Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Koavf

I see from this board that this editor User: Koavf has been sanctioned before. He's back. Looking at his contributions list over the last few days, he is making the same repetitive edit into thousands of articles, reporting bare links. He is making several edits a minute, there can be no possible quality control or checking in his work. It is simple defacement that now appears as a top banner above every article he has touched in the last few days. As I suggest in his talk page, IF he has a problem with the content of an article, he should present specifics in the talk page, rather than a bold announcement on the top of the main article. This vandalism now displays his one man's opinion above the work, in the case of some articles, made over years and multiple editors. He should be stopped and a bot designed to revert all of these mainspace edits. Trackinfo (talk) 06:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the time it took me to write this and notify him of its presence, he has gone back to revert my cleanup of the articles I specified in his talk page. Trackinfo (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This isn't a major issue as far as I'm concerned: Koavf is simply implementing current policy by adding cleanup banners. He's using a semi-automated tool to do so (WP:AWB). Adding WP:TC banners isn't "defacement" or vandalism. The whole point of adding them is that the problem with the content of the article is the use of barelinks in references, and no "specifics" need to be provided. It is no concern that he can do a number of these a minute: that's what AWB is for. It's not "one man's opinion" of the work, it's a cleanup banner. No admin action required. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

edit conflict with Tom Morris from above

Okay First off, this provides some of my rationale. In sum, maintenance templates make it easier to fix the problems that exist in articles (especially obscure ones) and this particular maintenance template highlights a very straightforward issue which is altogether easy to resolve (versus, say a POV dispute, which would require discussion on talk--this does not.) Also, semi-automated tools make it fairly easy for users to fix these problems.

That having been said, I decided that I would simply ignore the more bombastic parts of Trackinfo's posts to my talk and give him as much charity as possible. Since he's now posted at AN, I'll go ahead and address those more outlandish claims.

First off, he initially said that I added {{cleanup-linkrot}} to pages that did not include bare URLs. This is a serious assertion, so I took a look. Sure enough, I couldn't find any. I took this opportunity to improve a few random pages and then posted to his talk asking him to give me an example of a mistagged page. The example he gave was Never Let Go (live), which sure enough, has a bare URL as a source. (He reverted the tag erroneously claiming that there are no bare sources.) This is a simple empirical question and he's provided no proof that I've actually done what he claims. On the contrary, I took my time to go back and review my edits and found no substance to this allegation.

Then, the made the much bolder claim that adding maintenance templates at the volume and frequency with which I added them constituted (what he considers) vandalism. I suppose that his reasoning is that I am "adding, removing, or changing content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" because maintenance tags "defame [sic] [deface?] the look of every article." Of course, this is not the case. I am not trying to make Wikipedia worse off by adding maintenance templates--I am trying to make it better. The aesthetics of the templates themselves are there to draw attention to the potential problems of articles for the benefit of readers and editors. This doesn't constitute vandalism per WP:VAND nor per common sense.

He went on to claim that rather than using maintenance templates, I should post to talk or fix them myself, which would be far more productive. He's half-right: fixing them myself would certainly be better, but I am not interested in that, nor am I obliged to do so. Fixing it is a good idea, but one that I am not interested in doing, except to articles that matter to me. If I tag articles that don't matter to me, the users who care about them can fix them. As I pointed out above (and as Trackinfo was concerned himself), obscure articles|this is more likely to improve the quality of obscure articles, as it brings attentive and skilled users to them. This is partially mitigated by the fact that there are plenty of resources and tools to help with this problem in a semi-automated fashion, which would be impossible with (e.g.) unsourced biographies or articles with peacock terminology. Also, Wikipedia isn't on a timeline and since there are no due dates, we can address problems on our schedules as volunteer editors. However, we cannot address problems (such as link rot) if they are never specified by other users in the first place. He is also half-wrong: posting to the talk pages of all of the articles with link rot issues would be a huge waste of my time as it would require me to point out in detail very straight-forward maintenance issues and they would be far less likely to be fixed, as they would never be added to Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. What purpose would it serve to post to the talk pages of all of these articles and only a small minority of them would ever be addressed?

He ended his initial message by saying that "this streak of damage does nothing positive but discredits the work of thousands of editors and the wikipedia project itself." I find it hard to believe that even he believes that. Tagging articles that have bare links as URLs undermines the integrity of Wikipedia? How could pointing out its flaws in an attempt to fix them in a systematic way be bad for the encyclopedia?

His second post to my talk continues a similar line of argument ("what you are doing is wholesale destruction"), but with this post he seems to misunderstand the entire point of tagging a page as vulnerable to link rot. As he points out, Never Let Go (live) has two links and both of them are live, pointing you to the proper source. This is fine and well, but the purpose of {{barelinks}} is not the same as {{deadlink}}. The former alerts you that references are written in a poor manner that makes them unverifiable; the latter alerts you that a link is dead. It's irrelevant whether or not the links are live now or whether or not they always will be: {{barelinks}} lets you know that the links could die and that the presentation of attribution in the article as it stands is insufficient.

The real meat of his problem might be here: "At the speed you are leaving these announcements, there can not possibly be any quality control to your edits." Certainly, this is a serious criticism as well, but let's take an example of adding {{dn}} to pages. If an article has an ambiguous link in it--say to Georgia--then the quality of the encyclopedia is only enhanced by replacing [[Georgia]] with [[Georgia]]{{dn}} and adding them immediately enhances the quality of Wikipedia immediately. If I am reading an article about Mikheil Saakashvili or Magnapop and I run across the text "left Georgia for the Netherlands" I know which Georgia they mean and many other users will likely know, but will everyone? If they click on those links, will the dab pages be helpful? I can (and have) disambiguated hundreds of pages in long runs before and it really helps to have {{dn}} added to instances like this--otherwise, I would have to trudge through instances of "What links here" and see all the instances of [[Georgia]] on each page. The same thing goes for those who like to to fix linkrot issues: if {{barelinks}} is never added, they will have a virtually impossible time finding that problem to fix.

Finally, he makes this allegation which shows that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what I'm doing: "[the articles that I have tagged] are not deserving of having their credibility questioned on their header by your un-researched one man's opinion." Articles that have statements with no attribution constitute original research and Wikipedia cannot have that and any original research can and should be removed immediately. Articles which give poor or unverifiable attribution are susceptible to original research. These are two of the core content policies and are non-negotiable in every instance in every article. Every article which has bare URLs has either a dead link in it (meaning that the claims are unsourced and constitute original research) or they have live links (meaning that they have claims which are on the cusp of being unverifiable and since they do not feature full attribution of authors, publishers, etc. are not clearly credible sources.) By adding {{cleanup-linkrot}} to articles, I am not claiming that verifiable and credible articles are no longer credible, I am claiming that unverifiable and in-credible claims on articles must be sourced properly or removed. This is not "a small wikipidian oriented technicality" that is essentially my "opinion"--this is a key problem that affects every claim on every article throughout the project.

I really didn't want to have to go to all of this trouble and I wouldn't have to if my interlocutor could simply point to an actual mis-tagged page (again, I haven't found one, but I'm willing to believe that it's possible) or if he understood exactly how important it is to have credible and verifiable sources on Wikipedia. Including bare URLs as sources is not a trivial aesthetic problem that's a matter of my opinion--it's a crucial issue that needs to be addressed precisely for the strength and integrity of the project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Right Tom essentially said what I was trying to say in a more eloquent manner. Read my lengthy response if you want a fleshed-out and possibly less intelligible ramble. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment 1 Tagging a whole article for a single bare URL seems less desirable than tagging the specific section. Note that I'm an anti-fan of bare URLs as much as the next editor.

Comment 2 Since it's AWB, can it not invoke reflinks and just try to do the desired repair, and if it fails, then tag the article?

Just sayin.' --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In the specific case of Never Let Go (live) the "bare link" he was supposedly reporting, and reenforcing with a reverted edit, happens to have an internal link on it which takes you directly to the information that is obviously a source to the original article. here. Because he was too lazy, or better phrased since he obviously is taking less than 20 seconds on average to look at an article, in too big of a hurry to post these tags, he never looked below the horizon of the article. He probably never even clicked on the source article in his first stab at it. The absence of an internal link is common amongst external web designers. We can't control the formatting of external sources. Some articles are sourced by one paragraph buried in the midst of a huge pdf. The fact is, the source information is ON THE PAGE THE ARTICLE LISTS AS A SOURCE, without the internal link being needed. He didn't read it or look for it. Instead he indiscriminantly tagged and moved on to thousands of other articles that he defaced in the same fashion. It could take editors months or years of effort to break down each individual article and look at the case by case situation he is supposedly reporting. Meanwhile every one of those thousands of articles is defaced with a tag ABOVE THE CONTENT. His poorly researched, one man's POV, over and above the efforts of all other editor's work, advertising to every reader that is might be bad information. These tags might be intended to improve article quality, but they are for Internal usage by the few wikipedia editors who understand what they are talking about. They should be on talk pages and more importantly should specify what the problem is, rather than this repetitive GENERIC complaint. This announcement at the top of every one of these thousands of articles is a public scream that brings down the look and reputation of the entire wikipedia project. Trackinfo (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So, my take is that you don't like article cleanup tags in general. However, that is not vandalism, plain and simple. In fact, such tags might actually encourage readers to the fix the issues related to them – in fact, that's what encouraged me to cleanup a few articles when I started here some 3 years ago. Also remember that nobody owns articles here, so before you start making cries about the "efforts of all other editor's work", their "work" can be edited at anytime by others – that is what the open editing nature of a wiki is all about.

All that said, I fail to see the need to take any action here. –MuZemike 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The only appropriate action I see is a quiet warning not to falsely accuse others of vandalism, which I think I'm doing now. That is potentially sanctionable behavior. -- Atama頭 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

An unnecessary tag does bring down the value of an article. In gang culture, spray-painting a gang reference onto an available public wall is called tagging. To the general public, it is just vandalism. And it does bring down the property values where it is placed. The lie that exists here, is the accusation that an article that this individual has detected as having a "bare link" when it does not. It is an indirect accusation that this article is somehow unsourced, unverifiable and not credible. In the one case I gave as an example, it was hit and run, another gang term, where this editor (as his contribution history shows) spent seconds on the page, NOT taking the time to check the source he accused of being a bare link and leaving a tag on the article. Subsequently, when I did check the link (a link I might have even placed years ago) and removed this tag, then on his talk page identified the error he had made, he came back and reverted my correction. While I have added to this article in question, I didn't create it. I certainly don't act to own it. But I do watch it and seek to protect it. I'll assume the thousands of other articles that received these tags have someone who took the interest in the articles or they would not have been created in the first place. The other example I gave National Lampoon's Animal House is a significant movie. I have participated in editing it along with literally hundreds of opinionated editors over the course of years. There is an equilibrium of consensus that makes this article, like so many articles on wikipedia, accurate and credible. It has 47 sources listed. If one or two of them might qualify as a bare link, don't you think that the article as a whole has been through the public scrutiny to avoid an accusation of it being unverifiable and not credible? A bare link could exist just because people have dedicated entire websites to this one movie. But here comes this editor, and in one flash of a visit, he posts this bare link accusation on the top of the article, does not identify which of the 47 sources has attracted this accusation, and leaves to do the same across thousands of other articles. So the many other editors who watch the article, or the thousands of visitors this article attracts, are supposed to guess at what is wrong and fix it to solve for this one person's POV of a technical issue with this article? Or do we need to depend on an additional editor on each of these thousands of articles to be bold, step forward and remove this garbage? There are far better tools to fixing a problem, the most obvious one being to fix the problem. That takes time and effort. A 20 second visit CAN'T substitute for research. Years of work shouldn't be discredited in the same amount of time. If a page is so badly written on a subject that an editor does not understand, perhaps a tag might be warranted. One tag for one major problematic article. And perhaps a discussion on the talk page, explaining what does not add up. That would serve a valuable purpose. Compared to that single bullet, what this editor is doing is carpet bombing. Trackinfo (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you aren't taking the hint, I'll make this clearer. Falsely accusing another editor of vandalism is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and if continued will lead to a block. You can discuss the merits of such tags without personally attacking the person leaving the tags, I strongly suggest you take this tact. -- Atama頭 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What I am clearly accusing him of is misuse of the tag function. Unresearched repetitive edits by the thousand. He is acting like a BOT, but with a POV perspective of enforcing a wikipedia formatting technicality. What word do you choose to use? I am trying to address the subject of the damage this blind editing is doing to the overall wikipedia project, and you nit pick on the descriptive and now clearly defined word / context I am using to describe this work. Trackinfo (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Atama and MuZemike here - discussion with, and calm suggestions to, a tagging editor is appropriate. We are discussing. We can see that you feel strongly about this. I can attest that I felt the same way about what I felt was "driveby" tagging last year; after discussion, the tagging editor and the rest of the discussing editors resolved the issue amicably, and this can happen here. But your harsh rhetoric earlier definitely crosses the line of WP:ATTACK. I earnestly suggest you read WP:TIGERS and consider striking through (but not deleting) some of your language. Going forward, tags are part of the Wikipedia ecosystem. They should be used carefully and accurately. WP:BRD says be bold, but don't be surprised if there's a revert, then discuss. The same is true of complaints about editors: they should be done carefully, accurately, and civilly. Finally, my strong suggestion is that article tags should always be accompanied by specific item tags, to help editors identify the specific problem area. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your view on article tags, and you haven't been the only person to express this view on Wikipedia. However, at this time it's normal Wikipedia process to make use of the tags that you object to. For this reason, directing your frustration at Koavf is inappropriate since Koavf is acting within the norms of Wikipedia. Your energy might be better directed towards calmly and rationally arguing against these kinds of large cleanup templates in a more appropriate venue. You should be aware, however, that this argument has been made a number of times before and last consensus is that the tags do more good than harm. That said, you're still welcome to open a friendly discussion on the topic somewhere appropriate. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

'directing your frustration at Koavf is inappropriate since Koavf is acting within the norms of Wikipedia. '

Koavf is not acting within the norms of Wikipedia. He may be acting within policy, but his rate of editing (look at the total edit count, he's one of the highest-count editors) is such that it's outside any sort of norm. Certainly so far outside them that it would be wrong to criticise another editor (as here) for seeing his edits as being qualitatively different from those of other editors. Additionally, bulk edits are rarely well-considered edits.

I would also echo the calls here that an excess of tagging becomes counterproductive. The perception of WP quality is low enough already without us advertising the fact, and using banner headlines like this over the most trivial and undamaging of issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If what Koavf is doing is out of the norm it is only because other editors don't have the patience to do such a tedious and thankless job. He is doing a lot of good work here, in pointing out article issues to both readers and editors. If he isn't making many errors he should continue unobstructed. ThemFromSpace 02:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That pedantic tagging is of no value whatsoever to the readers. If he wants to do something useful, he should fix them instead of tagging them and expecting someone else to do that actual "tedious and thankless" work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some editors like finding problems but not fixing them. Others like fixing problems but not finding them. Both are free to do the tasks they like and avoid the tasks they dislike, there's even an essay that says as much (though I forget its name). Both are useful contributions to the advancement of the project, we should be careful not to make insinuations about the relative value of different types of contributions by different users. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so arbitrary break

Wouldn't it make a great deal more sense for these "link rot" templates to appear on the talkpage of an article, or in some other far less conspicuous and distracting place than at the top of the articles themselves? On balance, given the choice between no template and one that defaces the article in such a garish way, it would be difficult to defend the latter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. {{Barelinks}} is not like {{BLP unreferenced}}; it hardly affects a C-class or below article if its links are perfectly formatted using {{Citation}} or are just the link with no formatting. Perhaps users who are interested in adding these templates might consider designing {{Barelinks-inline}} and using that instead, or even cleaning up the links themselves? NW (Talk) 02:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Which leads me to recall what used to be one of the more commonly used responses to complaints on Wikipedia; {{sofixit}}. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 06:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well-played. NW (Talk) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(modest blush) Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Nothing looks more beautiful to me than the quincunx pattern templates on top of Reconfigurable Supercomputing! And a quote from that article may even apply to our less reconfigurable editors: "Algorithmic cleverness is the secret of success." FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay This helps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you ruined the article. The quincunx pattern was the only thing I liked in it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What? "A main hurdle on the way to new horizons of cheap highest performance are CS-related educational deficits causing the configware / software chasm and a methodology fragmentation between the different cultures of application domains". I suspect that maybe the "Algorithmic cleverness" is writing articles about itself - no rational human being could write grammatically-challenged metaphor-mangling gobbledygook like that. We need a "WTF?" template... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The {{sofixit}} solution is of exceptional beauty when applied to those who tend to be on the generous side of article-tagging. Adding a templated-suggestion on the talk-page of a template fan can impossibly be considered bity in any way... On a more serious note: proportionality should be the real guideline here: if a a template is the first thing every visitor sees to avoid the irritation of a formatting-problem (ugly and unpracticle; but working bare links) , we are doing something wrong. I therefore agree with changing it into a talk-page template... L.tak (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who do I have to *cough*kitten*cough* to get all templates replicated in miniature forms like this one?:

I do not agree with burying issues on the Talk page - that's where issues go to die, or at least be ignored for years. Where tagging is needed, I prefer section tags, so that the issue is localized. And I would support and use an ecosystem of miniature tags, where possible. I don't think {{bareurls}} importance merits the sheer size of the resultant tag. This is made much worse on modestly sized screens (tablets, phones, 1024x768 LCD monitors, laptops, notebooks, which yes, are still running and are therefore used in 2011, thank you very much). --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Demo Like this? This would be placed by the link/ref in question. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the talk-page option, where it will be seen by editors but not by readers is the best so far. If a small article tag such as this was to be used, putting it over the Reference or EL section is a much better idea than having this boxes interrupt the flow of an article for the reader., Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Neat - see by section demo2 here.

--Lexein (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

--adjusted text from "this section contains bare links" to "this section has references with bare links" for clarity. --Lexein (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If wwe are going to use them on article pages, the smaller templates, and for sections not the whole article, and, following Beyond My Ken's suggestion-- on the reference or links section are best Normally what I really support is the placement on talk pages only for all maintenance templates, but at the references or links section makes sense--especially since it's down a the bottom. True, for references it will need to be edited by editing in the section where the reference is made, but anyone who has figured out how to edit Wikipedia reference sections has figured that out previously. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything that gets those huge banners off the top of articles is fine with me. Small templates in the sections if you must but the talk page is where they really belong. RxS (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is sounding like real progress. Which project manages/validates/blesses new templates? The "Expand group?" or another one? The last step before publishing should be to switch from "This article" or "This section" when invoked as {{Expand-barerefs}}, similarly to the big templates. --Lexein (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Shameless spam: User:MuZemike/Cleanup proposal. –MuZemike 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that he's still adding that huge template to the tops of article. Anyway to stop that? RxS (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No Since my actions are within policy (and in point of fact, helpful) there is no mechanism to stop me, nor should there be. That having been said, this should keep everyone from being worried about the templates being at the top of the page (which is where maintenance templates belong per Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance.) I'm assuming that this should finally be over with now and I can get back to doing what I was doing before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Somehow that sounds like "famous last words". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also templates for discussion for stuff like that. –MuZemike 07:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm the original poster. I took abuse for vehemently trying to point out the damage that is being done. You've let it continue. Since that time, barely 4 days ago, this one user has made over 12,000 edits (I counted as many as 9 edits in just one logged minute), the vast majority of them reporting barelinks. And he has done this primarily sticking to one subject, recorded albums. If there are this many articles with "bare links" in just this one category, then reporting this fact on each of them is not NEWS, it is the NORM. DOG BITES MAN. So what? As I have tried to research this subject further, bare links, by the wikipedia definition, seem to be a formatting issue. A bare link is not, as I had originally thought it was, a link that takes you just to a web site where the information used as a source for an article is kept, somewhere non-specific, rather than the specific page. In my estimation, that would be a bad thing. Who would know where on that site the information is housed? But by placing the address of the actual web page, the actual source is given. That's not good enough for him or other elite wikipedians. His reporting is whether the name of the author, the date it was published, titles etc are properly formatted amongst your parenthesis and pipes. ARE YOU KIDDING? Because that complicated technicality is not met . . . on each stub article on every audio recording of notability ever made . . . each one of these articles need to have that huge banner, or even maybe the small things you are discussing, placed on it? Because the many editors who have placed this valuable information into the wikipedia database do not conform to the narrow view of technical formatting of their source information, the whole article is bad, not credible, not to be believed? Its so bad you need to beg people fix this? But its so complicated, that this guy who makes 3,000 edits a day, can recognize the problems but can't seem to fix these problems himself? I've been editing here for well over 4 years (and haven't made the number of edits thus guy has made in 4 days). I still have not found an easy way to format sources to this standard. I've tried a few times and have determined it is not worth a half hour of my time trying to get it right. I've got a backlog of stuff to write up as it is, I'll be damned if I'm going to waste more time filling in some awkward form each time I post a source. I post a link to where I got my information, or verification of my information. You can see it is sourced, you can click the link and read the source yourself to verify my interpretation of the facts. These facts are not improved by me making up a title, author, posting date etc etc that at best might be marginally accurate, but more likely would just be conjecture. The hardest thing to fill out on any form, is something you don't have the answer for. As I look at the majority of articles, where I travel, posting a link to the web page used as a source is the NORM. This is what average wikipedia editors are able to figure out and adhere to. Get used to it. You are not going to teach new skills to the thousands of editors, in order to conform to a rigid formatting technicality that satisfies just a few and worse yet, serves no real purpose. If you forcibly make editors waste this much time for each source they post, you are going to have far fewer editors. You'll be left with the few administrators who understand this stuff and very few minions to do your work for you. He is just reporting that thousands of editors have failed to adhere to a rigid formatting technicality. In the process, he is damaging the look of every article he touches, If what he is doing with these thousands of ill considered edits is within your policy, your policy needs to be changed. Trackinfo (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, this brings us full circle with WP:BEFORE. If I, for instance, were to add a {{notability}} tag to the top of an article in which I don't think is notable (such as, if I am NewPage patrolling) after not finding anything to establish notability, in hopes that someone else might, am I doing the right thing? If we follow the same logic the complainant uses, that would be my own opinion, as well. However, I could propose deletion on said article instead if I wasn't allowed to tag it for possible notability concerns; but then, people would yell at me at AFD for not following WP:BEFORE. I mean, it seems that some people want it both ways. –MuZemike 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's about becoming the first editor with 1,000,000 edits: let's be honest here. At 750,000+ edits and counting he's already over the hump; and sometimes you step on a few toes when going after the brass ring. If he had to change all the tags back... thousands of more edits! Doc talk 09:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support freeze on the automated "because I can" addition of pointless templates. The point has been clearly made that there are lots of articles that fall short of best practice, and editors wanting to fix them do not need any more automated templates. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support freeze on automatic tools without a clear consensus. When automatic moves are discussed or its use is disputed, they should not be used until that's resolved (someone have the policy link for that?). This is clearly the case and should stop immediately L.tak (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Circuit dreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his disruptive editing

Reported by Glrx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am continually running into the well-intentioned WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS of User:Circuit dreamer and his lack of sources. He edits many articles in the area of electronics. Although he has some knowledge in the area, he often exceeds his expertise and writes material that is seriously flawed. His behavior has gone on for years.

1. He does not appreciate the requirement for WP:RS.
2. He almost never cites sources.
3. He makes extensive edits that he claims are intuitively obvious, so he claims they do not need sources.
4. He puts down his own thoughts about a subject
5. He invents his own terminology or misuses existing terms.
6. He likes to point out how one idea is connected to several others.
7. His stated goal is to share his insights with others.
8. When pressed for sources, he will use blogs or statistics from Google searches.
9. Many of his edits appear to be voyages of discovery. He becomes interested in a topic, so he thinks about it. He then adds his thoughts to the article on the topic.
10. He has been warned in many articles about the need for reliable sources and and not to use his original research.

Many other editors have had trouble with him. Unfortunately, it can take too much effort to police CD's edits. CD does a prodigous amount of editing (500 edits in 37 days), and those edits often have problems. While I was contemplating fixing his edits to Negative resistance, CD was off editing other articles.

User talk:Circuit dreamer has many discussions about similar problems.

User:Dicklyon sums up the experience of dealing with Circuit dreamer:[1]

... Circuit Dreamer, you waste too much of our time by the amount of work you create for those of us who want the article to remain finite and well sourced. Cut out the essays, in both article and talk pages. ... Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no experience in designing a remedy for his behavior.

The primary goal is to prevent him from improperly editing electronics articles.

He has not been blocked previously. A remedy must be measured.

He has promised to use inline sources, but that promise has not been kept.

The problem has been going on for years.

Other editors are also not sure what the appropriate remedy should be. Mentoring or a ban on electronics articles has been suggested. I'm not sure that mentoring would work. Discussions with CD are time consuming. CD often latches on to his initial beliefs and won't let them go. A topic ban seems severe for someone who is well intentioned and who has not confronted any sanctions yet.

His behavior has gone on too long. We must rein him in. CD must take WP's editing requirements seriously.

History of past problems

ANI archive Circuit dreamer (then User:Circuit-fantasist) brought an action against User:Zen-in on 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ANI/Archive570; The action concerned Zen-in's reverting CD's edits to the articles: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance User:Ecoman24 proposed some compromises. CD (19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)) promised the following: I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions. I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense. He has been reminded of these promises: User talk:Circuit dreamer#A Reminder Also in that dispute, Zen-in has agreed not to revert CD. The relationship between CD and Zen-in is clearly strained. Talk:Negative resistance#Edits to the lead CD made this edit.[2] User:Oli Filth reverted and started the thread on the talk page. Oli Filth claimed the addition was so wrong it was not worth editing. CD defended his addition as starting point, but Oli Filth demanded reliable sources for it. CD developed his own classification of negative resistance and wanted to find sources for it later: Let's first build the classification; then we can find sources that second it (if there is such a need). Here is my proposal. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC) User:Spinningspark told him it has to work the other way around: It is completely the other way round, find sources first and then write from the sources. Talk:Negative resistance#About the last major edits CD inserted some material including some figures in Negative resistance some time ago, but his edits were removed for lack of consensus. After waiting some time, CD reinserted his figures and added new text. Around 2 July, 2011, SpinningSpark asked CD to self revert. Support from User:Johnuniq, User:Glrx, User:Zen-in, and User:Steve Quinn. CD found no support. CD did not revert his edits. (Steve Quinn recently backed them out.) Electronic oscillator Back in January 2011, CD added new material to Electronic oscillator [3] I reverted the edit.[4] CD restored.[5] I reverted [6]; edit summary asked him to gain a consensus CD restored. [7]; edit summary spoke of "great truths" I reverted. [8]; edit summary specified unsourced material There was a discussion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Relaxation versus LC oscillations CD was using his thinking about relaxation oscillators. "I have been asking myself many times what the word "relaxation" means in this context." I opposed the material for lack of sources. User:Chetvorno classed it as WP:OR. CD then offered his revelations about LC and relaxation oscillators I opposed the addition of the material based on WP:RS and WP:OR. CD commented: As usual, the same idle talk again... Have you written [sic] my detailed explanations and examples in italic? Can you make (at least one) reasonable comment about the topic? Do you understand something from the written at all? And where have you seen some references to a wikibook material? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Skip forward to July in the same article. CD likes to use negative resistance interpretations. CD has been editing the negative resistance article. CD edits the Electronic oscillator article.diff The article is using both positive feedback and negative resistance. Using both approaches is confusing and unneeded. I edit out the negative resistance aspect. Positive feedback is common explanation of LC oscillator. Negative resistance is uncommon explanation. [9] CD gives a bizarre negative feedback turns into positive feedback at resonance explanation.[10] I revert [11] CD inserts "Absolute" negative resistance (his terminology) [12] The talk page discussion about the above edits is Talk:Electronic oscillator#Negative resistance LC oscillator. CD states his philosophy; it includes sharing his "insights about circuits" ... "in Wikipedia because of its highest Google rank." I pointed out that his insights were WP:OR. User:Chetvorno agreed with me. I revert using Chetvorno as a WP:3O to revert[13] Baker clamp Back in April 2011, User:Dicklyon and I searched for sources the Baker clamp. The term is used loosely, and we wanted some solid sources to identify what circuit configurations were properly Baker clamps. See Talk:Baker clamp#What is called a Baker clamp? Dicklyon then took out some unsourced tangents in the Baker clamp article.[14] CD restored the tangent for TTL.[15] I reverted.[16] The actions were discussed at Talk:Baker clamp#Unsourced tangents. CD wanted the tangents restored even though he knew there were no sources: We will certainly not find sources making these connections but this does not mean that we should not use them to explain to visitors odd circuit phenomena and odd circuits implementing them! These associations serve as "bridges" between apparently different circuit solutions. If it is not so clear, I can explain the written in more details! Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Neon lamp CD and I clashed again at Talk:Neon lamp#Why the neon lamp is a negative resistor and how it behaves when voltage driven. CD made several edits to the article diffs These edits used his terminology for negative resistance, for example S-shaped curve. His edits claimed the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge involved an avalanche. Gas discharges are nontrivial. There are at least 7 distinct discharge modes. The Townsend discharge is already an avalanche. Electrons are accelerated in a field, collide with molecules, and kick free other electrons in a cascade. It is a simple finite gain determined by the field and the path length; there is no feedback. The glow discharge (normal glow) is a breakdown. It is a positive feedback phenomena: each electron that leaves the cathode can ultimately causes >1 additional electrons to leave the cathode. Consequently, an arbitrary number of electrons become available. Sources vary about the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge. Some term the transition a "subnormal glow". It is clear that the distribution of ions is different between the Townsend discharge and the glow discharge. Many sources describe a neon tube in the saturation discharge (Geiger counter mode) and Townsend discharge conditions. Many sources describe a neon tube in the normal glow condition. It takes time for heavy positive ions to move. These slow ions must reorganize for a normal glow. During normal glow, there are distinct regions such as the cathode fall and the positive column. Most sources ignore the details and characterize the transition as a state change (ie, breakdown). The IV (current and voltage) characteristic may be graphed as a discontinous jump. Some sources refer to the transition as unstable. A few sources refer to it as a negative resistance region. (GE, for example, says it may be a negative resistance or unstable.) There are exotic sources that attempt to map the instability of the subnormal glow characteristics of a gas discharge. The IV characteristic may not be single valued. There are operating regions where the IV characteristic is not static but rather oscillates. I removed the reference to negative resistance, the S-shaped jargon, and confused claims. [17] CD did not revert, but did open discussion on the talk page (the link above). Those edits were his OR. He reinserted his diagrams. His diagrams don't have the load line found in the usual sources (such as GE), but they have his own terminology of "instant resistance". I objected to his OR and SYNTHESIS. Wien bridge oscillator The latest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator. There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research. Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations; CD copied the material from an earlier discussion at Electronic oscillator. CD claims the material is difficult: I will add to this discussion all RC oscillators (e.g., Wien bridge) that are a big challenge for human imagination. Why? Just because it is too hard for a mere mortal:) to imagine how the humble RC circuit can produce sine wave, how it can act as a "resonator" at all. Three years ago I managed to reveal how the more sophisticated LC circuit does this magic. Despite claims of being a challenge for a mere mortal, CD offers no sources. Zen-in objected to his characterizations CD claims he searched for and found the truth; he wants help to find more truth [18] I stated his OR was inappropriate. [19] Starting 29 July 2011: CD introduces three unsourced views of how the Wien bridge oscillator works. There are factual errors. He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback. CD does add one source: a TI application note by Mancini and Palmer. CD does not understand the application note. He uses a quotation, but the quotation is out of context. His text does not describe any limiting process; the TI AN addressed the output voltage running into the rails. I removed CD's edits (2 August) diff and started editing the article CD reverted. diff I reverted diff claiming Zen-in as WP:3O I started talk page thread Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material CD reverted diff I cannot continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him. Zen-in cannot support my reverts because Zen-in has agreed to never revert CD's edits. I marked CD's added sections as disputed. I open WP:NORN#Wien bridge oscillator The discussion at NORN makes it clear that CD is providing his views. CD is asked for sources, but CD states: IMO the main problem is that my mind is arranged in such a way that I manage to see, extract, generalize and explain easily basic circuit ideas. This affords an opportunity to me of reducing the complex circuit solutions to extremely simple and comprehensible equivalent electrical circuits that do not need citing ("...it would be comic to cite them"). Maybe, this is a unique mental ability since I cannot find sources revealing circuit ideas in such a way; thus the problem with citing. User:Dmcq states It does look like the idea of verifiability and no original research rather than promoting ones own POV has not quite caught on here despite repeated attempts. Not only is CD's material unsourced, it is seriously wrong. CD does not understand how oscillators work. User:Constant314 is continuing to engage CD at Talk:Wien bridge oscillator, but CD continues to show a failed understanding of basic oscillators. CD continues to believe the lamp resistance "must vary (quickly) as well in a response to voltage variations for a more principal reason - just to obtain sine oscillations". Sources such as Meacham (1938), Bauer (1949), and Strauss (1970) use the lamp to nearly balance the bridge; the sources expect the lamp resistance to vary slowly; the sources do not use the lamp to obtain the sine wave. CD does not understand the material, yet he believes he is competent to describe the material to others without the benefit of sources. WikiProject electronics edit war discussion about Circuit dreamer Others have had WP:RS and WP:OR problems with CD.

Bottom line is CD does not understand the requirement for reliable sources. His energy damages a lot of articles. His goals confilict with those of Wikipedia.

Glrx (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment What he said; it is impossible to get articles on a trajectory of improvement relative to WP policies and guidelines when CircuitDreamer is actively editing. He's a smart guy and could contribute constructively if he wanted to, but he has made it clear that he doesn't care squat for WP policy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that CD's editing is disruptive. I have discussed the issue of sources and NPOV with him on numerous occasions but he fails to see the point or else deliberately ignores it. He is clearly in breach of the behaviour guidelines he agreed to the last time time he was here at ANI. CD is not only disruptive in articles but also on talk pages where he inserts large walls of text trying to persuade other editors through the force of his own intellect rather than with sources as if he were teaching his students. This tends to make the talk page unusable to other editors. I propose that community restrictions are placed on CD as follows

1. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed
2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above
3. These restrictions may be lifted in part or in whole if Circuit Dreamer finds a mentor acceptable to ANI and agrees to edit restricted pages only under his/her mentorship

SpinningSpark 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark, subject to review if a suitable mentor is found. It is unfortunate that the situation has come to this, but I have been observing Circuit Dreamer's edits for some months and the descriptions above by Glrx, Dicklyon and SpinningSpark are accurate. Circuit Dreamer is enthusiastic and likable, and will listen to a discussion if it is hammered home by exhaustive repetition. However, the editor always reverts to form and soon begins adding their observations (WP:OR)—some accurate, some not, but all unsourced or poorly sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1&2. I don't see how a "mentor" would solve anything here (is there some policy/guideline related to this?). He was advised aplenty already. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite topic-ban, enforceable by a complete ban. I have not been involved with Circuit dreamer before this report, but reading over the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Wien bridge oscillator, it becomes clear he does not see a problem with his behaviour. In fact, he makes it clear that he himself believes it is helpful and will continue to add unsourced, and at times factually incorrect, material to articles. —Ruud 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. I recall the previous ANI thread. Unfortunately I suspect there were some misunderstandings thanks to the input of a well-meaning but very inexperienced editor, whose incomplete view of the situation may have led CD to believe that their edits were only part of the problem rather than the entire problem. However I did believe we had an understanding at the end that CD would seek advice, work constructively with other editors, stick to mainstream published reliable sources, and keep their personal theories out of our articles. I'm disappointed that they've been unable to do this, leaving us with no choice but to exclude them from contributing to those articles at all. EyeSerene^talk 12:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1, but I'm wondering if we might consider a 1 edit per article per day restriction on the talk pages? That way, if he does have good, sourced, content, other editors can add it. If not, of course, it can be rejected. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Hold on I confess I haven't read everything, yet, there's a lot of material here, but are we really proposing a topic ban for an editor with a clean block log, and no sanctions? Isn't a band for someone who has exhausted dispute resolution measures? I barely see any dispute resolution attempts. Where's the conduct RfC? Where's the failed mentor? Where are the escalated blocks for failing to follow policy?--SPhilbrickT 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In practice violating WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:OR isn't an offence you get blocked for without going through AN/I or arbitration. A mentor isn't going to help unless the mentee accepts there is a problem. On the other hand, I do see a large number of respected editors having tried to resolve this dispute constructively and failed. —Ruud 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I note the evidence contains a link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#Edit_wars, a discussion about which CD wasn't informed. Perhaps we don't have a rule against failing to inform involved parties when you start a conduct discussion on a Wikiproject talk page, but it sure would be the polite thing to do. A mentor might fail, but a prediction of failure is not, IMO, sufficient reason for skipping the step. I see no excuse for failing to start an RfC covering user conduct. While some may think the user should know there is concern over the editing, the official notice is very limited.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • A procedural note... Arbitration usually only occurs after all avenues of dispute resolution are exhausted (at least, ArbCom is unlikely to take the time to hear a case until that point). A community ban can happen to anyone regardless of what, if anything, has been tried before. All that is required is a clear community consensus to ban, preferably done at the administrators' noticeboard (ANI after all being part of AN). Considering how difficult it can be to get a consensus on anything anywhere, that's not an insignificant requirement. Wikipedia:Ban#Community bans and restrictions has all of the details, but it's fairly simple. -- Atama頭 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, I know we have a formal rule that one should not go to Arbcom without exhausting DR. But an indefinite topic ban is at least as least as strong as anything ArbCom might propose (short of a complete ban, which looks, for all intents and purposes like the same thing.) Maybe we don't have to show that we've exhausted every single remedy short of a ban, but I see scant evidence that much has been tried beyond some discussion with the editor. Not a single RfC. One ANI thread, but that brought by CD, not against CD. No 3RR blocks. Not even a 3RR notice.--SPhilbrickT 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
          • CD clearly isn't your run-of-the-mill revert-warrior, nor would the people who interacted with him have liked to lower themselves to childish edit warring. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear case of disruptive editing going on here. What would an RfC accomplish apart from everyone agreeing his current behaviour is inappropriate? There are only two possible outcomes here: either CD voluntarily stops making inappropriate edits or he stops non-voluntary. He has so far made it clear he is not interested in the former. —Ruud 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
            • What an RfC would accomplish, assuming it goes the way you expect (and I think it probably would), is a clear statement to the editor that the editing style is not acceptable. If the RfC is closed by an admin with a finding, one could point to it an d say, you can no longer simply contend that your edits are fine. The community has spoken and they are not. Until that point, you have editors claiming his edits are flawed and CD saying they are not. If we can ban someone on that basis, we have a flawed process. I'm not following the aversion to an RfC. The editor has been doing this for years, it isn't like it has to be solved tomorrow. If you cannot deal with it even for one more day, propose a 30 day topic ban and a concurrent RfC, and I'll support. I think the editor has problems, and they are likely to be intractable, but I simply don't support an indefinite ban of an editor with zero sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
              • It should already be, but isn't, clear to him that his behaviour is not acceptable. The chance that an RfC will help him see the light is for all practical purposes zero. The energy that has to be put into this, almost completely symbolic, process isn't worth the potential, and certainly not the expected, gain. All CD would have to do to have his topic-ban lifted in the future is explain what is wrong with his current behaviour and give us some, not even much, assurance he won't continue. —Ruud 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    • To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop. What he does is to defend his actions and continue. This is his choice, a choice very easy to revise, and the community therefore shouldn't be burdened with spending more effort on him than it has already done (again, this problem has been going on for quite some time involving quite a few editors.) —Ruud 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Sphilbrick, we're back here because Circuit dreamer hasn't followed the restrictions they agreed to when this issue first came to community attention nearly two years ago. Perhaps some background would help: as I recall from that ANI, he's got some concepts about electronics that are not mainstream. He saw Wikipedia as the ideal place for promoting these concepts, and from the above still does. This is why he's here; mentoring is unlikely to alter his very reason for editing. He's clearly exhausted the patience of those editors who work in the same area; I'm very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung. EyeSerene^talk 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break for length

I do not support process for the sake of process, but if we have a process and it makes sense, we shouldn't declare that we can ignore process simply because we are frustrated. Note that the editor bringing the complain said, " A topic ban seems severe for someone who is well intentioned and who has not confronted any sanctions yet.". Yet we are debating an unlimited topic ban for a well-meaning user with no sanctions. When you say he has failed to follow restrictions agreed to, do you mean

restrictions agreed to
padding
I will revise my edits removed by Zen-in and will correct them if there is a need; then, I will place these texts first on the according talk pages to discuss them with wikipedians. I will invite Zen-in to discuss them and will await his answers. If he has adduced reasonable arguments, I will correct my edits again. Then, I will insert them in the main articles. I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions. I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense.

or

restrictions not agreed to
padding
Circuit-fantasist not to make any edit in article space, other than uncontroversial maintenance, without providing an inline citation to a reliable source. Circuit-fantasist not to directly insert non-vector graphics into article space. He mus first have his graphics processed by WP:GL/I into svg format or some other format that other editors can easily correct and amend. Zen-in is not to revert any edit by C-F. He may correct and amend such edit but he may not delete them in their entirety.

If you mean the one's agreed to, I'd like to know which diffs. I see a seas of diffs above, but it is a laundry list, I don't see something nice and neat like "user agreed to not do X, here's a diff showing he did X". I'm not saying it isn't here, but this is not the best organized complaint I've ever read.--SPhilbrickT 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're requesting other community members to spend more energy on this, at least have the decency to read through the, not unreasonably large amount, of discussion here and preceding the AN/I report. You're also pulling a bit of a strawman here. The main problem is that CD refuse to abide by WP:V and WP:OR. He doesn't really have a choice of agreeing to this or not, he simply has to. So far he refuses. The consequence of this is that cannot continue to be a part of this community. No amount mentoring or dispute resolution will change this. Only his choice to abide by the five pillars will. —Ruud 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now read the NORN exchange. I really do sympathize with those who are convinced that CD doesn't get it, but CD agreed to some editing restrictions, and believes he is following them. Unfortunately, the agreed to restriction has a hole big enough for a truck: "I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense." I agree with those who thinks his notion of common sense isn't consonant with what WP believes doesn't need citing. But I do not support banning someone for having a different view, without any formal finding that the editor has violated community rules.--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I should read all the material. I'm trying, but so far, of everything I've read, I've yet to see a bannable offense. Can you cite a specific diff, or is it an accumulation? --SPhilbrickT 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the continuing insertion of unsoured, unidiomatic and factually incorrect material into multiple articles, while several editors have requesting him to stop doing that. No single occurrence of this would warrant a topic-ban, it's the continuing nature of this, even after repeated explanations of why this is inappropriate and requests to stop.

Argeeing to "some" editing restrictions and "him beleiving" to be following them really is not sufficient. He actually needs to actually abide by WP:V and WP:OR. Until he explicitly agrees to do this (as he has explicitly stated not to be going to do so) and actually does this he cannot continue to edit. —Ruud 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We are in complete agreement that his editing is unacceptable and if not changed, would mean he isn't welcome to edit at all. We simply disagree about what interim steps are needed. I would be surprised to learn that this community has ever topic banned an unsanctioned editor. This doesn't look like the first place to start. Or tell me that my assumptions are flawed and we do this all the time.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A topic-ban is a form of sanction and one has to be the first. Most problematic editors tend to be a little unstable and get a few 3RR blocks before they exhaust the community's patience. A few are better at restraining themselves though, or simply edit at a slower pace. A particular editor in an arbitration case I was involved in ended up banned for a year and topic-banned indefinitely without having had any prior blocks or sanctions imposed on him. His behaviour, or more accurately the amount of energy required to deal with him, did drive away at least three valuable contributors from the project. —Ruud 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. I've read through a few of the talk page discussions, and it's pretty clear that Circuit Dreamer is editing disruptively. The topic ban/mentoring arrangement above may help him find his footing here and contribute productively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. It is clear that these problems have been problems for a long time, they have been pointed out before, they are not going away, and they are highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have always believed that CD's edits, however well-intentioned, are out of place in Wikipedia. When I reverted several of his edits almost 2 years ago they all contained similar graphics as this- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_resistance&oldid=442011666; as well as confusing long-winded analysis. The previous versions of these articles were well written, easy to follow, and had adequate figures. The sheer volume of his edits make it difficult for the dozen or more editors who have been cleaning up after him to keep up. It also makes it difficult to grasp the full scope of his activity. I would suggest reading some of the comments on CD's talk page. impolite statement on Gyrator discussion_page is one of many times CD has been rude on discussion pages. Following this are several unheeded warnings from Spinningspark. After Dicklyon reverted CD's edits on the Transistor Transistor Logic page, CD posted the following comment: "Dicklyon, IMO you have gone too far in cleaning up the interfacing section. These situations are very important for TTL circuit design; so, they deserve to be included in the article. This morning, I posed the problem to my students on the whiteboard in the laboratory of digital circuits (see the picture on the right). They tried to find answers to my questions in Wikipedia but they did not manage since the answers were removed:) Well, let's discuss these considerations here. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)" (copied to CD's talk page here) I believe this clearly reveals a conflict of interest. On November 5 2010 CD was invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts after a discussion page interaction with another editor. CD did not attend. I support a permanent topic ban. It should have been done several years ago. Zen-in (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that CD's editing style is unacceptable. But I concur with SPhilbrick. Editors have been tangling with CD for years; what's wrong with spending another month on an RfC, in the interest of proper procedure, giving him one more chance to avoid being blocked, and avoid setting the bad precedent of a premature use of sanctions? --Chetvorno^TALK 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  What's wrong? Wasting yet another month, just so the proper sacrifice is made to the Gods of Process? Process for process' sake is pointless. As far as "precedent", CD will not be the first, nor will he be the last, to be indef'd, topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned without the bother of a pointless Rfc. An Rfc is editors trying to show the problem editor the error of his or her ways. This has already been done, by many editors, over an extended period of time. If you want to see them all in one place, I suggest you start digging through histories and compile your own. I'm with EyeSerene, above: I am "very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung." As it is, we have a supermajority for the ban, and only yourself and SPhilbrick disagree, and - this is important - NOT because you think CD will learn and improve from an Rfc, which is the only reason to have one, but "for the sake of process" or "for the sake of procedure". I cannot express how much I think this is wrong-think. I do not understand the worship of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  • • I'm not a fan of process for process' sake. There are times to skip process and do something out of process. This is not one of them. This guy has been editing for years. Why has there never been an RfC? It's too late to redo the last couple years, but an RfC would take a fraction of the energy spent on interacting with him in useless ways. I don't think the first sanction on someone should be an indef. When an unruly kid in a class has been told many, many times that their behavior is a problem, you go through escalation and send him to the principle's office. You don't send him tot he electric chair. That's exactly what is happening here. Every single response by editors has been the equivalent of "Johnny, stop that!". Now you propose the electric chair, because you don't think a stern talking to by the principle will work. Maybe it won't. But the proposal here is wrong. Do the right thing, not the wrong thing. --SPhilbrickT 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I must say I'm with KillerChihuahua on this one. Your analogy doesn't work, on several levels: this ban isn't an electric chair, but more crucially still, this editor isn't a schoolboy, and an RfC isn't "a stern talking to by the principal". This is clearly an intelligent adult, and his kind of disruption is not that of an unruly kid. He's in rational control of what he's doing. If he didn't get the message after so many clear warnings, why would we expect he'd get the message in an RfC, which basically is just the same warning given in a more organized way? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Concur. In my view this isn't premature sanction, this is sanction that should have happened 18 months ago. If I'd known that we hadn't resolved this in the previous ANI report, CD wouldn't have a clean block log now. EyeSerene^talk 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry, while my analogy is not perfect, it is not as far off as you suggest. In the world of Wikipedia, for an editor interested in a single subject, an indef is practically an electric chair. If that's slightly over the top, let's use the exact analogy, life in prison with possibility of parole if you kowtow in exactly the right way. An RfC is a stern talking to by an admin, if it uncovers problematic editing, and is closed by an admin, with such a finding.

As for clear warnings, I don't think they are so clear. I've read dozens of pages linked in the evidence (not all yet), and I'm not finding the clear warnings. The place for warnings is the editor's talk page. I see a warning from 2009 that if certain behavior isn't changed, there would be a request for admin action. A topic ban is not admin action. Let's list all the times the user has been warned that they face a possible topic ban if they do not change. I count zero. How many do you count?--SPhilbrickT 12:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• You seems to be in favour of explaining ad enforcing rules as one would do with a minor. Carefully explaining rules, the sanctions and punishment for not following them, increasing pressure over time. In such a pedagogically correct procedure, you should also always ask the minor to explain to you what he did wrong and apologize. However, CD has so far made no attempt to do so. (Although it should be noted that I disagree this is the correct way to treat intelligent adults, they have a strong will and such methods are therefore ineffective.) —Ruud 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the function of an analogy, so let's talk about Wikipedia. We rarely ban people without warning them that they might get banned if they don't change their behavior. There are zero such warnings on the editor's talk page (if some were removed, I will happily reach a different conclusion.) You can't bear to wait 30 days to do an RfC? Leave a final warning that the next edit in violation of policy will result in a topic ban. That will take less time than it will take to respond to this post. I don't think such a warning is fair, but it is a tiny bit better than banning without warning.--SPhilbrickT 15:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. We have difficulty dealing with situations like these, where a seemingly intelligent editor refuses to participate in community norms yet absorbs significant community resources. I know nothing of the scientific subject matter germane to this discussion and am not a participant in the underlying conflict, but after reading some of the background and particularly this talk page thread it's apparent to me that Circuit dreamer is unable to successfully collaborate in this content area (at a minimum). Normally I would advocate for a user conduct RfC to begin with, but the pattern here seems long and the efforts of other editors to engage with CD seem ongoing and genuine, to little effect. As such I understand the reluctance to run this whole matter through an RfC--perhaps largely for the sake of process--when the problems are already so well documented and long term in nature. A topic ban is a fairly mild step and one which is very much reversible if Circuit dreamer is able to take a different approach to editing. Given that action is clearly needed, a topic ban seems to me to be the best outcome for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In what way is a topic ban a "fairly mild step"? I understand that we like editors who are willing to work in multiple areas, but the fact is, many editors are attracted to Wikipedia because they have a particular area of expertise and want to improve articles in that area. An indef topic ban for such a person is the virtual equivalent of a community ban. Why aren't you discussing 30 day topic bans, if only to make it clear to the editor that the community is serious? --SPhilbrickT 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly naive to think a time-limited topic-ban will be effective. All we need is CD to explicitly acknowledge he will be playing be the rules. Once he does that, I'm pretty sure everyone will be in favour of giving him a second chance and lifting the topic-ban. If he continues to insist his behaviour is perfectly acceptable, then the "indefinite" topic-ban will effectively be an "infinte" one. If we give him a time-limited topic-ban he will surely not acknowledge this and we'll be having yet another discussion about him next month. If he truly cares about Wikipedia, he would have listened a long time ago. The fact that he didn't is pretty strong evidence he is primary here to find a larger audience for his, not entirely mainstream, vision on explaining electronics. In my opinion we should strive to make Wikipedia a nice place for good and productive editors and not deteriorate it by trying keep aboard each and every misguided editor with potential, that they have no interest in to use for the good of the project. Until this discussion gets closed, he still a choice he can make out of is own free will. I don't see why we should resort to using psychological tricks and social pressure to get him to do something we may want, but he doesn't. —Ruud 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

After the 10/09 AIC AN/I an effort by several editors was made to work with CD. That had some positive results at first but it eventually deteriorated to the present situation. In retrospect maybe we were all too patient with him and spent too much time trying to contain the problem without resorting to administrative action. Warnings were given to CD by Spinningspark and others. They are buried somewhere in the discussion pages. Zen-in (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment by initial reporter.

I appreciate the reluctance of EyeSerene, the extended defense by SPhilbrick, and Chetvorno's concurrence. An indefinite ban is a big step, and perhaps it is an extraordinary one. For what it's worth, I did do a 3RR in January 2011. See User talk:Circuit dreamer#Relaxation osc. He's an experienced editor, so I did not template him. I regret that I didn't know about WP:DE until recently; I would have reported him sooner. If there had been earlier reports that led to some small sanctions, maybe CD would have corrected his behavior. If CD had persisted, then the current situation would be clearer.

Ruud's comment, "To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop", does something clever. It shifts the burden from the editors who have to deal with CD's edits to CD himself. CD must show he gets it before any more energy is spent.

In following the current discussion, I looked at Circuit dreamer's user page. CD is sophisticated. He teaches at a University. He may not be a professor, but he's an academic and should know the value of references. He is, however, opposed to conventional methods. His user page has some surprising links. His informal bio link states:

... I do not accept the traditional abstract approach favored in technical education: formal analysis of ready-made circuit solutions in their complete, final and perfect form. Instead, I rely mainly on my imagination and intuition.

In his philosophy link, he rejects the mathematical models and explanations in "classical textbooks on electronics". He apparently rejects the notion of traditional sources.

Before posting at AN/I, I posted a long response on the Wien bridge oscillator talk page.[20] It has a lot on the failure to use or cite sources and CD's misunderstanding of the oscillator. CD believes a diode-limiter circuit is a Wien bridge oscillator. In my post, I explain that a source, Strauss, distinguishes the limiter circuit from a Wien bridge oscillator.

After posting this thread at AN/I, I notified CD via his talk page at 02:21, 11 August.[21]

Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.[22]

I recommend reading that reply in the context of the current debate (e.g., the 10 points at the top of the thread). Ignore the insult, but consider his position in the context of his informal bio and philosophy. CD does not care about sources. Anything that is obvious to him is true. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. A Google search trumps any reliable source.

Although a topic ban is more extreme than I am comfortable with, its effect of shifting the burden to Circuit dreamer is appropriate.

Glrx (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

how about a different tack

scuse typing - right hand in splint are all his eduts useless or just the unsourced ones? is the promlem just the lack of source, or that he is making it up as he goes along? how about a nice simple sanctiom - not to add any new content without a source. no source - he can put on talkpage see if anyone can find sourve, but not argue if its true, commonsense etc. if he breaks, can block escalsting for breach. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

While fine in theory, rather than us finding ways to add to the workload of good editors who have learned Wikipedia's procedures, it should be up to CD (who has been editing since June 2006, see first edit) to offer something. Is there any part of the many previous discussions with which they now agree (however begrudgingly)? Do they have a suggestion for how they might avoid disruptive editing? What sources do they think would be suitable for text added to electronics articles? Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a really different tack

I'll fork WP onto my own server, to donate it for use as an alternate universe Wikipedia, AUWP. It will be proxied from within WP's traffic management. Instead of blocking users here at the Real Wikipedia (RWP), we simply shunt (or banish, if you will) both registered and IP users to AUWP, unbeknownst to them. There, they can edit at will amongst themselves, in utter freedom and tranquility. Of course, a few supervisory editors (keepers) should check in and revert the occasional "off policy" edit, just to keep up appearances. All other normal Wikipedia processes, such as News, DYK, auto-revert bots, etc, will continue apace, piped in from RWP, but not out. It will just be a very, very quiet place where only formerly disruptive editors munch and graze, graze and munch, perhaps never wondering, "Where's everybody gone?" (I can only hope that someone didn't already think of it, and that I haven't already been banished to AUWP. Is this real life?) --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Or is it just fantasy? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know that you're dreaming! Your Lord and Master (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Wikiversity? –MuZemike 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

For reference: Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs · count · logs)

Through discussion at WT:DYK#Billy Hathorn and elsewhere (links to current and past discussions follow), it has become clear to me that this user is editing in a disruptive manner in the following ways:

• Mass creation of articles on non-notable topics, mostly biographies.
• Widespread insertion of copyrighted and plagiarised text, both cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing.
• Ongoing uploading of images of copyrighted works of others marked as "own work".
• Tendentious editing and refusal to "get the point" - Billy Hathorn has been active on Wikipedia for years, and across literally thousands of articles. Despite repeated warnings to his talk page and past discussions, Billy persists in adding copyvio and plagiarism, using unreliable sources, creating masses of articles on non-notable topics (mostly biographies), and uploading images of copyrighted works of others as "own work".

Links to past discussions:

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 - July 2011 (ongoing), covering nearly 6,000 articles
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Billy Hathorn - July 2011 (ongoing) - discussion at DYK regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#Ongoing AFDs and 3RR - April 2011, regarding creation of articles on non-notable topics, citing an article he wrote, and canvassing AfD
• Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 34#User:Billy Hathorn - November 2008 discussion at DYK regarding inadequate sourcing
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn - July 2008, regarding copyvio, plagiarism, and creation of biographies for non-notable individuals
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive114#User:Billy Hathorn - December 2007, regarding creation of biographies for non-notable individuals, copyvio, close paraphrasing, inadequate sourcing, and citing his own masters thesis
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti - April 2007, Billy accused two editors of Wiki-stalking him, on the grounds that a whole bunch of his articles were deleted for non-notability

I am not sure what the best solution to this is. Given that Billy Hathorn has been a long-time editor who has persisted in these disruptive behaviors despite years of requests and warnings, I think that at the least, he should be banned from article creation. To the extent that he wishes to create new articles, he should do so in userspace, and have them moved to articlespace by someone else (who should, in each case, evaluate them against all of the above concerns before doing so). If there are additional remedies to be taken, I leave it to others to suggest them. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Cmadler, thank you for taking the time to research and bring forward this chronic problem.

@ Daniel Case: I don't see how what "usually gets people discussed here" is the issue; that there is no evidence of him not being uncivil does not make his editing any less disruptive or damaging to the Project. In fact, based on what I've seen, his editing is more damaging than an uncivil personal-attacking editor, as he has created possibly thousands of poor stubs that have flown under the radar and will not likely ever be cleaned up, and those have included BLP vios.

And no, copyright is not the only issue, so waiting for CCI to finish (which may never happen anyway) isn't the solution. There is use of non-reliable sources, inaccurate representation of sources, padding of articles with irrelevant information, and more. It's not only a copyright issue, although that is the most serious. There are many other issues of relevance and requiring admin attention, including but not limited to a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT after many, many warnings. Who gets to clean up all the messes if he continues editing? I get the impression that he is not a child, and not obtuse-- that he knows what he's doing wrong, and continues doing it anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Wikipedia). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The most that can come of the discussion at WT:DYK is for him to be banned from DYK. Without further action it's entirely reasonable to expect that Billy will continue to disrupt the encylopedia with unproductive new articles in the same way he has for years. I do think a community ban is in order, as Sven and Orlady describe. DYK can't enact that, and as far as I know neither can CCI. That's why we're here. cmadler (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
  Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
  Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unresolved, so unarchiving. 28bytes (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Wikipedia standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Wikipedia is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Wikipedia fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The ones I ran through PUF were not borderline free use, they were blatant copyright violations. Until he understands that taking photographs of other people's work and claiming that it is his own work is not tolerated, something solution is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• What about an article creation ban, AND file upload ban? Forced mentoring? Anything along those lines? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Non-admin. - I've bumped into some of Billy's work as it has come to AfD. He is a decent content creator with a particular regional and ideological focus to the stuff he writes about. This is perfectly fine. I've found his work to be capable. I have no information about him plagiarizing or stuffing DYK, but the pieces I've seen have been acceptably well done. I believe that his charge that he has been stalked in the past over the ideological content of his work (tending, from what I've seen, to be conservative and christian) has a basis in fact. He's a good Louisiana historian and people need to cut him a little slack, in my opinion. Copyvio is another matter, if that's taking place (like I say, I have no information), but this is the wrong venue for that, yes? Carrite (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment Ordinarily, ANI would not be the venue for discussing possible copyvio matters. However, the original report made a case for a chronic pattern of copyvio matters, and sought additional admin input (and, presumably, action). Reading over the discussion so far, my 2p is that it may be moving beyond the scope of ANI, and into that of RFC/U. This is based on the overall apparent intent to help Wikipedia (and my own assumption of good faith), but an apparent and disturbing inability to avoid even the appearance of plagiarism. (Were I a bit more cynical, I'd probably be raising WP:COMPETENCE questions.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

De-archived unresolved discussion. cmadler (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why do we need to un-archive? We've already got a CCI going, and if an RFC/U be opened, that will take care of general behavioral issues. What administrative actions are needed from this specific discussion? Nyttend backup (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The requests under discussion are for an article creation ban, a file upload ban, or a requirement that Billy put all new articles and files in his userspace for review before they are moved to article space. This was suggested as the appropriate venue to bring this issue, and discussion above seemed to support that; however, if this should be taken somewhere else (RFC/U?) let me know, and I'll raise the issue at the appropriate page. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this did need unarchiving, but Billy Hathorn should have been notified. I've done that here. For the record, the DYK ban was enacted here. Billy Hathorns's response was here. I've left a note at his talk page asking him to comment here. One of the main problems here is Billy Hathorn's persistent lack of engaging in discussion about these issues. He needs to stop creating content until he has engaged in a proper discussion of these concerns, which at a minimum would be responding here and at the CCI page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only a long rest from DYK but one to three months off article creation are necessary, during which time he should be given access to a trusted, experienced editor who might create a few for him in collaboration, to ensure he knows what is required. He still shows signs of not understanding CP and copyvio. Tony (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that Billy Hathorn has refused to not communicate with regards to the concerns here, then and only then a block may be necessary. Now, if he was just notified of this, then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That being said, plagiarism, in particular willful plagiarism, is a very serious concern and just as much as copyright violations – this is stuff in which academics get embarrassed, discredited, and driven out of their profession; and in which students get kicked out of school for. The same applies here, in which we have previously community-banned serial plagiarizers for such long-term conduct (or they have otherwise driven themselves off Wikipedia). The CCI needs to be conducted and followed closely and carefully, while actions should be taken to ensure that he is aware of the consequences of what he may be doing; this could range from an RFC/U or the current CCI, to an outright block if it is found that he is plagiarizing and is not willing to discuss this. –MuZemike 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User dispute assistance request

I admit that I am a bit of a hothead and I apologize for my part in escalating the situation. The last few days have been frustrating and it's all attributable to this User:Off2riorob. The article Luke Evans (actor) has been the subject of much discussion over the last few days. A consensus was finally apparently reached, including apparent agreement from Off2riorob. Yet when that agreement was implemented, Rob immediately began attacking it with claims about the appropriateness of using the original publisher of a quote as the source for that quote. The editor has repeatedly expressed hostility toward including reliably sourced information in the article and in the course of the dispute has repeatedly leveled false accusations against me. I have asked him firmly and repeatedly not to contact me but despite those requests he has persisted. I believe that his bias regarding the article itself is obvious and that in order to push his POV he is disrupting the article and the project.

• First message from editor including false statement about my conduct. To be fair he did apologize and redact.
• False accusation of edit warring
• First contact after being asked not to
• Second contact after being asked not to
• Third contact after being asked not to contact
• First request for editor not to contact me
• Second request for editor not to contact me
• Third statement not to contact me

I would like to make a proposal but I would like some official go-between since I no longer wish to engage him directly. I will agree not to edit the article in question other than for vandalism and I will agree not to contact the editor in question if Off2riorob will do the same. With the understanding that doing so is grounds for an immediate block for either party. Again I apologize for getting heated and for any incivility on my part. This is my attempt at stepping back. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• - I am unable to discuss this now. I will only be able to discuss this tomorrow late afternoon. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• @ William Bradshaw - In that case, I would strongly suggest that you revert your latest edit on the article, which is your fourth revert in a few hours. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe that I have violated either the letter or the spirit of the rules. One of those edits was to correct the attribution of a 2011 quote to a 2010 source and the most recent one has nothing to do with the disputed citation. I won't edit it again for now but I would hope that ALL of the involved editors will now step back from it. William Bradshaw (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, you have violated both. Your edits at 21:11, 23:33, 23:40 and 00:23 are all straight reverts and the fourth one is the current version. Please self-revert or you are likely to be blocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm troubled by a proposal that prevents an editor from "contacting" them. Today, I posted a warning on an IP's Talk page about adding unsourced material to an article. The IP posted a message on my Talk page telling me I was incompetent and not to "write" the IP again. Silly, of course, but an adolescent version of what William is asking for.

Any editor should be able to add appropriate information to another editor's Talk page. It's a useful and constructive method of communication here. The recipient editor can always remove the material if they wish, but depending on the issue, the edit history may later become relevant in a dispute. If an editor is adding inappropriate information, like a personal attack or a legal threat, that's of course a different story, but what William is proposing is an absolute ban on Rob doing what Rob rightly believes is part of his job here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am asking that he be barred from contacting me because he has placed repeated warnings on my talk page that I consider to be false and in furtherance of his agenda related to the article in question. Would a bar on his giving me warnings either through text or warning templates be an acceptable alternative? If he agrees not to edit the article the likelihood that we will cross paths again is low anyway and should he happen to see some conduct of mine that he considers problematic then he can contact an administrator or other third party to look at it rather than contact me himself. Quite frankly I wouldn't pay attention to any warning he issued me anyway because I don't find him competent to do so based on my observation of his non-understanding of policies. I don't mean that as a personal attack, just a statement of how I perceive him. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your perception on this is errant. WP:BLP is a non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

As BLP is not under discussion in this thread your comment does not appear to have any bearing on the situation at hand and appears to be an attempt to re-ignite the argument about the article itself. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making comments here that are outside the scope of the discussion. I would like to resolve this problem and extraneous comments do not help with that resolution. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• No, Off2RioRob is not going to be banned from your talk page. This is transparent gamesmanship. I assume this thread will drone on for another day or two, but that is going to be the end result. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Actually it's an attempt to resolve a slightly out of control situation before it got more out of control. Thanks for your input but the personal slam on me for trying to make a bad situation better kind of sucks. William Bradshaw (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

William Bradshaw's core grievance seems to be that although he has repeatedly asked Off2riorob not to post on his talk page, Off2riorob has continued to do so (note fourth item in "Examples of poking" in the WP:BEAR essay). It's common for one user to ask another not to post to his/her user page. The simplest solution here is for Off2riorob to comply with WB's request instead of goading him. Writegeist (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly? Try [23] at 21:31 on 11 August [24] at 23:42 on 11 August, another at 23:52 on 11 August, and what else? Seems that a complaint made at [25] 00:17 on 12 August at ANI followed by this complaint shows rapid-fire mode. [26] shows that the complainant responded "Bullshit" to the 3RR warning - making this appear to be a nice example of a possible WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Bradshaw, it seems Off2riorob is no longer posting to your talk page. Is his continuing absence sufficient to resolve the "slightly out of control situation" for you? I think this is the best you can hope for. Writegeist (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• That would resolve one aspect of the situation but his agenda-pushing on the article remains a problem. I still believe he should agree not to edit the article except for anti-vandalism because he has no objectivity. William Bradshaw (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• What about your agenda-pushing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have no agenda other than wanting to include factual, verified information from reliable sources in a neutral and balanced fashion. But I have repeatedly volunteered never to edit it again other than repairing vandalism, which should address any concerns about my supposed "agenda". It would be nice if Off2riorob recognized the issues he has with this article but if he can't or won't then it's reasonable to expect the community to do it for him. William Bradshaw (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation of FireTool87?

Resolved

 – sock indeffed, Afd's notified for benefit of closing admin --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Recently three articles created by User:Spartaz were nominated for deletion by User:FireTool87 in an apparent attempt at retaliation; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive AFD nominations by SPA. A new account, User:Longthicknosnip (contributions) has now renominated the same three articles for deletion. The AfD pages are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entry clearance
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative removal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immigration Rules

 --Lambiam 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Longthicknosnip... interesting username choice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

sufficiently socky for me, long etc blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Falkand Islands

Could admins please return to the Falklands issue archived in 715?

The accusing involved admin opened up a SPI check on me and I came out clean. My objections to the NPOV violations in the article stand and I still think the article merits the "unbalanced opinion" tags and I am more than willing to provide citations. This admin, Pfainuk is part of a group of editors who, in my opinion, tag-team and play WP:GAMES to insert a POV bias into the Falkland Islands article and related secondary articles. Without admin involvement, they will continue to revert these tags. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note that User:Pfainuk and User:Night w are not admins. Also, you are required to notify any user you discuss here, so I have notified Pfainuk for you. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I opened up that SPI and I've never edited anything related to Falkland Islands issues. Two well-respected editors suspected you of socking and after comparing the contribution histories I was pretty convinced myself. Nightw 10:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Before going further, I would encourage admins to review the contribution histories of Alex and 209.36.57.10, as well as the evidence at SPI. Bear in mind that there are certain points that I consider to be convincing but that I prefer not to discuss publicly per WP:BEANS.

What Alex posts above is if anything rather more restrained in terms of personal remarks than what we have come to expect from him in content discussion on talk. Alex is very aggressive, and has a habit of posting reams of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith to anyone who disagrees with him. All in all, it is very difficult to come to consensus with someone who is continually accusing you of things and threatening you with Arbcom (and this applies to the IP and Alex individually as well as when taken together) even when they're not also socking. As I said in the previous ANI, there are reasons why these things are against the rules even if one doesn't take into account their intrinsic unpleasantness, and there's no reason why we should have to continue to put up with it. Pfainuk talk 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A procedural note, the SPI did not state that Alex had "come out clean", rather the use of checkuser was declined due to the reluctance to connect an editor with IP addresses, and with the sole suspected account being too stale for checking since the last edit from that account was over a year ago. A similar result occurred in previous investigations. Alex has not been connected to any of the IPs, but neither has a connection been technically ruled out. Any connection would have to be established on behavioral grounds. -- Atama頭 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite easy to connect Alex with the IP addresses, although doing so requires me to reveal a great deal of personal information about the editor. I did discuss this with User:HelloAnnyong by email and I left it that provided there was no further evidence of disruptive behaviour I wouldn't pursue the matter further. If it is continuing again User:HelloAnnyong is aware of it, if need be. I see that one of the IPs has been active, so if need be I am prepared to pass this information on again in private. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Harassment from Tao2911

• Tao2911 (talk · contribs) has been alleging a user was the subject of an article (and personally attacking) after being asked to stop.[27][28][29] I also asked the user to stop on their talk page.[30] They persisted.[31] Block please. Jesanj (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The same user has attacked me as being a both a sock puppet and a meat puppet[32], despite never initiating an investigation or providing any evidence as to why I may be either, accused me of an edit war and being in bad faith[33], and has been overtly rude with myself and a number of other users (notably, just about anybody who attempts to improve the Marisol Deluna article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is Tao's standard operating procedure. Rudeness, name calling, sarcasm, covered over with a sprinking of alphabet soup. I've had a similar run-in with this editor, and there were many before me. Apparently it hasn't changed. Anyways, since I have a past with them (and since, as it turns out, we've both edited this particular article), I won't be stepping in with tools--but I do want to note that the above two editors, exasperated and all, have a point, and I think it would behoove an uninvolved administrator to look a little bit deeper than this recent spat. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block of Tao2911. Fat chance anything is going to change about his behavior. While Tao2911 was technically not found socking on the last SPI round, [34] some of his other hardline friends were. (And he was blocked for socking last year, [35] so he may have just become good at it.) It's entirely possible that the other camp in this dispute is also socking/meat-puppeting, [36] but that does not excuse the consistently abusive behavior from the Tao account. This has all the signs of an outside WP:BATTLE being continued on Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Accusations of socking when found not to be socking, and trying to say "his hardline friends" were socking is a grossly insufficient reason to indef block anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of sanctions would you support for the user who, in case you didn't read it from above, says things like this[37]? Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And this[38]? Jesanj (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Socking or not socking has nothing to do with his behavior and lack of etiquette with other editors on Wikipedia. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Um -- "Marisol Deluna" is not particularly notable - the NYT notes her wedding (usually a sign of important parents - and definitely not establishing a lot of notability per se). A purported list of users is nearly worthless -- see Web Sheriff for another article where the "list of clients" is not utile. I see no reason for a draconian solution - and no sign that the person is abusing a sock. I read the case - and the block was iffy as only WP:DUCK was cited as a rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Having reading comprehension or clicking problems? He was blocked for sockpupptery last year, see 02:25, 3 March 2010 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tao2911) I already gave above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I read it - note my position above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Block? Are you kidding? I've not made a single threat, used a single expletive. I've been sarcastic, sure. I defy anyone to read ECb123's transparent sock history and blame me. "Accusations of socking when found not to be socking" - I was accused of such, and found not to be such, by MrBrown above, because before making the accusation he didn't look at anyone's history - but does have a history of editing and defending the Deluna page in question, fighting for the inclusion of uncited hagiography and promotional material. I, along with user MtKing and others, have uncovered the most concerted effort toward self-promotion I've ever come across here. There continues to be no action on the Deluna/ElizabethCB123 sock investigation, which is unfortunate. If anyone objective were to look into it, ECB123 would be the one blocked, along with 6-8 or her aliases and/or likely socks/meats. And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor.Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

comment from MrBrown on my talk - there are other examples: "And oh yes, I have Deluna on SPEED DIAL and I'm in CONSTANT contact with her <eyeroll>! Ridiculous." Why not block him for sarcasm? (Which would be stupid, and I am not seriously suggesting.) Note that he has admitted to know Deluna personally, as have other editors on the page battling for previous promotional page versions...

You clearly don't understand the difference between "knowing" somebody and "meeting" somebody. I've stated I have met her. Don't put words in my mouth. --Mr. Brown (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

and "outside battle"? What? That's just ridiculous. Look at the history. I made one edit over a year ago to the Deluna page (when I found she had inserted herself into the page of a former professor of apparently both of ours, though I don't know her - she inserted herself as the sole named student of a guy she admittedly never took a class with). Never came back. Came across again when surfing three days ago, found it to be transparent self-promotion, checked history and saw evidence of socking, and started editing. Period. Some other editor seems to have some problem with the actual Deluna in real life and apparently created socks, but again, look at history - ZERO cross over. I am free to independently find the Deluna page delete worthy - as do a number of other editors.Tao2911 (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Tao, do you think saying "you are a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography using at least 4 different ID's (likely upwards of 8), who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats, and to understand clearly that you are not worthy of a wikipedia page just because you imagine yourself to be famous"[39] to another editor is OK after you'd been asked[40] to stop? Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor." Thanks, Tao! That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I must be a terribly unsuccessful bully, though, since I haven't been able to stifle you. In the meantime, I'll put my block log up against yours anytime. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment You claim not to know Marisol Deluna, so how is it you "factually" report that she did not attend classes with your former professor? This was never stated by her or others as you mentioned above. Many of your edits are based on assumptions in a combative tone- Even after repeatedly asked to keep civil. Your comments towards me and other editors supporting the rebuilding of her article (which you had reduced to one sentence and one reference) is poor form and counterproductive with good faith editing. Thank you. ElizabethCB123 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Good faith editing? Pot. Kettle. Black. Here's an example of why some of Tao's concerns don't seem that unreasonable to me. It's delusional to think this barely notable scarf designer can make a short list with Kissinger, Haig and Cronkite. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, this thread is not about good-faith editing, or about ElizabethCB123 (who didn't start this discussion), or even about adding possible fluff; it's certainly not about a scarf maker whose notability is very questionable, IMO. It's about one editor's incivility. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose With respect to Jesanj and those that support, the issue at hand is one of WP:CIVIL, and IMO more appropriate for another venue than for immediate administrator action. I suspect Tao2911 is frustrated with the Marisol Deluna article, and there has been a history of WP:PROMOTION with the person who is the subject of that article (search for articles containing "Marisol Deluna", a shorter list than it used to be, and also examine the history of the Marisol Deluna article for some insight). I do believe Tao2911 could be more polite henceforth on talk pages. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC−6) (Note: Restoring Oppose edit deleted via edit conflict) JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with JoeSperrazza's analysis. Toa hasn't picked a fight all by himself in an empty warehouse, he's just frustrated. It's a bit unfair to judge his behavior without considering the history of the article, the questionable sources we've waded through and how overrun the debate has been by WP:SPAs, as seen, e.g., during the recent AfD. I thought it was spam lacking reliable sources to establish notability then and if anyone cares, I still think that. Furthermore, Toa has tried to work within channels, for example, by following procedure to file a request for a sockpuppet investigation which has been endorsed. He's also reached out to the admin who closed the AfD before nominating the page to a new AfD or initiating a WP:DRV, exactly as the guidelines suggest. So my bottom line is that I'm inclined to cut Toa some slack. Msnicki (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been SPAs and SPI-proven sockpuppets on Tao's side of the debate as well, and he was blocked for it. I fully endorse checking user Elizabeth's side as well, but it's clear to me there are various accounts here, both supporters and detractors, who know a lot about the real world doings of this rather obscure fashion designer. Although none of them credibly disclose their real-life involvement in this, you'd have to be really dopey not to smell the WP:COI and WP:BATTLE. Look how Tao describes admin User:Drmies, whom I found quite respectful and collaborative in several AfDs, "And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor. .Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)" Drmies was promoted admin with Final (205/2/3) supports/opposes/neutrals in May 2011. [41] If he is so "terrible" how comes almost nobody noticed?! Something is very fishy here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block (did my originating comment imply that's what I was asking for?), and support some sort of formal warning/sanction from an administrator to straighten out the harassment. FuFoFuEd and Drmies are right to highlight Tao's own description of Drmies. It was horrible. How do we expect to keep contributors around if this is what we're expected to deal with without any formal acknowledgement of how wrong it is? Jesanj (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do not care about this case I leave it to other with the time, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna#Editors_claiming_to_be_Marisol_Deluna_and_contributing_to_her_article

Has a whiff of WP:NLT and probably nasty off-wiki harrassment that perhaps needs WP:OFFICE attention, this being a BLP etc... Just asking, but this all very odd.--Cerejota (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Xwomanizerx & Ending-start

I've had several incidents with the users Xwomanizerx and Ending-start. First, on the Unusual You article, I added synthpop as a genre with a reasonable argument, and they kept disagreeing and reverting. It ended up becoming an edit war. I've come to the conclusion: Oh well, they don't agree with me, whatever.

However on the Circus (song) article, I found two reliable sources for the genres, and they keep reverting. I went over to Ending-starts talk page to discuss the reverts, and I found this on the page. This has gotten way out of hand and I'm tired of dealing with these two. I've told them nicely to stop reverting, because I have found a reliable source, however they continue to be ignorant and revert my edits, which have been reliably sourced twice. Has for the personal attack here, I am not happy about this at all and it proves that the user cannot solve editing disagreements maturely. Nickyp88 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You come back from being banned, and do the same thing that got you banned in the first place. Also, a radio isn't a source for a genre of a song. ℥^nding·start 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pandora radio is a reliable source because it's main focus is music. The same goes for Allmusic and Music Notes. Nickyp88 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I haven't actually looked at the sources to see if they contain the actual information that Nickyp88 is adding, the musicnotes.com and allmusic.com references that you removed [42] are definitely reliable sources. Can you explain why you removed them? Black Kite (t) (c) 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I might as well reply to what is happening here... Well, it all started when Nickyp decided to change the genre on "Unusual You" from one to another, saying that it's pretty much the same thing, while the source states the first one. There was an edit war, and then the user got banned for a day. Then, the users comes back and does the EXACT same thing. Womanizer has a right to be pissed off. This isn't Nickyp's first encounter and edit wars over genres. Just check their talk page. And also to clear sometime up, Pandora radio isn't a reliable source for genres, and neither is Allmusic (as they list every song by an artist as the same genre). This has been explained to the user, but no, we get reported for reverting edits that the user was told time and time again were wrong. ℥^nding·start 03:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You took the words out of my mouth. All this situation is best exemplified in the Unusual You talk page. He refused to discuss the links, I asked other editors to weigh in per WP:DR; he still did not care and kept reverting. I took his edits at first as good faith, but I think it might have something to do with WP:PRIDE now. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The genres that Nickyp88 is inserting in that article (Circus (song)) are sourced to at least two reliable sources (I'm unsure about Pandora), whereas the one you are reverting to is sourced only to popjustice.com (and that article doesn't really even back up one those genres - an electronic-sounding production does not mean "electropop"). This sounds to me like you are rejecting sources just because they disagree with your opinion. Genres are one of the most difficult things to source on Wikipedia because two different writers writing in two different reliable sources can differ in their opinion of what genre a song is. Yet technically they're both still reliable sources. Frankly, if you have conflicting reliable sources, the best idea is to either put all the disputed genres in, or leave them all out. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Womanizer and Ending-Start, it seems Nicky just simply does not know how to follow consensus or rules. He edit-wars, forgive my language, like a raging bitch, and doesn't learn his lesson.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where does this site list the song as pop and dance-pop? And I already explained Allmusic. There has been CONSENSUS that Allmusic should not be used for genres. As for the dispute, the user said him/herself: "It doesn't matter if an agreement was made or not", so obviously the user DID NOT want to discuss it, and went on to say: "I properly sourced the genres, twice infact. There is no reason for this." Womanizer wanted to discuss it, Nickyp did not. ℥^nding·start 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note to all to clear this up (move or reformat this notice as you please), Pandora is not a reliable source. No author credits, no purpose other than listening to music online. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

On the musicnotes.com website, you have to click "Arrangememnt details" and it will tell you the genres. And Allmusic has been used on countless albums and single articles. And you were right, I didn't want to discuss it because I felt there was no reason to because I found reliable sources. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It says: Pop, Club/Dance, Dance-Pop and Pop Rock. Ooh, even better - you didn't list them all, you picked and choose ones you liked. ℥^nding·start 04:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone could agree the song is not pop-rock. Club/Dance is not a genre. I picked those because they made sense. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR ℥^nding·start 04:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Xwomanizerx even agreed the song was not pop-rock in the talk page. We came to a consensus with that. I had only been edit warring because there was no reason for the revisions, when I listed soruces. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR WP:OR ℥^nding·start 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Right, STOP - this isn't the place to carry on a content dispute. More generally, it takes two (or in this case three or more) to edit-war, remember. All editors here should be going straight to the talkpage after the WP:BRD cycle (I am aware a discussion was taking place, but a revert war was still going on during it!). Incidentally and ironically, that musicnotes.com source says the song is electropop - you could've used that as a source for your own version of the article! Black Kite (t) (c) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault the user reported us before even leaving a single message on our talk pages about it. The user brought the discussion here, and if we didn't explain it in more detail, a block would have been placed on both of us, probably. ℥^nding·start 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No-one is getting blocked here. If the conversation does one thing, can it be that all editors explain fully on the talkpage why they're changing genres (or for that matter anything else contentious). OK, sometimes we're never going to get agreement, but that's what we have WP:DR for. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yet, the user reverts Womanizer and Circus, again. ℥^nding·start 04:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm tired of arguing, I want this to end. Black Kite, after reading the above arguments, Is Allmusic and Music notes reliable or not? If they are reliable, then the content I added stays without any further discussion. If not, then I will remove the content. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

In lieu of blocking the 3 of you for ridiculous edit-warring, I have fully protected the page - probably at the WP:WRONGVERSION, but to make an edit "based on discussion at ANI" is wrong, wrong, wrong - we don't do content disputes here. You WILL all find WP:CONSENSUS on the talkpage of the article. Once consensus is reached, don't you dare change it unless NEW consensus is reached on the talkpage first. Reality on this project is that sometimes consensus to not include/include trumps everything - get used to it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I would have blocked everyone involved rather than exclude other, non-disruptive editors from contributing. Please follow Bwilkins' advice so that that does not become necessary when page protection expires. causa sui (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for what? Reverting badly sourced genres and original research? Nobody even went over four reverts, so that couldn't be a reason. That would be outrageous to say the least! By the way, we actually came up with a comprise not to use any of the genres in dispute on the talk page, so I don't find the page being protected necessary. And besides, it look place on more than one page. ℥^nding·start 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You (and indeed everyone on the project) need to understand that an edit war can be only 1 revert, and indeed, anyone can be blocked for a single revert. Everyone currently involved in this ridiculous lack of consensus-finding should realize that they are pretty much all under WP:1RR on song articles at the moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Impolite behavior

I think that Epeefleche is being unpolite with me. The user has threatened to block me three times.[43] He/she reverts my edits as "vandalism"[44]. I can understand opposition to this edit. (I'm trying to discuss the edits here[45]) By I'm not a vandal and the edit is not vandalism.

I've asked Epeefleche to be more civil many times. Each time, the user either ignores me or accuses me of being "a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle."[46] I have previously edited wikipedia as an anon, but I don't think I'm "highly seasoned" (and I doubt its a compliment).

I also asked the user to calm down as he/she has made 5 reverts on Raheel Raza in 24 hours. (Although I think I've made the same amount). I think if we both calmed down and Epeefleche was more polite, things would go better.Wheatsing (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if Wheat believes it impolite, and hope he won't take it that way, as I don't intend to make him feel anything other than a civil suggestion that he follow wp's rules, and to alert him to the possible consequences of continued violations of them. If I've suggested anything other, please take this as an explanation, and understand that I intend no impoliteness.

I've seen repeated deletions by Wheat of RS-supported material, and other similar problems, which I've brought to his attention both in edit summaries, on the article talk page, and on his talk page. I now see that this problem has been taking place elsewhere, such as in the second article at the edit he points to. Deletions by Wheat of rs-supported material without any reason is not appropriate (though significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal is readily apparent by examination of the content, or where a non-frivolous explanation is provided). Here, Wheat (again, as he has done elsewhere, as I have pointed out to him) deleted RS-supported material without any legitimate reason. It may be that at some point someone should check how widespread this practice has been. I've not done so, but my experience on just two articles is troubling. I apologize if there was some reason for deleting the RS-supported material that I'm not aware of that is not frivolous; but at the moment, I don't see any. Whether its a variant of vandalism, as described above, or just run-of-the mill unacceptable disruptive editing, we can't build a project with editors willy nilly deleting RS-supported material that does not match their POV. Just because. If Wheat prefers, I'll change my description of it to simply call it actionable disruptive editing. The fact that this is happening (again) with a BLP is troubling, especially as the hint of pov against the subject of the article is similar in both cases.

As to the 3RR rule, he misconstrues it. Neither of us have reverted the same material 4 (or even 3) times in a 24-hour period. Perhaps he is being confused by the fact that we have made multiple reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period, but to different sections.

As far as him having edited under a different identity, that is of course fine -- the only point there is that to the extent that he is seasoned, I would suggest that he use his knowledge of the rules to better comply with them. There is nothing at all wrong with having edited under a different name or ip.

In any event, if someone want to -- if not roll this up -- move it to the civility board, that would be fine. The only reason to bring this matter here, if at all, is to explore whether on the boomerang Wheat's edits -- marked by his continued deletion of RS-supported material, among other things, rises to an AN/I level. While I agree they may approach that if they continue, I personally don't think the matter necessarily AN/I-ripe, as of yet. My hope is that warnings will suffice (which is why I gave him another final warning, even though he already had one, rather than bring the problem here).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely dispute that I have removed sourced content without reason. I have removed content, and I have explained why. Epeefleche is free to disagree with my reasoning. Epeefleche is free to revert my edits. But that doesn't make me a vandal. That doesn't give Epeefleche a right to block me.

Regarding 3rr: I don't want to push this too much, as I too seem guilty. Epeefleche said "we have made multiple reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period, but to different sections". That counts as a revert. WP:3RR says "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I only bring this up to say that if Epeefleche has himself violated policy, he certainly shouldn't be threatening to block me ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?).

Ok, I think I made a mistake by reporting this here. Clearly it belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. If Epeefleche agrees I can move it there.Wheatsing (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's even anything remotely contrary to WP:CIVIL here, and as such WP:WQA might have little help. "Highly-seasoned" means "someone who's been around here for awhile", so clearly not an insult. Perhaps there's a suggestion that you might have edited Wikipedia before this account either with a retired account, or anonymously. In terms of "threatening", we have a whole range of warning templates ... they aren't threats, they're canned notifications that someone might think you're not editing according to the "rules", and are part of the concept of "constructive criticism". They typically link to the related policies so that an editor can educate themselves, and edit accordingly in the future. You will want to read the bold, revert, discuss cycle, as it will really help you in future editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Bwilkins has written, but there is one other point that is worth mentioning. Wheatsing has, as far as I can see, been editing entirely in good faith, and no matter how much Epeefleche disagrees with Wheatsing's editing, it is not vandalism, and it is not helpful to call it vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As I think I said, I'm happy to refer to Wheat's repeated deletions of RS-supported material without appropriate explanation simply as disruptive editing, even where there is no readily apparent reason for it and no non-frivolous explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

user:PANONIAN blindly revert warring

Can someone take a look at user:PANONIAN's actions here [47] On the talk page he tries to feign "discussion" but this time the "discussion" makes it clear he is not even looking at what he is reverting, for example talking about info "4. Some of the mentioned regions (like Baranya, Partium) are today also part of Hungary, so why you removed this info?" that wasn't removed. look under Baranya, Partium Or in the present version as well. How can I discuss issues with someone who will revert me without even looking at the version I edited (and thus failing to even notice that I didn't revert him fully and preserved a large part of his changes). The only admin action I want here is a mild suggestion to him to stop doing this. Hobartimus (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is false accusation. I answered this issue here: [48]. I posted my comment on talk page before I saw what user Hobartimus reverted (in 14:23), and I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit. When I later checked what he actually reverted, I saw that he did not reverted my whole edit, but I reverted him (in 14:26) because he did not provided any explanation on talk page even for that partial revert. Please look at his explanation why he reverted my edit: [49] - this user actually thinks that templates are files and that they should not be edited by anybody else instead their "original uploader". Can some administrator please mediate this issue? I elaborated on talk page why "original version" of the template is inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Regions_which_belonged_to_Hungary_before_the_Treaty_of_Trianon_%281920%29#Hobartimus PANONIAN 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"and I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit." That seems like an Immediate assumption of bad faith. Can someone warn this user that this is inappropriate? He shouldn't immediately assume bad things about other editors the very least he should look at their contributions. Btw this was only revealed by accident because he extensively wrote about (two separate listed points) on issues that didn't happen by the time he wrote them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This really doesn't belong here. Both of you, please take a deep breath and start discussing the individual issues on the talk page. Running off to this forum after 1 or 2 commens is really too early. Admins are not babysitters or police agents. If you both agree with dispute resolution, try here (WP:dispute resolution). For the record, Panonian is right that he should change this template (and not make his own, which would be a WP:content fork) if he doesn't agree with it. Now he is reverted, it is time to find consensus on talk (per WP:BRD), which is what you both should now be doing. I suggest to close this as premature. L.tak (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I realize this is a minor issue I didn't want anything drastic, I just want my edits read before reverted / evaluated / complained about. I went out of my way to make sure the constructive parts of his edit were preserved, and yet within a few minutes I was also threatened as well. My only wish is that my edits are read hopefully this will happen in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to suggest to close this ,but PANONIAN seems to suggest that he SHOULD assume bad faith towards me "bad faith assumptions about you" are not something unusual due to history of your behavior. Am I misreading that comment? Hobartimus (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I usually do not assume bad faith about other users but I know Hobartimus for long time, and due to his current and past behavior it is not hard that somebody assume that he edit articles in bad faith. Anyway, regarding the "WP:dispute resolution" issue, I do not know how can I resolve dispute with user who revert my edits without explanation why my version of the title is wrong (that is at least rude, if not something else). I at least elaborated on talk page why I changed this template and why I reverted him. Also, the accusation of Hobartimus that I sent "threat" to him by saying that I will ask administrators for help is not quite example of nice behavior. I certainly will ask (and I am asking) administrators for help and mediation regarding dispute about this template. Is anybody interested to participate? Also, it is obvious that Hobartimus opened this thread about me to prevent that I ask administrators for mediation.PANONIAN 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not said that one "should" but that one "might" assume bad faith when Hobartimus is in question. So, Hobartimus, please do not twist my words. PANONIAN 16:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately user:PANONIAN is continuing with his assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. If he got a warning the first time I guess this could have been avoided but it seems that he now feels he can continue down this path. For example making up lies about me, "This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody.", notice how he didn't support the accusation with anything but weasel words like "well known". Can someone deal with this issue? Within a day he also 1. First he blindly reverted (citing "rv per talk") where he complained about his "improvements being lost". He thought this because he didn't actually read the edits. 2. Realizing that "his improvements" were never actually lost, pretended to discuss on the talk page. 3. I say pretended because soon he nominates the template for deletion making all the "improvements and discussions" irrelevant. This seems like clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality because going from "Revert"rv per talk at 14:26 to "discuss"14:11-16:04-last content discussing edit on talk to "nominate it for deletion" 17:02. It doesn't seem like user:PANONIAN is really providing enough time for events to make their course. Also interesting that now 80% of his changes to the template are accepted he still wants to delete the template, so what was the point of these changes then? Hobartimus (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, my statement that "user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users" is certainly not a lie. I have no time to search for old diffs that would prove that, but user Hobartimus is the one who harassing me and who trying to discredit me by all possible means so that he can keep POV template unchanged. Just look this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_12#Template:Regions_which_belonged_to_Hungary_before_the_Treaty_of_Trianon_.281920.29 Instead to comment disputed issue with template user:Hobartimus mostly discussing me and trying to discredit me personally instead to discuss problems with disputed template. He also trying to make impression that my behavior is bad, claiming that "I could have changed the template instead that I proposed it for deletion". How I am supposed to change the template when Hobartimus is reverting my edit and not allowing me to change incorrect things? Also, it was him who proposed that "I should request deletion". He also repeat that I "blindly revert" and that after I explained that I did not done such thing. PANONIAN 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was a lie, now a proven lie. "I don't have time to search for old diffs" is not a valid support for statements. Being called out on lying PANONIAN just repeats the lie verbatem as if that somehow makes his lie true. I will respond to other parts once this is settled and PANONIAN is warned not to lie on ANI. Hobartimus (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

How I am supposed to find these diffs when this noticeboard is changed very often? I would have to spend several days to search for your older posts here. I recall from my memory that you used this noticeboard in the past to "trash" other users with whom you have POV disagreement. Besides that, I do not see that I insulted you personally or that I officially accused you for anything. And about what exactly I should be warned? That I do not speak about things from my memory? Please... PANONIAN 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And besides that, you opened this whole thread lying that I "blindly revert articles" and you did not provided any evidence that would support such claim. PANONIAN 11:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And just for the record, I reverted that article only once, while Hobartimus reverted it twice and it is clear that his behavior is much closer to be described as "revert warring" than mine. All in all, this whole thread was opened because I had one single revert in one article and that is clear evidence that user Hobartimus is harassing me and trying to discredit me and push me away from discussion about disputed template. PANONIAN 11:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users" was an outright lie against me. You can't support it with diffs because they can't make a lie suddenly true. You should be warned about this yes, it's way over the line to lie then say "I don't have time" when asked to provide proof, meanwhile you have time to post dozens of times each day. It is not correct to say that you made a single revert because you moved the template as well, without ANY preceding discussion. [50] [51] Moving something is considered a much larger action then changing a few words. Hobartimus (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Your claim that "I blindly revert warring" is an outright lie against me which was clearly disapproved by presented diffs (I do not need any additional evidence aside from this thread started by you to prove that you posting threads with false accusations against other users). As for reverts, an original edit cannot be counted as revert. I changed name of the template in good faith and I did not had idea that you will react like this to my edits. PANONIAN 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha that's rich. Except I backed up with ample evidence everything I said in this thread and with diffs. I also explained it in detail on the template talk page and the deletion discussion. I can even quote evidence from you from this very same thread "I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit." You just "assumed" you didn't "see" you "assumed" that is what I called (correctly) an action taken "blindly". Fortunately we have ample evidence in this case, you may disagree but I did provide the diffs I did provide the evidence. You provided no evidence and diffs for your lie. First the reason is that you "don't have time" then you repeated the lie and said "I would have to spend days" also the "notice board is changed very often" "then you say "you don't need any additional evidence aside from this thread". So which is it? This suggests to me that you are caught in a lie and will literally say anything to try to distract admins from this fact. Hobartimus (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You bored me, you know. If you think that admins "should take some actions" against me as you proposing, I would like to know what would be basis for these actions. I never denied that I "blindly posted my comment on talk page", but I certainly did not "blindly reverted", for what you accusing me. As far as I know, there is no an Wiki rule against "blindly posted talk page comments", but I am pretty sure that there is one against harassment that you committing against me. PANONIAN 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Question to uninvolved editors: Because PANONIAN is notfied of the Digwuren sanctions can these matters with other issues be possibly raised on AE or is this not covered? (not asking about the merits of the case here, just "jurisdiction" so to say.) Hobartimus (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my new thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hobartimus_is_harassing_me PANONIAN 14:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly as I predicted above PANONIAN will do anything to try to distract admins from the main issue. He now tried to open a "new thread", "his thread" so maybe the discussion will take place there and change topic. I will try to summarize the main issue of the thread so far. He claimed about me that "This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody.". When asked to back this accusation up, show us a few examples of "false ANI threads" it turned out he had none! The statement of PANONIAN was revealed to be a lie. PANONIAN then took an interesting course he repeated his lie and added that the statement "is certainly not a lie". When asked about proof he said that he unfortunately"I have no time to search for old diffs that would prove that". When again asked about supporting diffs for proof he said How I am supposed to find these diffs when this noticeboard is changed very often adding that he "would have to spend several days" to find supporting diffs. Then his defense suddenly changed and he says that he does "not need any additional evidence aside from this thread". So first it's not enough time, then too hard then he doesn't even need any evidence to make claims about other persons. So this is the main issue of the thread, with diffs. Hobartimus (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN has now accused me of opening this thread after "a single revert" this was already demonstrated as false, but I will have to debunk it again. PANONIAN other than editing the content also made two undiscussed page moves diffs([52] [53]) showing him to be engaging in a Page move war. His actions were not limited to content but to renaming as well. Hobartimus (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is nice how Hobartimus pulled my words out of context. This is full quote of my words: "Also, claim of user:Hobartimus that I opened this thread as "retaliation for his ANI thread" is ridiculous. This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody. I firstly tried to correct template and to make it more NPOV, but since my changes were reverted by user:Hobartimus who trying to keep this template in its current form, I saw no other option but to propose it for deletion" [54]. Also, I said that as a responce to his post where he actually accused me for "nominating template for deletion as a retaliation for his ANI thread about me". I simply tried to say that I am not concerned about his ANI thread so much that I would "retaliate". As for the question whether my statement about his past behavior is correct or not, I might be wrong about that and I maybe confused Hobartimus with one other user. If that is true, then I apologize to Hobartimus because of my statement. However, it is not disputed that he opened this thread with false accusations against me, so it would be nice that he apologize to me as well. PANONIAN 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, regarding "Page move war", I repeat that I reverted that only once, while Hobartimus reverted it twice. How one user with more reverts can accuse user with less reverts for "revert warring"? PANONIAN 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hobartimus is harassing me

I am asking admins for protection from this person. This thread is clear evidence that this user is harassing me and that he trying to discredit me by all possible means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:PANONIAN_blindly_revert_warring (he opened a thread about me because of one single revert in a single article, accusing me for "blind revert warring" without evidence and then he inventing new reasons why admins should "take some action against me"). Obviously this user want to push me away from editing of POV template that I tried to correct. I am now stopping any correspondence with that person in this page and I will talk only with admins. PANONIAN 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"then he inventing new reasons why admins should "take some action against me" Far from inventing anything, the main issue in that thread is that PANONIAN lied during discussions, repeatedly as demonstrated in the thread with ample evidence. Hobartimus (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The main issue of the thread was false accusation for "blind revert warring" after my single revert in a single article. When Hobartimus saw that his accusation will not pass, he started to invent other accusations such is the one that I "lied during discussions", while any evidence for such accusations was not provided. PANONIAN 14:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The way forward

There's 3 ways this can end, with topic bans, with an interaction ban (and I am starting to feel that's might be necessary, but I am not an admin) or by the two of you discussing individual content. You both keep repeating the same arguments about AGF, the blind/non blind character of a revert and revert warring. Again, per BRD, the moves and certain changes were reverted (twice actually, but that is not the problem). Then it is time to discuss the content and only when that does not work (after days of trying), anyone can claim that the other makes editing impossible. No-one's in a hurry; it doesn't hurt to have a "wrong" template for some time; or to have a "deletion notice" for some time; just split the content up in different subsection on the talk page, determine where the real content problems are, be the smarter/maturer one in not taking offence in anyting+don't make personal qualifications anymore. If not, then we should move to one of the other options. Simple! L.tak (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I get bored by all of this, so I will try this solution: I proposed disputed template for deletion, so I will wait to see what other users will decide that should be done with that template. If it is not deleted, then I will let Hobartimus to keep his POV for sometime and I will not touch that template, but I will keep it on my watchlist and if other concerned users raise the question of POV nature in that template in near future, I will support them. I wasted too much of my time on this subject already and there are certainly more important and more constructive things that I should do. PANONIAN 16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles

A few weeks back, what should have been a routine AFD regarding Lawyers in Hell turned into a contentious mess dominated by a batch of SPAs, contributors to the book, and associates of its editor; one of the participants accused the nominator, User:OrangeMike, of "an ongoing, malicious bias to anything involving Janet Morris", the book's editor/creator, referencing a comment he made about one of her characters a few decades back. Things haven't been getting any better since the AFD closed as "no consensus". (Note that I participated in the AFD discussion.)

Since then, there's been some cleanup done on the articles involved; the articles on individual books have been merged into the overall series article, and several editors connected to the series adding material designed to bolster its reputation, not always accurately. I was looking over the article about a week ago, after extensive IP editing occurred. I notice one claim regarding comments by a very well-known sf author (CJ Cherryh), found them implausible, checked the source, a youtube video, and found the comment to be effectively fabricated. (See the first paragraph this later talk page comment[55] for fuller discussion.) After that, I went through the IP and related edits and found a great deal of inappropriate material and removed it; I also added details on the publication history of a few of the best-known stories. And all Hell broke loose, creating quite a hullabaloo. (I'm sorry, but I need to maintain my sense of humor.)

There's been some editing conflict over this, entirely, I believe, with accounts identifying themselves as Morris's friends or associates, and in at least one case as Morris herself. I posted extensive comments on the article talk page, and was promptly met with an uncivil and inappropriate comment from User:UrbanTerrorist, which among other things argued that since I'd used a collection of profiles from the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors as a reference, I'd be willing to use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's hard to take an editor like this seriously, but he is a friend/associate of Morris.

And then, yesterday, someone claiming to be Morris herself chimed in, using language that bordered on a legal threat here [56]. She stated "I strongly suggest that you do not call any works published in the Heroes and Hell(TM) series 'reprints' unless you can prove it with citations from contracts, rights pages of published editions, or other acceptable criteria" and "Since your insistence that Silverberg's Gilgamesh story is a reprint can dilute my intellectual property and the cohesion of my franchise, it is a serious matter." This is talking like a lawyer, and, I think, a clear attempt to intimidate. (She also threw a few aspersions in Orange Mike's direction, even though he hasn't been editing the article.)

I was skeptical that the post came from Morris, since it makes several obvious errors of fact concerning the contents of her own books, but User:UrbanTerrorist claims to have spoken to her by telephone last night and confirmed her identity.[57] He also indicated that one of the IP users involved is also Morris (which also suggests that a related IP, which edited the article extensively, is Morris as well.) In a different comment directed at me, follwing his conversation he stated "Exactly how mad do you wish to make her? From her comment on the Heroes in Hell discussion page I suspect she is damned near ready to call in the lawyers."

This boils down to a tag-team legal threat by two associated users. One talks like a lawyer, setting up the threat, but leaving off the "or else I'll sue" at the end. The other follows up with "Look out! She's gonna sue you." If this doesn't quite breach WP:BLP, it's really close; and if it doesn't merit a block it deserves a warning with teeth.

And, frankly, the underlying dispute is utterly ridiculous. Morris doesn't want the word "reprint" used to refer stories that were published elsewhere, then later appear in books she's edited. Well, that's too bad. That's what "reprint" means, "To publish something that has been published before" [58], "matter (as an article) that has appeared in print before" [59]. Neither Janet Morris nor anybody else is entitled to so much control over articles related to them to allow them to exclude such plain factual statements. It's quite odd that she and people close to her think and behave otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Update: while I was posting this notice, User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Janet Morris, made this comment on her talk page: I have been monitoring the other bad behavior by OrangeMike and his cronies for some time and I don't need an account to do so; I'm just building a file. On its own, the comment is ambiguous, but it fits into the pattern of using the language of legal threats without quite pulling the trigger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's marginal, but I would say GuardDog's part falls on the permissible side of WP:NLT, and is not actionable; least said, soonest mended. I am bemused by the idea that I have cronies, and am even more bemused by the idea that UrbanTerrorist is still carrying a grudge because I worked to prevent what I saw as promotional behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I be your crony, Mike? Except I don't own any orange clothes so you'd have to provide the uniform. On a slightly more serious note, I don't think any of the other comments cross WP:NLT at this point. The language about "diluting intellectual property" comes really close. I'll agree that complaining about your reprints being called reprints is silly. -- Atama頭 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, part of Lois McMaster Bujold's The Vor Game was published as a short story ("The Weatherman") first -- does that make it a reprint? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the point, the objected=to statement, referring to a single story rather than an entire book, is "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction, it was reprinted in Rebels in Hell before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

technically yes. anf in reputable publishing houses you'll find a little note in the front saying "Foo was originally published in 'anthology of boo' by Blackie & sons" Just so you know its a reprint.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The underlying dispute may not be so ridiculous. I'm not convinced that the term "reprint" is helpful in this case. SF&F readers are of course familiar with anthologies which are explicitly completely composed of reprints such as the Nebula Winners volumes or the annual collections of Carr or Dozois. Thus when an anthology is described as including reprints, it may be taken to mean that it includes stories not originally written for inclusion in that volume. In contrast, it's common - in the broader world of publishing beyond SF&F - for newspapers to publish lengthy extracts from a book that has not yet been published, or even serialise it over a number of days. When the book appears shortly after, it's not referred to as "reprinting" those newspaper appearances. I suggest that this is quite reasonable, and that it would be misleading to the general reader of Wikipedia to insist on calling a book publication a reprint in any case when the material has already appeared elsewhere. It's also understandable that this would seem to the book's creator(s) to be a misrepresentation of their creative work. NebY (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the term "reprint" wasn't even used on the anthology page, only on an individual story page (the story, having won a Hugo Award, in independently notable). On the series/anthology page, while prior publication is listed, the term "reprint" is not used. The story had been uncontroversially listed in "Category:Works originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" for several years.before associates of the series editor decided to rewrite history. One of them went so far as to falsely claim the original magazine appearance was a reprint[60]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is welcome, especially after all the to-and-fro at Talk:Heroes in Hell about contradictory copyright statements, but puzzling. It sounds as if you're not insisting on the term "reprint" being used and may be resiling from your statement above ("the underlying dispute is utterly ridiculous.... that's too bad. That's what reprint means"). But a couple of hours later [61] you seem to be insisting that reprint should be used according to your understanding of the term: "Are you saying that if the contract contains a non-standard definition of "reprint" or "original" or something, that Wikipedia should depart from plain language and ordinary meaning? Maybe we should debate what the meaning of "is" is, too!" Which is it? NebY (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hounded by an admin

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

---

I apologize in advance for the length of the post, it attempts to recount events over the duration of six months. To get right into it: User:Fainites does not like me very much. For the past six months, every single discussion I get involved in invariably results in User:Fainites following me there and, under the pretext of acting as the self-proclaimed "mediator", opposes me in every single issue of every single discussion. This happens every time, sooner or later, and if necessary I can provide diffs to that effect. You can imagine how its like being followed for six months, entering into discussions, only to have an actual admin arrive to invariably place his weight against you. This person, this admin, has thoroughly soured the Free Encyclopedia for me, and he won't let alone. In all my years on Wikipedia I've never experienced something like this, wherever I turn - the same person is there to harass me. I feel as though this person considers me something of a hobby of his.

Recently he has stepped up the campaign to get rid of me for good. Up until I've met this person, the worst I've got a was a brief block at times when I go overboard and revert someone 4 times or something. Now I have my own "personal evaluation admin", that, while following me around on the Balkans articles, has seen it as his right and duty to evaluate me and my character as he can read it over the keyboard. Of course, being biased against me he sees everything I write as hostile in some way, and probably likes to "fill in the blanks" as it were. This has resulted, in two of these discussions I've spoken of, in an effective one month block, and now another six-month block. These are topic bans on the Balkans, to be exact, but as Fainites knows all too well, I don't edit anywhere other than in the volatile Balkans articles. So I imagine this fact is quite helpful in effectively blocking me while not seeming all that harsh. The ban was placed by the one admin who should not have placed it, Fainites, who is more personally involved and biased in this issue than any other admin I could name - strongly opposing my position on two simultaneous discussions.

Of course, being an admin, the man is very skilled in hiding his personal resentment behind standard Wiki banter. Oh he will (and has) provide a long list of supposed "reasons" for his actions, and when he's done you'll think I'm the Antichrist. But the fact is, aside from not being very friendly - I've done nothing particularly worthy of note. Its just his personal "psychological evaluation", the same one that drives him to follow me and make sure nothing I support gets through, and a cherry-picked selection of everything not-particularly-nice I ever did.

Wikipedia has turned into a bitter, unfriendly place for me because of this person, his hounding, his calculated sanctions and effective smear campaign (as you can imagine, if an admin arrives on a heated talkpage and eventually labels you as "aggressive" and "rude" - you are aggressive and rude, even if he only imagines you are, and the frustration makes you more aggravated in truth.) For the first time in five years, and after tens of thousands of edits, I am considering leaving Wikipedia. Not because I no longer think Wikipedia is an excellent place, I still do, but because I am being prevented from editing and participating like any other Wikipedian. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to say the topic ban was under ARBMAC]Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR is accusing you of not being "uninvolved". Is that the case? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 20:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

After reading this, all the things going in my head make it seem like you two need to be sanctioned from making contact or something. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

At first sight, I do share a concern that Fainite's content involvement in the Mihalovic mediation, which clearly extended to regularly expressing his personal opinions on content matters in disagreement with Direktor, constitutes a degree of involvement that may be incompatible with enacting Arbmac sanctions against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Having now checked the closely related Talk:Serbia_under_German_occupation, where Fainites' role was definitely that of a fellow editor involved in content debate, not that of an uninvolved administrator, I'd now strongly tend towards saying he shouldn't have taken Arbmac action here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There are, then, two seperate issues which need to be considered here:

• Was Fainites "involved" with regard to WP:INVOLVED with these topics?
• Does the substance of the ban still apply to DIREKTOR.

The second of these points is very important as well, and we shouldn't gloss over it. That is, even if we determine that Fainites was involved, and should not have enacted the ban, we also need to determine if the facts of the case justify the ban anyways; if so it should not invalidate the ban. I am VERY concerned with DIREKTOR's statement "These are topic bans on the Balkans, to be exact, but as Fainites knows all too well, I don't edit anywhere other than in the volatile Balkans articles." If DIRECKTOR's only purpose at Wikipedia is to push a point of view in controversial articles, and serves no other purpose at Wikipedia, I am not sure the ban is unjustified. --Jayron32 21:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing wrong with having an editing profile concentrated on the politics of a certain region. That doesn't automatically mean you're a POV-pusher. From what I've seen over the years, my impression is he's certainly opinionated, but so are 99% of all other editors in the area, and his commitment to quality sourcing and academic integrity is well above the average – the issue is that his opinions tend to be minority positions, against the more typical entrenched "national" viewpoints. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@FP, I would agree this is a very opinionated area. However, I don't quite agree Direktors opinions are "tend to be minority opinions against the more typical, entrenched national viewpoints". Certainly there is a lot of nationalist POV pushing on these pages from various sides (more than two) but this issue is not about "DIREKTOR -v- the nationalists". Fainites ^barleyscribs 06:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)- I think that you make a very good point there. If DIREKTOR is only here to push a POV then of course the topic ban is appropriate. However his statement alone (whilst concerning) is not evidence enough of POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 21:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dealing with the "involved" issue, no I am not involved in content as such. I do not write content. I make occasional suggestions based on talkpage discussions and matters of that kind, such as suggesting a variety of solutions to the naming issues for Serbia under German occupation. I do express views on sourcing issues as described below. I have no personal POV on any Balkans matters. I don't care who were the goodies or baddies in any of the various wars. (By saying I don't care I don't mean accurate articles aren't important - just that it means nothing to me personally). However, in endeavouring to assist constructive and collaborative editing on these pages, WP policies on sourcing have to be applied. Having edited in areas myself that are rife with relentless POV pushers, I know how frustrating it is when there is no admin assistance except for drive by all-round wrist slaps. There are areas like this where an admin needs to understand what is going on to be effective. This is not about WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Anybody passing can deal with that. The problems are far more long term. My role for some months has been to endeavour to create a situation on various Balkans pages where actual source based discussion can take place without constant revert wars and the refighting of old battles. Protecting pages from edit-warring, and starting and "mediating" discussions on refined issues has been quite successful in a number of cases, particularly long-term repetitive disputes over symbolic and nationalist flash points like info-boxes, article names and the ethnic make-up or nationality of various famous Croats/Serbs'Bosniaks etc. My hope was that more serious editors would be encouraged to come back and edit as many of the articles are in a parlous state and show signs of past edit wars and nationalist POV pushing. Over time it became apparent that nationalist SPA's and IP's were one problem, but long term, tendentious, POV pushing another. Rightly or wrongly I took the view that this was also a matter appropriate for admin attention. I have by now read or have available to me a number of the mainstream, most cited works and become familiar with the revisionist approaches pushed by the various "sides". There are particular revisionist sources used and also the process of "cherry-picking" bits of reliable sources. I have attempted in various discussions to pin editors down to the provision of sources to support their claims and to the refining of what the argument is actually about. Otherwise the same old arguments go on and on and on. Serbia under German occupation has been through bad-tempered renaming disputes about 5 times already this year. Draza Mihailovich was in mediation for well over a year. It stalled and people just gave up. It is now producing results. The talkpages are so dishearteningly repetitive over years it makes you despair. From time to time on talkpages where an argument is going nowhere I attempt to summarise where a dispute has got to and what the issues now are. When people stop talking and start reverting I protect the page and re-start a discussion. When editors make sweeping claims about sources I do check the sources to see if their claims are accurate. When editors are arguing with no or inadequate sources I sometimes post a quote on an issue from a mainstream source or reinforce a request for sources. If editors relentlessly pursue tendentious arguments I try and bring the discussion back on track with reference to sources. I have added relevent chunks from what sources I have to the specially created quotations page. I have had discussions in which information from sources I have on revisionist history has been discussed. I can see why at first this may look like involvement. I do not however edit content except for copy-editing or putting in what I understand to be an agreed position after discussion on a talkpage. (In fact my lack of content editing in the last 6 months is quite dramatic compared to my earlier activities.) I do not get involved in content on these articles because if I did I could not be an admin - which in my view was what the area needed.

I realise this may all sound a little headmistressy. If the community in general should decide that admins can't "admin about" in sourcing issues and talkpage discussions in difficult areas like this in this way - then so be it. I'll go back to content editing. I don't mind. I do think however that it is an area that needs careful consideration as there are other areas apart from the endless Balkans wars where this issue arises - ie what is meant by "involvement" when trying to effectively admin in complex and difficult areas to enable collaborative editing. I suspect there are plenty of grey and borderline areas here. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Characterizing Fainites' activities related the Balkans articles as "hounding" seems grossly inaccurate and unfair. I've been attempting to moderate a discussion related to additions to the Draža Mihailović article and have found Fainites' contributions to be helpful and even-handed. I have cautioned DIREKTOR several times for personal attacks and disruption [62]. Having tried hard to work with Direktor to no avail, I have to agree with Fainites topic ban. I think it is a moderate action that may just contribute to greater peace for those articles. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been involved in the Mihailovic article since a little while before the mediation began, and since, and have interacted with DIREKTOR in a number of venues. I see no reason to put forth my opinions now about his actions here, but will be happy to elaborate if anyone is curious. I would suggest that before making any judgments about Fainites's actions that others unfamiliar with the issues take a quick look through Talk:Draža_Mihailović and associated archives, the the mediation talk pages and associated archives, as well as the archives here for prior issues relating to DIREKTOR and his interaction with other editors. I know it's a lot of material to check, but we've been at this a very long time. And for what it is worth, leaving aside the issue of whether or not Fainites should have issued a topic ban, I think that Fainites's actions regardless of his relative level of involvement have been even handed, very useful in moving us forward on the Mihailovic as well as the Serbia under German occupation, where I have been lurking but have had little involvement. These kinds of articles are a very difficult space to work in, and I commend both Sunray and Fainites on their efforts. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Fainites is indeed involved "in content as such". I cannot see how someone can voice his opinion over and over again, on content issues, and yet claim he is "uninvolved". E.g., to post the most recent example, in a discussion on which version of text to adopt in the article [63], user Fainites supports Proposal no.1 (while I support Proposal no.2). Or practically every single post in the Talk:Serbia under German occupation. Its strange to see an "uninvolved" user somehow always eventually voicing his opposition to whatever I propose. Who are we kidding? Fainites is a user that is involved with me and others in the Draža Mihailović debate - directly and in content discussions. In fact, as I said, I cannot recall a single solitary issue (content-related or not) where he has not voiced an opinion contrary to mine. Its not that I would deny someone the right to hold an opposing opinion, however strangely uniform his disagreement, its that this person can block me for six months under ARBCOM on a whim, by writing an "essay" or two, or I should say manifesto, on how I'm supposedly not a very nice person and he really does not like me. If there is one user out there that should not be administering sanctions over Talk:Draža Mihailović issues, its the one that participates in the discussion - and opposes the position of the person he sanctioned on two active discussions.

User:Nuujinn, unsurprisingly, is the user who wrote the version of the text that Fainites likes. I and another user disagree, but I suppose with ARBCOM applying one refuses to agree to the "admin version" on one's own peril. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, WP:INVOLVED refers to "current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics..." For this section of the policy to apply, Fainites would have to have been in a dispute with you. The diff you presented, above, simply shows Fainites expressing an opinion. The fact that his opinion may be different than yours doesn't make it a dispute. What conflicts, or disputes related to topics, have you had with Fainites? Sunray (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

This is where taking diffs in isolation is difficult. The diff produced by DIREKTOR above does not show me "voicing an opinion over and over again". DIREKTOR also "liked" and agreed with the majority of Nuujinn's draft as far as it went but wanted to add a lot more detailed information on a particular issue. I was suggesting the use of Nuujinn's draft and a more modest, summarised expansion of additional information. Nuujinn had suggested a more detailed treatment of the additional issue on the Chetniks page rather than the Mihailovic page. In relation to the point about reflection of historians views, the issue about Karchmar had been discussed at great length after DIREKTOR made an extreme statement about the historians reliability which he then completely failed to source despite repeated requests, eventually posting a nationalist blog on his talkpage. Mostly what I did was ask DIREKTOR and another editor to provide sources to support his claims and challenge his interpretation of sourcing policies particularly the oft repeated proposal that editors should analyse the primary sources used by historians with different interpretations in order to decide which is the most relaible. The mediator considered the discussion about Karchmar to be at an end. On the naming of the Serbia under German occupation article I made a number of suggestions for participants to consider ranging from looking to see how the issue of description of occuped countries was dealt with in relation to Norway, to suggesting 3 articles, one on the territory, one on the civilian administration and one on the military administration - which DIREKTOR approved of. Again, mostly what I did was ask DIREKTOR to source his assertions. Other editors had sourced their proposals as to what the "entity" was called. I also checked out the sources produced by another editor which DIREKTOR claimed were a product of "quote mining" or "quote fishing". I was eventually able to help resolve part of the issue by providing a better description of the phrase "puppet state" which was causing so much trouble amongst the editors, which DIREKTOR agreed with after doing his own researches. Following this, agreement was reached on the name. I then made a variety of suggestions for the lead sentences based on the talkpage discussions, one of which was eventually agreed by all. I also try to stop editors derailing discussions by personalising the issues. DIREKTOR is not the only offender in this regard - just one of the most prolific. Perhaps I should also say at this point that I do not accept at all the suggestion by DIREKTOR that this is all about him or getting at him or opposing his views. A careful reading of the discussion pages will not show this - but they are very very lengthy. detailed and repetitive. That's one of the problems. Fainites ^barleyscribs 05:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest,hereis an exampleon the Ivo Andric page which doesn't involve Direktor at all. This was an attempt to find a solution to a slow motion edit war about Andric'c ethnicity etc etc. The discussion also spilled onto some infobox disputes.Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Ceasing of any contact between the involved parties.

After reading every comment by the involved parties, I think that the two should cease any form of contact/stalking/etc from now on. It's clearly obvious that if you're not going to play nice, then fuck it and don't play at all. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 02:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow, I think that presence of User:Fainites was very helpful and constructive when article Serbia under German occupation is in question. DIREKTOR trying for months to edit this article in accordance with his personal opinion disregarding any source that I presented to him (while DIREKTOR himself either did not provided sources for his claims either sources that he recalled in fact spoke against his opinion). User:Fainites only tried to mediate dispute between me and DIREKTOR and I do not think that he was sided against DIREKTOR. For example, during renaming disputes, Fainites tried to find such name of the article that would be also acceptable for DIREKTOR. So, I would like to know what exactly would mean that "any contact between the involved parties" should be ceased? Is that mean that DIREKTOR would be free to edit article Serbia under German occupation as he wish and that no admin will be present there to evaluate his edits, his claims and, most importantly,his sources? I think that presence of an admin is very important there, and user:Fainites would be best for that job since he is familiar with the subject. Of course, presence and mediation of other admins there is welcomed too. I am tired of presenting sources on talk page to be welcomed by DIREKTOR's repeated posts in which he completely disregards any source or argument that I presented and only repeat same things from his previous post over and over like that I did not said anything. He also constantly reverting my edits there, including removal of POV tags that I added, and due to the fact that I do not want to be involved in constant revert warring, I was forced to let DIREKTOR to edit this article in accordance with his POV, no matter that his edits are to high degree unsupported by the sources. Other users that edited this article have simply abandoned the subject because they were unable to argue with DIREKTOR. I certainly doubt that one article should be written in accordance with POV of a single user who is more aggressive than others and who trying to impose his POV by all possible means. One more thing, somebody presented opinion that DIREKTOR's approach is "opposed to national approach to Balkans history". Due to the fact that he is from Croatia, I did not noticed that his approach opposed "national approach to Croatian history". Most of his POV disputes are related to Serbian history: Serbia under German occupation, Chetniks, Draža Mihajlović. All in all, presence and mediation of an admin is very needed when DIREKTOR's involvement related to these articles is in question. PANONIAN 06:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow Dash I don't want to be rude here but you don't seem to have understood anything that is going on. Fainites is an admin who is trying to prevent edit warring and talk page conflict on some of the Balkans articles. In order to do that he has banned DIREKTOR from editing those pages. He has done that under an arbitration committee ruling that states that any uninvolved admin can impose any sanction they see fit for editors of these articles. This ruling came about because the Balkans have been edit warred over for years by people with very strongly held opinions who's aim is to skew the articles to reflect their POV. DIREKTOR is arguing that Fainites had no right to ban him because he is not an uninvolved admin. He has brought the issue here so that other admins can assess the fairness of the ban and possibly overturn it. The discussions above centre on what "uninvolved" means exactly. Does expressing an opinion on a talk page make an admin "involved" even if that admin never edits the actual article?

Now as I see it there are several possible outcomes here:

1. We decide that Fainites was not right to impose the ban and lift it. Obviously this is what DIREKTOR wants. We could even sanction Fainites in some way such as banning Fainites from editing Balkans articles.
2. We decide that Fainites' was not right to impose the ban because he is involved in the articles, tell him not to do it again but decide that DIREKTOR was editing disruptively and that the ban needs to stay in place. Essentially what would happen is that Fainites ban would simply be replaced by some other, truly uninvolved admin here setting the ban instead.
3. We decide that Fainites is not involved in the articles and had every right to set the ban, and the ban needs to stay. This is what Fainites is arguing for by saying that discussing sources on a talk page does not make an admin involved.

Note that the issue here is essentially - what is appropriate for an admin to do in a situation like this. Is following an editor about stalking? Does expressing an opinion on a talk page count as involved? In short this is a bigger and more important issue than your proposed ban on contact could ever deal with. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 07:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by semi-involved NSU: (& apologies for TLDR that follows) I invite all the commenters to first read the Fainites's explanation for the ban Direktor's talk page, and then verify these assertions against e.g. Talk:Serbia under German occupation and Talk:Draža Mihailović before jumping in to conclusions. Also, check the Fainites's posts at User talk:DIREKTOR.

Throughout the last 6 months, Fainites has been acting as a mediator in these disputes, where DIREKTOR was the primary instigator. Every time Direktor crossed the line, Fainites politely and patiently explained to him where is the problem in his behavior. Every time Direktor made a repeating, bold and condescending assertion, Fainites just asked for sources. It is NOT, as DIREKTOR tries to present, "a neutral poor Direktor defending the truth against a bunch of POV-pushers"; (yes, that indeed was the situation that he faced often -- but not this time). He was systematically opposing, filibustering, complaining, and insulting several good-faith contributors who tried to improve the articles. No one of the involved in those debates, to my best knowledge, had a particular POV to push, or an axe to grind. There certainly was a difference on opinion, but Direktor cannot stand a difference in opinion. This is where the Direktor's attitude "my way or no way" showed up naked.

@Future Perfect: I'm familiar with WP:ARBMAC and your role there, and I know mostly what your involvement was. I know that there were, rightful, complaints against ARBCOM imposing your admin-topic-ban in the area. I assure you that, in this case, Fainites's role was similar, but even more restrained -- he has never displayed any POV in this area, and tried to arrange a consensus. But with Direktor, consensus is simply impossible.

I think that Direktor's heart is in the right place, and I consider him sort of acquaintance. I joked on his talk page several times [64]. But he simply cannot cooperate with others. We have witnessed his appearance at ANI about once a month in past years: and no, not all of it was just him defending Balkanic POV_pushing: it was just his self-applied role, which he played oh so well. But not this time: Fainites got into the heart of the matter, and I consider the sanction well-deserved and well thought out. To know Direktor's ways, you must spend some time in the debate with him. No, I don't think Fainites qualifies as an "involved" admin here. Even if he does, the end result is about right, in my opinion: when someone cannot edit according to WP:CIV and WP:CONSENSUS despite several attempts to make him correct his ways, he must be shown the door. No such user (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

...and, sure enough, his first edit to article space was in defiance of the topic ban. That just shows his inability to play by the rules. No such user (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sure enough" indeed. I did not notice it yet, Nsu, and read about for the first time on the article talkpage after I posted, and thanks for doing your best. I'm sure the fact that we were in disagreement on Talk:Serbia under German occupation had no effect on your appearance here, just as Nuujinn's posts have nothing to do with me being the one who opposes his proposals. Its hardly surprising that users like PANONIAN, Nsu, and Nuujinn who, alongside Fainites, are currently in disagreement with me on two talkpages, would support my getting out of their hair for good (with all my annoying sources and such). And this is something all these fine gentlemen neglected to point out.

I'm putting my faith on the good sense and impartiality of Wikipedians who might, if they wish, simply read through Fainites' posts on Talk:Serbia under German occupation or Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts to determine whether he is indeed involved in those current discussions up to his proverbial elbows, and whether he did in fact oppose my proposals in virtually every discussed issue that was up for discussion. As for him following me to every serious discussion I got involved in since I met him, that is just plain obvious, a brief glance at my history will suffice. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But you said above that you only edit Balkans related pages. It's not as if you were followed to a completely unrelated area of Wikipedia because you don't edit unrelated areas. Plus a number of people have stated that your editing style is problematic. It is perfectly reasonable and accepted practice for an admin to look over your contributions list given that people appear to be having trouble editing with you. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkans pages are certainly not so small an area of Wikipedia that I might bump into one user over and over again every time. And indeed, Fainites is the only user I've met on all the discussions I've been part of. I arrive, he soon arrives, and sure enough in time voices his opposition to whatever it may be I support. Its the same pattern every time. And if you review the pages I've mentioned above, you'll note that all these users, Fainites included, are currently engaged in active disputes with me and would certainly like nothing better than to make their lives easier by getting rid of the main "adversary" in one stroke. They are hardly objective judges of my character.

This is a typical attempt to win an argument, or at least make it "simpler", by banning the opponent in a content dispute. The only difference is that the opposing party this time includes an ARBMAC-empowered admin with a long-standing grudge and bias. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed tend to arrive on Balkans pages where there is edit warring or arguments getting out of control. (For example Ivo Andric link above, Serbs of Croatia talkpage about the infobox, Serbs of Bosnia and Herzogvina, infobox again, Croats, on Emir Kusturica ethnicity/nationality. A number of these discussions do not involve Direktor at all or only minimally and uncontroversially. Direktor tends to be involved in articles involving WWII, particularly the activites of the Chetniks and Tito. My first major activity was on Yugoslav Front where the battle was over putting the Chetniks in the Axis or Allies belligerents column and they sometimes ended up in both as a consequence of edit warring. I suggested a third column. This activity grew over time - partly as a consequence of various editors realising I was prepared to look at and take action in Balkans disputes. If you look at my talkpage you will see that a variety of editors, including Direktor, have asked for my assistance over particular issues and on particular pages. I also learned that if you stop an unproductive argument on one page, for example over whether to put a genocidal fascist into the infobox to represent a people, some editors will go and carry on essentially the same argument on another article talkpage.Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You were not invited to participate in the discussions I am referring to, certainly not by myself, and please don't attempt to imply that. Your sphere of interest on Balkans articles is more elegantly described as "articles where User:DIREKTOR has engaged in a discussion", and your activity there as "opposing User:DIREKTOR's position". Exceptions to the first "rule" are few and brief, and to the second - non-existent. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Butting in for a moment here...since when does ANY discussion on Wikipedia require an "invitation"? The very nature of Wikipedia is of collaboration, restricted only when editors demonstrate an inability to contribute constructively (e.g. vandalism, blatant promotional editing, WP:COI, and so on). While there are some areas and discussions most editors should (and do) approach only with great fear and trembling, I'm unaware of ANY areas, discussions or noticeboards on the en-wiki which are accessible only by invitation of others. I'd recommend discarding any notion to the contrary, unless I can be proven wrong in this. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note I am involved in this matter, but I believe that DIREKTOR's conception of collaboration with other editors is somewhat lacking, see [65] for one example. I think he means well, but in my experience he will only work with those with whom he agrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Alan the Roving Ambassador. Of course discussions do not require an invitation, certainly not, why would you even think I'm suggesting that? Fainites' post implied he entered the talkpage discussions and followed me around for six months on invitation by others, even myself. I merely pointed out that was not the case. The reason I posted this thread was that I have been followed to every discussion I got involved in, opposed on every single issue, hindered, threatened, and finally blocked for seven months by a user who has abused his administrator privileges and harbours an admitted animosity towards me. I am appealing to the community for a review of the situation.

@Nuujinn. Yes, you are very much involved. If I do get banned for good your version of the text will be entered into the article, concluding a month-long discussion and dispute in your favour. To that end, you are hard at work trying to find cherry-picked "shocking" quotations to make certain Fainites, who (openly) supports your version, does indeed get rid of me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's regrettable that behavioral issues sometimes conclusively determine the outcome of content disputes which are being worked on in good faith, but that does not invalidate our necessity to act upon the behavioral issues.

I have not seen a good refutation of the claims that there are valid behavioral issues underlying Fainites actions, nor good suport that he was in fact involved or acting in bad faith or to win a content dispute when he issued the ban. Perhaps the evidence exists, but what is being posted here is discussion, not diffs.

I understand your opinion that this is what happened, DIREKTOR. I believe that you believe so in good faith. But you need to provide actual evidence (diffs, etc) to convince uninvolved admins.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I dare say its often unclear whether behavioural issues cause content disputes, or disputes behavioural issues. Being harassed and frustrated by one and the same admin wherever you turn, for months on end, can have its impact on behaviour I assure you, particularly towards the user and the editors with whom he has found common ground in this. I shall do so to the best of my ability tomorrow (its almost midnight CET), its quite the project as you can imagine. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Direktor, I don't see evidence from you that you have been "harassed" by Fainites. His interventions seem to be entirely in keeping with an administrative role. On the other hand, I do see evidence from Fainites and several other editors that you have repeatedly expressed strong opinions and, when asked by other editors, have failed to provide sources to back up your claims. You have often carried on discussion long past the point where it is constructive or useful. There seems to be little doubt that you have been disruptive. Sunray (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Predicatbly, User:Sunray is another deeply involved editor, who opposes my position on Talk:Draža Mihailović, as I will explain below. What we're seeing here is a sort of "convention" of everyone who opposes me from two separate talkpages, lobbying for my ban. I can't stress that enough or too infrequently: as I said at the start, when five or six users congregate and start depicting someone as the "Antichrist", that looks like a very strong argument on its own that I may in fact be Satan himself.

