And Crafty is now indef'd. Two indefs so far and of course no action on compulsive plagiarists and liars.
QUOTE
The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI...remain_namelessPretend it does not exist, I suppose.
And if he really is worried about being 'outed', why on earth post a 5 minute video of himself on YouTube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COpUXdaSOAoAnd did Crafty actually violate WP:OUT?
It says:
QUOTE
Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OUT...nal_information1. Of course the user did voluntarily post the information, by writing the two articles.
2. No personal information was included (except by editors such as Ottava and Fences who mentioned the actual name of the pseudonymous characters 'Pusspuss' and 'Sister Kitty'. When I nominated for deletion, I was careful not to mention anything like this.
3. The only offence was to assert that the anonymous individual who goes by the names 'Pusspuss' and 'Sister Kitty', had actually written the articles themself, i.e. to accuse a fellow Wikipedian of dishonesty. How nefarious!
This post has been edited by Peter Damian: