Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Unresolved

--Discussion moved to subpage, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/La_goutte_de_pluie - purely due to length. Not closed; ongoing.  Chzz  ►  23:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Note, depite moving it due to length, input is requested, esp, in La_goutte_de_pluie#Resolution. (OK, a few bolded words, has to be preferable to 500Kb of text?) Ty.  Chzz  ►  04:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged it unresolved and, to prevent its archiving, am signing this without timestamp. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) Thx  Chzz  ►  as in without timestamp Elen of the Roads (talk)

For whatever reason, it was archived [1], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week;  Chzz  ►  Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011

Aaand. it got archived again [2]. Anyone know how to prevent that happening?  Chzz  ►  08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Freeze on automated tagging suggested

• 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)

Response to Johnuniq and L.tak I suppose that there's something I' missing here (and I'm being honest, not sarcastic)--please show me the flaw in my reasoning:

• Link rot is a problem that affects to core content policies
• Link rot can and should be fixed in all instances
• Link rot cannot be fixed if it is not first identified
• Maintenance templates help editors to identify problems with articles

Adding maintenance templates isn't done simply because it can be done--there are all manner of far more pointless formatting edits that one could make--it identifies actual problems with articles that need to be addressed. Yes, there are a large volume of articles with this specific problem, but should we stop addressing problems whenever there are 100 such articles? 1,000? 1,000,000? If any article is poorly-sourced, orphaned, formatted improperly, contains unsourced claims about living persons, is written like an advertisement, etc. that issue needs to be resolved on the article in every instance. Maintenance templates and categories are a way of systematically resolving those issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is absolutely true; and I imagine some people take up the task to tag; and others to solve the problem. That is no problem (although we have a policy somewhere saying that tagging should be done if you don't feel confortable solving the problem itself; so the problem somehow be a bit substantial), no one is required to do something specific. In this specific case however, there seem to be 2 problems when addressing pages with only 1/2 bare reference:

• • the tag creates very much attention for a relatively small problem, which is given undue weight (content rot is a much stronger problem, but that's not the point ;-) ). I therefore would support smaller templates or different places (talk page) for this smaller issue
  • The application seems often to be not in the spirit of link rot. In the case of You Take My Heart Away (album), all info is available to recognize the link (author, title) and it is just a formatting issue, because the concern (from the tag) "so that the article remains verifiable in the future." is not the case at all. Then especially, I feel the tagging is aimed at a virtually non-existent problem (which can be solved just as easily) and seems to be done in quite a haste. L.tak (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support freeze of automated tools, Koav (though a fine editor) has simply tagged thousands of articles for linkrot because s/he can. Everyone is aware we have a massive issue with crap referencing however tagging articles as such is not particularly helpful... specifically when an article might contain over 90% formatted references. or worse still where an article contains just one unformatted reference. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support freeze as per the above. I see that another editor is now systematically reverting Koa's changes, or at least some of them. This is a consequnce of Koa taking the lazy way. If he actually fixed the problems instead of just tagging them and expecting someone else to fix them, this discussion wouldn't be here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You should know that in another circle it has been determined that referring to another editor as "lazy" is considered a personal attack. My76Strat (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't call him lazy. I said he took the lazy way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:Cleanup-link rot for WP:TFD; please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 15#Template:Cleanup-link rot; we might as well get that over with. –MuZemike 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Gee, that seems like a pretty pointy and unnecessary nomination. I don't see people here saying that the linkrot tag should be deleted, I see them saying that it should be put somewhere else, perhaps in a different form, and also saying that automated tagging is not necessarily a good thing. Where in this discussion are people suggesting the tag be deleted?. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Freeze per above discussion. A lot of these articles are being worked on. A "bare references" tag isn't necessary just because one reference doesn't meet MLA format. This isn't helpful and I would consider this POV-pushing. Why not take a few minutes and fix them yourself? I, for one, am tired of people pointing out THIS IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY XYZ!!! DELETE IT!!! KILL IT ON SIGHT!!! when a simple typo is the problem or they don't take the time to actually fix a simple problem. Using the template a few times is one thing, but 12,000 in 4 days? That's not vandalism, that's POV-pushing spam. Buffs (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Freeze per Baseball Bugs. I know that I fixed the articles on my watchlist that were tagged, and it didn't take long, or any particular expertise on the subject matter. If instead of mass-tagging articles, Koavf was fixing them, his edit total wouldn't go up as quickly, but he'd do a hell of a lot more to "protect core content policies" then he's doing with his current behavior. Tagging is essentially leaving a Post-it note on the refrigerator and hoping that your spouse or roommate will do the dishes instead of doing them yourself, it's a goad to other editors to fix something instead of fixing it yourself. As such it's only barely a positive thing, especially when you consider the defacement of the article by the tag. (The reader doesn't give a damn if there's a bare link - if the link is still working, it takes her where she wants to go.) It would be best if Koavf stopped on his own, but I do not believe that will happen, such is the self-righteousness of his attitude here, so the community will have to do it instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• I've asked Koavf, on his talkpage, given the emerging consensus here, to desist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• The above was a consensus-jumping request, and out of order. No such thing as "emerging consensus" until sufficient time has passed. Usually, what, 3 days (72 hours)? Less than one day (09:44 14 Aug - 02:58 15 Aug) 17 hours is ridiculously short. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine I have no interest in fighting about this anymore, especially with users who claim that I'm self-righteous. If someone wants to undo all of my edits and make it harder for other users to fix the problems on Wikipedia, I'm not going to stop him. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no requirement to stop at this time. I want to see Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup full, and this template is a way to achieve that. I do not want to be forced to navigate to the bottom of each article just to check for bare URLs. I do not give a damn about specific formatting of citations, but I do want the actual article title and date; both make recovering dead links easier. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuing

• Oppose Freeze - Koavf has been tagging sections, which was consensed as a suitable remedy. --Lexein (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Then they'll keep getting reverted. So you'd better get busy fixing them, as those banners are of no use whatsoever to the viewing public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Pay attention: placement in sections, or under References was consensed as viable. Threatening to , or actually reverting, a valid, on-policy tag without fixing the bare URL(s) goes against the WP:Five pillars - to build an encyclopedia, based on reliable sources which can be verified. Part of that is the use of publication name, article name, date, (page), author, which bare links lack. To actively hide bare links from the appropriate cleanup category mechanism is an act of bad faith, and is disruptive on the face of it. --Lexein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Freeze - While I tend to agree that the template should be placed in the references section, I think it is unnecessarily heavy handed to suggest the actions of Koavf are disruptive, counter productive, or which ever way one can express "they don't like it". I monitor the associated category, and "I like it". My76Strat (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you also fixing them? By the thousands? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• We do what we can. But removing valid, on-policy tags without expanding the tagged references, is purely disruptive. --Lexein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment IMO, most maintenance templates serve little purpose when left viewable to casual readers who just happen to Google in on a random subject, and are not specifically logged in for the purpose of editing. On the other hand, if someone is a registered wikipedian and logged in for the sole purpose of editing the project, there's really no reason why corrective issues shouldn't be brought to their immediate attention, in full view, at page-top, rather than hidden elsewhere or otherwise swept under the rug. Disabling the visibility of most tags to unregistered (or otherwise not logged in) users would completely toss the issue of defacing an article (or its perception) out the window. Though I don't have the link on hand, it is written somewhere in our wiki-documentation that maintenance tags are not a badge of shame, they simply serve the purpose of attracting attention from editors who may have a particular knack with resolving issues the template refers to. If we don't understand the issue, have difficulties dealing it, or simply lack the interest in dealing with it, it doesn't mean that we should remove or otherwise object to the tag simply because it we don't like the way it looks. If we don't want to format our references and external links with text, we don't have to... but leave the tag in place to be addressed by others who are more efficient in dealing with it. The {{cleanup-link rot}} tag, for example, serves absolutely no purpose to a first time reader who just happened to stumble in looking for information about a drug that has been recommended by their doctor, and should therefore remain hidden from their view. With that said, I personally see no problem with the template or Koavf's edits, in fact, this (and follow the more recent history) is a fine example of where Koavf's contributions went-off like clockwork... and I should add that I only discovered this article because it had been reporting an ambiguous link. The problem is not with Koavf, the template, or what we think of the template and edits of others... it's a small problem with the BIG MACHINE, and the fact that it continues to serve the same content to everyone, whether they are here with a user-name or an IP. If many of those tags magically disappeared once we logged out, most of the concerns discussed in this thread would pretty much be resolved. If we see the tags while logged in?... well that just comes with the territory.  -- WikHead (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion IMO. My76Strat (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support freeze Banner tags are ineffective because of banner blindness. If this activity is being done primarily to increase the tagger's edit count then this would be disruption contrary to WP:POINT. Warden (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So, the TFD was snowball kept. Does that mean we'll be here again to bitch and complain when some other sorry bloke decides to put the tag or a similar one to usage (which amounts to collectively acting like a dog chasing its own tail around) instead of being pragmatic for once and doing something about it? This is ridiculous. –MuZemike 16:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't the tag just be placed in the article's Reference section as it suggests in WP:BURL? If I wanted to cleanup some link rot, that seems the logical place to look and its points to the specific location of each reference within the article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On Reflinks

While the above section screams tl;dr, there is one hidden nugget of usefulness in it: Reflinks. Reflinks fixes linkrot automatically, with nice {{cite}}s and everything, and does so with one click of a bookmarklet. If Koavf seriously thinks that linkrot is such a scourge to the project, why isn't he simply being asked to use Reflinks instead? In the long run, maybe someone could code up support to have a bot that finds linkrot tags and runs Reflinks to fix them. This seems like a practical solution which avoids issuing sanctions, avoids disrupting good-faith cleanup work by dedicated editors and most of all extinguishes some of the fuel from yet another ANI ideology war. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this sounds like a perfectly sensible solution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know about that tool. (Might be helpful to link to it. :D User:Dispenser/Reflinks.) It seems like a remarkably useful tool. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. Some manual work will still be required. Given its name and purpose, User:Dispenser/Reflinks doesn't repair all cases of bare URLs, only those between <ref></ref> markup and within prose, as far as I can tell. It doesn't process external links or standalone links listed under References. I've been processing some instances at Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. --Lexein (talk) 14:23, 15 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:[3]

... 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.[4] 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 [5] I reverted the edit.[6] CD restored.[7] I reverted [8]; edit summary asked him to gain a consensus CD restored. [9]; edit summary spoke of "great truths" I reverted. [10]; 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. [11] CD gives a bizarre negative feedback turns into positive feedback at resonance explanation.[12] I revert [13] CD inserts "Absolute" negative resistance (his terminology) [14] 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[15] 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.[16] CD restored the tangent for TTL.[17] I reverted.[18] 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. [19] 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 [20] I stated his OR was inappropriate. [21] 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.[22] 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.[23]

Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.[24]

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)

A word on mentoring

Some here (a minority) have thought a topic ban extreme for a good faith editor. That is why I have also proposed the possibility of mentorship - to give CD a way out if he really wants it. Others (also a minority) have thought mentorship will achieve nothing with CD. However, it does no harm to offer it. CD must first find an acceptable mentor willing to take this on and to my mind the first thing any acceptable mentor is going to ask for is an acknowledgment that past behaviour is unacceptable and an undertaking to correct it. If CD is not willing to do this then he should not really be editing Wikipedia and the topic ban was justified. If he is willing he can be kept on a very should leash, at least at first - if I were mentoring him I would require quality sources for each and every edit for instance. SpinningSpark 15:12, 15 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)