Regarding your comment above, Sunray: @"Direktor, WP:INVOLVED refers to "current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics..." For this section of the policy to apply, Fainites would have to have been in a dispute with you. The diff you presented, above, simply shows Fainites expressing an opinion. The fact that his opinion may be different than yours doesn't make it a dispute."

These are word games, Sunray. Two users in active disagreement over edits on the talkpage are, by definition, in a dispute over content. How more "disputed" can you get? In every single disagreement Fainites "expressed an opinion" contrary to mine. You're simply referring to a dispute in different, euphemistic terms. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the long wait and for the size of the post, but here, as requested, is "Part I" of the detailed "treatise" on this issue. What I am saying on this thread is, firstly, that User:Fainites is currently involved, not in one, but in two discussions where he opposes my position in content disputes. And that he has abused WP:ARBMAC and his admin privileges, essentially to "make his life easier" by banning the main opposing party. And secondly, that since I met the man, I had not participated in a single noteworthy discussion where this admin did not follow me to and oppose whatever it may be I am suggesting.

• Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage. It is difficult to explain what Fainites is arguing for, or against, without going into the details of the content dispute, which is why I will be posting only the more obvious examples that do not require a detailed understanding of the complex disputes. Again, however, virtually his entire involvement there constitutes direct or indirect criticism of myself, and whatever position I may advocate in each the three main issues of the dispute.
  • [66]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [67], after having been arguing for days :).
  • Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [68], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
  • Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
  • The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

This is the short version of examples for the first dispute between Fainites and myself that he has so elegantly "resolved" just now.

• The second one is Talk:Draža Mihailović, a discussion that lasted for months now. I will see about finding time to read and post diffs for all the numerous disputes and individual issues where Fainites directly opposed and opposes my position there, while participating fully in the discussion, naturally like any other user. The current dispute on that talkpage is the one which I have already pointed to. On Talk:Draža Mihailović/ethnic conflict drafts you will find two proposals: "1st Proposal" by User:Nuujin (yes the very same Nuujinn lobbying to get me banned), which is supported by Sunray and Fainites; and the "2nd proposal", which is supported by User:PRODUCER and myself.

Now, with PRODUCER apparently on a summer wikibreak, the users who support the "1st Proposal" (Nuujinn, Fainites, Sunray), along with users who are opposed to my position on Talk:Serbia under German occupation (PANONIAN, No such user) have banned me by abusing WP:ARBMAC for POV-pushing, and are lobbying to make sure I stay gone for good - no doubt so they may enjoy their "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" in peace.

Whatever transgressions from a period of seven months my opponents in these discussions might've cherry-picked, de-contextualized and collected together here all in one place, it is not for any of them to decide whether or not I should be sanctioned, and how severely. To do so, if I'm not mistaken, is admin abuse. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

By no means do I mean to imply that anyone should particularly care, but if opponents from content disputes are indeed able to ban me for six months at will, and if I am, from now on, to be followed about and constantly singled-out by one hostile admin (who as a side note has about half (61%) my edits in Wikipedia articles), then its not so much that I don't want to contribute any longer in this excellent project - its that I can't anymore. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry involved

Here is possible sockpuppet of DIREKTOR. Looks that he used IP number to avoid block: [69] (note similarity with his last edit there). Can somebody perform a checkuser to confirm is this DIREKTOR or not? PANONIAN 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I opened an official checkuser request in relation to this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DIREKTOR PANONIAN 18:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think DIREKTOR is blocked, and I think that if it is DIREKTOR who made the edit, that it was a simple mistake and not any attempt to evade anything. I'm sure he'll comment one way or the other. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that and wanted to post something on the talkpage to point out it wasn't me, but I didn't want to break my ban by pointing out I did not break my ban. It isn't me. I don't even agree with the edit and would link to the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia redirect and not directly to the SFRY. Do a check if you like. ("Off the record", PANONIAN, you really can't have a flag that was instituted in early 1947 representing anything from 1944. Its anachronistic and misleading. As I said, the Serbian federal unit was called Federal State of Serbia, not PR Serbia or "Federal Serbia", and it had no flag as yet.)

For the record, this is the second time I've been baselessly accused of deliberately evading my ban. I had a look at the address. If I recognize it correctly - its from North America. The continents don't match (as Nuujinn must've guessed). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I see checkuser decided there was no socking by DIREKTOR. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Re "Involved"

I have posted here in a sandbox brief details of all Balkans articles edited in any by me, including how I came to arrive at the article and brief details of what I was doing there. In view of DIREKTORs allegations I have also indicated whether he was one of the editors there.Fainites ^barleyscribs 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My allegation is not that my edits and I are your only interest on Balkans articles, but that everywhere I have engaged in discussion for the past seven months, you have appeared as well - and in opposition. That clarified, please explain how exactly does this make you less involved in the two current content disputes with myself? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is really hard to beleave that DIREKTOR´s missinformation of the facts has driven this process into this situation. DIREKTOR has been an extremely problematic, uncivil and disruptive editor for long time now, and it is completely impossible for other editors to work and build consensus with him in a series of controversial articles he intentionally chooses to tendentiously edit. My first contact with him was at Draža Mihailović article where he, along with another editor, had been radically changing the article content for some time, and when I tried to restore and correct some of their edits I was inmeditelly reverted with agressive acusations of being a nationalist and a POV pusher (!?). I checked the article edit history and looked at the past discussions and I noteced that DIREKTOR has been acting in this one and other related articles totaly against WP:OWN and has menaged to remove other editors by several means including edit-warring, incredible nonsensical neverending discussions, phalse accusations towards his opponents of everything immaginable including uncknolledge, nationalism, POV agenda and several similar ones) and most of them had give up to challenging him. As I noteced all of that, I engaged an useless discussion with him that ended up with me asking for some external help in form of mediation request, something DIREKTOR opposed for month while continued to edit war and restore hs contoversial insulting version. Even when most other participants signed the mediation request, DIREKTOR still tried to avoid it for yet more months and only accepted to sign it when he had no other chance but to. In the meantime he has been heavily changing the content in all related articles including desruptive editing, POV pushing, edit-warring and intentional missinterpretation of sources, even against all evidence. A tipical behavior from DIREKTOR in discussions can be seen in the following exemples:

• Talk:Flag_of_Yugoslavia#The_flags_of_the_Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia_should_be_restored_to_the_article and Talk:Flag_of_Yugoslavia#Yugoslavia_flags_separation, where he shows incredible lack of civility and consensus building. If you all notece, he is doing his best to remove the monarchic period flags simply because the King at the time was Serbian (!?). Please spend some time and read all the following discussions until the last (2 more) because these are a great exemple of his behaviour.
• Talk:Ustaše#Invasion_of_SFR_Yugoslavia_in_1941_.28.3F.3F.3F.29 here you can see how despite disagreement of all editors, DIREKTOR against all evidence does the possible and impossible to just remove Kingdom of Yugoslavia from the article, and you can have a clearer view of the ammount of bias and tendentious editing of this user. At the end of this discussion you can also see me complaining towards User:Fainites softness towards DIREKTOR clear disruption, and Fainites by then had menaged to convince Fainites with his rethoric that he was a victim, similarly as he seems to be doing here towards some unfamilirised admins with this issues. By then DIREKTOR has been quite glad Fainites had involved himself, and other editors including myself had been poining out with time to Fainites that he has been being influenced by DIREKTOR´s constant victimization, something that soon Fainites started to see himself by disruptive behavior of DIREKTOR.

These two exemples are just minor accidents, but a good way for all of you to observe his behavior which is the same in much more complex issues, as well.

Resumingly, Fainites has offered himself as an admin to help numerous editors from these controverial articles to work out some solution. At beggining, DIREKTOR made an effort to influence him towards his side, and he even menaged a bit, however Fainites soon had the chance to see how editors from different points of view can work together, however DIREKTOR is/was a much difficult editor to work with. DIREKTOR is an editor who disruptively edits articles with a clear agenda and refuses all types of consensus building. When pressure is on him, he does his best to victimize himself and attacks with all possible ways everyone not accepting his version. This has been ongoing for too long now, and he has been blocked many times, however he has menaged to be forgiven in much more ocasions. In this mediation process, for exemple, we all had to work towards consensus, however he is the only one being inflexible despite all evindence against his position. This controversial area is already sensitive by nature, and having an editor who is disruptive, edit wars, intentionally missinterprets sources, and who is completely incapable of being civil in discussions, should really be considered disruptive. Fainites has been very helpfull by assisting numerous discussions and regarding DIREKTOR, his only mistake was not to take action earlier. FkpCascais (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

FkpCascais is something of my "arch-nemesis", as some of the good people here will remember from the constant reports and counter-reports. He and I have been engaged in one of the longest single disputes in Wikipedia history, lasting two years and counting (the Draža Mihailović mess). If I were gone tomorrow, his place is where the party would be. :) I think that's pretty much everyone now. I will stress again: these persons, yes, all six of them, are my opponents in bitter and long-lasting content disputes. They are by no means objective, neutral users. Anyone reading this thread should take their diffs for out-of-context, cherry-picked incidents from a long, LONG time ago, without the whoel story and fished out after a lot of work to make sure the disputes are over for good.

Users such as User:FkpCascais in particular, are good examples of what I'm talking about, and are the very last persons who should talk about civility. I need only post this ANI thread or this one to demonstrate, and a few of his cherry-picked quotes ("shit out your words", "imbecile", "simpleton", "terrorist", "abnormal", "very ill person", "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village..."). I imagine its only because he and I were in a content dispute, that he got away with these sort of PAs when I reported them.

User:FkpCascais, User:PANONIAN (who has an incredible history of violence and abuse towards me and others [70], so much so I cannot believe he's still around trying to slander users). These sort of massive "PLEASE BAN HIM!" posts, posted in the wrong place, are imo disruptive to the discussion. You're forcing me to go around digging for your dirt and posting it here to demonstrate how reciprocal these exchanges are, and to provide at least some context for your attempts at character assassination. Which is something I really don't care about right now and don't want to do. I asked Fainites a question above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, this history of my "violence and abuse" is in fact history of accusations against me that were not proven (and you can also see that these accusations were raised by some users who are blocked indefinitely). I was blocked only 2 times in 2006 and 2007 for 3rr violation and revert warring: [71]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [72] If you think that I am "conducting violence against you", you are free to open new thread about my behavior. PANONIAN 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I never said "PLEASE BAN HIM" - I only warned you on the article talk page that you might be banned one day because of your behavior and I am only presenting my opinion about this whole issue, but I never said directly that you should be baned (I only said that you might be banned, which is not same thing). PANONIAN 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting the thread. These exchanges are not productive. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes DIREKTOR, you can consider me your "arch-nemesis" because I am an enemy of all disruptive editors. Yes, those reports from 2 years ago are the best you have against me, but unfortunatelly they don´t say nothing about your behavior other that you drive other users to the edge, and I could make a long list of reports and incidents I made against you, but my point was just to deliver exemples of your behavior at discussions. FkpCascais (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Experiment

OK, I want to conduct one small experiment about DIREKTOR's behavior. One of the examples of his disruptive behavior is the fact that he simply repeating over and over that flag, coat of arms and anthem were not symbols of WW2 Serbia, but that they were "symbols of Serbian puppet government". He also repeated that here. Now, if any constructive user state something like that and if he is asked for sources, he would provide such sources, whether these sources are web addresses or published sources. When I asked DIREKTOR for sources for these claims he failed to provide them and instead he just repeated his unsourced statement for several times. Now, I am asking him here to say which sources are confirming his claim that these symbols were "symbols of the government"? I just want to see would he provide sources or he will continue to argue that these were not symbols of Serbia (or perhaps he will ignore my post). This would be good live example about disruptive behavior. I really do not understand why anybody would have problem to present his sources to other users. Sourcing of Wiki content is among basic rules of Wikipedia. PANONIAN 07:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that would help. There are plenty of sources that those were the symbols of the de facto government of Serbia during WWII. There's also plenty of sources that the Serbian resistance used a different set of symbols. The problem is - what accommodation do you come to when you have a period of externally controlled government in your history. Do you regard it as legitimate? Do you insist that the 'real' government continued elsewhere. The situation is analogous to that of the French, with the Vichy government operating in France, and the Free French 'government in exile' under de Gaulle elsewhere - which do you call the 'real' France? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I do not think that you understand the problem. I scaned images of flag and coat of arms from a published source which claim that these were "symbols of Serbia", and not "symbols of the government". Are your sources claiming that these symbols represented Serbia or government of Serbia? Nobody denying that government adopted and used these symbols, but disputed issue is what exactly these symbols represented - territory of Serbia that was governed by that government or government itself. Can you please post quotation from some of your sources so that we can examine what exactly these symbols represented according to these sources. PANONIAN 16:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As i am on vacation, only few word from mobile. I find this ban good and useful, and this request agains great and fantastic user Fainties only gaiming the system in order to awoid ban. Direktor was warned 10000 times, and admin just added noncontroversal punishment. good ban. P.s. i suppose that i am one more archenemy of Direktor, but in the end, it looks like we all are... All best. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Clever phrases, but nope: not all. Just the users I am currently in a content dispute with. I'm a very active user (as a matter of fact I have nearly double the article edits of User:Fainites) and I am engaged in more than a few hard, controversial Balkans issues that need to be solved if expansion and progress is to be made on those articles. The only reason we're seeing this "convention" here is that at this time I am engaged in more than one difficult "scuffle". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not the number of edits that count, but the quality of the edits that counts, Director. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, no argument there. I imagine if hypothetically the quality of my edits were about half that of Fainites', our contribution to the project would be comparable. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is besides the point however. As I said above, whatever transgressions from a period of more than seven months my opponents in these discussions might've cherry-picked, de-contextualized, and collected all in one place, it is regardless not for any of them to decide whether or not I should be sanctioned, or how severely. It is not right and fair that I should get banned for six months by opponents in a content dispute, who then gather 'round here on ANI trying to convince everyone their No.1 problem in pushing whatever edits they prefer was "most definitely" banned fairly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(mostly) uninvolved editor comment

FWIW, I had a few interactions with User:DIREKTOR around two years ago; I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the editor's views, but in my interaction with this editor, the commitment to WP:RS was exemplary in circumstances where outright historical falsification was on display by another editor. I note this because unfortunately the topic areas of the Balkans and Eastern Europe are over-populated by editors masquerading middle-grounding as WP:NPOV. I cannot comment on the claims against User:FkpCascais, but just would also note that I find a six month sanction against such a qualified editor totally out of proportion. And to place this on record, I'm here by accident (it's messy, but I sometimes like to see what the janitors get up to).--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there are no claims against me (?), as I only added a comment here, just as you did :) FkpCascais (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AE

There's little hope that this partisan bickering on ANI is going to result in anything but a clusterfuck. At least at WP:AE some truly involved admins might take a stab at it, even though they seem to be mostly absent or in vacation at the moment. (Why was this thread moved to the bottom of the page anyway? It clearly had enough exposure here for a full week.) FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Because that's where DIREKTOR restored it the last time he did so after it was archived. The prior two times he did so he put towards the top. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Thank you Nuujinn. I reverted the archiving by MiszaBot because it seems the matter is not yet fully addressed and/or resolved. (As a completely irrelevant side note, Nuujinn, our contributions to the project would hypothetically be comparable if the quality of your article edits on WIkipedia were four times that of mine. Of course, Fainites and I started here virtually on the same day, whereas your participation in our project is three years briefer than ours (from last year), so its really not that significant a statistic.)

@FuFoFuEd. Flooding a WP:ANI report with pointless bickering and meaningless comments is and has been a solid method of shutting it down, one that I pointed to on numerous occasions. Its a simple, standard method of posting sufficient amounts of text to alienate most people from getting involved. If you want a report ignored - just write a chapter's worth of text.

Thank you for your recommendation. Should I move the entire thread to WP:AE or a part of it? Or should I post a new report? I share your concern that posting once more all the bickering, i.e. the "character evaluations" by involved editors along with my rather naive (but seemingly necessary) retorts, might produce the same effect on WP:AE. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. What do you mean exactly by "Nuujinn, our contributions to the project would hypothetically be comparable if the quality of your article edits on WIkipedia were four times that of mine."? And why exactly do you bring that issue up here? I confess I am confused by your statement. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(I copied DIREKTOR's reply here from my talk page, since I think keeping the conversation in one place is better than spreading it out). --Nuujinn (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I shall explain then. I'm just a "bitter old editor" pointing out I've contributed to this project for a period three times longer than yourself, and have four times more edits on articles alone (and two times more than Fainites). Its really quality of editing that counts, not quantity. With that in mind, I pointed out that the quality of your edits should be four times that of mine to bring our contributions into comparison. I've also been invited to try for adminship, but refused as it would limit my freedom of action on the project. Of course, Fainites does not seem to be bothered at all by those same WP:INVOLVED limitations that dissuaded me for pursuing such goals, but seems to believe an attitude of superiority to the "common discussion participant" makes him uninvolved in the discussion. But I digress.

As I said (and you), its irrelevant, and in the wrong place even if it were relevant, but I cannot resist the notion that my dedication to the project might count for something with the community. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I still do not understand. If quality counts, why did you bring up numbers? Why bring up the comparison at all? I am sure your dedication to the project counts for something, but I do not think it makes the arguments you present any stronger, as those should and generally do stand on their own merits. And you said to FuFoFuEd that "Flooding a WP:ANI report with pointless bickering and meaningless comments is and has been a solid method of shutting it down". I have to ask, if you believe that, why then regularly post the vast amounts of text here? And I am completely baffled by your notion of how becoming an admin would limit your freedom of action, as admins edit articles pretty freely, or at least it seems so to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that DIREKTOR's main complaint here is appealing a ban as being applied by an admin WP:INVOLVED in the content dispute. I think that WP:AE or possibly ARBCOM itself is the only place where AE bans can be appealed anyway. The other request seems to be an WP:IBAN with the admin in question, and possibly with other users, but that's more iffy if both/all have legitimate prior interests in the topic area; I didn't check. Following AE bureaucracy, that seems like a separate request to make, if desirable. I'm done playing lawyer :-) FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding why this thread continues. It reads like an un-moderated discussion forum: No evidence; no diffs are presented, and editors go on with their opinions of the day. The bot has archived it twice. Direktor keeps bringing it back apparently in some vain hope that life signs will magically appear or that some brave admin will wave a wand over it and declare it "resolved." Reading the actual evidence that has been presented (many days ago now), there is abundant evidence that Fainites' actions were in keeping with an administrative role. Would someone please put this puppy out of its misery? Sunray (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I for one am not convinced. For example MacDonald describes two main forms of Croatian revisionist propaganda in this area. One emanating largely from the Croatian Diaspora which was overtly pro-Ustasa. The other which sought to play down the NDH and the support for it during WWII, portraying it as a reaction to Serbian genocidal aims. Tudjman tried to satisfy both. His regime was financially obligated to Diaspora Croats so he needed vindicate wartime Croatia and deny Ustasa atrocities. He also wanted to please Western Governments who were watching like hawks for revisionism. The solution to this lay in downplaying Croat support for the NDH whilst avoiding being seen as pro-Nazi. He made a number ofststaements designed to place Pavelic and Mihailovic on a parallel. Both sides of course were portraying themselves as victims of "holocausts" in WWII and of genocide in the 1990s. So there was a certainly a strand of revisionism that had an interest in portraying the Chetniks as as bad or worse than the Ustasa. Part-time collaborators are portrayed as being as bad as Nazi's and '....Cetnik unofficial collaboration was somehow worse than the than the official highly publicised Ustasa variety'.Fainites barleyscribs 11:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC) This seems a fairly in-depth content analysis by Fainites in the topic area, made prior to his passing of the August 5 ban on DIREKTOR. But I'm no admin, and my opinion is worth squat. WP:INVOLVED is also the most commonly broken policy by admins. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

WP is not a dictionary

Where is the correct place to ask for clarification on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? As I read this it is acceptable in an article on a title-word (word is the title of the article) where is a disputed meaning to insert footnote refs from reliable dictionaries, Oxford, etc. Or does Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary mean that dictionaries cannot be footnoted where the meaning of a word/title term is disputed? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is probably not the right place, but ANI very often is the right place anyway, haha. What is the antecedent of "it" in your second sentence? Later on you talk about citing from an encyclopedia--that's not what the policy is about. Its goal is to distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopedic entries, and to ensure we write about the latter, not the former. Questions about citations etc. should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Dictionaries are by WP convention "tertiary sources". In cases of technical terminology, general dictionaries are, frankly, poor sources. The WP convention is that an article should not primarily be concerned with definitions (that is, function as a dictionary instead of as an encyclopedia). In my experience, the use of general dictionaries is not a good idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. So if someone writes "XXX means YYY +dicref +dicref +dicref" someone adds three major dictionary sources behind a word to show that this is modern usage, that is OR and should be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not that it's OR--it's that it's not the kind of source we're really looking for. (And that's not the subject matter of WP:DICDEF anyway.) See WP:SECONDARY (I think that's the one you're looking for). But IMO a subject like Motherfucker (to take one that I know, nothing intended by it) can be sourced partly to the OED, which (if I remember correctly) points out that its first use is US, during World War I). But there should be a lot more to the article than just that one statement and the reference. Gotta run, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks. I took it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and was given helpful responses. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia articles should not be using these kinds of sources as WP:PRIMARY sources, and then drawing conclusions based on their usage - that is what the WP:NOR is. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Arnoutf edit log on Fethullah Gulen biography page

Resolved

 – sock go boing --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wiki-managers,

I have been working on Fethullah Gulen biography for about a month. I mainly modified the lede section by examining earlier versions of the article and added a few new information with references. Due to a content dispute, an editor Arnoutf filed a sockpuppet case against me and it had immediately approved by someone even without allowing me to respond as I was blocked. While trying to understand the case I had to read through the earlier discussion pages. I realized that Arnoutf did the same for many other editors and forced them quit. There are also very serious accusations from vandalism and page blanking to falsifying info sources and adding racist remarks against Arnoutf as listed by some editors far ago and the claims are justified using Arnoutf's own edits. Here the previous accusations are:

Arnoutf's edit log

Frankly his racial comments about Turks reminded me Brevik's manifest in Norway.

