.그리고 이것이 Talk에서 일어나고 있는 일이다.미국 혁명공산당(주제사 링크 감시 로그 편집) 사용자 EnRealidad(대화 · 기여 · 삭제 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 차단 사용자 · 블록 로그)가 반복적으로 다른 사용자 Mike-ely-kasama(대화 · 기여 · 로그 삭제 · 로그 · 필터 · 사용자 · 차단 로그)의 게시물을 삭제한 경우, ISE에 수록된 사용자·주제사 locking logs.e WP를 위반할 경우:TPO.

다른 사용자의 토크 페이지 게시물을 삭제하는 근거는 다음과 같다:[80]

나는 이 근거가 완전히 불충분하다고 생각하지만, EnRealidad에 의해 되돌아가 문제가 된 게시물이 토론 페이지에서 두 번 삭제되는 것을 보고 나는 커뮤니티에 개입할 것을 촉구한다.__메코 (대화) 10:21, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 논쟁의 여지가 있는 토크 페이지 편집을 검토했고 그것들은 어떠한 토크 페이지 규칙도 위반하지 않는다.그들이 지원되든 아니든, 편집의 사실이나 유효성은 그대로의 기사에 대한 논평일 뿐 WP에 대한 단순한 위반은 아니다.NOTFORMUM.사용자 초대:삭제한 코멘트를 복원하여 자체 반전을 위해 EnRealidad.나는 기사토크 페이지에서 그만큼 많은 것을 말했다.김 덴트브라운(Talk) 14:23, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
블록에 대한 개봉 케이스와 폐쇄 케이스...나 자신도 처음 가입했을 때와 같은 케이스였고 가이드라인에 익숙하지 않았다. <24시간 블록이면 충분하다.(첫 번째 경고로)리하스 (대화) 00:07, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 토크 페이지를 주시할 것이다; 나는 지금 급하게 중단되어야 할 활동이 없기 때문에 블록이 필요하지 않다고 생각한다.일단 이걸 닫을 겁니다.김 덴트브라운 11시 49분, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

사용자의 중한 공격/인신 공격:레드몽구스

이 원본 콘텐츠 제거대한 경고에 대한 응답으로 이 편집 요약을 참조하십시오.고마워. --Guillaume2303 (대화) 12:09, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 권한을 남용하고 개인 토크 페이지를 어지럽혀 요점을 설명하고 있다. --RedMongoose (대화) 13:24, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  • "애스홀"과 "위키타드"라는 단어는 극단적인 비굴함과 인신공격의 교과서적인 예로서, 이 사용자가 과연 어떤 건설적인 동기를 가지고 있는지 의문을 자아낸다.어쨌든 나는 그에게 두 가지 경고를 했다. 하나는 편집 요약을 어설프게 한 것이고, 다른 하나는 두 번째 불침투/인신공격에 대한 것이다. --SupernovaExplosion 13Talk:55, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 그가 경고문구를 삭제했기 때문에, 나는 그들의 토크 페이지에 왜 그들의 행동이 부적절한지를 설명하는 메모를 남겼고, 그들은 그것을 또 삭제했다.사용자는 자신의 토크 페이지에서 경고를 제거할 권리가 있으며, 이 행동을 계속하는지 봅시다. --SupernovaExplosion 14Talk:13, 2012년 3월 1일(UTC)[응답]
하지만, 이 선의의 편집에 대한 대응으로 레벨 3의 반달리즘 경고는 이 부적절한 경고와 마찬가지로 나빴기 때문에, 나는 당신들 둘 다 여기서 어떤 행정 조치를 원하는지 모르겠다.리퍼 이터널 (토크) 14:27, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
1분 전에 인신공격을 했다고 경고했잖아, 괜찮아그렇다면 그에게 "다른 편집자들에게 당신이 한 일을 정확히 말해주는 요약을 편집해 달라"고 말할 필요가 없다.리퍼 이터널 (토크) 14:46, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 미안하지만, 나는 그것을 선의의 편집으로 볼 수 없다.네, 사표 관련 정보가 추가됐지만, 동시에 기사 주제에 비판적인 소스가 잘 된 정보도 삭제됐다.이것은 실수가 아니었다.서로 다른 SPA 편집자의 반복적인 화이트워시 시도와 함께 광범위한 편집 이력을 감안할 때, 이 경우 레벨 3 경고가 절대적으로 정당하다고 생각한다. --Guillaume2303 (토크) 14:33, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
...그래서 편집이 적절하게 취소된 것이다.하지만, 나는 아직 그가 악의적으로 편집을 했다는 것을 나타내는 것을 볼 수 없는데, 레벨 1 경고가 더 낫지 않았을까?리퍼 이터널 (토크) 14:46, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 아마도.그러나 기사 이력을 한 번 봐주십시오.여기서 합병증을 더하고 싶지는 않지만, 왠지 거기서 꽥꽥거리는 소리가 많이 들려. --기욤2303 (토크) 14:51, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
나도 그랬어, 그리고 난 RedMongoose의 편집이 의심스러워 보인다는 것에 동의해.그러나 이 경우 WP는 다음과 같이 처리한다.SPI가 더 나은 해결책이다. 그 이후로 그는 양말뿌리라면 무기한 차단될 것이다.리퍼 이터널 (토크) 14:54, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
첫 번째 대화 페이지 편집은 개인적으로 심각한 위반이 아니다...하지만 다른 편집은 미개한 것과 WPA이다. 현재로선 최종적인 감소가 충분하다고 생각한다. 또는 ANI와는 별개의 SPI 불만 사항이다.리하스 (대화) 15:13, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

헬프데스크의 법적 위협

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

행정관이 이 문제에 대해 좀 봐주십시오. "이 분쟁은 법적인 이유로 해결되어야 한다." "나는 소환장을 발부할 의사가 없다." 내 NLT 경보가 울렸다.사용자는 아마도 IP 86.10.11.16과 동일한 사람이다.윤수이 13 13:01, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

아, (WP와의 연결고리를 소개한) 첫 번째 성명서를 보았다.NLT), 그러나 두 번째 - Happysailor 13:09, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]을 놓쳤다.
헬프 데스크사용자 대화에 노트 배치:아구르도드.필요에 따라 사용자에게 이 토론에 대한 알림도 제공. 프랭크 talk 13:23, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
미안해, 깜빡 잊고 안 했어.*자체 트라우트* 윤수이 14:41, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이런, 제발 그 사람 좀 그만 새기렴.대신 그와 정상적인 대화를 나누십시오.이 템플릿은 관료적이고 불쾌하며 아마도 그를 자극할 것이다. 67.117.145.9 (대화) 17:33, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

여기에 더 많은 가능한 법적 위협이 있는가?인용: "진실에 관심이 있는 사람들은 새로운 회사의 경영진과 일종의 단어 사용에 동의할 것을 제안한다.그것은 분명히 정책과 일치하고 예의 바르며 특정 기관의 행동의 결과로 발생할 수 있는 어떤 법적 개입을 피한다.위키피디아는 법 위에 있지 않다.네더지가 여기 작가다." ."°HotCrocodile + 18:33, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
67.117.145.9 - 그는 두 개의 템플릿을 가지고 있었는데, 하나는 WP에 관한 표준 템플릿이었다.NLT, 다른 한 사람은 이 실에 대해 그에게 말하고 있었지, 정확히 말해 과한 것은 아니었다.또한, 그는 차단되지 않았다. - 어디서 그것을 얻었는지 확실하지 않다.자신만 막힐 수 있다는 경고를 받았다. -합피사일러 18:50, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
그는 막아야 한다.그는 얼마나 많은 법적 위협을 가하는가?야수의 표식 (토크) 18:57, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
67.117.145.9가 막혔다고 하면서 총을 쐈다는 지적만 해도 나는 동의하지 않는다. - 합피사일러 18:59, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
혼란을 정리하자면, 이것은 분명히 파괴적인 편집으로 인해 일주일 동안 IP가 차단된 IP 사용자인 것이다.그의 블록은 오늘 만료되었다.그는 이제 Sirfurboy (대화) 19:02, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답] 계정을 만든 것 같다.

그는 86.10.11.16으로 막혔다.그가 받은 템플릿은 그 상황에서 불쾌하고 관료적이었다.무슨 일이 있었는지 설명하려고 메모를 남겼다. 67.117.145.9 (대화) 21:01, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

말도 안 되는 소리.템플릿에는 작업에 동의하지 않을 경우 어떻게 해야 하는지 구체적으로 명시되어 있다.야수의 표식 (토크) 21:26, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
그리고 여러분들은 그것이 법적인 위협인지 아닌지에 대해 논쟁하는 동안, 가능한 법적 위협을 촉발시킨 문제는 해결되지 않고 있고 우리는 그의 불평의 실체를 완전히 간과하고 그가 그것을 만든 방식에 초점을 맞추면서 이 사람을 위키피디아에 환영하는 놀랄 정도로 형편없는 일을 하고 있다.누군가가 그에게 OTRS(info-en-qwikimedia.org@)를 가르쳐야 하는데, 가능하면 정보적으로 WMF의 법무부가 그 문제를 다룰 것이다.HJ MitchellPenny, 당신의 생각은? 21:43, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
분명히 법적인 위협이 있었다. 단지 일반적인 템플릿을 남기는 것은 형편없는 대응일 뿐이고 특정 사건에 대해서는 전혀 말하지 않는 것이다.나는 그에게 OTRS의 새 이름인 VRT를 가리키는 쪽지를 남겼다.HJ 역시 불만 사항의 실체를 무시하는 것이 잘못이라는 것이 옳다(WP:DOLT 참조).그러나 나는 그 물질이 Talk에서 어느 정도 언급되었다고 생각한다.웨일스 개발국.아직 자세히 살펴보지 않았다.67.117.145.9 (대화) 21:49, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 이제 오렌지 마이크는 그 빌어먹을 템플릿들 중 또 하나를 남기면서 끈덕지게 차단해 버렸다.블록은 맞지만, 이런 상황에서 템플릿을 사용하는 대신 실제로 한 두 문장을 영어로 쓰는 것이 우리를 죽일 것인가?우리는 그 템플릿들을 모두 삭제해야 한다. 그것들이 우리를 좀비로 만들고 있기 때문이다.67.117.145.9 (대화) 21:58, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이 템플릿은 사람들이 경고가 아무런 의미가 없다고 불평했기 때문에 특별히 만들어졌다.그리고 아무도 AIV에서 4가지 경고를 받지 않는 한 차단할 수 없을 것이다.야수의 표식 (토크) 23:47, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
WP:TTR. - 부시 레인저 00:03, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

세계 지도 변경 목록에서 Chipmunkdavis가 강제한 전쟁/무소싱 콘텐츠 편집

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

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

내가 2주 전에 위키피디아 편집을 시작하고 이 페이지를 변경하려고 한 후, 불행히도 나는 편집 전쟁을 하고 있었다.규칙과 적절한 변경 방법을 안내받았을 때, 토크 페이지에서 토론하여 바로 그렇게 했다.나는 되돌리는 것을 멈추고 대신 토크 페이지에 있는 편집을 설명했다.

기본 아이디어는 이것이다: 1988년 팔레스타인의 상징적인 독립 선언에 대한 항목이 있다.이 선언은 1947년 UN 파티션 플랜(즉, 그들이 제안한 국가의 국경에는 이스라엘 현대 국경의 약 절반이 포함될 것이다)에 근거하여 팔레스타인의 주를 선포했다.물론 우리 모두가 알다시피 팔레스타인에 대한 이 제안은 실질적인 효과를 거두지 못했고, 그러한 국경을 가진 팔레스타인은 세계지도에 결코 나타나지 않았다.그래서 다시 말해서 그 상징적인 선언은 세계지도에 아무런 변화를 주지 않았다.대신 페이지에서는 요르단강 서안과 가자지구에 대해 논하고, 지위의 변화도...말이 되네, 왜냐하면 세계지도는 웨스트뱅크와 가자지구에 딱지를 붙였으니까.그러나 오늘날까지 팔레스타인은 유엔에 대표되고 세계지도에 등장하는 공식적인 국가가 되지 못했다.그렇게 되면 1988년 선언에서 암시된 국경이 아닌, 향후 국경에 관한 합의에 기초하게 된다.그래서 나는 목록 주제와 일치하지 않기 때문에 항목 삭제를 시도했는데, 그것은 제목뿐만 아니라 기사 소개에도 자세히 설명되어 있다.

그래서 2주 전에 편집전쟁이 허용되지 않는다는 것을 알았기 때문에 편집전쟁을 중단한 후(당시 치프문크다비스는 그 편집전쟁에 참가하고 있었다) 나는 토크 페이지에 입력을 하고 토론을 했다.나는 그 선언이 왜 세계지도를 변화시켰는지 설명하고 그러한 것을 나타내는 출처를 보여달라고 누구에게도 부탁했다.아무도 출처를 가져오지 않았고, 칩문크다비스는 거듭 거절했다.대신, 그는 내가 항목을 삭제하려면 리스트에 있는 다른 모든 미필적 자료의 출처를 찾아야 한다고 말했다.백과사전을 통째로 고치는 것은 내 책임이 아니라고 생각하는데, 만약 그가 다른 어떤 것이 비협조적이고 부정확하다고 생각한다면, 그는 나처럼 그것을 토크 페이지에 올려야 하고 우리는 따로 토론할 수 있다.한편 팔레스타인의 입국은 여전히 비협조적이며 기사에 포함되지 않는다.

나는 소식통과의 논의에 누군가가 동참하기를 바라면서 더 이상의 수정은 하지 않고 며칠을 기다리겠다고 말했다.그러나 아무도 하지 않았다.그래서 경고를 한 후, 나는 토론이 끝난 것 같다고 판단하고, 가서 다시 한번 부적절한 입력을 제거했다.즉시, 칩문크다비스는 아무런 출처나 설명을 가져오지 않고 나의 편집을 되돌렸고, 나를 편집 전쟁으로 고발했다.논의와 기다림으로 과정을 정확히 따랐음에도 불구하고 변화를 주기 전에.

그래서 지금 나는 꼼짝도 못하고 어떻게 해야 할지 모르는데, 왜냐하면 그는 이 비협조적인 편집을 기사에 강요하고 어떤 출처를 찾기를 거부하고 있기 때문이지, 내가 왜 그것이 잘못된 것인지 설명했음에도 불구하고 그저 그것을 도로 갖다 놓고 자기 길을 고집하고 있을 뿐이다.

더 이상의 도움에 감사하며, 어쩌면 그가 옳다고 생각한다고 해서 그저 비협조적인 내용을 강요할 수는 없다고 충고할 수 있는 권한을 가진 행정관으로부터도 감사하게 생각한다.그리고 내가 편집 전쟁에 관여하고 싶지 않기 때문에, 다른 사람들이 글과 토론을 볼 수 있고, 만약 내가 그것을 보여줄 수 있는 몇몇 출처를 찾거나, 아니면 당신이 내가 토론에 참여하거나, 또는 내가 요청되지 않은 내용을 삭제하는 것이 옳다고 생각한다면.

정말 고마워. 174.113.154.168 (대화) 18:27, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

이것의 정확한 장소는 분쟁해결 게시판인 것 같아. -- 지우개헤드1 <토크> 19:57, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

사용자: 96.125.246.135 Pierre Poillievre 편집

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

배경:최근 캐나다 연방 선거인 2011년 캐나다 보수당으로부터 유권자 탄압이 있었다는 주장이 있다.캐나다 자유당로보콜이 유권자들을 온타리오 남서부 지역의 존재하지 않는 투표소로 이동시키는 전화를 괴롭힌다는 보도가 있다.로보콜에 사용된 전화번호는 명백한 가짜 이름인 "피에르 푸틴"에 등록되어 있다.[81] [82].

IP 사용자는 Pierre Poillievre에 대해 [83]을 편집했다.이 기사의 주제가 보수당의 캐나다 국회의원이며, 이 사건의 발생 시기는 공공 기물 파손일 뿐만 아니라 명예훼손에 해당한다.해당 개정판은 삭제해야 하며 해당 사용자에게 적절한 경고를 제공해야 한다.편집 내용을 이미 되돌린 경우SYSS 마우스 (대화) 19:13, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

됐어. 비슷한 편집이 있으면 여기로 다시 신고해.고맙다, 2012년 3월 1일(UTC) 20:37 (응답)
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

Piotrus - 경험이 풍부한 사용자, "Stay OFF MY TALK Page"를 이해하거나 받아들이지 않는 것 같다.

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

지침을 제공하십시오.샤주르 (대화)20:32, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

경험 많은 사용자인 샤주어는 사용자 토크 페이지의 목적이 다른 편집자들과 소통하는 것이라는 것과 "가버려"라는 경고가 있다는 것을 이해하지 못하는 것 같다."그만 있어"라는 말은 그 페이지를 적절하게 사용하는 것이 아니다.말릭 샤바즈Talk/Stalk20:36, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
Malik - 너는 틀렸다.적절한 토의 페이지가 그 토론을 위한 장소다.내 토크 페이지는 절대 읽지 않고 게시하지 않으려는 욕구가 강하기 때문에 존재해서는 안 된다.샤주르 (대화)20:42, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
(충돌 편집) 내 지침은 사용자 대화 페이지의 상단에 있는 통지를 제거하는 것이다.불필요하게 대립하는 것이다.이 공동 프로젝트, 그리고 다른 사람들이 정기적으로 당신의 업무와 관련하여 당신에게 연락하는 것을 원하지 않는다면, 당신은 여기 있으면 안 된다.그렇게 간단하다.사용자 토크 페이지에 메시지를 남기지 말라는 일괄 요청을 해서는 안 된다. --Jayron32 20:37, 2012년 3월 1일(UTC)[응답]
나는 단호히 거절하고 강하게 반대한다.나는 내 토크 페이지가 아니라 기사를 편집하기 위해 여기에 있다.만약 내가 채팅하기를 원한다면 나는 채팅 게시판에 있을 것이다.샤주르 (대화)20:42, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
네, 하지만 만약 누군가가 당신의 기사 편집에 대해 의논하고 싶다면, 그들은 당신에게 연락하기 위해 당신의 토크 페이지를 사용할 수 있어야 한다.이곳이 수다를 떨 곳이 아닌 것은 맞지만, 그래도 다른 편집자들이 원할 때는 기꺼이 백과사전을 토론해야 한다. --Jayron32 20:46, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 이 실의 첫 부분을 읽고 피오트루스가 부탁할 때는 사람들을 내버려두는 것이 예의라는 것을 부드럽게 상기시킬 준비가 되어 있었지만, 당신의 토크 페이지를 보자마자...이건 그게 아니야만약, 내가 읽었던 것처럼, 그 토크 페이지 통지가 당신이 다른 사용자들과 관계를 맺을 의도가 없다는 것을 전달하기 위한 것이라면, 나는 위키피디아가 당신에게 매우 적합한 장소가 아니라고 충고하고 싶다.모든 편집자는 필요할 때 편집 및/또는 행동에 대해 기꺼이 토론할 것으로 예상된다.반복적으로 실패하는 것은 일반적으로 백과사전을 파괴하는 것으로 간주된다.플루퍼넛은 샌드위치! (토크) 20:47, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 친애하는 말릭 샤바즈에게샤주레, 여기서 안내해 달라고 해줘서 고마워.토크 페이지는 위키피디아에서 사람들에게 그들의 행동에 대해 (긍정적이거나 부정적인) 메시지를 주는 기본 방법이기 때문에 매우 유용하다.만약 당신이 누군가와 문제가 있다면, 당신은 그들에게 멀리 떨어져 있으라고 요구할 가능성이 있지만, 디폴트 "돌아가라"는 것은 이 백과사전을 개선하는데 그다지 생산적이지 않은 것 같다.내 제안은 그러므로 본문을 지우고 다른 사람의 코멘트에 개방하라는 것이다! L.(토크) 20:49, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 다시 한 번 확인해봐.이 실을 시작한 것은 말릭이 아니었다. --Jayron32 20:50, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 이 사용자의 토크 페이지와 그들의 논평에 대한 경고는 협력적인 백과사전을 만들겠다는 우리의 목표와 절대적으로 양립할 수 없는 태도를 드러내는 것 같다.피오트루스는 원래 그들의 페이지에 지극히 합리적인 논평으로 게재했다.반면 샤주레는 자신의 토크 페이지에 글을 올리는 사람들을 차단할 것을 제안하기까지 했다.이것은 놀라울 정도로 부적절하며, 나는 그들의 토크 페이지에 있는 관리자들에게 보내는 메시지를 고려할 때 즉시 차단하지 않을 이유가 있는지 궁금하다.2012년 3월 1일(UTC) 20:53, 응답하라X
    • 난 그렇게 멀리 가지 않을 것이다.위키피디아에서의 그들의 행동에 관한 문제가 OPs의 주의를 끌었다.OP는 우리의 충고를 차단하기 전에 주의하지 않을 기회를 주어야 한다. --Jayron32 21:03, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
OP는 분명히 은퇴했다.그가 돌아온다면 이들의 비소통적 태도를 다시 되풀이하는 것은 원격으로 용납될 수 없다고 본다.브레톤반켓 (대화) 21:12, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

긴급: 외출 시도

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

가능한 한 빨리 여기에서 revdel이 필요하다[84].리오넬 02:59, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

리오넬이라는 풀 네임으로 편집하는 사람이 나올지 확실하지 않아. --SerkOfVulcan (토크) 03:14, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
또한 위키백과를 읽어 보십시오.Revdel#How_to_request_Revision_Deletion.나는 당신이 "나쁜 소리"를 걱정하기 때문에 공공의 시야에서 어떤 것이 제거되어야 한다고 느낀다면, 위키피디아의 가장 바쁜 페이지들 중 하나에 그것에 대한 링크를 게시하는 것은 아마도 좋은 행동 방침이라고 생각하지 않는다.생각에 스트레이샌드 씨도 동의할 겁니다베이군 03:20, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
WP를 원하면:ABF, 난...아니, 신경 쓰지 마. --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 03:24, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
맙소사, 안돼...하지 마 :-) WP:AGF는 항상, 나처럼.말이 되는 거 알잖아.베이군 03:28, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

가능한 주제 금지 위반

다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

토크 페이지에서는 사이버무드(토크 · 기여)가 위키백과참여함으로써 여기에게 부여한 남성권리주제 금지를 위반했을 가능성이 있다고 지적되었다.삭제/남성페미니즘 관련 조항(2차 지명)권한이 없는 관리자가 검토해서 조치가 필요한지 알아봐 주면 고맙겠어.고마워. --SerkOfVulcan (대화) 19:04, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

내 생각에, 당신이 언급한 사이버무드의 주제 금지 위반에 대한 경계선 편집은 선을 넘지 않는다.그는 페미니즘이 아닌 남성의 권리에 관한 주제의 편집이 금지되었다.하지만 사이버무드가 그런 일반적인 주제 영역을 피하고 잠시 전혀 다른 것에 집중하는 것이 현명할 것 같다... 살비오 19Let's talk about it!:13, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 사렉의 토크 페이지에서 이것에 대한 내 코멘트를 베끼고 있다.나는 관련 AFD에 관여하고 있으며, 이번 회기의 남성 권리 살포에 관련된 다른 사용자들에 대해 행정 조치를 취하는 것이 불편하지만, 사이버무드가 "남성 권리와 관련된 페이지"(광범위하게 해석됨)를 금지한 것에 대해 상당히 명백한 위반으로 보인다.남성 인권 옹호론자들은 페미니즘과 남성주의가 (또는 오히려 서로 정반대로, 그리고 끊임없는 투쟁 속에서) 깊이 연관되어 있다고 생각하고 있으며, '남성과 페미니즘'에 관한 기사는 광범위하게 형성된 남성 인권 주제에 대한 금지에 꽤 깔끔하게 들어맞는다.문제의 AFD에서 사이버무드의 투표는 사실 꽤 타당하지만, 그가 그 지역에서 주제 금지를 받았고, 첫 번째 경고를 받은 후, 이번 달에 두 번째로 주제 금지를 위반했다는 사실은 여전히 남아 있다.플루퍼넛은 샌드위치! (토크) 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC) 19:21[응답]
    • 나는 내가 사이버무드를 다른 주제에 집중하라고 제안하는 것을 고려해 볼 때 위키와이어는 원하지 않는다. 하지만 당신은 기사 보호관찰 조항이 아닌 그의 제한에 연결해야 한다.사이버무드는 토크 페이지와 관련 페이지 등 남성들의 권리를 한 달 동안 금지하는 주제였다.나는 그러한 단어들이 남성 권리 옹호자들이 어떻게 생각하든 간에 남성들과 여성주의에 관한 기사도 포함하고 있다고 주장하는 것은 지나친 일이라고 생각한다.

      토론에 대한 그의 투입이 다소 타당하고 적어도 그의 제한이 사이버무드가 AfD에 참여하지 못하게 했다는 것에 대해 이의를 제기하는 것으로 보아 사이버무드가 제재되어서는 안 된다고 생각한다. 살비오 20Let's talk about it!:39, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

남성과 페미니즘은 남성의 권리에 대해 논하기 때문에 남성의 권리와 직접적으로 관련이 있다. 남성의 권리와 페미니즘의 전면을 보라.반여성주의 반응.더구나 사이버무드가 주제 금지를 위반한 것은 이번이 처음이 아니다, 이 경고를 보라. --소니머스86 (대화) 21:08, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그것이 남성의 권리와 관련이 있다는 것에 동의한다.나는 또한 주제 금지가 불행히도 서투르게 쓰여졌다는 살비오의 말에 동의한다.나는 일반적인 표현은 "TB 관련 기사에서 금지된 주제"에서 나온 것과 같은 것으로 생각하는데, 이는 TB 주제와 관련된 모든 기사에서 나온 것임을 분명히 한다(때로는 광범위하게 해석될 수 있다).이 경우, 주제 금지는 기사에서 나온 것임을 암시하기 위해 쉽게 읽을 수 있다(그 다음 주제).토크 페이지와 관련 페이지를 포함한 남성의 권리.관련 페이지가 명시되어 있지 않기 때문에 기사의 xFD와 AN(I) 논의를 의미하는 것으로 해석할 수 있다.또는 (그 중 아무 것도 없는) 남성의 권리에 관한 하위 조항도 있지만 관련은 없지만 하위 조항도 아니다. (남성과 페미니즘은 실제로 남성의 권리에 대한 하위 조항이라고 말할 수 없다.남성의 권리뿐만 아니라 다른 것도 언급하고 있다.)만약 그렇다면 사이버무드에 대한 주제의 금지가 이전에 명확해진 적이 있는가?닐 아인(토크) 23:44, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
이 토크 페이지 섹션은 그의 이전 위반 사항을 다룬다.김 덴트브라운도 "동일한 토픽 영역의 남성권리 기사 및 기타 기사에 대해서는 금지된다"면서 원섹션에 대한 주제 금지를 다소 명확히 했다.나는 사이버무드가 이 기사가 그의 금지조항에 포함되었다는 것을 깨달았거나 혹은 합리적으로 깨달았어야 했다고 생각한다.케빈 (토크) 23:49, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
정보를 줘서 고마워.그 경우에 나는 원래의 문구가 무엇이든지 간에 주제 금지가 더 넓은 주제 영역에 있었고 남성과 페미니즘을 다루었다는 것이 분명했어야 한다는 데 동의한다.닐 아인(토크) 23:53, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
  • (사용된 sysop 설명)이것은 그것의 오랜 역사에서 사이버무드가 과시하는 사이트 정책의 또 다른 예일 뿐이다.Salvio Men과 페미니즘은 남성의 권리에 관한 섹션이 있다 - 남성의 권리와 폭리주의 그리고 다른 관련 주제들, 금지와 금지 조항이 모든 편집 과 악에 적용되는 주제인--Cailil 23:03, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]의 중간에 있다.

나는 이것이 주제 금지의 꽤 명백한 위반이라고 생각한다.대부분의 다른 편집자들과 함께라면 그냥 넘어가야 한다고 말하고 싶지만, 이번 사이버 무드는 두 번째 주제 금지 위반으로...에 대한 그의 노골적인 무시로 일관하고 있다.음...위키피디아의 거의 모든 것.케빈 (토크) 23:10, 2012년 2월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

도대체 어떻게 남자와 페미니즘이 "남자의 권리"와 관련이 없을 수 있을까?남성과 페미니즘에는 '남자의 권리'라는 제목의 5개 항이 있는데, 페미니즘에 대한 대응으로 '남자의 권리 운동' 전체가 생겨났다.그 두 주제는 직접적이고 밀접하게 관련되어 있다.이것은 명백한 금지 주제인 IMO에 대한 위반이다. 그의 편집이 도움이 되었든 아니든 간에 중요하지 않다.칼다리 (대화) 05:36, 2012년 2월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 사이버무드가 그의 주제 금지를 위반했다는 상당히 분명한 (특별히 크지는 않지만) 의견 일치를 본다; 문제의 기사를 보면 나도 그 기사가 분명히 금지의 범위에 속한다는 것에 동의한다.2주가 조금 안 되는 금지 기간(3월 10일까지) 동안 사이버무드를 차단하겠다.나는 편집자가 금지령을 어긴 것을 차단한 적이 한 번도 없기 때문에, 만약 그들이 시간이 너무 길다고 느끼거나 두 개가 짧다고 느낀다면, 다른 사람들의 검토를 요청한다; 우리는 또한 ANI 토론에 대한덴트 브라운의 마지막 논평에 따르면, 주제 금지법의 연장이 있어야 하는지도 생각해보고 싶을 것이다.Qwyrxian (대화) 02:38, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
나는 이것이 나와 아무 상관이 없다는 것을 알고 있고, '블록'이라는 단어를 보고 콧방귀를 뀌고 있을 때, 감시자로부터 이런 사실을 눈치챘을 뿐이다.그러나 나는 금지를 위반한 사람에 대한 합당한 처벌은 원래 금지의 길이를 다시 시작하고, 금지 명령에 원래 형량의 50%를 더하는 것이라고 말하고 싶다. 그렇게 하면 범죄자는 원래 범죄를 저지를 뿐만 아니라 그것을 어긴 것에 대해서도 처벌을 받게 된다.그냥 관찰자가 그걸 제안하는 거야웨슬리뮤지스 02:47, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
주제 금지를 부과한 나의 원래 폐막 통지문에는 "남성 인권 기사에서 사이버무드대한 1개월의 주제 금지와 같은 주제에 대한 밀접하게 관련된 기사들"이라는 문구가 포함되어 있었다.는 WP에 명시적으로 연결하지 않았다.TBAN은 그러나 다음과 같은 문구를 포함한다: "분명하고 명확하게 명시되지 않는 한, 주제 금지는 주제와 관련된 모든 페이지뿐만 아니라 주제와 관련된 다른 페이지의 부분까지 포괄한다."이 둘 사이에는 비록 사소한 것이라도 위반이 일어났다는 것이 꽤 확실하고 나는 사이버무드의 신의의 보증을 받아들인다.나는 금지 사항과 함께 실행하도록 선동된 블록을 지지하며, (블록이 아닌) 금지 시계는 주제 금지 사항을 위반하여 마지막 편집 이후 1개월까지 '재설정'할 것을 제안한다.김덴-브라운, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC) 14:25 [응답]

리셋 금지 조치에 동의함 - 이것은 어쨌든 최근까지 표준 운영 절차였습니다--Cailil 19:16, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  • 주석 - 주제 금지 위반 삭제POV 전사들은 멈출 때까지 계속 싸울 것이다.카라이트 (대화) 21:36, 2012년 2월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
미안하다, Armbrust, 내가 너의 보관을 언급했어. 왜냐하면 우리는 주제 금지를 연장해야 하는지 결정해야 하기 때문이야.나는 세 명의 사람들이 그것을 지지하는 것을 본다; 나는 그것이 엄청난 수의 사람들이 아니라고 느끼고, 연장을 마무리 짓기 전에 다른 사람들이 끼어들기를 원하는지 보고 싶다.Qwyrxian (대화) 13:29, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
문제없어.Armbrust, B.Ed. 13:36, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
나는 그 금지가 재설정되어야 한다는 것에 동의할 것이다.케빈 (kgorman-ucb) (토크) 00:58, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
위의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.이후 코멘트는 해당 토론 페이지에서 작성해야 한다.이 논의는 더 이상 수정해서는 안 된다.

2012년 아프가니스탄 코란 불태우기 시위

는 사용자 talk에 의해 위 페이지의 편집에 대해 지속적으로 경고하고 토론했다.TAZIM. 그 대가로 그는 페이지에 대한 편집의 대부분이 비소싱 OR임에도 불구하고 소유권 공격과 함께 경고에 대응한다.그런 다음 그는 추가 OR을 통해 한 번의 편집은 자신의 의견이 틀렸다고 설명하고, 바그람 비행장에서 WP의 자체 페이지에 의해 불명확해졌을 때 "확실한 감각"이 함축되어야 한다고 설명한다.그는 그렇게 하지 말라는 전화와 토론에도 불구하고 모든 것을 다시 되돌린다(OR 또는 MOS에 반대하는 그의 회전을 내가 설명했던 곳). 새로운 편집자로서 나는 그에게 MOS를 읽으라고 말했지만, 그는 나를 새로운 편집자로 겁먹게 한다(아티클 토크 페이지 참조).나는 지금 되돌리는 것이 아니라 단지 토론을 하기 위해 페이지에 태그를 달았다.(페이지도 ITN에 있음)

지금은 경고 개입만 할 뿐이지그러나 만약 그것이 그가 미래에 WP를 가로질러 편집하는 방법이라면 아마도 더 많은 이유가 있을 수 있지만, 현재로서는 관리자 경고로 충분할 것이다.
문제의 teh arthilce의 토크 페이지에서, 그는 NPA에 즉석에서 의존하지 말고 내용을 논의하라고 말해야 한다.THX.Lihaas talk) 15:05, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
리하스, 여기서 「토론의 대상이 되는 유저에게는 반드시 통지한다」(헤더 참조).하플로다비 (대화) 16:03, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
그렇게 해줘서 고마워.하플로다비 (대화) 16:08, 2012년 3월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
FoR THE 레코드, 그리고 코멘트가 수정될 필요는 없지만 경고는 제거된다 [85]Lihaas (토크) 00:09, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
첫째, 리하스는 내가 기사토크에 종사할 때 여기에 오지 말았어야 했다.OR이 무슨 말을 하는 건지 모르겠어정보를 왜곡하고 다른 사람을 탓하려고 하기 때문에 스스로에게 경고를 했어야 했다.예를 들어, 그는 모든 정보원이 그것이 미국인들이라고 말할 때 ISAF가 코란 화형에 연루되었다는 기사를 읽기를 원한다.ISAF는 다국적군이며 정보원들 중 누구도 ISAF를 비난하지 않았다.Lihaas는 파괴적이고 POV-pusher이다.RS를 사용하여 모두 제대로 소싱되었기 때문에 편집된 내용은 괜찮고, 내가 한 모든 것은 정보를 수정하는 것이었다.리하스는 자신의 비전에 반대하는 모든 사람들을 차단하려 하고 있다(예를 들어, 바그람 비행장은 ISAF가 운영하는 기지라고 계속 주장하고 있다) 그러나 그것은 이 터무니없는 주장을 뒷받침할 근원이 없기 때문에 절대적으로 거짓이다.실제로 나는 바그람 비행장의 공식 홈페이지를 제공했고 그곳에는 ISAF에 대한 언급조차 없다.2012년 아프가니스탄 코란을 불태우는 시위에 대한 그의 다른 많은 편집은 동일하며, 누군가가 그것을 바로잡기 위해 오면 그는 나와 같이 그들의 대화에 경고 메시지를 넣기 시작한다.내가 Talk:2012 아프가니스탄 코란 불타는 시위에 적극적으로 참여할 때 그는 내 강연에서 헛소리를 써서는 안 된다. 왜냐하면 그것은 나를 혼란스럽고 좌절하게 만들기 때문이다.업무방해로 차단을 당한 것 같아.--타지미(토크) 03:17, 2012년 3월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

Andrea James

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

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

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

Without commenting on Bali's emotional state, I will say that most people are likely not dispassionate enough to edit their own biographies and should probably tread lightly. NoformationTalk 01:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited my own biography and do not intend to. I have proposed text which I believe is objective and proportional, but that is for others to decide. With controversies, we often see editors like Bali ultimate who get all outraged and expand a minor issue into an over-detailed expression of their POV. That's what has happened to my bio, and it happens to Wikipedians with bios from Jimmy Wales on down. Example: the outrage du jour is Richard F. Cebull, whose biography at one point today was half about an email he forwarded yesterday and half about his 40 years of legal work and service. This kind of COATRACK and UNDUE is my concern, especially since Bali ultimate's additions appear to be in response to my NPOV concern raised on that noticeboard. This kind of "I'll how you who's boss" attitude is always unfortunate, but it's especially problematic on BLPs. I have let a lot of crap slide on the biography about me over the years, but the recent edits made by Bali ultimate do not present the full scope of the controversy and blow it way out of proportion in terms of its significance within my work. I seek to bring it into NPOV, and when Bali ultimate started losing that discussion, he started forum shopping in hopes of getting his way. Jokestress (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe he wants his expanded coatrack to stand as is and is forum shopping to achieve that end, where I would like uninvolved editors with whom I've not had negative on-wiki interaction previously to review his version for NPOV. I asked him not to edit it at all since we have had prior interactions and there is a discussion at NPOVN, but that request made him edit it even more disproportionately. Based on his talk page, he has a history of this sort of interpersonal conduct. If we are going to have that much detail, I would hope the other published viewpoints in this discussion are expanded proportionally. However, I think that much detail is out of proportion within a bio this brief. Jokestress (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looked to me like Bali was edit warring, so I'm glad s/he's apparently stepped away from the article for a while (Luwat too). The underlying is complicated and IMHO, Maunus is doing a good job at NPOVN trying to sort it out. I don't think there's anything for ANI at the moment, if the back-and-forth reverts have stopped. Better to not have too many parallel discussions on the same topic. I suggest closing this thread and referring to NPOVN unless new conflict arises. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict^3, fork, etc. Bali ultimate, exactly how many editors are you going to fight with? ) Bali ultimate's accusation of meatpuppetry above doesn't seem to include any evidence that wouldn't equally apply to Bali ultimate himself. It seems mainly an attempt to undermine one editor on-wiki by reciting what another editor did off-wiki in a previous decade. (Actions that were, of course, discussed at length on-wiki back when they were recent.) It is analogous to arguing that we should punish Bali ultimate because the last person pushing the POV he's fighting for was shown to have an undisclosed conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BB the action i'm seeking is additional eyes on a dispute involving an editor with a conflict of interest. Ms. James: If you have additional sources, or "viewpoints" as you say, that address what the NYT and an academic journal have to say about your conduct, you have yet to point them out at the article's talk page. You should, if you want the "other published viewpoints in this discussion (to be) expanded proportionally" please do so. I'm not aware of any other sources that adress this issue yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forum shopping by bali ultimate -- there are no issue here requiring admin intervention. Nobody Ent 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion should remain here: Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Users_editing_my_biography_during_disputesNobody Ent 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If discussion is being centralized there, that's great. But this is the second time that an effort has been made to attract more attention to the discussion ( here is the first, by me). The issues are complicated and independent editors really, really should examine the details involved. WLU(t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous thread attracted one comment, and not from an admin. This thread has attracted more comments, but still not from admins. To the extent, you and Bali want "additional eyes", I've no doubt admins have eyed both topics, so we're done and can close (the ayes have it).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing, content creation

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

No one is forced to participate in an RFCU, and you would be hard put to find an admin willing to act at this point in time. I've warned him about his only truly blockable behaviour (creating hoax articles and user pages about "Tateland" and the "TB Network"). I'll block him if he starts doing that again, but otherwise you should just consider him to be one of the many hyperinclusionist editors on Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 11:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your comments and contributions. Surely there is a problem under WP:DISRUPT that goes beyond an enthusiasm for creating articles. The editor submitted an AfD for Disney Channel Hong Kong after his own, similar articles had been AfD, then, inexplicably, created a spurious redirect DCHK to the article while the deletion was under discussion. This is very WP:POINTy. In general, the editor does not take account of feedback from other editors--the essence of WP:DISRUPT. The articles in wiki-space presenting fictional TV networks named after himself suggest a lack of understanding of what WP is for, raising questions about WP:COMPETENCE. So I think more is going on than just being inclusionist. Some of my best friends are inclusionist :). Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think while it's true that no-one is forced to participate in an RfC/U, they are a fairly good sign of widespread concern and an indication that community patience (or at least that portion of the community dealing with the editor concerned) is wearing thin. Failure to participate can also be seen evidence of "I didn't hear that"-type behaviour and has factored into decisions on sanctions in the past. That said, the RfC/U has only been open for two or three days. It might make sense to give TBrandley a little more time to respond, assuming they've even seen the notification in that wall of deletion notices that constitutes their talk page. Like Kww I'd be inclined to block them immediately for any further hoax creations, and block them eventually unless they make some sort of positive acknowledgement—at the RfC, here, their talk page or anywhere suitable—of other editors' concerns and moderate their editing accordingly. EyeSerenetalk 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question about this IBAN

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

No more drama Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Is it an infraction to edit talk page stuff? I setup auto arching which has now been reverted and changed[89] Is this an infraction? Is that allowed? Or moving my comments[90] Is that permissible? I am not allowed to let the other person know of this thread.Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to uninvolved: I moved my own comment which seemed to be violating IBAN even though it was to another user (due to indentation), after the new comment was added out of chronology above mine. I moved my own comment only to below the intended user. I didn't know who set up the archiving, it was dead since ever and not working. I fixed it... but now that I know that it could be a violation, I've self reverted it (though it is dead again now and starts from 7th archive page?). Any one can reinstate my self revert to the fixed version since the previous archiving never worked. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to say this once and only once so hear it now and I believe I speak on behalf of the community here: If you two don't figure out how to leave each other alone, you're going to find this IBan leading to an indefinite block. I (we the community) don't want to hear your excuses. Be more careful in your editing.--v/r - TP 18:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. Very tired of seeing either name crop up here, which they do with distressing regularity. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thirding it. Clearly other admins are far more tolerant, because frankly I would have indeffed both of them by now for repeated wasting of the community's time and effort. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat at Periyar (river)

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

Indeffed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it. Good, obvious block. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I waited a bit, while searching for any admin in the non-existent cabal. Within moments of posting this report, three of them revive their activity. How weird is that? Are admins actually buses? Sorry for sticking the thing here. - Sitush (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a bus, I'm a taxi: I need to be summoned... Face-grin.svg Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't go south of the river this time of night, guv... Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 21:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And now they're essentially trying to say they've sicced the Indian government's cybercrime Division of Truth on us. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google suggests he's pulling an agency out of his ass; no direct hits for "India(n) Division of Truth". I'm tempted to add language to WP:NLT expressly noting that making up government agencies is tantamount to a legal threat (since the purpose, again, is to stifle opposition and discussion). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are a contributor with few edits, practically every one of which has been reverted and discussed on either or both of their own talk page and the various article talk pages. I rather think that they are a bit lost with the policies etc but I am not the best placed person to turn the situation round. Does the Division of Truth trump the Division of Verifiability? - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Howabout90

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

First time the user re-added the parameter.

Second time the user re-added the parameter.

Third time the user re-added the parameter.

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


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


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

The template documentation says: "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above." I read this to mean that if the country of origin is UK for example, one should not repeat UK as the location. However where the location is more specific, eg Pinewood Studios I can see the benefit of putting this in - even though Pinewood is clearly in the UK. It's not a duplication of information but an extra level of information. So I think your opponent is in the right here. This is in any case a content dispute, not really for this board. But if you're happy with that ruling we'll leave it there. (If not, please try WP:DRN.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. I think the template documentation is badly worded, leading to these sort of disputes. I think it would be better to say "Production location, i.e. where the show is or was shot. Leave blank if you only know country and it's the same as country of origin above." (bold is my addition). ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've been bold and made the change. ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 22:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, administrators, if you noticed in the revision history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Howabout90 thought he could avoid this case by deleting this section, which I have re-added. MegastarLV (talk)

User:MegastarLV

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

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

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

User Thai Striker

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

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

Since Thai Striker is a possible sock puppet of a banned user (banned means banned), I have already tagged him as such. DarthSjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I just created an AfD for List of United Glory events, which includes List of It's Showtime events, before I realized this ANI existed. I did not include List of K-1 events as it seems like a more legitimate list of events than cramming deleted articles into a long article. Now that Papaursa mentions it, it certainly seems like a WP:DUCK situation for WölffReik (talk·contribs). There may be a possibility of re-opening Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik with Thai Striker (talk·contribs) as a duck and possibly Thai Land F (talk·contribs) as well. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason List of K-1 events looks OK is because user Frietjes already removed 21,000 bytes from that article. Otherwise it would have had previously deleted results like the other two. Papaursa (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Reporting a trouble maker

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

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

I think the best solution is that we block 65.95.51.14 for his incivility and threats, since both are not tolerated. DarthSjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a couple of days. Swarm X 03:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banned wikipedia user Grundle2600 is wreaking havoc offsite

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

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

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

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

why should Wikipedia do anything other than ignore this, as the vacuous whining of a nonentity that it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he's already banned from Wikipedia, I'm not sure what you're asking us to do. — Ched : ? 06:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Samanta Institute of Science and Technology

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

Article and editors referenced herein:

Background:

Here is a link to an article about this page.

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

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

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

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

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


Your thoughts? DoriTalkContribs 07:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last paragraph of their self-published rant says it all: "Even Wikipedia will not give them a platform to speak their side of the story. " . That's right - we won't. That's not what we are here for. Two wrongs don't make a right. If the article had been unfairly biased in the past (as they claim) it doesn't mean we need to let it stand around in the future if it is unfairly biased the other way or if it doesn't otherwise meet our criteria for inclusion. 7 08:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And since when is a website that has been constructed with Microsoft FrontPage really that viable, unbiased, and trustworthy? --MuZemike 12:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, just wow (after reading that site). I'm struck by the irony that while the site rails against white supremacy groups it uses very similar language (see the comment about jewbytes). Just your typical rant site. In other news, I'm going through the SIST article pulling out the obvious unreliable sources, replacing some with CN tags. I'm then going to go through the article again for BLP and copy-editing and will watch it to make sure anything added meets WP standards. What a mess. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also ironic: the fact they cry out against "slandering" then promptly describe the "murderous Catholic Church"... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finished with the initial pass. Wow - some of the sources were just simply horrible. I'm not sure about the rickross.com source, but I think there have been some discussions on RSN about it that I'm going to search for. Page watchlisted, commented on AFD and will monitor. If the SPA's continue to push badly sourced POV edits, I would not advise blocking them, rather full protection of the page to force them to use the talk page to discuss, at least initially. Ravensfire (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general rule: Anyone who anthropomorphizes an encyclopaedia is unlikely to be factually accurate in other matters too. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two having it out

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

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

I haven't seen the pages, and this comment doesn't relate to the ANI issue, but just out of technical interest I believe that "box" is Tibetan Mark Caret Yig Mgo Phur Shad Ma which only displays in Unicode. The user presumably is unaware that it's a box on 99% of systems. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article histories is not pretty. There's been revert warring involving at least four editors and a selection of IP addresses going on across at least seven articles (histories: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]).
Having said that, on closer inspection it looks like a POV battle between a single IP-hopping editor who has also edited as Thaizokku (talk · contribs) and Sarsein (talk · contribs), and (talk · contribs) and Hybernator (talk · contribs). IP/Thaizokku/Sarsein's edits are in poor English and seem to be pushing a particular POV (which may be anti-Burmese though because of the language issues I'm not completely sure about that). They've also crossed 3RR on a number of occasions; I'm not sure that ༆ and Hybernator have, although given the number of edits I could easily have missed something.
Regardless, I think IP/Thaizokku/Sarsein is probably someone we can do without. I've blocked Sarsein for 24 hours for edit warring and (procedurally) Thaizokku indefinitely (I realise Thaizokku is the earlier account but it looks like it may have been abandoned).
༆ and Hybernator are strongly reminded that the only exemptions to our edit-warring policy are listed here; none of the content you were fighting over comes into that list unless you can point to a banned sockmaster behind the disruption (and even then the sock accounts should have been identified and tagged). In future, rather than edit-warring please report problematic edits here or to an appropriate noticeboard. There's plenty of help available so you needn't feel that you're alone in keeping Wikipedia free from POV content... and therefore there should be no reason for you to end up violating site policy yourselves.
Finally, if problematic edits resume I'd be open to indeffing Sarsein, protecting the articles, or looking at the feasibility of a rangeblock for the IP addresses (or some combination of those). EyeSerenetalk 10:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have some experience in Burmese and Thai articles, so when I get home from work (6 hours or so) I'll look at everything and see if I can't knock some sense into everyone involved. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more subject-expert eyes on the situation the better :) While Sarsein's edits were less than optimal and the manner of them was problematic, at root this appears to be a content dispute and that element at least is out of ANI's jurisdiction. Policy violations aside there's always the possibility that some of the disputed content changes were good. EyeSerenetalk 11:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps at all, (talk·contribs) and Waorca (talk·contribs) are the same person. TNXMan 15:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tnxman307. I'm not seeing any signs of tag-teaming or other abuse using the two accounts, but of course a second opinion would be very welcome. In any case I think ༆/Waorca would be well advised to read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and take any necessary measures to notify the community/an appropriate person that they operate both accounts. EyeSerenetalk 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned Sarsein that continued attempts to push his blatantly pro-Siamese POV here will result in an indefinite block; ༆ doesn't have the greatest English skills, but at least his edits are somewhat useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update; someone want to check out Wongsathorn (talk·contribs)? Seems amazingly similar to Sarsein. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for looking into things. I've indefblocked Wongsathorn due the the deafening quacking, and upped the block on Sarsein to indef (the fact that they've gone on to create a new account to evade a 24 hour block is not indicative they want to play by the rules). All accounts apart from the IPs tagged accordingly - I suggest we block additional accounts on sight. Thanks again, EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for intervening. I'd been planning to report these incidents to the board but didn't have much time during the week. I updated some of the articles with additional citations today, and will add more citations in other articles in question. Hopefully, it'll deter / minimize incidents like these on these pages. Hybernator (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

X!'s accounts locked

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

Resolved
Issue resolved, accounts unlocked. Snowolf How can I help? 20:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I also want to note for users who might not be familiar with the concept, that a global lock on an account prevents even logging on on said account, and as such no deflagging of the sysop account was necessary. I also note that thankfully no abuse took place. Snowolf How can I help? 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to thank you for responding quickly, locking the account appropriately and notifying us, please do contact X! if possible to notify him too. The Helpful One 15:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already contacted X!, I hope in a reply soon :) Snowolf How can I help? 15:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure about this. It might have been kinder to simply decline the unblock request and give the user a warning, reminding him of the promise made in his original unblock request, rather than simply blocking him. That's what I would be inclined to do, but maybe I'm wrong. OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 17:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, that's exactly what happened. I was less than subtle when I declined the previous unblock request for the alt account. I'm disappointed he persisted. Kuru(talk) 17:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this lucky? Why was this something that needed to be quickly resolved rather than taken to here? -- A Certain White Catchi? 17:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The exact course of action proposed was what occurred. I view this as fortuitous. I'm not sure the situation has been resolved; do you feel it has? Kuru(talk) 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there an imminent act of disruption warranting a block? Does the block resolve anything? I see this as an unfortunate incident because it had to be escalated to ANI instead of an attempt of being resolved through dialogue with the involved parties. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The involved parties in this case are the editor and the community that imposed the sanctions through discussion leading to the removal of an indefinite block. In my opinion, an administrator should not modify those conditions on whim; any changes should have been vetted here. Kuru (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While indeed the closed discussion explicitly states that alternate accounts should not be used, I'd consider it good practice for users to use an alternate account with a different password from their main accounts when editing from public computers such as the ones available in libraries or schools. Keyloggers could very well be present in such computers. User's alternate account carries the same username so it is not like there would be an issue recognizing the main account. Furthermore user has marked their alternate account with a soft redirect to their main account. I'd interpret the use of alternate accounts clause in the past discussion to be the use of sockpuppet accounts to game the system. Lastly we do not want to discourage users trying to reform from the past disruptive behavior. -- A Certain White Catchi? 17:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Good practice aside, there was an explicit condition and promise to avoid even acceptable alternate accounts. A discussion here to amend the community's decision before logging into the account and triggering an autoblock on his main account would have been preferable. Your interpretation of "I will agree to cease the use of even nominally permitted alternate accounts" is odd; could you expand on why you feel that does not include this alt? Kuru(talk) 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How long will that condition last? Is it stated? This person was appealing to use an alternate account not using a sockpuppet to edit maliciously. He was following proper procedure to appeal which is the entire contribution of the alternate account. Preternaturally the only thing missing is that the main account needs to confirm that the alternate account is theirs. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

  • FWIW, I believe the user was abusing Huggle and rollback over the past day or so (going too fast, not paying attention to what they were doing), and as such, I have revoked rollback from the account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More full disclosure -- I didn't pick up on the fact that they edited using the alternate, and should have addressed that prior to giving any advice. My bad. In any, here's the original request which was posted here. Unblocking the primary is the right thing to do here. Nobody Ent 18:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not. The right thing to do, here, is leave them both blocked. We have wasted enough time already. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not see a reason for this person to wait a minute to request an appeal. The appeal itself can be subject to a fair discussion and can very well be rejected. I do not see any reason to block the main account for appealing to use one and only one additional account. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I recommend keeping the indef block in place. This is simple trolling/gaming from a user who thinks he can get away with it. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good block, and thanks to Eagles for revoking rollback. Looking at Kiko's recent contributions and talk page history since having his rollback privileges restored, I see a completely reckless spree of inappropriate reverts and falsely accusing other editors of vandalism. Much, much more competence and carefulness is needed from this editor before an unblock should be considered. 28bytes (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Need some copyvio/CC-BY-SA untangling

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

Moved to User talk:Barts1aNobody Ent 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What you need is someone to sue you"

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

I'm not sure that's a sensu stricto LT, although it might fall in the "intended to cause a chilling effect" area - but it's certainly a personal attack, so the IP has been blocked for a week. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, beat me to it; I was going to issue the exact same block. Swarm X 21:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapianoisrael

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

Resolved

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

A couple of ultra-short articles containing only SEO keywords have been deleted. The contributions to various talk pages are clearly not about the articles or their improvement, so I'm reverting them. A final warning has been given. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting case. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 20:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite :( The warning didn't help, so they are now blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pretty odd. My guess is a test run for some kind of an SEO bot. In this case, the thing being advertised is some sort of mobile-phone piano tuning app. Seems to be blocked now as an advertising-only account, which from all appearances, it was. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Itismesoleavemypagealone

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

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

Administrator note Blocked indefinitely for personal attacks, vandalism, additions of unsourced original research, and incivility. Eagles24/7(C) 01:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since he doesn't appear interested in appealing the block, I think maybe we could close this? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I'd say it probably isn't really Cruz. According to the article Cruz is 49, and the Itismesoleavemypagealone posts very much have the style of a young teen or someone doing a dead-on impression of one (not capitalising anything, not even 'i', insults like "loser", jerk", etc.). My guess is it's probably someone he knows messing with him through impersonation for whatever reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and incivility by IP

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

Repeated blatant copy-vio against all advice

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

Issue concerning User:Green-Halcyon

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

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

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

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

Bad language and personal assault

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

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

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

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

Diff: [110]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]

Pikachu virus

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

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

Obviously a hoax. You forgot about SOPA already? SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a vandal. 28bytes (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article contents does appear to have been copied from one of the cited sources. It might have been just a vandal, but the article is still copied word for word. Alpha_Quadrant(talk) 22:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the copyright problem. Eagles24/7(C) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch. Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's better ways to inform about copyvio, of course. And given that the IP's contribution history has zero good-faith edits since August, I've blocked them for a month. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request block of two accounts I control

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

I would like two accounts I control to be blocked indefinitely. I will make two edits producing a signature with those accounts below. T Y 09:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [111] and [112]. I hereby confirm that at the time these two edits were made I was in control of those two accounts. T Y 09:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.202.185.239 (talk) [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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by Danrolo

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

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

Lawsuit

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

Resolved
IP blocked

I have noticed some extremely distressing inaccuracies in many of your WP:BLP articles. I will be contacting the individuals who are subjects of these articles and recommending that they take leal action. 86.160.24.233 (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

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

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

  • 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 Jungat 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]
  • 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

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

From what I have been given to understand, while proposed, the community in the past decided that blocking an editor was better than adding a functionality to the software to block an editor from using a gadget. Basically, if they've been asked to stop, and they don't, it warrants a block.

With that in mind, I am proposing, based upon the discussion above, and other such discussions, that:

a.) User:Stefanomione be banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories in any way. This includes, but is not limited only to, creating a category page, adding pages to a category, changing a page from one category to another, etc.

This restriction may be lifted in the future IF Stefanomione has shown to be consistently following the second restriction (b, below) over a decent period of time, absolutely no less than 3 months (with at least 6 months being preferrable).

b.) Also that if any (presumably manually done, per the restriction above) category creation or modification done by Stefanomione is contested, he must stop and discuss, gaining a consensus before continuing, per WP:BRD.

Violation of these restrictions may result in being blocked. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The disruption has gone on too long, and this is a good solution which falls short of an outright ban. It gives Stefanomione a chance to learn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with these restrictions and with the principle that after a reasonable period of time he be eligible to have it considered whether they should be lifted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what the value is of a:) The single biggest issue with Stefanomione has been poorly conceptualizing or structuring categories. Taking away Hotcat (if such a thing is possible) won't affect that in the slightest, and will only slow him down a tiny bit, if at all. b.) seems to me to be the meat of the thing. Does "contested" mean it has to come to another CfD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Contested simply means another editor opposes. Similar to how the word is used when saying: a contested PROD. - jc37 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're kidding, right? I can guarantee that an 85% retention rate is better than the content of the edits of just about anyone on this page - myself included. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It will constantly need revising and revisiting. I'm not seeing very much discussion with this user about concerns; I can't even tell from the discussion above what issue people are having with his categories other than "we don't like them". It should be no surprise that if the overwhelming majority of an editor's contributions is to a small area of the project, then the overwhelming revision rate will also be in that small area of the project. I do note, however, that most of the categories for February 26, which are linked at his page, aren't actually listed on the February 26 CFD log. This is a serious error, and needs to be rectified if there is a plan to CFD the category (i.e., starting over for the full discussion period). Perhaps someone had problems with automated tools? Risker (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm not kidding. And if you did look in even the editor's talk page history you might have seen more problems. And this doesn't include other discussions elsewhere. And 85% retention rate? What? The issue here is that there is just so much, and he doesn't stop (even now) that it's a lot of work for others to deal with it. As I am looking over the editor's contributions, there is a lot which should be reverted/deleted, if only based upon prior consensus. That said, I won't debate it with you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. - jc37 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing. I can personally think of at least four administrators who have made much, much more significant errors in categorization who got a pleasant query on their user talk, worked it out with the person who raised the issue, and together they came up with a solution that was better for the project. If I can think of that many people, and I hardly pay attention to categorization, then I think I have grounds to say that it's not numbers, it's that the user isn't being communicated with. Risker (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, you say you "hardly pay attention to categorization," and that much is obvious. If you went to CfD and typed "Stefanomione" in the search field, you would see many dozens of attempts to discuss this with Stefanomione. In addition, all the February 26 are listed on that CfD page; they're all just grouped into one discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not very much discussion? The vast majority of this user's talk page are notices about categories created by them up for discussion at cfd. It's clear they don't get it. --Kbdank71 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the discussion? Those are templated notices that indicate someone's made a decision without even bothering to talk to the user beforehand. I'm not seeing "Stefaniome, please stop for a few minutes and explain to me why you're creating these categories." In fact, I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years. The time for that conversation is before tagging something for deletion. It would be a different story if someone could show repeated evidence of trying to discuss without receiving any response, but that does not appear to be the case here. Risker (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions are at Categories for discussion. I don't see anything wrong or irregular about that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to "I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years.", there is this discussion from August: last post. Not terribly recent, granted, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that the discussions subsequent to that have been held at CFD - I certainly don't think Stefanomie would have been unaware of other editors' sentiments regarding this. Begoon talk 03:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You suggest that the only suitable place to discuss a concern with a created category is at CfD. I very much disagree. If you have a problem with a category that a user has created, our dispute resolution process dictates that your first stop is to discuss it with the editor. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that Risker is unaware that CfD hasn't stood for "categories for Deletion" for quite some time (years, actually). Categories at CfD are posted for just that. discussion. (Category talk pages are rather typically under-watched) Results at CfD are varied, and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm quite aware of that. What I'm saying is that there is no valid reason to fail to discuss this directly with the editor before taking a category to that page. The first stop in any disagreement is discussion with the user, not a noticeboard of any kind. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now that it's been shown that many users have tried to discuss this problem directly with the editor, on his talk page no less, do you have any valid objections to this? --Kbdank71 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Jc37's proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The amount of unnecessary work being created for others is unacceptable. I do see attempts to discuss this with Stefaniome in the past, on his talk page and history, and at the CFD discussions. It can be hard to navigate the talk page and history because of the number of notices. @Risker: the 26th Feb nominations seem to be combined somewhat, at this discussion - that fooled me when I initially followed the talk page links, too. Begoon talk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As I mentioned before, I think WP:CATP is a nice place to have centralized discussions of this nature before category creation happens. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think a ban on his editing privileges will help him understand what is right and what is wrong. Abhijay What did I do this time? 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not block editors as a teaching mechanism, particularly when the vast majority of their work is useful. We teach them, and talk to them. We don't do that at CfD, we do that one-to-one; only if that has been unsuccessful should this issue ever come up. Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We are clearly beyond merely suggesting to Stefanomione that he change his behavior. This seems a regrettable but necessary solution.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changing your original statement here, Mike Selinker. You have consistently said that the only place you've discussed this is at CfD; I note no other edits by you to this editor's page other than to place CfD notices. Can you explain why you have failed to have a discussion directly with the editor? Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved my statement to further up the page. It is baffling to me that you are suggesting that I have not had a discussion with this editor when I have had dozens of discussions with him, just not on his page. Especially when CGingold, Good Ol'Factory, Elen of the Roads, and Shawn in Montreal have had those discussions with him on his page. And of course, I didn't propose this notice, so I'm not sure why you think my actions invalidate this proposal. You seem well intentioned, but you also seem to have no idea what you're talking about in this case. Please feel free to prove me wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've spoken to Risker about his objection. I think he's wrong that we haven't tried to engage Stefanomione, but I understand his position. Accordingly, I call upon Risker to provide an alternative to the proposal, and we can support or object to it. In the absence of another proposal, my position is to solidly support this approach.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral/Weak Oppose I've watched Stef for a few years and admit he can be fairly uncommunicative, but well intentioned. I like the idea of restrictions, but I would prefer it incorporate some aspect of mentorship/education. Also, I disagree with the idea that hotcat is an automated tool. It's a semi-automated tool that requires review of every edit with it. I would be fine with just the second condition applying to all of his actions (semi-automated or otherwise) and requiring him to "fix" any contested actions that result in an opposite finding in the resulting discussion. MBisanz talk 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the mentorship/education part of your suggestion (before you opposed it, anyway).--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentorship would be fine with me, but the restrictions should still be placed regardless. And the mentor(s) could help determine how soon after the minimum 3 month time period the (semi-)automated tools restriction may be lifted. - jc37 20:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I would go further and support a ban on any edit by any means in category space. User:Pastorwayne (who created a slew of unnecessary and bizarrely named categories without any automatic assistance) was subjected to exactly such a ban after featuring in cfd after cfd some years back. (And cfd is the perfect place to discuss the existence and naming of categories.) Oculi (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent self-promoter at Aquatic ape hypothesis

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

I, and several others, have been arguing that the citing the latest scientific, peer reviewed, publication on the subject is a significant and helpful inclusion to the text on the subject.
Apart from gossip, what exactly is there to back the slur that a) Bentham is guilt of acting as "vanity press" ever, b) that the authors of the ebook paid to get it published? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[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 [113])
  • User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 [114])
  • Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
  • Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH) [115]
  • One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper [116]
  • My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage [117]
  • His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
  • Only one edit [118] appears unrelated to the AAH.
I admit to being very interested in this idea. Sorry. I have a master's degree on the wading hypothesis, started a PhD, had two papers published on the idea and now had a book published. I apologise for imagining that this might have made my input as significant as self-styled, anonymous, Wikipedian lay "experts" on human evolution. Clearly, as long as you support the mainstream view, you must always be right. Algis Kuliukas (talk)
Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited [119], [120], [121], [122], [123]. A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.
In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book [124], [125], [126]. Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132]. In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical [133], [134], though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[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 [135]. The increased interest is probably because of the new book on the subject at Bentham press. WLU(t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[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]

Honorsteem again

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

Honorsteem (talk·contribs) opened a discussion on this board a couple of weeks ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Deleting (references to) moved comments on Talk:Daniel_Pipes) and (in a unanimous decision) was eventually blocked for "his abuse of clean start, disruptive editing and the fairly well supported idea that xe is hounding Jayjg". Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive740#Honorsteem_Blocked. He asked to be unblocked on his talk page, and after several attempts at getting unblocked, which failed because of his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and WP:NOTTHEM violations, he was eventually unblocked. He very first article edit was to revert me at List of Jewish Nobel Laureates, as was his third edit at Party for Freedom.
Regarding the List of Jewish Nobel Laureates article, after his revert was in turn reverted by someone else (he objected to having List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients as a "See also"), he then decided to add a number of other links, including a link to List of Jewish American mobsters.[136] There are, of course, dozens of lists of Jews on Wikipedia; the link to this specific article, out of all of them, is quite obviously just combative and needless provocation.
Regarding the Party for Freedom article, the material itself is an obvious WP:BLP violation, as he knows from the earlier discussion on his Talk: page. Moreover, his insertion uses Wikipedia's voice to describe to specific individuals as "right-wing" and "anti-Muslim", something their Wikipedia biographies obviously do not do.
It appears to me that Honorsteem has learned nothing from the earlier AN/I thread or the discussions on his Talk: page; on the contrary, he seems to still view Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that further administrative action is appropriate. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CLEANSTART...means new username and avoiding old haunts and editors...that isn't the case here it appears.MONGO 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
One sec here ... Honorsteem has acknowledged that his was NOT a cleanstart, it was a mere change of usernames (done the wrong way). He was not required whatsoever to stay away from "old haunts". However, continuing a previous battle made no sense - but I'm not seeing how this is indef'able (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[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.[137] I think there's a fundamental disconnect here between the purpose of Wikipedia (creating an encyclopedia) and Honorsteem's own reasons for editing it (WP:BATTLE/pursuing a grudge). Jayjg (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Honorsteem explicitly stated, on his own user page, that he was undertaking a WP:CLEANSTART ([138]) contradicts his claims that he was not. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS madness

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

Favonian has demonstrated, not for the first time, that he is unfit to be an admin. The latest thing, this asinine article renaming with no consensus,[139] does nothing but make wikipedia (and him) look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'll have to explain why that is an asinine renaming. --John (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it seems entirely in line with the cited policy. What's up, Doc? Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 00:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admitting that it took me about a minute to see the difference, I'd agree that the move, while ultra-pedantic, is correct. Encyclopaedias are meant to be pedantic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the actual title is not spelled that way, then the so-called MOS "rule" is "original research". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cover is all caps, are you suggesting we follow it exactly and have all caps here too? ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The copyrighted sheet music and the record itself, which are visible in various places on the internet,[140][141][142] have it this way:
I'D LIKE TO TEACH THE WORLD TO SING
(In Perfect Harmony)
Invoking "manual of style" to override the actual title amounts to original research. OR is against the rules. FYI, I only knew about this because the article happened to be on my watch list. Things are on my watch list to check for vandalism, not to worry about whether someone is going to impose some new OR title on something. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd just like the article title to have the first eight words in caps? To do otherwise would surely be OR? ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 07:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You will find other versions where the first line of the title is in mixed case. What you won't find is the "In" in lower case - except on wikipedia. Meanwhile, Favonian was too lazy to change the article content, so now it doesn't match the title he moved it to. Thus making wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article fixed. Thanks ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 07:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've renamed it back to its real title, all you've done is perpetute the mistake and continue to make wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, you are calling someone unfit to be an admin because he corrected capitalization in an article title? Didn't we topic ban you from the notice boards already? If not then perhaps we ought to consider it now... You'll have to get your dose of drahma somewhere else. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bugs is under a self-imposed ban per thisbut arguably it covers AN only rather than AN/I. Still Bugs, take a chill pill mate, this is not the issue to mark your return to the dramah boards. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 00:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the ban clearly cites AN/I and has another six days to run. Bugs, very sorry but you have shot yourself in the foot here. Reset of ban to one month from today? Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 00:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. The so-called "ban" doesn't exist where I'm affected. And Favonian owes me. I'm still waiting for his apology, or even any kind of acknowledgment, for having compelled me and another user to raise a huge brouhaha at Commons in order to reverse an extraordinarily stupid decision he made some weeks back. He's got no business being an admin... and this allegedly MOS-driven renaming, at the possible expense of making wikipedia look even more stupid, demonstrates it yet again. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are you directly affected by a title change that changes the case of one letter? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The diff you linked specifically identifies "ANI". Powers T 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) There was no opposition to the move registered in six days of discussion (I withdrew my opposition as I'd misremembered the MOS rule). I am stunned by Baseball Bugs' phrasing: "Yet another stupid decision by Favonian. See you on WP:ANI." The decision was correct per consensus and per the MOS; if BB has a problem with the MOS, this isn't the place to contest its contents. Powers T 00:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this issue to bring up the continued arrogance of the admin Favonian, who this time as with the previous time not only refuses to back down from a wrong decision, but also stonewalls us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally agree with Bugs' position - changing the capitalisation on a title, name, or any other thing which the creator and the rest of the world capitalises one way, because "Wikipedia says Wikipedia capitalises it this way", is WP:OR at its most blatant. It's not Wikipedia's place to dictate how something should be spelled or capitalised, but rather to use the spelling and capitalisation used in sources, and for spelling and capitilisation, primary sources are acceptable. That said, though, I'm not at all sure I agree with his presentation of that position, and have "no comment" on any bans' existience, proposed extensions therof, or anyone's fitness to be an admin or lack thereof. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Bushranger and Bugs. The move may have been "ultra-pedantic" in Wikipedia terms, but when MOS conflicts with reality, reality must win, because -- well, because we're an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should reflect reality and not create its own. The new title is incorrect, and the article should be moved back. I disagree with Bugs that the move has any particular relevance to Favonian's ability to be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, the MOS does reflect reality, in that is one form of proper Capitalization, even if it is not what the product says it is. But the largest issue is that because page moves are seemingly more disruptive than standard edit moves, the MOS standardized this specific form of capitalization as to avoid not only edit warring on titles, but to make sure titles read appropriately within text, to prevent "fan" versions of names with wacky variations, product names that claim to be all caps when not an acronym, and other nonsense that would otherwise make prose a mess. Yes, it seems silly in this one particularly case, but its sorta necessary to prevent that "leaking" to other cases. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a "fan" version, it's the title as published. You're trying to justify original research based on a false premise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am saddened by this, as the Bugs I know would've done a "This is MOS madness you maniacs" header. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This late in the game, there isn't much I can add by way of explaining my actions, except to emphasized that they were done in good faith. It may be unrealistic to hope for a general consensus defining the demarcation line between MoS and other considerations, so unpleasant situations like this one will keep occurring as they have in the past.
Though I prefer to stay out of the topic ban discussion below, I will raise one complaint. Bugs claims that I "stonewall" the community, presumably because I haven't responded before. I live in the Central European Timezone, and it was 00:44 when the notice concerning this discussion arrived on my talk page. At this point I had retired for the night, my last edit having been made half an hour previously. Not even the considerable amount of noise made by the OP was able to stir me from my slumber. Favonian (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseball Bugs, coming here and raising this issue in the manner that you do makes you look silly. Think about that. I quite agree that there are people around here whose thought-free and robotic application of arbitrary house style rules actually results in the introduction of outright factual errors into the encyclopaedia, or other damage. But that doesn't make them unsuitable to be administrators. It makes them unsuitable to be encyclopaedists — something that isn't addressable by removing administrator tools. Moreover, in this case, as in so many other cases, you shouldn't be focussing on the discussion closer, but on the people who took part in the discussion itself. They, not Favonian, are the people who actually hold this erroneous view. A group of people were convinced that it was more important to conform to a manual of style than to consider what the actual real world facts are. A further person then took the view here that agreement between title and body was a more important consideration than factual accuracy, too. They are the true problems, not Favonian. Address the problem at its root, not via the proxy of picking the person tasked with implementing such group decisions and laying the entirety of the blame on that single person's shoulders.

    To that end, I add: A quick Google Books search turns up contemporary issues of Newsweek and Billboard, from December 1971 and 1972, that both use "In" rather than "in" and don't use all-capitals. They have the name exactly as per the pre-move article title, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usual question which tends to get asked

What administrator response to a specific incident is being requested here? pablo 15:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desysoping. Nobody Ent 16:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unbefuckinglievable. pablo 17:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extension of topic ban for BB

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

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

  • Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The complaint is about an incredibly trivial issue, but presented in an incredibly over-the-top manner that exemplifies why Bugs was compelled to take a break from AN(/I) in the first place. I would also endorse an extension of more than one month, given that the original topic ban seems to have done very little to reduce Bugs' taste for drama. (Honestly, a trivial move request is unopposed for a week, Favonian closes the unanimous request and carries it out, and suddenly we need to desysop him for doing something that seems to follow the instructions in the Manual of Style—really?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I like bugs too but there's no choice here. Not only does the complaint not directly affect him but it seems far away from something requiring admin attention. On top of that it's just plain rude; if this is indicative of an action that makes one unfit to be an admin the I dare say we'll have no admins soon enough. Noformation Talk 01:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Kim Dent-Brown's reasoning. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was a *self imposed* topic ban. So he broke a promise, that is not a reason for a ban extension. We all sometimes make promises we don't keep because of our habits (just think of our New Year's resolutions, which are often negated within two weeks after the year's beginning). Not to mention politicians breaking their promises on a daily basis. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 03:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A self imposed topic ban is unenforcable. Trying to institute a true ban in this instance would be equivalent to proposing a full siteban for someone who retired and then came back and resumed editing later. Night Ranger (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it was self imposed, I'd prefer the action taken here to be to convert it to a community sanction, but not extend the length. At the same time, follow it with a "good behaviour bond" where it can be reimposed by any admin (with escalating lengths) if Bugs is judged to have overstepped the mark again. I'd like to think it was a one off and Bugs can demonstrate better self restraint in future. Begoon talk 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Bugs should have sat out the entirety of the ban, and chose a fairly trivial conflict to return, but a self-imposed ban cannot be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that BMK and several others take this view; a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all. By this reasoning, anyone can self-impose a ban to get the community off their back, then come back at any time they please with impunity. If this does develop as consensus I shall never be satisfied with voluntary, self-imposed bans on people in the future but will always pursue discussions to a community-enforced decision. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 08:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kim: Here is my understanding: the community was considering a topic ban for Bugs in regards to AN/I, but that failed when he agreed to a self-imposed ban. The community did not have to accept that, they could have gone ahead with the community ban. If this instance, they did accept it, and Bugs has apparently broken that self-imposed ban. The community now has the option to, once again, consider a community-imposed ban, but there is nothing it can do about a self-imposed ban which is not carried through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - It was self-imposed...but it was self-imposed to end a ban discussion in progress early. Violating a self-imposed ban shouldn't mean a ban (unless that's part of the agreement), but reopening the discussion could be an option. --OnoremDil 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it was also self-imposed after the unblock. IJS — Ched : ? 04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Since it was voluntary, no red card, this time. Bumping up to two months would really be better.
    The high volume of gadfly participation on pages such as this one is unhelpful; it results in a frothy mixture of jokes and bullshit that perpetuates a vicious cycle of drama. Alarbus (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But it was voluntary because the community was already favoring a topic ban for him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented in the prior discussion; even re-read my typo. By no red card I meant no block for the noise over an 'i'. I'm all for less noise from such users. Alarbus (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Kim is quite right: a non-enforceable self-imposed ban is no ban at all, and it would be not only quite reasonable for the question to go back to the discussion of an imposed topic ban, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude from this that Bugs' word is no good, and that he cannot be trusted to deal in good faith. That being said, said discussion was nowhere near a consensus for a ban, and was running not a whole lot better than a simple majority in favor. In any event, it would be horribly abusive to endorse enforcing and extending a "ban" that the community never approved in the first place. I am quite sympathetic with editors tired of the drama, but as with most other areas of the encyclopedia, if you cannot gain a consensus supporting your POV - however worthy and true you're convinced that POV is - your POV does not prevail. Ravenswing 09:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Bugs is rooly cool on IRC. Anyone who is so funny and makes fun of stuff I don't like and stuff must be perfect to build an encyclopaedia.101.118.20.230 (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Effectively, the wrong thing has been asked here. You cannot extend a self-imposed topic ban. However, you COULD have asked for the community to impose a topic ban. None of the !votes above mean squat because the question was the wrong one. As my friend's daughter says "No, try again!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that semantic arguments cut much ice here. Bugs offered a one-month topic ban (however 'voluntary') as an alternative to more serious sanctions; note the closing summary at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#Baseball Bugs - Block review and topic ban discussion. Given that the above thread demonstrates both a failure to keep his word and (more seriously) a failure to avoid the sort of inflammatory and pointless rhetoric that led to the first ban discussion, it seems like the original question – should Bugs be banned from these boards – is back before us. Regardless of the precise circumstances of Bugs' original departure from these noticeboards, the intent and meaning of the question before the community in this thread is clear. Casually dismissing the comments above on a legalism is missing the point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ahem ... "casually?" There is nothing "casual" about my stance, sir, nor was my POV hastily chosen or delivered. I do the honor of presuming that those who disagree with me do so because they believe in their stance, and don't choose to insult them for it. Would you care to exercise some AGF in your own right? Ravenswing 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment would make more sense had I been replying to your original remark, and not to Bwilkin's casual dismissal. TenOfAllTrades

(talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bwilkins didn't say anything I didn't, and I see nothing in his remarks which can be construed as casually thought up. Ravenswing 13:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support community imposed indefinite topic ban from all administrator notice boards (except when notified by others that his input is needed)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    your parenthetical is gameable; anyone could ask for his input. Anyway, I support the direction you're suggesting; indef imposed dramaboard ban. Alarbus (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new or existing implicit ban. User accused an admin of being unfit for changing the case of a single letter in a single article title after a week long discussion in which both participants agreed to the move. Nobody Ent 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support whether it is new or an extension. What was he thinking? This should include all administrator notice boards as per Maunus. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support extension/imposition of one more month on AN* topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support frankly I'm not sure it would be a bad thing to make it indefinite and for him to show a change of behaviour before it is lifted - this move request seems entirely legitimate. With regards to complaints about the ban not being formal, maybe it should. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With regards to [143] a claim of stonewalling well within 24 hours? That seems more than a tad unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. People have lives outside of Wikipedia... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Baseball Bugs has demonstrated, not for the first time, that he needs a break from drama boards (or, we need the break, if that phrasing is preferred). Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support with caveat excuse my attempt to start this discussion on the AN noticeboard. I noticed the top part had been closed and didn't scroll down enough to catch this one. The little dramatic and insulting close in the middle really seals it for me, though honestly a month is not enough. He promised a month and couldn't stay away that long. Simply forcing him to stay away a month is really insufficient. What we've learned over the last month before he came back, is as some described, that somethings were easier to deal with without his input. As such this really should be a much longer ban, at least a year.--Crossmr (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per prior reasoning and that this effort did not have consensus in the past, thus the second bite at the apple is counter-intuitive entirely. Collect (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous discussion was abandoned because of his self-imposed topic ban. Which he's gone back on. This isn't a second bite at the apple so much as it is picking it back up because we thought it would be fine when it wasn't. 40 supports vs 27 opposes, is more than borderline to begin with. There was no attempt to previously finish generating that consensus or even evaluating it because of his offer.--Crossmr (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is picking up the previous discussion? In which case, not only should that be explicitly stated - preferably by Kim - but those editors who previously registered their opinions should strike their votes here, as well. Ravenswing 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original post to start this thread was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that a self-imposed ban was exactly like a community-imposed ban, and should not be broken without consequences. I don't think it would be right for me to now make any alteration to that proposal, because obviously it would cast into confusion everyone's support or opposition. So just to amplify what I thought I was proposing at the start: Bugs was under a ban (albeit a self-imposed one), broke the term of it egregiously and we are discussing resetting the clock - but this time with the reset imposed by the community rather than Bugs himself. We are not (in my mind) continuing the previously suspended discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was the first discussion was never properly concluded because of Bugs' actions. He can't get away with avoiding a ban or discussion by shutting down a previous discussion by offering to stop the behaviour, then going back on the promise, then trying to claim double jeopardy because he knee-capped the previous discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is best if BB leaves this board alone, and so we convert this to a community ban. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If only to counter sort of momentum of the "vote" directly above this one. A community ban? Get yer good shoes on for that one, Graeme. Doc talk 09:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Graeme meant a "community AN topic ban", rather than a "community ban". I think I lost it in the translation, and I struck my last comment accordingly. I think Bugs' topic ban was meant to deal with what many feel is a long-standing issue with him excessively commenting on pre-existing threads that have nothing to do with him at all; not bringing up new ones (though this one was pretty horridly though out, Bugs) or commenting where he was already mentioned. The writing may be on the wall here, but I do like Bugs even though many don't. It's not a popularity contest, right? He's not ever gonna run for adminship, I betcha ;P Doc talk 09:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you're not very clear. You claimed to be opposing it simply because you thought Graeme was advocating for a community ban, which you've realized is not the case. Since that seemed to be your only objection, are your for or against the topic ban of Bugs from this board and AN?--Crossmr (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And while you say "its not a popularity contest" you also say "I like Bugs" - which isn't really consistent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In context, "community" contrasts with "self-imposed," specifying the agent of the proposed ban, not its scope. Nobody Ent 12:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to explain my "vote" any further, and I don't see many "Supports" getting a lot of comments compared to the "Opposes". I oppose the topic ban, and 15-9 is not a strong consensus. Doctalk 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if someone says "I oppose this only because the nominator is wearing blue pants" and the nominator says "I'm actually wearing red pants", we'd need further clarification to your position. You clearly stated above that you were opposing it solely for a reason that was found to be false. Graeme wasn't advocating what you thought he was, so if you've put that forth as your sole reason, it's reasonable that someone may question it and seek clarification. Strong is a matter of opinion, WP:CONSENSUS contains no percentages--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I think Bugs' topic ban was meant to deal with what many feel is a long-standing issue with him excessively commenting on pre-existing threads that have nothing to do with him at all; not bringing up new ones..." That is my reason. Doc talk 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - the self imposed restriction was not created to stop BB from bringing issues of his own that he feels require admin attention. Youreallycan 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think a closure of a discussion that involved changing an I to an i with a unanimous consensus needed to be bought to administrator attention so quickly that even if it wasn't let go it couldn't be discussed on the closing admins talk page first... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agree. I get the feeling there was some historic that perhaps BB was more reacting in a straw that broke the camels back manner. Prolly didn't need reporting, but debatable if it violated his restriction imo. - Youreallycan 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the schtick is old and the drama is counterproductive. Cut it off at the knees. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crikey - the suggestion is for a months extension, not for any kind of cutting off at the knees - Youreallycan 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As I have said before, BB does not improve the climate here on AN* --Guerillero My Talk 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems to me that I was the one in closest discussion with Bugs when he agreed to step aside for a month, and not once for a second, then or still, did I ever envision it preventing Bugs from bringing forward a genuine complaint. The topic ban part was about Bugs getting in on other (sometimes every single other) threads and mot moving things forward with his contributions. He hasn't gone back to that. Bugs is just as free as anyone else though, to bring forward fresh problems (like spotting a sock) or complaints - even if people find them bogus. In this case there is some substance to the complaint too, where 2 people decide to change something, an admin closes it, and it becomes the new "consensus" version untouchable without another RM. That's wrong, but not sufficient of itself for a desysop, so Bugs was asking for the wrong thing, as many others do also. But Uncle G's advice about the real problem being the MOS-fetishists is sound, so the thread directed the OP in the right way. So it wsan't even that bad of an AN/I thread. I won't support a "no person, no problem" response here. Franamax (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

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

Time to close?

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

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

Trolling of Talk:Hezbollah

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

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. ŞůṜīΣϹ98¹Speak 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]

Suspected meatpuppetry/bias in Kish cypher

The article Kish cypher (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views) has been subject to edits by those I suspect of having some (academic) relation to the idea's author, Laszlo Kish, or perhaps Kish himself. The article is about a cryptographic scheme, relating to the fields of physics and computer science.

Recently, the editor User:DrEubanks removed criticism of the scheme. The account is recent and only edits the Kish article. When asked why in the talk page he was removing criticism, he stated that he was concerned the criticism would effect his research grant application. After attempting to address his concerns, another account (talkcontribs) was created and reverted to the DrEubanks version.

I suspect the following are sock puppets or meat puppets:

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 BushrangerOne 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[148] identifies Dr Eubanks as T. W. Eubanks who publishes in IEEE Xplore. That site does show some publications from an antenna designer of that name.[149] The article looks like self-promotion to me too. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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:

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]

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

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

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]
And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.
I think it's more than just a Spanish elephant. Penyulap talk 09:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
While I have no doubts as to the good faith of the nominating editor, I'm not sure what he/she is getting at... Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by Walter55024

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]

Abuse by editor

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

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

While The Yeti clearly shouldn't have written that, you are totally wrong regarding the copyright issue, and striking through another's talk page comments is against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Andy said. I've left a note on his talk page (The Yeti's, not Andy's). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. While The Yeti might not have followed the best etiquette, I don't see anything to take action based on his conduct. Ankit should probably be careful that he hasn't just gone tossing a boomerang by starting the AN/I thread, since it looks like he provoked the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell me why? Disney has clearly stated that there is an embargo on all matter containing the film details until March 2, 2012. After that, the embargo has been lifted and several professional reviews have also come. Since the comment was January 29, 2012 I struck it out.
I have witnessed the deletion of edit histories when non-copyrighted stuff has found its way onto Wikipedia pages, I don't understand why such a simple matter like striking out is evoking such reactions. The point being, "Fuck off idiot" is a plain personal attack. There are certainly better ways to discuss issues.
And this is insane, somebody is saying that "conduct" is not wrong. So even I can go around telling editors to "Fuck off" and then I can't be charged with "bad conduct"? Is that what you are saying? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where has Disney stated this clearly and in such a way that it applies to all venues? The immediate question is whether the embargo prevents editors from commenting on the movie. Since it's not clear copyright infringement, striking out the comments is not clearly appropriate.
I did not say his conduct was not wrong; it was an inappropriate comment. My point was that AN/I is not the venue for that issue at this time; WP:Wikiquette assistance is. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Now you want to issued veiled threats too ? With added glee ?" Veiled threat? Abusing is a very serious issue, especially such explicit ones that can't be taken up in any different way. And what exactly does the user mean by biting newcomers regarding the original poster? I was never present on this article when the issue came up; the user is inventing details and pushing POV to justify his/her stand, another quite wrong tactic. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell me why? Because you don't strike out comments made by other users. This rule is independent of any alleged copyright issues. HabitKabit (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out copyrighted content is not allowed, but deleting edit histories regarding copyrighted material is? Find some better explanation. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out material of other users is not allowed, full stop. Go ahead and delete the edit history, if you have the privs. HabitKabit (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the underlying issue, Ankitbhatt, the problem is you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright here. If you'd like to understand better, I can explain later (about to go do something in real life), or maybe ask someone else, but you were wrong about striking out the comments. Regarding the rudeness, re-read this thread. No one is condoning the phrase used, we're saying that we don't block for every minor instance of someone losing their temper. It's possible to be wrong about being rude, or wrong about striking out someone else's comments, without getting blocked for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

The solution is that The Yeti has been clearly warned that his/her language was inappropriate. I'm afraid that is as severe as it is going to get, no further punishment is likely unless the behaviour is repeated. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 17:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to think that discussion of a film's plot is a violation of copyright. That is simply not true. You state that 'Details of the film plot are copyrighted,' but you simply aren't correct about that, at least in the context of discussion on Wikipedia. It might possibly be a violation of Disney's copyright for you to make a film with the same plot and sell it, but it isn't a violation of their copyright for you to discuss the details of a film's plot. That would be true of any film, but in this case, your position is even less correct, since the plot of the film is based on a book, A Princess of Mars, that has long been in the public domain. You demand a solution and some punishment; the best solution would be for you to relax a little bit and stop trying to prevent discussion of the plot of the film 'John Carter' at Talk:John Carter (film). I don't think any punishment will be necessary for you, though, since you meant well and simply didn't understand what 'copyright' meant in this context- there's no need for any of us to punish you simply for making a mistake. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

It would be really fantastic if people would, at least, read our article news embargo (we don't actually have a review embargo article, but the concept is the same) before commenting on things they don't understand. No one is disputing that the comments were made before the review embargo was lifted. Embargos have nothing to do with copyright; you should never quote directly from an "official" plot summary, not just during the period it's embargoed, but that isn't what happened here. It would be very difficult to put something about the plot in the article, sourced to reliable sources, during an embargo, but that isn't what happened here. Wikipedia is under zero obligation to enforce silence about a plot summary during a movie's review embargo. 86.3% of the problem with places like ANI is caused by people who don't know what they're talking about, but feel compelled to say something anyway. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless you are a government and have given yourself special powers, an embargo is basically a no more than an instruction to your own press office to hold off on talking about something - or by extension, to request news outlets to hold off printing - until a specified time. It has no legal force - news media abide by embargos because otherwise they don't get stories. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Periodic disruption by User:Buddhafollower

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

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

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

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

    • If they're being consistently disruptive and refusing to talk despite multiple attempts at talking (I assume this has been done?), an 'attention getting' block on the grounds of WP:IDHT might be in order. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, mea culpa. I and others have mostly been templating, mainly because it is so blatant. EdJohnstone did attempt to explain when they blocked the user for the 48 hours. Perhaps I should go back to the drawing board? My experience in this sphere of WP tells me that it will make no difference but, hey, perhaps it is worth me just chattily asking them to talk about things. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was already an 'attention-getting' 48-hour block of Buddhafollower on 24 January but it seems to have had no effect. As you might have expected, Buddhafollower has ignored this ANI thread and is continuing to add unsourced material to articles. He just made the important Indian Army general T. N. Raina be a Kashmiri Pandit with no source whatever. This seems to be part of his ongoing program to add unsourced promotion of the Kashmiri Pandits. If there is to be any hope of changing his editing pattern, or getting him to respond to questions, a longer block is surely required. Such a block could be lifted if he is willing to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked indef, until they start to discuss their edits. Any admin is welcome to unblock without talking to me first if it looks like that's begun to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

KittyKo'sCute

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

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

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

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

  • Must be something in the water, this is the same problem as the previous thread. User blocked indef; block can be lifted as soon as they start discussing their edits. Any admin welcome to do so without discussing with me first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing community ban on Aawjgnekr

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

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 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsnuke contribslogsfilter logblock userblock 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article needs help

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

Signature

Length of IP block

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

92.12.105.187 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsnuke contribslogsfilter logblock userblock log)

The IP was blocked by Addshore (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for vandalism on Philip Madoc. In [154] [155] these edits at my talk page, the IP flagrantly contravened WP:NPA and went as far as making threats of personal violence against me. A longer block length therefore appears appropriate under all the circumstances. ISTB351 (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the IP is on an extremely dynamic /11 range, so a longer block would do nothing because the vandal would most likely be on another IP after a couple days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It seems propitious for this thread to be closed. For the record, I was not implying any criticism of the blocking admin. ISTB351 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Page speedily deleted per WP:IAR. If anyone disagrees, feel free to take to deletion review. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaoloNapolitano has made some rather strong statements about Wikipedia Review, a forum which is widely read by Wikipedia editors, going so far as to suggest that the WMF pursue legal action for "libel" against Wikipedia itself. Although their attempts to revive the WP:BADSITES policy have been rebuffed by more reasonable editors, they continue to try to fan the flames. Their latest provocative action is the creation of User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list.

I left a message on thier talk page expressing concerns that it could easily be seen as an "enemies list" (the original list singled out eight Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia Review contributors although there are over 1,500 users) and that it likely violated WP:OUTING. It has since been expanded by another user, so I think it is best to bring it here rather than wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Can someone please take a look at the page in question to see if it should be deleted?

Additionally, User:Prioryman has since responded to my message by suggesting that PaoloNapolitano tell me to "fuck off", and then adding my name to the list with an edit summary of "add notorious outer". Attacks on me seem to be a recurring pattern with Prioryman. I would like to request that Prioryman be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I share Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing, I would indeed support deleting it on the basis of outing and it being easily perceived as an enemies list. However, there are likely going to be strong opinions on both sides, so if you're unable to convince PaoloNapolitano to {{db-user}} it himself (which I sincerely hope he will do), MfD is probably the best approach. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I assume you are referring to this, it is not "outing" if a user has self-identified, as in that case. I suspect the page exists for no other purpose than to create drama. An MfD will only be a drama magnet, so I would prefer that the page simply be deleted and the drama nipped in the bud. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd guess he's referring to your earlier action of posting another editor's personal name, home address and telephone number in the course of a campaign against him. Mind if I take a screenshot of this, DC? You're arguing against creating drama? Interesting how the standard seems to be different when the boot's on the other foot, isn't it? Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we all know that the best way to prevent something from turning into a drama is to start a thread about it on AN/I ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DC claimed on PaoloNapolitano's talk page that the list constituted WP:OUTING, which is beyond absurd considering that the WR users concerned have identified their own Wikipedia accounts, or vice-versa. There cannot possibly be any outing when they have voluntarily disclosed that information, very prominently, for anyone to see. Additionally DC is the very last person who can credibly express concern about "outing" considering that they have self-admittedly engaged in it themselves in the course of a harassment campaign (see here). I can't speak for PaoloNapolitano's reasons for creating the list, since I've not discussed it with him, but personally I found it quite a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. It's fascinating that DC seems to be objecting to an initiative that improves accountability and scrutiny. By the way, it can't possibly reasonably be described as an enemies list. The only distinction made in the list is between blocked/banned en.wiki users and those in good standing, and the list makes no suggestion that any of the latter have done anything wrong. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's outing, it's clearly an attack page and constitutes harassment. Which is probably why you found it "useful" personally. Jerk.VolunteerMarek 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fascinating to see how the users of a website dedicated to harassment and outing suddenly don't like it when someone connects their en.wiki identities to their WR identities. Maybe if you people didn't want that information to be publicised, you shouldn't put it next to every post you make on WR? They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, so I suppose one would expect that the germs wouldn't like it. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to know what purpose this list serves. Snowolf How can I help? 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Nobody Ent 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480044620&oldid=480044418 – @Prioryman: Can you please be more careful? You labeled an user in good standing as being an user in bad-standing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He links from his WR account to an en.wiki account (Nastytroll(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) that is indeffed, hence the confusion. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it isn't the first time you've been confused, and what is with this "he" business? John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the {{vandal}} template isn't exactly flattering, either. --SB_Johnnytalk 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&action=edit&oldid=479959016 – Prioryman was only following the trend established by PaoloNapolitano. Prioryman was the one who decided to switch to Template:Userlinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480025013&oldid=480024707. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Thanks Michael and Prioryman. --SB_Johnnytalk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I thought Paolo's use of the {{vandal}} template could be misinterpreted. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Prioryman's statements. This is not outing, it is a list of users who have disclosed their connection between WP and WR and every connection is sourced. The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR. Several of the users on the list have posted information of a private nature about WP users to WR (address, telephone number, real name, job, etc.) and creating a list of users of a website that is notorious for posting such information will make it easier to identify outing or personal attacks posted to WR. Our editors are our main resources - imagine how it feels to have sensitive information about yourself posted to the web - just because you want to contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia.

  • Please note: DC, Volunteer Marek and Michaeldsuarez are all WR users. PaoloNapolitano 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. You have an account there too! --SB_Johnny talk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. Originally PaoloN labeled all these users as "vandals" [156], which is a personal attack, but then put in the weaselly disclaimer that "Please note that the list is incomplete and may include blocked or banned users and users who defend Wikipedia at WR". Let me guess. He'll show up here and demand that everyone assumes good faith towards him.VolunteerMarek 22:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo, glad you're here. I'm going to strongly recommend you take this list offline (i.e. to your hard drive) if you find it useful, and request its deletion here. Posting such a list here is a very divisive thing to do, regardless of whether what WR regulars may do over at their site. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 28bytes and depending on the purpose of the list WP:ATTACK may be relevant. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it doesn't exist "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" I don't think that's relevant at all. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, but "On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that it's a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did'? As far as I can see, it's simply a directory of WP user names with corresponding WR accounts. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the fact that he labeled various users as vandals. *Smack head with hand*!VolunteerMarek 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose do you believe the directory serves? Paolo stated "The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR"; given this edit, I'd suggest it very much is a list of 'enemies', or 'undesirables', especially in the list's first iteration. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it could serve multiple purposes. As I said above, I found it to be a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. The directory is just a list without any suggestion of "badness" in it, other than for the blocked and banned individuals of course. Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm afraid it looks to me as if the list was meant maliciously. You can say it's "just a list", but clearly it is provocative. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Righhhhhhtttttt.... which is why Paolo just added a "whitelist" section to the page [157], which of course carries the implication that anyone not lucky enough to make it onto *his and yours* "whitelist" is on some kind of a blacklist.VolunteerMarek 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You might want to consider something from the {{user}} family of templates. Choess (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to {{userlinks}} on Paolo's behalf. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

It looks like it will need MFD as the user appears to have no intention of requesting deletion themselves. - The list is clearly provocative and its a shame Prioryman chose to massively expand it after it was brought here for discussion. DCarbuncle raised his concerns with the creator of the page. Youreallycan 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan 23:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. It was brought here for discussion by DC after I had reworked the list. Check the posting times. Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected - its still a shame you did that, and it only served to create more disruption. Youreallycan 23:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation (and impersonation)

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

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

How entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please take it to the user's talk page instead. Eagles24/7(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. Eagles24/7(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.[158] A second admin has concurred.[159] 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 [160] 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.[161] It's hard to see this as "impersonation", despite the caption. Adding the image was poor judgement and that in fact seems to be true of many of this user's edits to wikipedia unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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 . 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 [162]. 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]

You all know the drill, folks. --SB_Johnnytalk 01:58, 5 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 MitchellPenny 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 BushrangerOne 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 [163] Help Desk [164]: == Osmanisches Reich == Aufgabe 2: Beschreiben Sie die Eroberungen des Osmanischen Reiches und ziehen Sie bitte eine Karte des Reiches am größten. which translates as Task 2: Describe the conquests of the Ottoman Empire and draw a map of the kingdom Please greatest. Or this [165] or this [166].........................................VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