I was absent for three days. I was in the country in a place where there was not internet (fortunately, there are still such beautiful places in my country:) I had time to consider the situation and to draw some conclusions. Please, give me an hour to become familiar with the discussions above and then I will suggest a settlement by compromise. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have finally read the discussions but now it is too late (2.5 hours after midnight) and I am too tired, too excited and too moved to comment them. Thank you for the attention. Sorry if I have wasted your time. You have helped me to regain my faith in Wikipedia. Three days ago I had the feeling I hated Wikipedia; now I love it again. Have I a day to compose a noteworthy comment? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. We'd like to hear your response. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 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)

Just to be clear, I did notify him of this thread when I first opened it, and he's been notified multiple times of discussions at WT:DYK. I did not think to notify him that I de-archived this discussion since that was more procedural, but thanks to Carcharoth for doing so. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since before I left him a note about this resurrected ANI thread. His response at WT:DYK shows that he rejects some of the claims made about his editing, but I think he needs to discuss on specific article talk pages the specific concerns raised. That is the only way to demonstrate that he understands the concerns raised, and whether he rejects them or accepts them and intends to (or has) changed his editing practices. I still think the root of the problem here is failure to adequately discuss the concerns raised. No-one can be forced to participate in an ANI discussion, but if reasonable concerns are raised on the talk pages of articles an editor has edited or created (or raised at the CCI), and they are notified on their talk page, I think they do have an obligation to respond. Someone may need to explain to Billy Hathorn how best to respond to the CCI - I'm not entirely clear what an editor at CCI is meant to do myself - are they meant to help with the clean-up, are they meant to contest taggings they disagree with, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, they'll help out with cleanup (rewriting content) and - in a perfect world - even proactively identify problems themselves. I can only recall one contributor who put real work into proactively identifying his own problems. There have been a couple who have worked on cleanup, and some of them have done a very good job of it. One of the problems with cleanup, though, is that (in my observation) it can be very challenging for contributors who have issues with writing content from scratch to begin with revising established problems. They seem to do better when starting fresh with a different article; when revising existing articles, they almost always seem to want to do it incrementally, unaware of the dangers of creating a clear derivative work.

I have been busy and am not much involved with this one, but I think that what's generally helpful in cases like this is to see that the contributor can write new content without the former problems. And to make very clear that after CCI we hit zero tolerance for future issues. As somebody who has launched a few CCIs of my own, my thought is that if we ask the community to put efforts into cleaning up a problem like this with a user and then permit them to keep doing it, we are abusing the community. :/ My personal practice on finding continuing issues with somebody who has been through CCI is to indef block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User dispute assistance request

Resolved

 – the reporter User:William Bradshaw was a block evading sockpuppet of User:Otto4711 and is now indefinitely blocked via checkuser

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 [25] at 21:31 on 11 August [26] at 23:42 on 11 August, another at 23:52 on 11 August, and what else? Seems that a complaint made at [27] 00:17 on 12 August at ANI followed by this complaint shows rapid-fire mode. [28] 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)

Postscript: William Bradshaw blocked as a sock.[29] Writegeist (talk) 23:13, 14 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.[30][31][32] I also asked the user to stop on their talk page.[33] They persisted.[34] 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[35], 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[36], 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)

drmies has a history of coming after me, and being senselessly combative. Not an independent assessment, as drmies admits.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 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, [37] some of his other hardline friends were. (And he was blocked for socking last year, [38] 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, [39] 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[40]? Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And this[41]? 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)

You're missing the point, in my opinion. As Drmies says below, this discussion should be focused. And, as you see below, I'm not advocating a Draconian solution. Are you implying personal attacks don't matter on talk pages of questionable notability? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 05:24, 15 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." He calls me ridiculous elsewhere. Why not block him for sarcasm and insults? (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...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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"[42] to another editor is OK after you'd been asked[43] to stop? Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

turns out I was vindicated by being proven absolutely correct in everything stated here - though I admit I could've stayed more cool, as it were...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 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. [44] 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)

ElizabethCB123 and at least 3 other socks and IP's have been blocked. User then evaded block with open IP one day later, which has also been blocked. Thanks for the support from other clear-eyed editors who saw the situation for what it was. I did get frustrated - I could have kept my cool better. Lesson learned - and hopefully not just by me.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you could have kept your cool better. But you were also alleging ElizabethCB123 was the subject of the article. And this recent reply to an edit of yours makes me doubt you've learned much. Jesanj (talk) 19:58, 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 [45]. 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 [46], 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 [47]. 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 [48] 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.
  • [49]. 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" [50], 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" [51], 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: [52] (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 [53], 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: [54]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [55] 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)

One of the main problems was the manipulation and selective interpretation of sources by DIREKTOR, so that was why there was a desperate need for some admin to help on the correct interpretation of sources and to figure out some neutral way to portray them in the articles. You can allways pick one comment of his where he is helping evryone to correctly interpret the sources, and that is not the same as being "involved" in disputes. See that I had many times disagreed with Fainites, however he is not indeed taking sides, but he does oppose when sources are manipulated, and his explanations and help were welcomed. In occasions when Fainites defended DIREKTOR´s view´s, DIREKTOR never complained, so he is the one acting as "or you do it as I (DIREKTOR) want, or otherwise I´ll accuse you all of everything I can." FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 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 AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD 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)

I would not support a block in this case. As per WP:BLOCK, blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The page in question was created two years ago, and other than auto-edits (caused by username changes, etc.), there were no edits made to that page since its creation. The user in question has indicated that he has learned his lesson, and that it was in poor judgement. Also, the user in question's behaviour since the page was created two years ago has been constructive. It seems to me that the only pupose of the block would be as a punitive measure over something that was done two years ago (which has not been repeated since). Singularity42 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The sky is falling!. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:52, 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". [56] He also proudly displays a "I hate disambiguation" on his talk page,[57] 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[58][59][60], ESC[61][62], and Georgia[63][64] pages, among others (and bluntly used "I hate disambiguation" in the edit summary of one of the Georgia edits[65]). These edits were reverted and he was subsequently warned.[66][67]
• 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[68] and on Talk:Eurovision. But he has continued to revert over claims that are not consistent with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.[69][70]. And he also attempted cut-and-paste moves twice.[71][72] And then after he was warned[73], there was a third time in which he clearly entered a false edit summary[74] 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.[75] Phanuruch8555 claimed that he was not Markschmitz, so the former's autoblock was lifted.[76] 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)

Given that his userpage on Thai Wikipedia contains two image which seems to be glorifying edit warring (which appears to be from the English Wikipedia), then I don't think being active on another project counts much for him in this incidence. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 15 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 declaring 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 other problems with his editing exist too. 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)

I have had a number of experiences with Phanuruch8555, and to be frank I would question whether he has the maturity to be a productive contributor of this project. I immediately reverted his cut and paste moves on Eurovision and Eurovision (network) yesterday given that such inappropriate moves need to be got on top of quickly, and he temporarily stopped after I left a message on his talk page. Personally I have difficulty maintaining an assumption of good faith in his latest attempt to move the pages, given that it should be obvious to him that a move that involves cutting and pasting is still a cut and paste move, and the edit summaries look too deceptive to be innocent. CT Cooper · talk 12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• A disruptive, uncommunicative editor. I'm with JBW on this. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to very interested in responding to the points raised on this page. On the issue of Markschmitz (talk · contribs), given that (s)he vandalised the same articles that Phanuruch8555 edited and Phanuruch8555 seems to be almost glorifying his/her edits [77], I agree that this incident is rather suspicious. CT Cooper · talk 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, that there are sufficient grounds for a block, and consensus seems to be in that direction. However, the user has had only mild warnings, unless I have missed some others in the talk page history, so I have given a final warning. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in these circumstances a final warning was justified. CT Cooper · talk 16:39, 15 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, [78], [79], 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)

Your sarcastic insinuation, that I would be on the watch against some anti-semitic editor, is completely unfounded. I discovered his edits on Isaac Asimov, who was Jewish, but who is on my watchlist as a science-fiction author. WP:DUBCAT does specify "Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often non-diffusing subcategories." Btw, I think you made another comment of this sort a few years ago. I clearly remember leaving some discussing with a distinct impression of profound dislike for you. I have definitely had it with you or anybody else seeing Jewish vigilantes everywhere. You are kindly requested to apologise for your bad-faith assumption in this regard.

An other reason why your comment is so stupid, is because I have stated clearly what is the reason for my post and what isn't, and you are the second person here to focus on what is not the issue. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, you can dial it down right there. You came on here asking for a block of an editor for following Wikipedia policy, and now you're having a go at the two who responded to you, and complaining on WT:AN that no-one will do what you want. JPL appears to have made it clear on your talkpage that he is removing cagtegorisation where there is no mention in the article. Categorisation follows the article - it doesn't precede it. Your suggestion that we should leave people categorised as Jewish (or anything else) without any mention in the article, let alone a supporting reference, is absurd. Show us some examples that are genuinely against the rules and you might get further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, to take your example of Isaac Asimov - the cats JPL was removing were superfluous. He wasn't removing all mention of Asimov being Jewish, just several cats that are all subcats of each other, where he only needs to be in one to appear in all of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Now this is where you're wrong. See WP:DUPCAT. Not to mention that "Jewish" and "of Jewish descent" are not the same. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to your rather hysterical reply above, I think a certain amount of editors are fed up with these discussions that rage continually on the BLPN and on the talk pages concerned as soon as "Jewish" enters into the picture and the refusal of a certain category of editors to read plain English or understand wikipedia policy. "Ethno-tagging" is the term used by one such editor to describe the continual and insistent efforts to label people despite a lack of pertinence to their careers and/or a lack of self-identification.

I am also glad that you "remember clearly" leaving a discussion in which I participated "a few years ago" with a profound dislike of me as I have only had an account since May 2010 and have only been editing in earnest since January 2011. So, as for bad faith assumptions and so on ... but I do not require or expect an apology, as your current behaviour (ANI, moaning about ANI at AN) is akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum for not getting his own way, IMHO. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If so I take back my words about remembering from a couple of years ago. It must have been somebody else with a signature very much like yours. I prefer not to delve in mud, so I won't try to find it. Perhaps it was you, just not a few years ago. Time flies.

But you will have to apologise to me. A bad faith assumption based on my being Jewish, that is what I'd consider a classic definition of antisemitism. What you are fed-up with, is no reason to assume bad faith in my case. So please, I'm waiting. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Perhaps it's my English. Perhaps it's you. I'll just explain it again. The issue is that Johnpacklambert is removing categories because of his incorrect understanding of WP:DUPCAT. As two editors have pointed out to him on his talkpage. The issue is not the removal of categories that have no mention in the text. Now, massive deletion of categories based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, and unwillingness to listen to experienced editors warning you about this on your talkpage, those are a good reason for a preemptive 24h block. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First, you said yourself that he was removing categories because they were not sourced, and on your talkpage he says he's not even doing that, he's removing categories where there isn't even a mention in the article, and you are begging him to leave them just in case they turn out to be true. Second, I think you may not be understanding how some of these categories are defined or chain up - I can see an explanation being given to you for the Asimov edits, but I'm not sure you understand them. Show us some diffs, and people might take more of a look. As it is, you've just made allegations with nothing to suport them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and just to add, as this discussion came up recently elsewhere. Category:Fooian people is for people who were born in Foo, Category:Booian people of Fooian descent is for people who were born in Boo, but their ancestors hailed from Foo. Asimov cannot be both a Belarusian Jew and and American person of Belarusian-Jewish descent, and he definitely shouldn't be in both American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent and American people of Russian-Jewish descent, because one is a subcat of the other, and you use the lowest category, not all of the things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about these two things. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a link to his contributions at the beginning of this post. He has about a hundred edits with editsummaries like "Already in subcat", or without editsummaries at all. Any of them will do. Just one example: [80]. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And then there was this one article where he said that being Jewish wasn't mentioned in the article, and it was. As posted on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You do understand that if it's already in the subcat, there's no need to also add it in the parent cat...don't you. Don't you? That if you add someone to Category:People from Toronto they also appear in Category:People from Canada. Is the sum total of your complaint one instance where he thought it wasn;t mentioned in the article but it was? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And you do get WP:DUPCAT don't you? Debresser (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do, now explain to me how that applies to American People of Belarusian-Jewish descent and American People of Russian-Jewish descent. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question. It doesn't. :) As I said above, the more specific of these two should stay, and the other should go. But it does apply e.g. to Category:American Jews and Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players. As John Pack Lambert asked me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't help it, but there seems to be a little COI, seeing this... Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because an editor acknowledges his religion or his political views doesn't mean he can't be neutral. What about the rest of us that have views but simply don't have userboxes about them? It's irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You should check the meaning of the term WP:Conflict of interest, Night of the Big Wind. An interest is if I had shares in a company, e.g. Or is this just you stalking me and trying to cast doubt upon my motives for preventing you from removing information from that euthanasia-related article? Note btw in that very same link to my userpage, that I am personally against euthanasia. That should show you that my intentions there are like my intentions here: to do the right thing, regardless of my personal convictions. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If you start talking about stalking and cast doubt upon my motives because of a completely unrelated subject to this discussion, it looks more at creating a smokescreen to hide something then a seriius discussion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, Night of the Big Wind, there is this. Neither shows a COI, just perfectly acceptable declarations of the user's religions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeing his broadside attack on Elen of the Roads I just get a creepy feeling that you may be wrong... Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Who attacked Elen of the Roads? See User_talk:Debresser#ANI. And your creepy feelings you better keep to yourself, imho. Or would you care to explain how it comes that you just "happen" to stumble on this discussion a few weeks after you were declared wrong on all three issues in that article because of my opposition? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, what do you say about that antisemitic post from Captain Screebo just a little higher up? I really think you - or anybody basically - should slap him on the fingers for that and force him to apologise. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the Wikipedia software to not permit anyone to use the word antisemitic given its incredible overuse. Screebo's post is not antisemitic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It is by no way an antisemitic remark. It does state that some people, including you, are overly sensitive on cases of ethnic or religious tagging or removals. And that is why I came up with COI: you are too close connected with the "jewish identity". Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• COI is where you have a financial or commercial interest, or it affects your academic or political reputation, or its a family member. Supporting the same team/party/G-d or whatever can make one prone to express a POV, but that's different, and only prohibited when writing articles. Debresser is coming across as over-anxious here - I'm waiting to hear whether JohnPackLambert has been actually changing categories outside obvious consensus, or whether he's just been doing a lot of edits in Jewish categories, made some mistakes, got Debresser worried, and the subsequent discussion went badly.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Another person who has joined Debreser in attackin me for editing these cats, Epeleche or someothing like that, actually suggested that since I graduated from Brigham Young University and not Yeshivah University I have no right to edit Jewish related cats at all. In the case of Jewish MLB players cat it clearly was in line as a subcat of Jewish American Sport People, this alignment was placed in April by somone else and I have never edited this cat. Just considering how many categories MLB people end up in it is hard to justify putting them in both, especially since they all play in the US and so for a certain definition of American are such. Anyway of the Jewish MLB players cat only maybe one person in that cat would not be described as American, and even him I did not read his article enough to figure out if he might qualify. A bigger point is that I came across one article that literally said "person x was a German-American psychologist". That one sentance was the total of the article (I do not remember the guys name), and yet he was in four Jewish categories. If they had said "Jewish German American psychologist" I would have left the cats. But no where did the article say Jewish. The articles I have edited it has not be a question of the material being "sourced". I don't even bother checking closely to see if there is a source on being Jewish, or if the source says the person is Jewish. I just check to see if the article calls the person or one of their parents Jewish, says something about a connection to Yiddish theatre, or in a parenthesis says of an actor they are Jewish in real life. I even let it go where all it says was they were a member of the board of the Boston Jewish Benevelent Association. I am not sure all these organizations with Jewish in their name have only Jews on their board. They might, so I allow such use of identification. However when the closest it comes in the article to saying they are Jewish is to say they have a Ph.D. from Brandes, that does not cut it. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Victor L. Ludlow have degrees from Brandeis, and netiehr of them are by any definition Jews. Actually there are several other examples of non-Jewish alumni of Brandeis. If it was Jewish Theological Seminary of American or Yeshivah University, it has a higher liekelihood of proving Jewishness, and I have accepted Jews with just a mention of attending Yeshivah of Flatbush, but Brandeis just does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Screebo's comment about overreaction when anything "Jewish" is involved seems to hold up. I have removed Category:Hispanic and Latino American judges from articles on people with last names like Gomez since there was no mention to them being either. My chief counter-example to attempt to assume by last name is Leander Perez. Several of these people were women who it was unclear whehther it was their married or maiden name, and with several of the last names for all we know their ancestors moved from the Azores to Fall River in 1870, and general people with Portuguese ancestors are not considered "Hispanic or Latino". The main point though is that people should not be classified by ethnicity not stated in the article. No one came back swining saying I was involved in some anti-Hispanic project, or the fact that I am an alumni of a university that does coursework in English and not Spanish makes me an unqualified editor. So I think Screebo is right that people react harshly with Jewish categories in ways that they do not react with other categories. I would also again point out that it is disingenous to say I was objecting to unsourced mention of Jewishness, I was objecting to mentioning of Judaism that had not occured at all in the article. This is an issue of not introducing information in categories that is missing from an article, not a question of what needs to be sourced or how the sources need to be presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is Johnpacklambert's misunderstanding of WP:DUPCAT. If he now understands it correctly, then this thread can be closed, as far as I am concerned. Note, I haven't seen his last edits yet.

As to Captain Screebo's antisemitic remark. What is not antisemitic about it? Ok, he didn't say "you are a filthy Jew". But that is not the only form of antisemitism. He made a bad faith assumption based on my religion/ethnicity. That is antisemitism. Anybody disagree with that? If not, what do you plan to do about it? Debresser (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the discussion here has convinced me that I am right on which cats should be subcats of others and Debresser is wrong. I see no reason to leave someone in a subcat and a parent cat unless the subcat has the "do not diffuse" notice on it. Debresser could have just put up that notice where he felt it belonged. But no, he decided he needed to bring this here. I am not sure why. However I have not seen anyone else agree with him that if X is a subcat of Y than things need to be in both cat X and Cat Y. Of course he has really not explained that issue very well. Anyway he started out by saying I was removing because things were not sourced, so he has clearly changed the issues over the discussion. What this adds up to in his last section is he wants to denounce people for trying to follow the rules on cat trees and failing to understand the exceptions, when he could just post the exceptions. As I have said before I did not make Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players a subcat of Category:Jewish American sportspeople. If he has an issue with that, which seems to now be his main issue, than he should file a complaint at the person who set the cat tree up that way, and not attack me for following the way the cat tree was set up. Beyond this, we have gone from him complaining about me removing the one mention of Jewishness in an article (which happened to be in a category) to him complaining because I reduced from 2 or 3 down to 1 the number of Jewish cats. However I was not removing people from all Jewish cats, and they were still even in the American Jews cat tree, people would just have to click on the subcats to find them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would encorage others to check out the rude response he made to my comment on the discussion board of Category:Jewish American sportspeople. There is nothing keeping him from posting the "do not diffuse" notice on the Jewish MLB players cat, as I suggested he should do in my talkpage. There is nothing that is keeping him from removing the Jewish American sportpeople as a parent category of Jewish MLB baseball players. He seems to just prefer to attack me than to fix what he claims are poor line ups. The guidelines clearly encorage posting the non-diffusion notice, and his failure to mock me for bringing up the issue is not indicative of assuming good faith or trying to be a friendly participant in the wiki. His basic assumption seems to be that everyone that someone deems to be Jewish for reasons that are not evident or explained to other editors should be in as many Jewish cats as an editor chooses to put them in and if another editor comes along and questions the unexplained inclusion of people in Jewish cats or the need to have them in three Jewish cats, each a child of the other, then they should be blocked. Well that does not add up to me. Categories need to be supported by mention in the article, and there is no reason to multiply cats an article is in. This is especially true of baseball players who tend to be in sufficiant as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think these two posts are a bit off-topic. In short: 1. If JPL disagrees with WP:DUPCAT he should take it up there, not here. 2. My response what that nowhere does WP:DUPCAT make the guideline contingent on having a warning template on the category page. If he feels like putting one up, he should go ahead. In any case JPL will have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, which is precisely what I told him on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, having looked at it, John Pack Lambert seems as in agreement with DUPCAT as you are. What he is saying is, without the template which DUPCAT recommends adding to non-diffusing categories, there is no way for an editor to tell that it is a non-diffusing category. So the answer is for you, who are concerned about non-diffusing categories, to add the template to the categories you are concerned about. Also, given that you started out saying that he was removing categories because there wasn't a source in the article and he should stop, I think most of the rest is addressing that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for showing us where we agree. That always makes discussion so much more pleasant. But please understand that WP:DUPCAT only recommends to add an indication in the form of a template to non-diffusing categories. It is not an obligation, and absence of such a template is not in itself an indication that a category is not non-diffusing. Especially since it seems to me that a great many non-diffusing categories have never been tagged. In other words, whether or not a category is non-diffusing, is a thing the editor should be alert to. And when alerted to that fact by two editors, he should stop his edits, not continue them. There is that too. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So how are we supposed to know the category is non-diffusing? Anyway, the examples given do not lead one to think that specific field of sports activity is non-diffusing from a category for all sports activity. How are we supposed to know which categories are diffusing and which ones are not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would also like to point out that I never asked Debresser about Jewish MLB players and American Jews on his talk page. I asked him about Jewish American sportspeople and American Jews, and he gave an answer that throughly confused me. Basically I asked him if it should or should not diffuse, and he never said yes or no. Netiehr he nor Epeefleche has explained anywhere how the Jewish MLB players works according to the non-diffusing rule. If we had Category:American Jewish baseball players I could see the MLB cat being non-diffusing, but from the broad category of sportspeople it does not really make sense to not diffuse a group that is in a specific sport. We always diffuse from a a general to a specific sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Attacks on me based on my alma mater/ for seeking to have categories align with policy

Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to post on CfDs statements like this "Snow keep. Per all of the above keeps. Curiously poor nomination, which appears to be part of the Brigham Young graduate's focus on deleting mentions of Jews, per his most recent activities. Clear keep -- not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)". How deleting the category "Jewish singers" is "deleting mentions of Jews" is beyond me. Categories only group things, the mention of things are in the articles themselves. So his logic is failed. His bringing up where I went to school is just off base. He previously made remarks on my talk page that add up to saying that people who did not go to Jewish schools have no right to edit Jewish-related categories. I find his insinuation against my alma mater uncalled for, and bordering on bigotry. He has never explained exactly what he thinks the full implications of my attending Brigham Young University are, but he speaks of it as if it is somehow a dirty little secret and I do not appreciate him doing so. His comments amount to a personal attack. Categories are not sacred and people who try to edit the category structure should not be treated as evil and sinister.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you start a whole new thread on this exact same issue, when there is a perfectly good one a few inches up there ^^^ already going strong, which you were already participating in? --Jayron32 05:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why a new thread? 1-The one above is a critique of my actions, this is a critique of Epeefleche's actions. 2- The discussion above has to do with edits to articles. This has to do with personnal attacks in CfDs. 3- The one is somewhat focused on Debresser's actions, Epeefleche is another individual, who violates rules in ways that Epeefleche never dreamed of. 4- Most importantly, in light of the personal attacks lobbed in the above discussion against Debresser putting this discussion there might obscure the fact that I had not personally attacked anyone, I had made a CfD nomination, which is not a violation of any wikipedia rules, and then had Epeefleche come on and attack my alma mater and act as if it is a source of evil. This has nothing to do with Jew related edits at all, and everything to do with bullying on wikipedia. This is an issue of people making personal attacks, the other is mainly focused on whether the fact that someone puts in a category should force other editors to accept it when there is no indication the category is right in the body of the text. That is an issue of wikipedia policy on categorization, this is an issue of someone engaging in uncalled for personal attacks, which may double as backhanded attempts to malign those things I am associated with. My views on what is overcat are not linked to my alma mater, and to imply they are is just plain out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Q: What's one consequence of having multiple wives? A: Having multiple mothers-in-law! (You can blame Jay Leno for that one.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you notified Epeefleche, something you're supposed to do when discussing somebody here? I noticed that you posted on his Talk page after starting this section, yet somehow forgot to mention it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