I listed a few more comments below I have been observing during my editing experience to the page so that someone can stop Arnoutf doing more harm to the page. I tried to avoid repeating the same arguments although I agree most of the points listed before.

• Arnoutf's is presenting content disputes as violation of Wikipedia rules and NPOV policy to have other editors blocked and quit. He is very successful in that which needs to be addressed by administrative body. He declares his version as the consensus version after pushing everybody away from the page 1.
• A striking evidence of his strong POV binding is the main dispute over the descriptive word: "philosopher" I have been using for Gulen. Although the statement is verified by reliable sources 1, and although he had to admit propriety of the word 1, 2, he still cannot stop himself removing that statement 1 without any discussion. He even change the whole article just because his POV is not shared with other editors solely on this issue as the other parts of the lede section are mostly agreed upon 1.
• It looks Arnoutf is already blocked Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) over edit war on this page but still violating 3RR as can be seen here: 1, 2, 3 using nonsense edit summaries. When he cannot continue to discuss using reasonable arguments, he starts an edit war using Wikirules as pretexts.
• During my edit period, the page was vandalized by some Gulen enemies differently from how Arnoutf has been doing; mainly by adding insulting statements. Although Arnoutf is very quick in reverting my edits, he has never, ever reverted any such vandalism in his edit history. This seems to be an indication of his motivation.
• It is important to see that rating of the page after my edits and organization at the end of the page was highest: it was above 4/5 in all aspects of the article with 23 participants. After his massive reverts and removal of tens of reliable, scientific sources, the rating is now about 2/5 in objectivity and about 2.5/5 overall ratings. This is a clear evidence that Arnoutf, his aggressive POV pushing and owning the article harm the article and reduce its quality.
• He also does not assume good faith attacks personally. In his last personal attack Arnoutf has added my personnel information (location) to the discussion page to justify his accusations.

Thank you for considering the case in advance. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, aren't you just off a block for being a sock of an indef'd user? Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed the anon is just off a sockblock. And indeed my one and only block on Wikipedia ever in over 5 yrs of editing was over an edit war on this page when the sockpuppet administration had a backlog of over 3 weeks (and an admin blocked all involved for 24 hr hours without looking into the case in detail). The sockpuppet was subsequently indeffed. And indeed user:Philscirel has in his previous incarnations exhibited accusatory behaviour against me (including calling me a racist) Arnoutf (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I have refiled a sockpuppetry case as the remarks here and remarks and behaviour on Fethullah Gulen are typical of Philscirel socks. see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The sockpuppetry case resulted in a 1 month block for the IP. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2011 Norway attacks

Could an admin take a look at the history of edits, particularly by User:Ønography, at 2011 Norway attacks?

I am univolved (the page is on my watchlist because I contributed to an AfD about a sub-article and have not edited there myself other than to remove the link to that sub-article when it was deleted); I have no opinion about the subject matter but it is clear that edit warring, and just possibly sock-puppetry, going on. There is a contentious paragraph about Muslim bystanders which is being repeatedly added and removed from there; it was initially placed by new user User:BustingInflatedEgos but since then has been repeatedly re-added by another new user Ønography:

• 20:12, 7 August 2011 add BustingInflatedEgos [73]
• 12:08, 8 August 2011 remove Cs32en [74]
• 12:21, 8 August 2011 add Ønography [75]
• 20:56, 8 August 2011 remove Mustihussain [76]
• 12:29, 9 August 2011 add BustingInflatedEgos [77]
• 18:38, 9 August 2011 remove Mustihussain [78]
• 14:37, 10 August 2011 add Ønography [79]
• 14:59, 10 August 2011 remove Ohnoitsjamie [80]
• 15:11, 10 August 2011 add Ønography [81]
• 16:14, 10 August 2011 remove Ohnoitsjamie [82]
• 12:32, 11 August 2011 add Ønography [83]
• 19:38, 11 August 2011 remove Mustihussain [84]
• 12:22, 12 August 2011 add Ønography [85]
• 14:28, 12 August 2011 remove Ohnoitsjamie [86]
• 11:02, 13 August 2011 add Ønography [87]
• 11:12, 13 August 2011 remove Keanu [88]
• 12:43, 13 August 2011 add Ønography [89]
• 12:46, 13 August 2011 remove AndyTheGrump [90]

Clearly Ønography is edit warring. The fact that Ønography and BustingInflatedEgos have both placed the same text, are both new users and have similar edit summaries leads me to think there may be some form of puppetry going on here as well.

There is a discussion going on at Talk:2011_Norway_attacks#Attacks_on_Muslims_section about this but Ønography has not joined in. I placed an edit warring warning on Ønography's talk page but they have not stopped - indeed their response there was dismissive - so I think admin intervention is required. Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for the moment, at least since you warned the user. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure? I warned the user at 12:49, 12 August 2011; they have re-added the text twice since then, most recently less than an hour before I raised the issue here. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Ønography on their talkpage would also seem to indicate some level of defiance on their part. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Muslim bystanders" has seemingly not been mentioned in the text or references. References need to be found to if the word "bystander" is to make its way into the text.--Ønography (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why it is a problem to mention that a few handful of hotheads transferred spit onto Muslim persons. (Even on the Norwegian page the word "spit"/"spytt" is not being used, only general categorization of behaviour, [91]). Do we want this to be an encyclopedia, or do we want a "Potemkin Village"-pedia — similar to the Norwegian article?--Ønography (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The place to make those points is on the article talk page, and I would encourage you to do that. With discussion, you may gain support for your position. At present, consensus seems to be very much against you and edit warring will only lead to sanctions against you. At this venue you are best advised to address the issues of edit warring and possible sock puppetry, rather than the article content itself. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Major IP rollback

As per this diff, User:77.49.154.248 has added a box listing "alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion" to a whole ton of articles (namely, every edit from 14:08 to 14:16 on 13 August 2011). That whole escapade was irrefutably proven to be a hoax, and was admitted to be so by the hoaxer, Pierre Plantard. Therefore, those individual aren't "alleged" anything. More so than that, we simply don't need "alleged" boxes on Wikipedia. Could someone clear the whole stack of edits? MSJapan (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. --John (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism

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

---

I filed this report on User:Roscelese at the Wikiquette noticeboard. As you can see, the discussion has quickly devolved into personal attacks. I won't point out all the straw men and baseless assertions contained there, but there is one particularly egregious one I will point out:

[92] "I don't see how it benefits the project to pretend that behavior like this represents a desire to build an encyclopedia (in each case, only one instance is presented, though in many cases the behavior has been repeated over and over long past the point of edit-warring): inserting antisemitic BLP violations of the "wealthy Jewish businessmen secretly undermining Christian values with their money" nature ([93])" -- Roscelese

I take exception to being accused of anti-Semitism. I would never have thought that a user as experienced as Roscelese would go that far over content disputes in a few articles. I wonder what evidence she has to back that up; is it my pro-Israel userbox? This is despicable. I won't stand for being slandered. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ros also accused me of having a paranoid "wealthy Jewish businessmen undermining Christian values" fantasy in this edit summary. User needs to learn to comment on content, rather than saying foul things about users. - Haymaker (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to condone some of Roscelese's comments, but are we now going to play out this gay/straight/Christian/Jewish/atheist/left/right melodrama in two forums?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51, you have a long history of edit warring on abortion- and American neo-conservative-related topics, using sockpuppets such as User:BS24, User:ProudAmerican93, User:ArchConservative93, User:BBT2005, User:AAces1 and User:Jos67. Your contributions on Wikipedia typify those of a political activist who uses Wikipedia as a battleground. If I were you, I would not file petty notices such as this one for fear of the big WP:BOOMERANG.

Specifically, I don't see the personal attack in Roscelese's response at WQA. What I see is a pointed list of non-neutral activist edits that you placed in articles. No wonder you are squirming. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I take exception to that, Binksternet. I also note that you have a bizarre idea that Assume Good Faith can be forgotten, and the user can therefore be attacked, if you are sure the user has no good faith. This effectively turns Assume Good Faith into "Assume good faith, unless the user has bad faith", which is moot. Everyone who assumes bad faith can say "but he did indeed have bad faith!" -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know anything about NY's history, but I don't see how the first point on Roscelese's list can be construed as anything but accusing him of antisemitism. I mean, come on, she uses the word "antisemitic". If she felt that NY's addition of the phrase about Soros and the source were POV, she could have just said: "inserting POV BLP violations" and left out the antisemitic and the "wealthy Jewish businessmen" phrase. In other words, part of her point was gratuitous and inflammatory. Just saying that NY has been whatever in the past doesn't justify it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I know nothing of NY's alleged past, but I strongly disagree with the logic "we can forget about civility when dealing with users we deem biased. If he brings a knife, we bring a gun". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just so it's clear, I'm not saying that WP:BOOMERANG never applies and that one has to assume good faith even in the face of bad faith. However, I don't think it applies here because it's not immediate or similar enough. Hypothetically, if I accuse someone of being antisemitic and then they accuse me of being anti-Christian, it would be hypocritical of me to report the other editor. However, as I understand it, what Binksternet is talking about is a more generalized history of political activism by NY. Even assuming it's true, I don't see how that history justifies Roscelese's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why is an editor with at least six confirmed socks who uses Wikipedia as a battleground still editing here? Can anyone give me an answer, before I block them indef? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  User talk:NYyankees51/Archive 1#January 2011 NYyankees51 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, there's actually more than six. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NYyankees51. But the question is why wasn't he blocked? I assume there was a reason at the time, and barring continuing socketpuppetry, should he be blocked now without an investigation?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No. It appears that NY51 was given something of a last chance in the diff given above. I am not going to block someone unless evidence is shown of continuing disruption; however having said that I would suggest to NY51 that staying out of some of the areas he/she is currently involved in might be a very good idea. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Shortly before opening this section, NY51 effectively outed (in the wikipedia sense!) Roscelese by linking to an external site on WP:WQA. That edit has now been rev-delled at her request. But the edit itself was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on track, a user has tarred at least two other editors with the ugly label of anti-semitism in stead of discussing content. - Haymaker (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. From the linked archive, he was punished already. This has nothing to do with what happened here. It is not because of something in the past that other users can declare open season on him. That would be outrageous. In fact, I think people are using this to intimidate NY never to complain again, even if he is attacked. This tatic makes a joke of Wikipedia's admin process. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. Equally, accusing editor X of anti-semitism when they introduce an edit saying "according to source Y...." isn't going to fly either. It's the same issue as NY51 above. Frankly, I wonder if just locking the article (in the Wrong Version of course) might be the best idea. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know or care what the users' motivations were in inserting the material. Accidents happen, and sometimes people pass on a rumor without realizing that it's biased. But antisemitic stereotypes are antisemitic stereotypes, and there is no benefit to anyone in pretending that adding these kinds of rumors to articles is acceptable or in defending them as only POV. NYyankees51 should be ashamed of himself for using his attempts to insert this material as justification for blocking me, and with his recent attempt to out my identity at WQA, an unpleasant pattern is starting to emerge. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Does anything need to be done here?

While moving images over to Commons, I ran across something odd - ToddC4176 (talk · contribs) and PrfktTear (talk · contribs) have userpages that essentially identical except for biographical details. Contribution histories have overlapped for years, though PrfktTear has a much more limited history. Suggests either an impostor or a sock. Should anything be done? Kelly ^hi! 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't the last two entries giving online identities confirm that these accounts are operated by the same person? Mathsci (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Those last two entries confirm they have the same user ID's on some other sites. However, they self identify as Todd C. and Chris L., so it's hard to tell what's up with that. If they both respond, maybe that will clarify things. A broader question for Kelly: Are they editing disruptively? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I've noticed but I haven't done any deep digging. I was more worried about the impostor thing than the sock thing. Kelly ^hi! 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ToddC4176 (talk · contribs); I have no idea where it came from but I have no affiliation with PrfktTear (talk · contribs). Kind of surprised, actually, that someone would just borrow my whole personal history solely for a Wiki profile, but either way, I'm the real one. ToddC4176 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear from PrfktTear, but since its last edit was January, I doubt that would be worth waiting for. I recommend the account be indef'd as an impostor, and its user page wiped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the PrfktTear account is compromised. It stopped editing in Nov 2009 when the userpage looked like this. On resuming editing in June 2010, practically its only action was to alter the userpage to what you see today. I have blocked indefinitely as a compromised account, and will blank the userpage as a forgery (or some kind of weird homage). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I am seeing this a lot more often. It seems like users get disenchanted with the project in one way or another, and then, years later, they come back, mostly with an extremely nihilistic and mostly negative point of view, to the point in which many of us would think the account would be compromised. –MuZemike 07:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

76.125.58.198

76.125.58.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP's contribution history consists almost entirely of edit warring, POV and vandalism. This IP received a 24 hour block on the 2nd August 2011 for edit warring on the American Revolutionary War article but immediately resumed the very same edit warring for which it had been blocked. This IP is intent on edit warring and vandalism. Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Take to WP:AIV? Atomician (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll report this IP on the WP:AIV page. Quite vivid blur (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring and assorted nonsense at Luke Evans (actor)

Resolved

Can someone please knock some heads together at Luke Evans (actor)? I think everyone involved with this needs to step away from it for awhile. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DeltaQuad protected with pp-dispute until 27 August 2011. Skier Dude (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Userspace forgery

4 (talk · contribs)

User:4/VVWDDHDAUÜDWEAKAAUDMDAEBSASADBNDSDS/Mitglieder has forged signatures, which I feel is in serious violation of the policy. The page should be speedy deleted ASAP. (User is retired, so is a block necessary?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor decides to come back for whatever reason, a block could be done just in case. I brought it to MfD because before he retired, the editor was an active Wikipedian. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the editor has been active and creating articles right up until the present (notwithstanding adding the 'retired' template in March). Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that a few seconds ago and that he said that he was retired months ago. Odd. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

They're indeed active. I say delete ASAP and block. This could be harmful to the project. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, guys. The German text says "Look, guys, this page is so long, you really expect me to translate it into German?" This is clearly intended as a joke - yes he very patiently wrote all the comments and forged all the signatures (except User:Diego Grez (go figure)), but an admin even moved the page in 2009 - with all the signatures - when the creator changed names. I've declined 10 pound hammer's speedy - it can go to Mfd--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • While it is true that it is a joke page, it was created to insult editors that he disagrees with. I also wonder what the editors that are mentioned would think about this just being a joke. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I also think that all user pages are automatically transferred to the new name when a username change occurs. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ten Pound Hammer - edit warring to put the speedy tag back on is probably not the smartest thing you've ever done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

... fairly common recently, unfortunately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I just saw this come up - where was that discussion? It was about edit-warring CSD tags back in so another admin would look at it, effectively admin-shopping, and/or the first step to wheel-warring. Why is the second admin coutnermanning the first? Have new circumstances arisen? If not, leave the original decision be. I'm not satisfied with the outcome here, even though I think it's long-term correct. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I had closed the MFD based on the speedy deletion, but Athaenara reversed course and reopened it (along with undeleting the page) per Franamax's objections, so the MFD is back on course. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this. It was basically a translation of the meta association http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Wikipedians_Who_Dislike_Making_Broad_Judgments_About_the_Worthiness_of_a_General_Category_of_Article,_and_Who_Are_in_Favor_of_the_Deletion_of_Some_Particularly_Bad_Articles,_but_That_Doesn%27t_Mean_They_Are_Deletionists&oldid=1814690 because the German translation wasn't yet linked, so I wasn't aware of its existence and created one. I went a bit overboard though, so thank you for deleting it, and I'd like to put this behind me. Sorry. Currently I use my userspace only for mathematical-scribbling purposes that won't harm anybody.--4 T C 07:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've learnt my lesson about this and won't do anything like that again. It was exceptionally poor judgement on my part to put in a translation of that page with all those comments. Sorry. --4 T C 07:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not have the intention of insulting anybody, was just translating the whole page. I didn't even know who they were. I sincerely apologise for what this has become, and request that all these pages be deleted as soon as possible and that I am not blocked for this. 4 T C 07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the translation was by Babelfish and was fully automated. I don't even speak German. --4 T C 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't block me, I've learnt my lesson. --Sincerely, 4 T C 07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Danneel Harris move

The article has been moved to Danneel Ackles (and the talk page to Talk:Danneel Ackless) without discussion, and after prior consensus to leave under original article name after a similar move. Could it be returned to it's original title, and move-protected to prevent this from reoccurring in the future without discussion? Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. Yes on both counts. I've left a note for the offending editor, Restya (talk · contribs) (with a link to ANI). Here's a problem, though: editor has been warned enough against moving this article, but since blocks aren't punitive and I've protected the article from being moved, what's the point of blocking? At the same time, I've looked at half their edits, and this editor has only one single interest, and is not interested in sticking to consensus. So there is a more drastic way to go about this, and it starts with the letters "indef". Drmies (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Note also that User:January has referred to Restya's moves as vandalism--see this, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Phanuruch8555 and his disruptive editing

Phanuruch8555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his disruptive editing

Reported by Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm seeking opinions on whether this user should be blocked for on going disruptive editing, or any other more lenient disciplinary action. As mentioned last month on the 3RR noticeboard, this user "seems quite proud of [edit warring] and has even made himself a flag boasting about it". [94] He also proudly displays a "I hate disambiguation" on his talk page,[95] and has acted upon it frequently.

To wit:

• This user edit warred on Sebastian Vettel and was subsequently reported on the aforementioned 3RR noticeboard archive discussion.
• In his "I hate disambiguation" campaign, he attempted to change the PF[96][97][98], ESC[99][100], and Georgia[101][102] pages, among others (and bluntly used "I hate disambiguation" in the edit summary of one of the Georgia edits[103]). These edits were reverted and he was subsequently warned.[104][105]
• In a dispute with the Eurovision redirect (whether it should point to Eurovision (network) or Eurovision Song Contest), we tried to explain our reasons for disagreeing both on his talk page[106] and on Talk:Eurovision. But he has continued to revert over claims that are not consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.[107][108]. And he also attempted cut-and-paste moves twice.[109][110] And then after he was warned[111], there was a third time in which he clearly entered a false edit summary[112] instead of a normal page move because it did not show up in Special:Log/move and it was not reflected in the page histories of both Eurovision and Eurovision (network).
• A checkuser confirmed that User:Markschmitz, a now-blocked user, used the same IP as Phanuruch8555.[113] Phanuruch8555 claimed that he was not Markschmitz, so the former's autoblock was lifted.[114] But now because of these disputes, I question whether it indeed was a sock.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. His immediate conflict is the dispute regarding the Eurovision issue, so any further reversions on his part should constitute as edit war blocking, yes? As per the guidelines, the 24-hour time limit for the 3RR can be extended indefinitely if a user continues to revert against consensus of previous discussions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the consensus is pretty clear on where the Eurovision redirect should point, I have protected it instead. I get the impression from reading the editor's talkpage that English is not their first language and they are a little confused about certain things that other editors are trying to explain to them. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also noticed that he edits on the Thai Wikipedia, among others. So it's probably better for the page protection than an outright block. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 is far more lenient than I would be. There are so many serious problems here that in my opinion there are far more than enough grounds for a block. Phanuruch8555 has not only edit warred numerous times, but has openly announced the intention of continuing edit warring, including the intention of gaming the system by such methods as waiting for 24 hours before making a fourth reversion. Phanuruch8555 has deliberately tried to conceal the nature of edits, including blatantly lying in edit summaries. They have also repeatedly shown total contempt for consensus, making it quite clear that they intend to push their own views no matter what anyone else thinks. As for the sockpuppet issue, it was I that gave Phanuruch8555 IP block exemption to avoid the autoblock, but I have now looked further into the matter, and I believe I was mistaken. Apart from the checkuser evidence, behavioural evidence strongly suggests to me that Phanuruch8555 and Markschmitz are indeed the same person. Almost all of Markschmitz's edits were to pages that Phanuruch8555 has edited, and it looks to me very much like a matter of creating a separate vandalism account in a sort of "good hand/bad hand" way (though I think "bad hand/extremely bad hand" would be a better description). Some of ystem by such methods as waiting for 24 hours before making a fourth reversion. Phanuruch8555's edits in the past amounted, in my opinion, to vandalism, and it looks as though they decided to segregate their vandalism into a separate account. As I have said, I think there is more than enough reason to block, but I will interested to see if anyone else has anything to say about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) is removing a great deal of "Jewish" categories from hundreds of articles about people. Partially because these are not sourced. Partially because he doesn't understand the finer intricacies of categorising on Wikipedia, and thinks there is double categorisation here.

Two experienced editors (myself included) have opened a section on his talkpage to discuss this subject with him. But he refuses to admit his misunderstanding and continues to remove categories. The discussion involved the mention of possible sanctions if he wouldn't stop his edits.

I propose a 24h block for this editor. Debresser (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, even when removing unsourced categories, when we are talking about literally hundreds of articles it would have been prudent to seek some advise or follow alternative courses of action. This is not something to undertake all of a sudden and singlehandedly, as I wrote him in another section on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as i recall from hanging around WP:CFD there has been a considerable amount of discussion about this in various locations. The discussion has had a number of components - one at least is that as 'Jewish' is not an ethnicity but a religion, categories of theCategory:Foo people of Jewish descent should be avoided. Another long running principle has n=been that there must be a source in the article to support the categorisation. If JPL is removing categories where there is no source in t he article, then that's following the rules, not breaking them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on Cfd is one thing. An unilateral spray of category removals is another. And is definitely not condoned. But you missed the issue. He is removing categories because of a misunderstanding of what is called a distinct subcategory (WP:DUPCAT), as two editors have told him on his talkpage, and he continues.

As to removing categories that are not sourced in the article, which is not the reason I posted here, still see first what I wrote on his talkpage that there are alternatives preferable to mass deletion of categories, imho. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mass categorizing of people where there is no element in the article to support the cats is undesirable and not condoned by policy, please re-read the first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT.

I have recently made these edits, [115], [116], and I do not expect to be reported at ANI for this as the articles contain no information pertaining to the faith of the first or the eventual Galician ancestry of the second. Oh, but here we're talking about "Jewish" categories aren't we, obviously anyone tampering with this must have an agenda, it would be unthinkable that they were simply applying Wikipedia policy unilaterally. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)