Interesting meme

He asked at refdesk and answered himself of sorts: [167]. He also asked it on fr.wiki [168] And this looks like has been asked way back in 2005 [169] [170]. If anyone can point out the specifics of that first round of trolling, we might get a better idea who reincarnated in the PN account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [171]. Also, long history of sockpuppetry and trolling the fr.wiki refdesk using multiple Norway ISPs. See this. So much for this being a new user. [172] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [173] [174]. LOL. You have to appreciate the chutzpah of that on top of simultaneously being a Polish electrician, Canadian pizza chef and I forget what else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here he says he is a return of User:MikeNicho231, which sounds plausible enough [175]. That sock farm was blocked on no.wiki before it was blocked here, again for initially for trolling, then socking. See no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for MichaelJackson231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request for topic ban for Prioryman

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

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

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you, an individual known for harassing and outing others, making a bogus complaint about someone else "outing" WR users who voluntarily disclose their WP accounts with every post they make on WR. 28bytes said above that he "share[s] Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing". Do you want him topic-banned too? I suggest you drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "bogus" complaint resulted in the deletion of the page and others here appear to agree that it was intended as an "enemies list". I have asked you to stop making wild accusations about me. I have even asked for you to be blocked after you posted what you knew was false information in an effort to have me banned. Neither of those seem to have had any effect. I have no interest in stifling your ability to file some kind of dispute resolution, just your attempts to drive me off the project. I am willing to accept a mutual topic ban (with the exceptions of dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement processes) if it increases the chances of support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't seem proper at this point. The statements made above by Prioryman, while more negative than necessary, are still making a good point. SilverserenC 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a two way interaction ban, as requested by DC. Clearly there is a massive dispute between these users and they will be more constructive apart. Youreallycan 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but I would also like to note that I find it interesting that DC created an article for Amie Miriello three days after Paolo uploaded the hoax image of Ms. Miriello. In the three days before creating the article, DC also edited Stalking and Wikipedia:Harassment. Did DC notice the copyright violation and, instead of trying to get the image deleted immediately, wait for the "perfect time" to expose Paolo? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I told () above, SOP. I'd like to point out that DC's request is self-serving cynicism, as he is right now maintaining a "diary" on WR in which he's accusing me of corrupt financial dealings with Wikimedia UK. As I said in a previous discussion about DC, he is a serial harasser who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By making this request he's quite blatantly trying to stop me pointing out his abusive conduct. It's deeply cynical behaviour but unfortunately entirely typical of this person. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eages247, can you explain how my edit which removed newly added original research in Stalking is in any way related to this? Or how reverting the addition to WP:Harassment of a link that has been deprecated for nearly four years is germane to a discussion of a topic ban? Your suggestion that I created Amie Miriello as part of some Machiavellian trap for PaoloNapolitano seems far-fetched, to say the least. This is not only assuming bad faith, it is actually attempting to make edits which unambiguously improved the state of Wikipedia into something negative. This is not the type of conduct that we should expect from admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to assume good faith with a user who cannot do the same for others. Eagles24/7(C) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Your ability to assume good faith is compromised by someone else's inability to do so? I would appreciate an answer to my questions about your comments in regard to why you brought up my edits to stalking and WP:Harassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just interesting, and I think you know the answer to your question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though a WR topic ban may be more appropriate.VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody indef both Paolo and DC and be done with it. Wikipedia is not a battleground (nor a place to look for ammunition to continue on-wiki battles off-wiki)—a concept which both of them seem to have totally failed to grasp. I'd do it myself, but I'm probably involved wrt to Delicious carbuncle. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, so one user uploads a copyrighted image under "my own work", pretends to be somebody else - a real life person, and engages in attacking and harassing other users. The other user points this out. And you propose they BOTH be banned? Seriously?????VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention that the other user (DC) also engages in attacking and harassing other users, including outing, among other things. But then, Marek, this is all just defending other WRers like yourself, isn't it? SilverserenC 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I didn't forget anything, because it's simply not true, except in the imaginations of a couple users who have axes to grind with him. Also, seeing you refer to others as "WRers like yourself" is pretty funny, considering that you post over there way more than I do. And you probably already know that I'm quite happy to criticize WR people when they deserve it. Can we skip the hypocrisy please?VolunteerMarek 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As i'm sure you know, practically all of my comments over there are either A) discussing how I improved something, B) discussing how Wikipedia does work, or C) arguing with someone over there about Wikipedia. I don't engage in the attack Wikipedians gimmick everyone else does there. SilverserenC 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you forget the posts whining about admins, the ones boasting about winding things up, and snivelling about people that are mean to you and what the horrid ArbCom members thought of you, as revealed in last years leaks. John lilburne (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (), didn't you post a comment on WR a few days ago about how you think Wikipedians are stupid people who deserve only contempt, or something like that? I can't find it now, it seems to have been removed or tarpitted. It did make me wonder why you bother to post here given what you think of us. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Prioryman, quit being a dick and purposefully referring to me by my RL first name. I have a Wikipedia user name - Volunteer Marek and that's how you should address me (or VM if you prefer). Since I'm asking you this explicitly, any further such provocations by you will be considered personal attacks, harassment and taunting.
And if you "can't find it", then how about you don't make the accusation in the first place? I saw somewhere where you said that you hate children and puppies and kittens and think Jimbo Wales is a douchebag but I can't find the comment right now - but you still better defend yourself here and now!!!!! Quit being so obviously sleazy.VolunteerMarek 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll respect your wishes, but I suggest that you stop calling me a "jerk" repeatedly - last time I looked that was considered a personal attack. Prioryman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Priory, it looks like Tarantino did some digging and outing of you on WR. The Wikipedia stuff everyone pretty much knows, but he also listed your real name and some other websites that you were involved in. I'm not sure if your real name is commonly known or not, I don't remember. SilverserenC 01:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no surprise. Outing and harassment is WR's raison d'etre. Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, at this point the same thing can be said for you presence on Wikipedia itself. With the difference that it'd be accurate, whereas your claim is anything but.VolunteerMarek 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Prioryman - You have a large Internet footprint - your real name is well known - through that and editing under a username closely related to your real name and through editing this project in relation to your internet position (one of the 25 most well known anti scientologists) you outed yourself - thankfully - arbitration has removed you from your COI contributions to that sector of wikipedia forever. - As a failed and dubious clean start you should be happy to have the privilege of editing at all. Worse still about your account is that even though you have been restricted by multiple Arbitrations - you are an enabler of other similar violating users, such as User:Cirt and User:Will Beback, now both thankfully restricted at arbitration as well. I suggest the best position for you is to just write your quality articles and steer clear of all this battlefielding. Youreallycan 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one systematically attacking and harassing other editors on WR. Do you have any words of advice for DC? I'm sure he could use them. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would point DC to Harry's comment (a position there seems to be a degree of support for) as a warning for him to direct his energy in a more productive direction. Youreallycan 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you people? How can a request for a limited topic ban be anything other than an attempt to reduce the battleground atmosphere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The battleground atmosphere is being created by your own actions on WR. Ordinarily I would agree to Youreallycan's suggestion of a voluntary two-way moratorium on interaction. The problem is that you are simply going to slope off to WR and continue your attacks on me there. You're already maintaining an open thread on me, accusing me - without any provocation on my part whatsoever - of financial corruption (which is libellous, by the way). You would have been blocked on Wikipedia if you made claims like that here. You routinely use WR to evade Wikipedia's conduct policies, and I see no reason to expect that it would be any different in this case. In practice a "limited topic ban" would leave you free to continue your abusive behaviour, while I would be muzzled from pointing out what you are doing. I'm certainly not willing to consider such a one-sided approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to "muzzle" you. I specifically excluded dispute resolution processes so that you would be able to take action should you have a legitimate complaint with regard to my actions. With regard to your contention that I have made "libellous" accusations of "financial corruption", this is simply not the case. If I were any other user, your making such a claim on ANI would result in a block for gross personal attacks, but we both know that nothing will be done about it. I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia's conduct policies apply to Wikipedia, but that off-wiki activities can be taken into account in dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would only agree to such a thing if you undertook to cease commenting on me on WR, closed or tarpitted the "diary" thread that you started, and did not participate in any future discussions about me on WR. Any breach of those conditions would end the agreement. Agreeing to those conditions is a pretty good test of your sincerity; your past record suggests that you wouldn't hesitate to do an end-run around restrictions on Wikipedia, so if you want an interaction moratorium it needs to extend off-wiki as well. The ball's in your court. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to agree - I am asking that a limited topic ban be imposed upon you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested a reasonable compromise, you've rejected it and you've implicitly indicated that you have no intention of stopping your abusive off-wiki behaviour. I think others can draw the necessary conclusions. I'm done here. Prioryman (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm - Can't you two (or three, or four, or...) find something better to do on a Saturday night? There must be some Dallas reruns or something on TV. --SB_Johnnytalk 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this being transformed into a WR thread? Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought I pretty much asked the same thing, but in a more subtle manner.

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

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

EfD: Editors for Deletion. I love it, it'll be like a Klingon High Council debate. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by an IP editor

174.97.175.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

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, EyeSerenetalk 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has returned to making the same exact obvious reversions but has taken to using a different IP address (173.226.92.195) as a sock puppet. This now involves vandalism, personal attacks AND sock puppetry. I've reported it on the vandalism board but not sure if I should have reported it as sock puppetry instead. NJZombie (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lapianoisrael is at it again

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

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

Whapped for 48 hours. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan of Wikipedian's apparent misrepresentation of sources

Fan of Wikipedian's (talk · contribs)

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

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

For example at this article: [176] and [177] -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Brews ohare forum shopping again

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

Racist death threats.

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

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

Just an FYI, you didn't notify him of this thread, so I've done it. Calabe1992 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defeated Sanity - genre warring

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

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

Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully they'll get bored and find something else to do. Welcome to the world of anonymous genre editors—they run rampant over all music articles. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rejedef and European geography

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

Rejedef (talk · contribs) apparently objects to the use of the terms "Western Europe", "Central Europe", and "Eastern Europe", and attempts to remove them from articles wherever possible. Failing that, he re-assigns their geography, so that places typically assigned to Western and Eastern Europe by, for example, the United Nations geoscheme for Europe, are re-assigned by him to Central Europe. He particularly objects to the term "Eastern Europe", which I think he has described as a "racist slur", and to assigning Poland and Lithuania to Eastern Europe. This appears to have been going on for over a year; I haven't added more diffs, because the vast majority of the edits he has made in the past year has been related to this, as is easily seen from his edit history. I also haven't engaged him on directly this issue, because of a number of combative issues I've seen on his talk page, particularly posts like this after he was blocked a couple of times for edit-warring over this. I'm not sure exactly what should be done, but I think it may have reached the level of administrative intervention. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[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").[178][179] Since he has caused disruption repeatedly now, I would suggest reporting him at WP:AE under WP:DIGWUREN, so that he can be given a logged notification of discretionary sanctions. Mathsci (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[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. VєсrumЬаTALK 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 (talkcontribs) 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 [[User talk: 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]

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

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

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

You could be right if we forget the international law, the fact it is unethical and my personal rights that has been violated. It does not guarantee vanishing my nickname from this very place. As I said, I don't know how to do it.--Rejedef (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Must be Nice

The discussion at AFD, here [180] and here [181] is perplexing. There isn't much to support the article's inclusion, but in the meanwhile there's a lot of unnecessary Wikidrama driven by the article's creator--a lot of it displays lack of familiarity with guidelines, but attacks on other editors' motives and credibility are becoming tiresome. Help appreciated. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [182]. 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 ([183]).--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 ([184]) is an unrelated example (but does demonstrate his distaste and distrust for admins, which continues to bleed through in other comments), as well as his consistent marking of all edits as minor (another editor noted above). The editor has been here since 2009 (off and on), but has never bothered to use a talk page until this article, oddly enough. They have been effectively under the radar, and as I said, their article editing has been in good faith from what I can tell (excepting the marking of almost all their edits as minor, including substantial ones). The problem didn't surface until they spoke for the first time, if you will. And once they did start using the talk page about a week ago, well, you have what you have, and on two convenient pages. Those two pages are virtually his entire talk history, but they do speak volumes. I've been waiting for the "maybe I overreacted but I still think it should stay" comment, demonstrating they were simply overcome with frustration at that moment, but it hasn't come. It just keeps escalating, to now calling everyone who !voted delete as "gangbanging" the movie short director. I'm no doctor, but the ongoing and increasingly hostile comments don't strike me as "normal frustration", and several editors have gone well out of their way to try to kindly and gently explain various guidelines, but it doesn't take hold in even the smallest way. Why? Dennis Brown (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [185] where Cat basically tells JamesBWatson that he is a sockpuppet of mine in a backhanded comment. Like you needed more to read.... Dennis Brown (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[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? Doctalk 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. --Ckatzchatspy 23:38, 3 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. Doctalk 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also add that now someone has connected([187]) a few dots for me (Doc, my talk page), the COI sounds waaaay more plausible. Almost everything he has edited is connected, plus being not willing to deny or confirm that he works for the company. Doesn't change my other points, but more reasons why he is more of a liability than an asset. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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."[188]Doctalk 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? [189] 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"[190] (?), shouldn't get involved, etc. as a rationale for jumping on me. The kicker is, I'm not an admin, and he has been told this a total of three times now. His understanding (and outright hostility) of the role of admins (and policies in general) is misguided. Like many editors, he seems to cherry pick sentences in the guidelines rather than read them as a whole. He has been here since 2009, albeit sporadically, but still long enough to know better. Surely he is on his best behavior since this dicussion started, but his conversations [191] are still confrontational. I literally can not find but a couple instances of any talk page contributions that isn't snarky at best. I still maintain this is a competence issue and that the user is incapable of participating in discussion without claiming others are "ganging up" or similar aggressive speech. Not malice, but his nature, and again, you can't fix this. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has clearly being pushed too far. Dennis Brown left this comment on his talk page about me, ""when you see someone standing so close to the edge, you can't help but to hope for a strong wind, or a gentle push" That feels like a threat to me. I don't think that it is funny. I hope Wikipedia is taking this seriously. These guys have been given far too much power to harass and vex. whether that is admins powers or rollback powers. This issue should have been resolved on the talk page of the article itself, not on Afd and not here. Instead Dennis Brown nominated the article for deletion, which is supposed to be the last resort, not the first. Ckatz is now making suggestions all over Wikipedia trying to "out" this user's identity, naming names of three or four people he is "guessing" that it might be. That is in violation of Wikipedia's rules, especially for admins. Now, he and Dennis Brown are going to ANI in another attempt to harass and vex this user to "push me over a cliff", so to speak, per Dennis' threat because they haven't gotten their way on Afd. Is that a death threat? If so, I think Wikipedia should consider a permanent ban on user Dennis Brown. Death threats should not be tolerated, in any way, shape or form. Nothing I have said or done with regard to this discussion rises to the level of harassment I am receiving. I think both users Dennis Brown and Ckatz need a break from Wikipedia, frankly. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When making a claim, it is best to include a diff or a link [192] for context. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I brought the matter here. The attempt to frame the aforementioned discussion as a death threat is hideous, but I gather it's the way Catpowerzzz does business when challenged. The unanswered issues of COI and smearing of other editors are compounded by this kind of nonsense, which is the standard deflection of accountability, redirecting it against contributors who are following guidelines. When I began this discussion it was with a level of concern; that's only been amplified. 99.136.255.180 (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be questioned why the above anonymous account (99.136.255.180 talk) just suddenly was created in February of this year, during this dispute, and why they are so involved in this discussion now. Just saying... This account is clearly not the account of a "new user" but clearly shows signs of being an experienced Wikipedia user with a super aggressive agenda. Anonymous, care to identify yourself? Did you just go to use another person's computer and IP address to hide that you are really a sockpuppet of one of the people who have already chimed in here? - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are not accounts, and not created. Some anon's IP address changed; he even identifies some of his previous IP addresses on the talk page so you can get some history; you're right it's not a new user; and it's not pretending to be. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, because I've had enough of this crap--you'll just continue casting aspersions until you're blocked. Now why don't you be a dear and address the multiple issues you've evaded answering? JNW (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He just left talk on my talk page [193] that demonstrates it as well. He still seems to think I am an admin, and seems to think I am the person that submitted it to ANI. (Admins are free to checkuser me anytime without cause, permission granted.) And that I am getting my buddies to gang up, telling Doc to "be careful" (since he is a known troublemaker....), etc. I politely asked him to restrict conversations regarding this one event to this forum. Again, I believe him 100%, claims that I have a conspiracy, that I am making death threats, that this is an orchestrated and premeditated effort to silence him by a larger group. Catpowerzzz really believes these things are true. You might not want to believe it, but Cat's own words are the only evidence you need, left day after day. This is why I keep bringing up the concern about his having the ability to participate here. Good intentions are not enough. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Look, differences aside, can I offer a neutral suggestion? Could you please take a few moments and personally review all of the posts, accusations and assertions that you have made with regard to this matter? Once you've done so, could you then ask yourself if they truly reflect what has been going on, or if they even remotely fit with the collaborative nature of this project? --Ckatzchatspy 23:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ckatz, I don't want to discuss this with you or Dennis anymore. I see what you guys are doing. You are trying to get me to do something that would provoke a block or a ban. I'm not falling for it. I'm asking you and Dennis and the anonymous user account that was created recently 99.136.255.180 to stop. There is nothing more to discuss. This was a discussion on an article for deletion page and has no business in this forum. You guys can't "double indemnity" your way into ginning up a block or a ban on this user by trying to create more conflict. So please just stop. The article will either be deleted (in which case you'll get your way, at least temporarily) or not. That's not up to us. Let it go at that. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Catpowerzzz, you say you don't want to discuss it with me anymore, but 15 minutes later post again on my talk page([194]), after I politely asked you to not do so, and instead keep discussions on this page. I would agree that the time for discussion is likely over, everyone (including you) has had ample opportunity to express their concerns and their opinions as to the solution to the current situation. I don't see any possible "compromise", as there is no middle ground in this discussion, just two sides, and a conclusion yet to be determined. I do not envy the administrator who draws the short straw and has to close this one. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have attempted to work this out with Dennis Brown on his (talk) page. On his talk page, Dennis has said that he believes that I'm working in good faith and that he believes I'm making good contributions. Since he believes I was contributing in good faith, I've asked him (and others there) to stop making all of these comments and accusations. At this point, it seems like we might have this worked out and that this was just a misunderstanding between two users who were both trying to work in good faith. I am suggesting here (as I did on his talk page) that we both just "chill out" and walk away from the argument rather than continuing with accusations and/or duplicate ANI or Afd submissions for what is essentially the same argument/misunderstanding. Also considering that this ANI discussion was started by a recently created anonymous/unregistered account, I think this would be a good time and place for this discussion to end. : ) - Catpowerzzz (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regret to respond by saying I don't. I'd posit that the disruptions, these interminable threads and multiple accusations, have been produced by Catpowerzzz. I'm sorry, but I find the entire business manipulative--having invited me to shed my IP, which I've done because I didn't want any aspersions to stick to other editors, and at the expense of my own reasons for maintaining greater anonymity, the above account hasn't come close to responding to multiple inquiries, and now seeks a sort of absolution, if you will. Despite the glossing over, this is not about differences in opinion, but about an editor who has been persistently disruptive in the face of disagreement from numerous contributors, who just a few hours ago was imagining death threats and throwing around sockpuppet accusations. Competence is very much at issue, and I'm still requesting administrative assistance, much the same as I did when introducing this topic as an IP several days ago. JNW (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, To "Retired" user JNW (talk) who I am presuming is now taking credit for his anonymous postings that he posted as 99.136.255.180. I'm posting this also on the original Afd discussion: I did not try to "out" you. You chose to post anonymously yourself. I merely suggested that posting anonymously with an IP address gives the appearance that you are a sock puppet of another participant. Sorry, if that is not the case, that's just how it "looks." I think if you are going to jump in on discussions with such toxic accusations and ANI nominations, your argument would have had more weight had you been a registered user and not cloaked behind recently "retired" accounts and/or anonymous IP addresses. You mention on your retired user page that you contribute anonymously only "when vandalism" occurs. This is not vandalism. For your arguments to have any credibility, you need to either "un-retire" yourself or step away from the platform. This game appears to be over. Please do not try to "reignite" the debate with more fuel, thank you. Dennis Brown and I seem to be moving on. I hope you can do the same. Either that, or please go back into "retirement." - Catpowerzzz (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about JNW or 99's identity or IP address or status. It's about you; please don't try to cloud the issue. You're walking a thin line here: I personally think your contribution to this ANI discussion is already combative and disruptive enough. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final reply, please? And I had twice previously asked you to not bring up the topic on my talk page, but on the third request, I went ahead and just answered to put this issue to rest. (anyone can go there and read, by all means) The disagreement is not between you and I. I didn't file this ANI report, someone else did. Your comments to me have been particularly accusatory and harsh, but the problem is bigger than you disagreeing with me. Your actions didn't affect me personally (I have thick skin) but they were highly disruptive to the entire community. I have no idea if you still think I'm an admin, after being told at least four times that I am not, but it shouldn't matter. I still stand by my original and continuing belief that Catpowerzzz is not capable of rationally cooperating in this type of environment. They are not capable of accepting responsibility for their actions or words. Catpowerzz has accused many people of many things, from "gangbanging" female directors, to be sockpuppets, to ganging up, conspiring and more. In all of this, and the volumes that they have written in this ANI, the AFD, and the various talk pages, not once have they admitted any culpability, not once have they tried to do anything except accuse those that disagree with them with various "crimes", and try to get me to "drop" this action (even though I tried to explain that I didn't start it, and I can't end it). Again.....it isn't about malice, it is about the editor genuinely believing the things they say, and yes WP:COMPETENT applies, as it doesn't matter what the cause of the disruption is, if it is disruption, AND the editor is incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing how their actions are disruptive, and yes, I believe Catpowerzz believes they haven't done anything wrong. Catpowerzz keeps clearly demonstrating they do not have the capability of restraining themselves (3rd time I've asked to keep this talk off my talk page....) Catpowerzzz isn't dumb, not in the least, but being an editor at Wikipedia requires more than factual knowledge and ability to add content to articles. I'm sorry Cat, it really isn't personal, but it is my opinion that you are simply not capable of working in an environment like Wikipedia, and yes, I am asking for drastic measures to insure you don't. Dennis Brown (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly seems to me, looking over the history a bit, that Catpowerzzz is one of those editors constitutionally incapable of ceding the last word to anyone; there are a few too many responses which boil down to "No, YOU stop talking first." That being said, look, Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either. Ravenswing 04:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. While he has rebutted every comment everyone has made, I don't need to do the same. The record is long but speaks for itself, I will leave it to the community to offer their input. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Page speedily deleted per WP:IAR. If anyone disagrees, feel free to take to deletion review. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaoloNapolitano has made some rather strong statements about Wikipedia Review, a forum which is widely read by Wikipedia editors, going so far as to suggest that the WMF pursue legal action for "libel" against Wikipedia itself. Although their attempts to revive the WP:BADSITES policy have been rebuffed by more reasonable editors, they continue to try to fan the flames. Their latest provocative action is the creation of User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list.

I left a message on thier talk page expressing concerns that it could easily be seen as an "enemies list" (the original list singled out eight Wikipedia editors as Wikipedia Review contributors although there are over 1,500 users) and that it likely violated WP:OUTING. It has since been expanded by another user, so I think it is best to bring it here rather than wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Can someone please take a look at the page in question to see if it should be deleted?

Additionally, User:Prioryman has since responded to my message by suggesting that PaoloNapolitano tell me to "fuck off", and then adding my name to the list with an edit summary of "add notorious outer". Attacks on me seem to be a recurring pattern with Prioryman. I would like to request that Prioryman be banned from interacting with me or mentioning me outside of dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I share Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing, I would indeed support deleting it on the basis of outing and it being easily perceived as an enemies list. However, there are likely going to be strong opinions on both sides, so if you're unable to convince PaoloNapolitano to {{db-user}} it himself (which I sincerely hope he will do), MfD is probably the best approach. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I assume you are referring to this, it is not "outing" if a user has self-identified, as in that case. I suspect the page exists for no other purpose than to create drama. An MfD will only be a drama magnet, so I would prefer that the page simply be deleted and the drama nipped in the bud. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd guess he's referring to your earlier action of posting another editor's personal name, home address and telephone number in the course of a campaign against him. Mind if I take a screenshot of this, DC? You're arguing against creating drama? Interesting how the standard seems to be different when the boot's on the other foot, isn't it? Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we all know that the best way to prevent something from turning into a drama is to start a thread about it on AN/I ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DC claimed on PaoloNapolitano's talk page that the list constituted WP:OUTING, which is beyond absurd considering that the WR users concerned have identified their own Wikipedia accounts, or vice-versa. There cannot possibly be any outing when they have voluntarily disclosed that information, very prominently, for anyone to see. Additionally DC is the very last person who can credibly express concern about "outing" considering that they have self-admittedly engaged in it themselves in the course of a harassment campaign (see here). I can't speak for PaoloNapolitano's reasons for creating the list, since I've not discussed it with him, but personally I found it quite a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. It's fascinating that DC seems to be objecting to an initiative that improves accountability and scrutiny. By the way, it can't possibly reasonably be described as an enemies list. The only distinction made in the list is between blocked/banned en.wiki users and those in good standing, and the list makes no suggestion that any of the latter have done anything wrong. Prioryman (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it's outing, it's clearly an attack page and constitutes harassment. Which is probably why you found it "useful" personally. Jerk.VolunteerMarek 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fascinating to see how the users of a website dedicated to harassment and outing suddenly don't like it when someone connects their en.wiki identities to their WR identities. Maybe if you people didn't want that information to be publicised, you shouldn't put it next to every post you make on WR? They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, so I suppose one would expect that the germs wouldn't like it. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to know what purpose this list serves. Snowolf How can I help? 21:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could wait for PaoloNapolitano to respond. Nobody Ent 21:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480044620&oldid=480044418 – @Prioryman: Can you please be more careful? You labeled an user in good standing as being an user in bad-standing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He links from his WR account to an en.wiki account (Nastytroll(talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) that is indeffed, hence the confusion. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it isn't the first time you've been confused, and what is with this "he" business? John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the {{vandal}} template isn't exactly flattering, either. --SB_Johnnytalk 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&action=edit&oldid=479959016 – Prioryman was only following the trend established by PaoloNapolitano. Prioryman was the one who decided to switch to Template:Userlinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia_Review_user_list&diff=480025013&oldid=480024707. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay. Thanks Michael and Prioryman. --SB_Johnnytalk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I thought Paolo's use of the {{vandal}} template could be misinterpreted. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Prioryman's statements. This is not outing, it is a list of users who have disclosed their connection between WP and WR and every connection is sourced. The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR. Several of the users on the list have posted information of a private nature about WP users to WR (address, telephone number, real name, job, etc.) and creating a list of users of a website that is notorious for posting such information will make it easier to identify outing or personal attacks posted to WR. Our editors are our main resources - imagine how it feels to have sensitive information about yourself posted to the web - just because you want to contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia.

  • Please note: DC, Volunteer Marek and Michaeldsuarez are all WR users. PaoloNapolitano 22:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. You have an account there too! --SB_Johnny talk 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. Originally PaoloN labeled all these users as "vandals" [195], which is a personal attack, but then put in the weaselly disclaimer that "Please note that the list is incomplete and may include blocked or banned users and users who defend Wikipedia at WR". Let me guess. He'll show up here and demand that everyone assumes good faith towards him.VolunteerMarek 22:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo, glad you're here. I'm going to strongly recommend you take this list offline (i.e. to your hard drive) if you find it useful, and request its deletion here. Posting such a list here is a very divisive thing to do, regardless of whether what WR regulars may do over at their site. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 28bytes and depending on the purpose of the list WP:ATTACK may be relevant. Nev1 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since it doesn't exist "primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" I don't think that's relevant at all. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so, but "On the other hand, keeping a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did' on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate". Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that it's a 'list of enemies' or 'list of everything bad user:XXX did'? As far as I can see, it's simply a directory of WP user names with corresponding WR accounts. Prioryman (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in the fact that he labeled various users as vandals. *Smack head with hand*!VolunteerMarek 23:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose do you believe the directory serves? Paolo stated "The information could be useful if WP/WMF instates a policy on WR"; given this edit, I'd suggest it very much is a list of 'enemies', or 'undesirables', especially in the list's first iteration. Nev1 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it could serve multiple purposes. As I said above, I found it to be a useful way to see what individual Wikipedia users have said on WR, and as a way of matching up en.wiki and WR users. The directory is just a list without any suggestion of "badness" in it, other than for the blocked and banned individuals of course. Prioryman (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree then, because I'm afraid it looks to me as if the list was meant maliciously. You can say it's "just a list", but clearly it is provocative. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Righhhhhhtttttt.... which is why Paolo just added a "whitelist" section to the page [196], which of course carries the implication that anyone not lucky enough to make it onto *his and yours* "whitelist" is on some kind of a blacklist.VolunteerMarek 23:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You might want to consider something from the {{user}} family of templates. Choess (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to {{userlinks}} on Paolo's behalf. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

It looks like it will need MFD as the user appears to have no intention of requesting deletion themselves. - The list is clearly provocative and its a shame Prioryman chose to massively expand it after it was brought here for discussion. DCarbuncle raised his concerns with the creator of the page. Youreallycan 23:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan 23:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. It was brought here for discussion by DC after I had reworked the list. Check the posting times. Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected - its still a shame you did that, and it only served to create more disruption. Youreallycan 23:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violation (and impersonation)

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

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

How entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Please take it to the user's talk page instead. Eagles24/7(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. Eagles24/7(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.[197] A second admin has concurred.[198] 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 [199] 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.[200] It's hard to see this as "impersonation", despite the caption. Adding the image was poor judgement and that in fact seems to be true of many of this user's edits to wikipedia unfortunately. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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 . 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 [201]. 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]

You all know the drill, folks. --SB_Johnnytalk 01:58, 5 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 MitchellPenny 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 BushrangerOne 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 [202] Help Desk [203]: == Osmanisches Reich == Aufgabe 2: Beschreiben Sie die Eroberungen des Osmanischen Reiches und ziehen Sie bitte eine Karte des Reiches am größten. which translates as Task 2: Describe the conquests of the Ottoman Empire and draw a map of the kingdom Please greatest. Or this [204] or this [205].........................................VolunteerMarek 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[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]

Interesting meme

He asked at refdesk and answered himself of sorts: [206]. He also asked it on fr.wiki [207] And this looks like has been asked way back in 2005 [208] [209]. If anyone can point out the specifics of that first round of trolling, we might get a better idea who reincarnated in the PN account. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [210]. Also, long history of sockpuppetry and trolling the fr.wiki refdesk using multiple Norway ISPs. See this. So much for this being a new user. [211] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[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 [212] [213]. LOL. You have to appreciate the chutzpah of that on top of simultaneously being a Polish electrician, Canadian pizza chef and I forget what else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here he says he is a return of User:MikeNicho231, which sounds plausible enough [214]. That sock farm was blocked on no.wiki before it was blocked here, again for initially for trolling, then socking. See no:Kategori:Mistenkte sokkedukker for MichaelJackson231. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request for topic ban for Prioryman

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

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

I pointed out the hypocrisy of you, an individual known for harassing and outing others, making a bogus complaint about someone else "outing" WR users who voluntarily disclose their WP accounts with every post they make on WR. 28bytes said above that he "share[s] Prioryman's bemusement that outing is something you're now fighting instead of doing". Do you want him topic-banned too? I suggest you drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse. Prioryman (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "bogus" complaint resulted in the deletion of the page and others here appear to agree that it was intended as an "enemies list". I have asked you to stop making wild accusations about me. I have even asked for you to be blocked after you posted what you knew was false information in an effort to have me banned. Neither of those seem to have had any effect. I have no interest in stifling your ability to file some kind of dispute resolution, just your attempts to drive me off the project. I am willing to accept a mutual topic ban (with the exceptions of dispute resolution and arbitration enforcement processes) if it increases the chances of support. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't seem proper at this point. The statements made above by Prioryman, while more negative than necessary, are still making a good point. SilverserenC 00:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a two way interaction ban, as requested by DC. Clearly there is a massive dispute between these users and they will be more constructive apart. Youreallycan 00:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but I would also like to note that I find it interesting that DC created an article for Amie Miriello three days after Paolo uploaded the hoax image of Ms. Miriello. In the three days before creating the article, DC also edited Stalking and Wikipedia:Harassment. Did DC notice the copyright violation and, instead of trying to get the image deleted immediately, wait for the "perfect time" to expose Paolo? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like I told () above, SOP. I'd like to point out that DC's request is self-serving cynicism, as he is right now maintaining a "diary" on WR in which he's accusing me of corrupt financial dealings with Wikimedia UK. As I said in a previous discussion about DC, he is a serial harasser who doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By making this request he's quite blatantly trying to stop me pointing out his abusive conduct. It's deeply cynical behaviour but unfortunately entirely typical of this person. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eages247, can you explain how my edit which removed newly added original research in Stalking is in any way related to this? Or how reverting the addition to WP:Harassment of a link that has been deprecated for nearly four years is germane to a discussion of a topic ban? Your suggestion that I created Amie Miriello as part of some Machiavellian trap for PaoloNapolitano seems far-fetched, to say the least. This is not only assuming bad faith, it is actually attempting to make edits which unambiguously improved the state of Wikipedia into something negative. This is not the type of conduct that we should expect from admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to assume good faith with a user who cannot do the same for others. Eagles24/7(C) 03:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Your ability to assume good faith is compromised by someone else's inability to do so? I would appreciate an answer to my questions about your comments in regard to why you brought up my edits to stalking and WP:Harassment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just interesting, and I think you know the answer to your question. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though a WR topic ban may be more appropriate.VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody indef both Paolo and DC and be done with it. Wikipedia is not a battleground (nor a place to look for ammunition to continue on-wiki battles off-wiki)—a concept which both of them seem to have totally failed to grasp. I'd do it myself, but I'm probably involved wrt to Delicious carbuncle. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, so one user uploads a copyrighted image under "my own work", pretends to be somebody else - a real life person, and engages in attacking and harassing other users. The other user points this out. And you propose they BOTH be banned? Seriously?????VolunteerMarek 00:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention that the other user (DC) also engages in attacking and harassing other users, including outing, among other things. But then, Marek, this is all just defending other WRers like yourself, isn't it? SilverserenC 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I didn't forget anything, because it's simply not true, except in the imaginations of a couple users who have axes to grind with him. Also, seeing you refer to others as "WRers like yourself" is pretty funny, considering that you post over there way more than I do. And you probably already know that I'm quite happy to criticize WR people when they deserve it. Can we skip the hypocrisy please?VolunteerMarek 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As i'm sure you know, practically all of my comments over there are either A) discussing how I improved something, B) discussing how Wikipedia does work, or C) arguing with someone over there about Wikipedia. I don't engage in the attack Wikipedians gimmick everyone else does there. SilverserenC 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you forget the posts whining about admins, the ones boasting about winding things up, and snivelling about people that are mean to you and what the horrid ArbCom members thought of you, as revealed in last years leaks. John lilburne (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (), didn't you post a comment on WR a few days ago about how you think Wikipedians are stupid people who deserve only contempt, or something like that? I can't find it now, it seems to have been removed or tarpitted. It did make me wonder why you bother to post here given what you think of us. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Prioryman, quit being a dick and purposefully referring to me by my RL first name. I have a Wikipedia user name - Volunteer Marek and that's how you should address me (or VM if you prefer). Since I'm asking you this explicitly, any further such provocations by you will be considered personal attacks, harassment and taunting.
And if you "can't find it", then how about you don't make the accusation in the first place? I saw somewhere where you said that you hate children and puppies and kittens and think Jimbo Wales is a douchebag but I can't find the comment right now - but you still better defend yourself here and now!!!!! Quit being so obviously sleazy.VolunteerMarek 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll respect your wishes, but I suggest that you stop calling me a "jerk" repeatedly - last time I looked that was considered a personal attack. Prioryman (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Priory, it looks like Tarantino did some digging and outing of you on WR. The Wikipedia stuff everyone pretty much knows, but he also listed your real name and some other websites that you were involved in. I'm not sure if your real name is commonly known or not, I don't remember. SilverserenC 01:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no surprise. Outing and harassment is WR's raison d'etre. Prioryman (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, at this point the same thing can be said for you presence on Wikipedia itself. With the difference that it'd be accurate, whereas your claim is anything but.VolunteerMarek 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Prioryman - You have a large Internet footprint - your real name is well known - through that and editing under a username closely related to your real name and through editing this project in relation to your internet position (one of the 25 most well known anti scientologists) you outed yourself - thankfully - arbitration has removed you from your COI contributions to that sector of wikipedia forever. - As a failed and dubious clean start you should be happy to have the privilege of editing at all. Worse still about your account is that even though you have been restricted by multiple Arbitrations - you are an enabler of other similar violating users, such as User:Cirt and User:Will Beback, now both thankfully restricted at arbitration as well. I suggest the best position for you is to just write your quality articles and steer clear of all this battlefielding. Youreallycan 04:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one systematically attacking and harassing other editors on WR. Do you have any words of advice for DC? I'm sure he could use them. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would point DC to Harry's comment (a position there seems to be a degree of support for) as a warning for him to direct his energy in a more productive direction. Youreallycan 11:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with you people? How can a request for a limited topic ban be anything other than an attempt to reduce the battleground atmosphere? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The battleground atmosphere is being created by your own actions on WR. Ordinarily I would agree to Youreallycan's suggestion of a voluntary two-way moratorium on interaction. The problem is that you are simply going to slope off to WR and continue your attacks on me there. You're already maintaining an open thread on me, accusing me - without any provocation on my part whatsoever - of financial corruption (which is libellous, by the way). You would have been blocked on Wikipedia if you made claims like that here. You routinely use WR to evade Wikipedia's conduct policies, and I see no reason to expect that it would be any different in this case. In practice a "limited topic ban" would leave you free to continue your abusive behaviour, while I would be muzzled from pointing out what you are doing. I'm certainly not willing to consider such a one-sided approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to "muzzle" you. I specifically excluded dispute resolution processes so that you would be able to take action should you have a legitimate complaint with regard to my actions. With regard to your contention that I have made "libellous" accusations of "financial corruption", this is simply not the case. If I were any other user, your making such a claim on ANI would result in a block for gross personal attacks, but we both know that nothing will be done about it. I feel the need to point out that Wikipedia's conduct policies apply to Wikipedia, but that off-wiki activities can be taken into account in dispute resolution processes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would only agree to such a thing if you undertook to cease commenting on me on WR, closed or tarpitted the "diary" thread that you started, and did not participate in any future discussions about me on WR. Any breach of those conditions would end the agreement. Agreeing to those conditions is a pretty good test of your sincerity; your past record suggests that you wouldn't hesitate to do an end-run around restrictions on Wikipedia, so if you want an interaction moratorium it needs to extend off-wiki as well. The ball's in your court. Prioryman (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking you to agree - I am asking that a limited topic ban be imposed upon you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested a reasonable compromise, you've rejected it and you've implicitly indicated that you have no intention of stopping your abusive off-wiki behaviour. I think others can draw the necessary conclusions. I'm done here. Prioryman (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facepalm - Can't you two (or three, or four, or...) find something better to do on a Saturday night? There must be some Dallas reruns or something on TV. --SB_Johnnytalk 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is this being transformed into a WR thread? Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought I pretty much asked the same thing, but in a more subtle manner.

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

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

EfD: Editors for Deletion. I love it, it'll be like a Klingon High Council debate. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

topic ban of single purpose account on pyramid sales scheme

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

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

Scentura is a "pyramid sales scheme" according to the Illinois Appellate Court.[215] On 2 November 2011, Nick Brunson, the web-admin for Scentura began deleting references in the article.[216][217][218][219][220] Nick Brunson's connection to Scentura was revealed by editor OlYeller21.[221] When Nick Brunson received a lot of criticism, he disappeared and OregonDucks97401 appeared. OregonDucks97401 is a Single Purpose Account[222] who continues to remove the same references as Brunson did. Numerous editors have reverted and argued with him and he continues to remove these references. I would like to propose a topic ban, or know what the next steps are. Filed a checkuser too. Notified all recent talk page participants and people I named. Proposing topic ban.

  • support as proposer. Calendar2 (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lapianoisrael is at it again

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

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

Whapped for 48 hours. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan of Wikipedian's apparent misrepresentation of sources

Fan of Wikipedian's (talk · contribs)

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

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

For example at this article: [223] and [224] -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Brews ohare forum shopping again

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

Racist death threats.

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

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

Just an FYI, you didn't notify him of this thread, so I've done it. Calabe1992 21:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Defeated Sanity - genre warring

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

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

Semi-protected for a week. Hopefully they'll get bored and find something else to do. Welcome to the world of anonymous genre editors—they run rampant over all music articles. --Laser brain (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Polemic material at User talk:Tiamut

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

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

I was the one who reverted. Yes, it is political, but whether it is "very offensive and divisive" or not is very subjective. Illegal settlers are singled out, but that is not exactly controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris's removal of it wasn't vandalism, though. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've raised that point too. --Chris(talk) 22:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism of userspace is what I was referring to, not to articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term vandalism can only be applied with evidence of intent to disrupt the project, no matter the namespace. --Chris (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not neutral, but I don't think the quotes at the top of the Talk page are "very divisive or offensive material". I think a community that tolerates User:GHcool and his subpages can also put up with Tiamut's three quotes. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I would say that both of those talk pages need to be blanked. There's no need for such incendiary talkpages. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like "the villainy you teach me, I will execute" directed towards Jews is a grotesque rewrite of the past. A Shakespeareian twist on the standard technique/theme of equating Jews with Nazis. It is extremely polemical and offensive. It immediately raises strong feelings and just as strong arguments on the other side of the political spectrum. Many schools no longer ask Holocaust survivors to tell their stories, because Muslim students treat them with this type of "very subjective" offenses. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take that up with Shakespeare. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 23:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This uncreative, changed version ("Hath not a Palestinian eyes?") has little to do with him or with the purpose of the project. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC) +clarify 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the three quotes as beyond the pale. They are extracts from well-known published works by others, not personal rants. They also serve the purpose of very clearly illustrating the editor's POV so at least they have the virtue of honesty. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. They show that the user holds a particular political opinion, that is neither uncommon nor extremist. This is not hatespeech for example or endorsing violence or oppression of other viewpoints, which I would find problematic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite the extreme to pretend that the Jewish bid for statehood is somehow akin to the Nazi and/or the French killings of millions. Also, "sharpen the weapons" seems quite a violent declaration. JaakobouChalk Talk 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The quotes are mostly taken out of their original context and given an Arab-Israeli conflict wikilink and/or subtext that says 'Jews are bad' let's "sharpen the weapons" against them. Sample: "It is not enough for the [[Israeli settlements settler]] to delimit physically". This wikilink, which is twisting the source in order to equate the Jewish struggles for statehood with French colonialism in Algeria (1,500,000-960,000 Algerians died in their fight for emancipation), is a good sample to show that it is a bad idea to leave a group of editors who think alike to decide what they consider offensive. I'm sure they would all throw fits had the content been reversed. In that respect, comments from neutral parties are more helpful.
p.s. if the text wasn't such a grotesque rewrite, it could have been tolerated but only if it wasn't boldly used as a meet-and-greet propaganda for anyone who steps on Tiamut's talkpage.
Regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 01:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really! If you think Tiamut's use of the quote is an offensive "grotesque rewrite", you should see the award-winning Israeli film Avanti Popolo[225], and take the issue up with Rafi Bukai.RolandR (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tiamut's version, unlike the film, is different than the original and quite offensive (see above). JaakobouChalk Talk 02:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RolandR, that is a red herring. We are discussing the appropriateness of content in userspace, not some movie. What some movie says about anything is irrelevant to this discussion. --Chris (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit I'm not seeing what's wrong about those quotes, and the irony inherent in believing that the paraphrased Shakespeare quote is objectionably divisive and offensive is palpable - considering that the original is quoted in its entirety in The Merchant of Venice article. Should we conclude, following Jaakobou's reasoning, that such a text constitutes an offensive and divisive diatribe against Christians? Ravenswing 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for advocating our political opinions. If Tiamut wishes to do that, then I suggest they start a blog and keep it there, but any remotely objectionable content in userspace that is not directly related to improving the encyclopaedia should be removed in my opinion (regardless of whose userspace it is in and what it is advocating). HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 04:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Remotely objectionable" is not the test, happily, or any editor could get held hostage to such absurdities. I could, for example, find the photograph of you on your userpage "objectionable" - you're trying to put yourself over as more important than the rest of us! - and call for its removal. I hope and trust that neither of us would be comfortable with such a lowest common sensitivity Wikipedia. Ravenswing 04:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calls for sharpening of weapons in a current real-world conflict are not comparable to a mundane self-portrait. Besides being offensive, this welcoming mat promotes the enhancement of a like-minded "NPOV" clique, united against "pro-Israeli agenda editors".[226] Some of the most common members of this clique have chosen to comment here as well. JaakobouChalk Talk 05:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardly. It is a common fallacy - but no less a fallacy for all of that - to equate "failure to explicitly condemn" with "promote." I see no reason why Wikipedia ought to be hijacked to that POV. That there is an editor whom some might construe as not being favorable to Israel does not therefore follow that his mere, unmolested existence is a loaded weapon pointed at so-called "pro-Israeli" editors. What about his quotes do you fancy prevents such editors from working on such articles as they see fit, in the manner in which they choose? Ravenswing 05:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text at the top of that talk page fits WP:POLEMIC. It is extremely partisan, political, and not conducive to a collaborative environment. JaakobouChalk Talk 06:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is partisan, yet not "extremely divisive and offensive", that's the threshold. In any case, if her page is eventually blanked somehow, User:GHcool's page should be too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked at this earlier for Jaakobou I found the text disturbing and disagreeable. However most of what is there is not illegal or grossly offensive, and could be tolerated as opinion on Wikipedia user pages, so I did nothing about it. (In part so as not to draw even more attention to it). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a top of the talkpage hallmark alluding the Jewish bid for statehood is akin to the French killing of 1 million Algerians. Legal or not, it is a disturbing brand of propaganda. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


Uninvolved admins (summary of this discussion)

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

I concur, that is a completely incorrect summary. I'm an admin, I'm uninvolved (except for having expressed an opinion here) and I don't find the text offensive. Please strike the text above, Jaakobou. Apart from anything you are not helping your own case by pursuing it so singlemindedly. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it offensive either, I merely opined that both the userpages contained material that may not be useful to a collegial editing environment (which IMHO is borne out by the discussion above). Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm aware that not all the admins were themselves offended. However, you expressed that "both of those talk pages need to be blanked." and now maintain that it may not be useful to a collegial editing environment. In that respect, I figure I listed your name in the proper category, no?
p.s. sincere apologies to Kim Dent-Brown for missing his username from the 'not-offensive' list. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the list confusing is that you've now included me :S by virtue of adding "soapboxing" to the list. Problematic if you are using this list to show support for removing the text... (which is what you did previously). --Errant(chat!) 13:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jaakobou, please just strike the list which as you see is now becoming a new focus for discussion and disagreement. You are not the closing admin and are in no position to summarise the discussion objectively. The person who does close this will do their own due diligence about who said what and doesn't need your help. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 13:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is closed already in the sense that uninvolved admins presented a consensus on the nature of the text. That one or two admins disagree with a policy -- WP:UP#POLEMICS -- is something they need to take to the wider administrative community. Obviously, I don't expect my summary to be taken without further inspection but I do think it would be a waste of time to wait for someone uninvolved try and gather from the discussion who is an uninvolved admin and, in that respect, my listing was a good idea to help promote this issue towards resolution.
p.s. it wouldn't hurt you to empathize with the reasons that make the text is extremely offensive to Jewish people. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jaakobou, I suggest you drop the stick now. The issue is not whether or not you or anyone else finds something offensive - that is an infinitely variable standard. The only issue this page can deal with is whether or not this content should be removed from Tiamut's talkpage - and the consensus is that it should not be removed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Elen of the Roads,
      Even if I assume you are correct about the policy related issue, your other assertion can't be right. Perhaps to resolve the matter, you should compile a list of the uninvolved admin opinions -- this should help explain why your assertion can't be right.
      Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC) +clarify 14:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Userpage

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

I checked Serbia100's contributions (going back to 2010). He/she appears to be quite confused about Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
351 edits and only three in article space. Block per WP:NOTHERE and delete per WP:WEBHOST. NoformationTalk 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "article-ish" portion and left a welcome. Let's not be hasty with th eblock button unless they decide to revert. If nobody ever discussed the purpose of Wikipedia, or told him he was doing wrong, it's not easy for him to guess (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they did revert, and removed the note. I've reverted them and left one more note which I think we should consider a final final warning. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misguided school project... or more?

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

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

Yes and yes. Judging by the contents of the articles, I'd start looking at schools and universities in Vitoria-Gasteiz. Googling isn't very productive, though. MER-C 13:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly a class project at Basque educational institution. Some have already been bitten - those who have talkpages mostly have deletion warning templates and even an SPI. I'm going to give them handwritten hello messages and will try to track down the tutor. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: They've all been welcomed. I found a couple more similarly-structured names in the user log. Haven't identified a tutor yet, waiting for responses. bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

That's a good point. At least a couple of previous projects have had their own dedicated templates (which made sense because there was a large group of students and it was appropriate to centralise some things on a project-specific page in wikipedia-space). However, it would be great to have a general "hey-are-you-part-of-a-school-project-please-talk-to-us" welcome template. I will write one when I have a few minutes spare. Surely there are other editors who have more time on their hands and stronger template-design skills than me (a set of editors which fills about 90% of the venn diagram) so I won't complain if somebody else gets there first... bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to have place for template requests. Nobody Ent 15:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found that we already have templates for this:
Which is convenient. bobrayner (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those really should be added to the 'Welcome' tab on Twinkle. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duly requested. bobrayner (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adambluekc

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can someone please talk to this user? He was blocked for spamming his website and he is now tracking my information. I believe this user is threatening legal action (and has been indeffed already), but for the most part I believe he is confused. I need immediate assistance. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RBI, I recommend summarily disabling the blocked user's talk page access and moving on. If the user is indeffed, we're beyond the point of educating them. Indeed, they've responded to attempted education with legal threats and outing. We're not going to make progress here. --NYKevin @115, i.e. 01:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about my own safety though due to the outing. Eagles24/7(C) 01:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user has responded to me, and I believe we're going to talk about it. I will not be revoking talk page access unless this escalates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block of User:DeFacto

Administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has invited six editors, who opposed me in a bitter dispute at "Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story" recently, to participate in an WP:ANI against me, to put forward their views as to whether I should receive a topic ban from that very article (diffs: [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232]), with, I believe, the intention of influencing the outcome of that discussion in a particular way contrary to the provisions laid out in WP:Canvassing. Note: he did also invite two other token editors to contribute, one who was a mediator in a previous dispute in that article and one who was involved in a previous dispute in that article, but who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for several months (contribs: [233]). He did not however invite any of the editors who have supported my edits or made similar edits to me in the articles in question.

This breech is all the more serious because:

  • a) he is an administrator
  • b) of the aggravating circumstances; that if he is successful with this, I will lose my freedom to edit.

Note: I did first warn him about this (diff: [234]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [235]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I notified all the folks at the most recent DRN as well as AQ who moderated a dispute on the same topic related to this user as well as the person identified as aligning with DeFacto. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I wrote; but none of the other editors who have also worked on that, or any of the other articles now also implicated in that action, in the meantime. -- de Facto (talk). 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrongful in Toddst's actions; they complied with policy. As he was not acting as an administrator in this situation, that is not an aggravating factor. Also, Wikipedia does not do due process, so that is not an aggravating factor either. If DeFacto continues this tendentious behavior in his interactions with other editors, I will block him as a separate action apart from the topic ban being discussed above. MBisanz talk 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. This discussion should be closed already. Calabe1992 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing predominantly amongst those known to be likely to support your favoured result is in direct conflict wiyh WP:Canvass. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now asking another administrator, one involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action, to support him here (diff: [236]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [237]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [238]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be blunt, but lay off. Calabe1992 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block review request

  • Actually, I'd prefer for this thread to be left open, at least for a little while, for review of my action and for discussion of any possible compromise.

    I looked at the above thread yesterday and considered indeffing DF, but decided to see if things would improve if the topic ban was enacted. That total misrepresentation of a situation above (JamesBWatson actually unblocked DF, yet DF calls him an admin involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action) was, however, the final straw. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

de Facto's responses so far to your block aren't the sort that should lead to anyone unblocking. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was writing a careful and detailed comment about the problems with DeFacto's editing, but I have just turned to Special:Contributions/DeFacto, and found that HJ Mitchell has indef-blocked the account, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that I think HJ Mitchell was quite right. For some time it has been a matter of when DeFacto would be blocked, not whether, and I agree that the time has come. DeFacto has been given as much AGF and ROPE as anyone could reasonably expect, if not more, and has persisted in his/her disruptive and time-wasting nonsense. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • JamesBWatson's remark about "when" is on the money. DeFacto had more rope than anyone ever needed to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this not the sort of situation where a topic ban would be helpful? DeFacto has been here a long time with only one previous minor block prior to this mess. I agree that their behaviour has not been acceptable and has been a big timesink recently but would a topic ban on anything to do with metrication (including commenting on talkpages) be a way to keep them on the straight and narrow? Polequant (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (eta) I realise this was being discussed above when DeFacto shot themselves in the foot with this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the disruption is limited to metrication issues or if there are other problems as well. Polequant (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge WP:Competence issue. It wasn't limited to metrication. Toddst1(talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Their recent responses don't show any evidence that they've spent any time or effort trying to understand why they were blocked—largely I think because the necessity hasn't even occurred to them. Such a lack of perception and self-awareness, wilful or otherwise, is impossible to reconcile with working in a collaborative environment. EyeSerenetalk 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just surprised that someone who's been here for 6 years and only been blocked the once before has been indeffed without things like RFC/U or evidence of previous ANI threads etc. If they were as bad as you are saying then I would have at least expected something prior to all this. Either they've slipped under the radar for a long time (which is certainly possible as wikipedia is normally crap at dealing with "civil" disruption) or their behaviour has got worse recently. This seems like they were at least willing to think about what they were doing, and between that and getting indeffed their only action was complaining that there had been some canvassing going on in the topic ban discussion. They clearly aren't correct with the canvassing but I can't see that it was particularly disruptive to start that section.
In general it doesn't work very well expecting people to apologise for their actions. If the block had been for a week then that shows that what they are doing won't be tolerated. It would give the opportunity for them to modify their behaviour when they come back without being forced to make what they might think are humiliating retractions. They shouldn't have to agree with the reasons for blocks and why people are getting frustrated with them so long as their behaviour changes. Polequant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's mentioned a need for them to prostrate themselves, that would be silly. Rather, the issue is that they've become so fixated on their notion that the block was an "abuse of power" that there seems to be no likelihood of them even acknowledging, never mind addressing, the real reason they were blocked. While that 'it's everyone else that's the problem, it's not me' attitude stands, unblocking would serve no purpose because we'd just see the same problematic behaviour repeated. EyeSerenetalk 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People lash out when they feel threatened, which isn't an excuse but a reason at least. A week block together with a broadly construed topic ban from metrication is a pretty severe penalty and has the potential to at least keep someone who has contributed considerably. Unless the majority of their contributions haven't been helpful I don't see why it wouldn't be worth trying. I don't care what someone's attitude is unless it colours their editing and in that case it would be easy enough to block again. Polequant (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this editor is that they seem to be unable to grasp one of the basic concepts here: Wikipedia is a team effort that necessitates consensus building and the acceptance of consensus. That they haven't been blocked earlier is because such disruptive tendencies don't automatically lead to blocks--they are not easily templated, and require a measure of judgment on an administrator's part that can be challenged in ways a block for vandalism can't. I'm glad to see that Todd and others stuck their neck out, and I'm glad to see that for the most part HJ's decision is supported by the community (including me). Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to think this all started over some damn strawberries :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse block: In case it wasn't clear from my comment above. It's clear that this editor has some serious issues interacting in an unstructured environment and a profound lack of self-awareness that has led to protracted disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse block I reviewed the situation by skimming a couple of pages, but just browsing User talk:DeFacto is sufficient to show that the reports above are correct: the user is currently unable to participate in a collaborative project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine block Nobody Ent 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse block The more I see of this user's behavior, the more I'm surprised it was tolerated this long. We need to get out of the business of hosting this kind of volunteer on Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse block: Serious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality here. The proper response to being blocked for violations isn't "Helllp! I'm being opppressed!!!". It's "My apologies, and I won't do it again." Do people lash out when they feel threatened, as Polequant says? Indeed they do ... and we do not condone that behavior on Wikipedia. As far as that table goes, by the way, I don't think it's overly objectionable on the face of it, but it has no business being on a user talk page, which is supposed to be for discussion on how to improve the encyclopedia, not as a forum or a billboard. Ravenswing 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto requests assistance

DeFacto is requesting on his talk page that an uninvolved admin take a look at the actions of Drmies and Laser Brain on his talk page. He believes he is being threatened for the table he has added to the page. Drmies and LB believe it should be removed because it violates WP:NPA. Any help would be greatly welcomed. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to reviewer(s): the current table on the talk page has had much of what appears to have been the objectionable material redacted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite having had WP:NOTTHEM pointed out to him, DeFacto still totally fails to understand that any unblock request needs to address his behaviour, and not the behaviour of other editors. The material he keeps adding to his talk page is thus not relevant to any valid unblock request. It seems to me that Drmies and Laser Brain were each perfectly justified in saying that DeFacto's talk page access should be removed if he again added this irrelevant material, but he is continuing to play games and make a point and I therefore see no reason why this removal of talk page access should not now be implemented. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A major part of DeFacto's behaviour that continually frustrated other editors was his ubiquitous presence. He was always there. Other editors, either through choice, or probably the pressures of real life, came and went. DeFacto didn't. He was always there. No matter what others said, at any time, if DeFacto disagreed, he would respond with more of his ongoing wall of words, forever insisting that consensus had not been reached, and demanding that other editors go away and find more evidence to disprove what he, and increasingly only he, believed. On his Talk page he has continued this behaviour. He has continued posting, in this case a catalogue of what he saw as evil sins against him. I posted there, suggesting that he give himself a holiday. He politely thanked me, and just kept posting. Sadly, I saw a distinctly different and ironic meaning in his heading "In desperate need of help please" to the one I'm sure he intended. DeFacto sees no problem in his behaviour. I doubt that any of us here can convince him that there is a problem. He must remain blocked because of the damage he has done (and continues to do), but we cannot reasonably expect a sudden acceptance of fault and reversal of direction. He should also be blocked on his Talk page. I strongly doubt that he can stop doing what he is doing voluntarily. A block there (presumably of some limited time - maybe a month or two) will be good for both Wikipedia and Defacto in the long term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Action: by both Drmies and LB in the context of this editor's recent history. However as one of its primary subjects, (see above) I didn't find the history matirx very objectionable. We all know that NPA doesn't apply to discussing admins. I also think it's time to close the block review above and put an end to the drama around this editor. I'm sure Defacto will want to have any closing admin's action reviewed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto's user talk page block reveview

I'm guessing that DeFacto would also like to have the usage block on his/her own talk page reviewd. DaftEco (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure how you would know that, or why you would think that ... except, that based on the timing of the creation of this account, it's similarity in name (DaftEco = DeFacto), and the fact you only are editing related to this issue - with no apparent understanding of any of the policies surrounding it - I have blocked as per WP:DUCK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]