These two threads are about the same issues, so I've combined them together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Antisemitic remark going unpunished

I'd like to add to this that Captain Screebo (talk · contribs) made an antisemitic remark above, and so far no one has seen fit to call him to order.

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.

This was uncalled for sarcasm, involving the incorrect bad faith assumption, that my opposition to JPL's edits had anything to do with the fact that he was at the time centered on "Jewish" categories, and the fact that I am (by religion and ethnicity) Jewish.

In fact, anybody following my edits of and around that time will see clearly that my first opposition was based on WP:DUPCAT. Later is also asked him why he is removing "Jewish" categories, but I never even made a point out of that, understanding very well that the issue was JPL's misunderstanding of WP:DUPCAT. Please note that I have not ever mentioned JPL's religion or alma mater anywhere, as he hasn't mine. In this regard we understand each other completely.

But Captain Screebo's remark was over the borderline, whether from a WP:NPA point of view (See Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F which mentions: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic,etc.) and a WP:AGF point of view. And I would like to see this fact recognised and duly sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to step back a bit, and look at this a little more dispassionately: Captain Screebo seems to be commenting on the tendency of accusations of antisemitism to be bandied around, with little evidence actually being presented, but instead 'bad faith' being assumed. If this results in 'sarcasm', what do you expect? And do you really think that objecting to being labelled an antisemite is evidence of antisemitism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The answer to the latter question is obviously "no". And please, telling me to step back is also insulting. I am not a person prone to whims, spells of ire etc.

Captain Screebo's comment was in any case a bad faith assumption and his sarcasm a personal attack. And if he was just commenting on a tendency he might have perceived, as you are willing to assume, then he surely must have realised that his comment would be like oil on the fire. So a strong reprimand is in order whatever way you look at it. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do not see any anti-semitic attack in Captain Screebo's comment. It looks more that you are overly itchy and have a bad faith assumption. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have asked a veteran admin whom I greatly respect to give his assessment of Captain Screebo's commentary, and he agrees with you. I shall therefore assume that I must have read meanings into his comment that weren't there, even though I still perceive things otherwise. I let go of this issue at this time. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Threatening edit summary

Resolved

 – User blocked by Salvio. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary contains an explicit threat of violence. I have emailed the appropriate Wikipedia mailing list as well. My76Strat (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User blocked (by me) and edit summary revdeleted (by Ironholds). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:24.56.43.213's Talk page

I have just stumbled across User:24.56.43.213's Talk page where it appears to be being spammed with lists. Could someone take a look and see what you think. I can't see why you would want to spam it but hay - vandals. It appears to be done by multiple users and must be flooding the database by increasing the page size. Would there be a way of removing these or could/should we archive the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoodyWerm (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have cleared out the usertalk page and replaced it with {{OW}}. The most recent edits and warnings to that page were over two years old; there's no impending need to preserve all that mess anyways. --Jayron32 18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Wow that was faster than I could write the notification. Apologies for not signing last. WoodyWerm (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. In the future, you don't need to report really old IP warnings, or pointless text like this, to admins. You can feel free to clear this out and replace it with an appropriate template like {{OW}} or {{Older}} or {{Old IP warnings top}}. --Jayron32 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this can be denied right away

Resolved

 – Not an issue for admins at AN/I, those at ReqForPerm will evaluate. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback, I think that Katarighe's request can be denied right away and may need his editing looked into. I assumed good faith until I noticed that User:Katarighe/Awards are awards given to himself and looked at the editor's talk page. His reason for rollback is an almost complete version of mine. Joe Chill (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin may need to watch how this is handled because according the editor's user page if it is correct, the member was born in 1995. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joe, the gang who reviews requests for rollback are pretty thorough, so I suspect they'll see your note there and act accordingly. Perhaps this thread can be deemed "closed, being handled on RfP/Rollback"? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right about them being thorough, but I just thought that I could get some extra eyes on it. I had the best of intentions, but you are correct in your reasoning, so this can be closed. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's rude to not notify a user who is the subject of a discussion. User notified. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism" above (closed)

The forum shopping by the NYyankee—Jorge Peixito—Haymaker—Lionel nexus to make trouble for Roscelese has gone too far.[81][82] [83] This is harassment. Compare also this comment by Roscelese from a few days ago. I will block the next person who moves these baseless complaints to yet another board, or otherwise pesters Roscelese, unless there's a consensus against it by uninvolved users here. Feel free to comment below. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

You speak of four user as a "nexus", as if the four were a conspiracy. Any evidence for that? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A variety of editors have complained that a user who has been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks is edit warring and committing personal attacks. At some point doesn't occam's razor come in here? - Haymaker (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A variety, is it? More like an echo chamber of editors. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

If that's how you're going to choose to look at this there is nothing I can do to dissuade you. - Haymaker (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

If your complaints against Roscelese resulted in the turning of uninvolved editors against her or in some administrative action against her, then your "occam's razor" explanation (i.e., Roscelese is the troublemaker) might be persuasive. But in the end they were all found to be petty, frivolous, and unactionable complaints designed to drive a user off this website. Quigley (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy user references for those interested:

• Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mis-attributed above to non-existant)
• JorgePeixoto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (no space)
• Haymaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (fixed username... Lionelt seems to use "Lionel" in his signature line (sans "t") ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating very good common sense, Bishonen. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say that Haymaker's recent 3RR complaint against Roscolese [84] is so palpably absurd as to qualify for a block for disruptive behavior on its own. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, but I'm always reluctant to block without some form of warning. Now Haymaker and the others know they're in the danger zone, and will hopefully desist from further badgering. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Excuse me, I'm the one who asked that the Wikiquette and ANI threads be closed at User talk:NYyankees51#Editing priviliege. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On your talkpage, yes.. not really a power place for such requests. You're also the one who started both threads. But I'm very glad to hear you now think that was a poor idea (and, presumably, not one you'll repeat). Bishonen | talk 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

I reserve the right to report if the user makes any more slanderous accusations. For the sake of everyone involved, I dropped the last one. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. Objecting to "slander" is not what I meant by pestering. Petty complaining over several fora is what I had in mind. (OT PS: why is the section editing all screwed up?) Bishonen | talk 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC).

Corollary: I am not in the involved users list, but as I heard a similar complaint, I have to mention that Roscelese some days/weeks ago also referred to my arguments and language to be "idiotic". And an uninvolved admin also found it definitely uncivil[85]. Or incivility has absolutely no relevance here or you have realized that I am not more idiotic than anybody else. Perhaps none of the both options given to choice. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Things are going backwards here. This is profound injustice. One user hurls at us "idiotic", "nonsense", "stupid", "n00b", "antisemitic", and we are threatened with punishment? By Jesus! If you had the time to look at all those diffs and talk pages you would see the real situation. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from Atanu das biswas (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User blocked by 5 albert square. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:JohnCD#Naadu Das Biswas. I will explain to this user why his autobiographical articles have been deleted, but someone else had better do the block. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind - user already indef-blocked as VOA by 5 albert square. I have put a note about the threat on his on talk page in case of an unblock request. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the user. I had already blocked them for vandalism but I've changed the block settings to a legal action block.--5 albert square (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Blackgaia02

Blackgaia02 is acting like a spoiled, uncivilized child, harassing editors on Talk:List_of_My_Little_Pony_characters and even having the nerve to request that I submit it a deletion process. I have zero tolerance for nonsense such as this. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for a week, which should help Blackgaia02 calm down. Given that the editors she is 'harrassing' are IP editors making vandal edits, are you saying that the edits are not in fact vandalism. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image issue

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – Wikipedia:Non-free content review would be more appropriate as no admin action seems warranted at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to bring this up, but as it only concerns myself and another editor at this stage, I believe that this is the proper venue for the time being.

SchuminWeb and I have been disagreeing over the inclusion of fair use images on a series of pages that are lists of fictional characters within Power Rangers; full list below

SchuminWeb has, over the weekend, continually orphaned the images from these articles, as well as off of other pages that they may or may not have been used on, and tagged them for deletion through the orphaning as well as adding one image to FFD from the last article on the list. I disagree with his assessment that the image on each article is only decorative, because it is a long standing practice that singular images of fictional characters are fine so long as they have the proper fair use rationale. He claims that because the article lacks "sourced critical commentary" on the image itself, then the images are decorative. His much stricter interpretation of the non-free content criteria clearly does not match with the actual practice on the project, because this would mean that any TV title card, any movie poster, any book cover, or any album cover that is not critically discussed by someone and then that commentary included on Wikipedia should be removed from the articles they are featured on and summarily deleted after they have been orphaned.

What should be the proper practice here?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to open a request for comment on these images, in order to stimulate further discussion on the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never actually opened up an RFC, nor do I think it's possible or helpful to make one for 8 pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to pursue dispute resolution, so your posting here? What administrative action do you think would be appropriate? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know where to bring it because WP:NFCR doesn't seem like the right venue (also it has low turnover which would not be helpful if the images are orphaned) and I don't think this is necessarily something for WP:DR to cover at this stage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It may actually be a sound idea to remove Ryulong's rollbacker access, at least temporarily. Ryulong has used the rollback feature repeatedly during this content dispute. First instances were here and here, after which Ryulong was warned about this behavior and its consequences, which he subsequently acknowledged in an edit summary. However, Ryulong has continued to use rollback in more than one instance in situations where it is not permitted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:RickK2

Already indefinitely blocked. Nothing else to discuss here. –MuZemike 01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be RickK (talk · contribs) has created a new account at RickK2 (talk · contribs), but another person has posted on the en-wiki mailing list saying that they are RickK, and the new person is an imposter. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Philippe's blocked the new account. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You beat me. :) Yes, I blocked it. I confirmed the email addresses against archives and matched the syntax to my satisfaction. The user is welcome to write me and make his case, but I didn't want to take a chance on user impersonation being allowed on wiki. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) RickK's account was hijacked, so we do need to be sure that his (old) email account wasn't hijacked as well. Count Iblis (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, if RickK2 is impersonating RickK, should there be some attention paid to 71.131.14.150 (talk · contribs), the IP RickK2 was editing under. I'm out of my element (and, frankly, any interest) here, but if 71.131.14.150 is actively impersonating Wikipedia Editors of Note whilst participating in an active Arbcom case, that's awfully fishy... — Scientizzle 02:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Attention is being paid. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:DeusImperator's personal attack and legal threats

User:DeusImperator has legally threatened me on my talk page. see User_talk:Sehmeet_singh Commenting on pages section. deusimperator has also been blocked by administrators for his personal attacks on [[86]]. Sehmeet singh  Talk  03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
his comments on [87] also personal attacks towards me Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like user is vanishing. Atomician (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing/retiring or not, the contents of the edit to Semheet singh's talkpage are enterely inappropriate as ethnically-based WP:NPA. I have blocked for 60hrs. There is no violation of WP:NLT as it was a poorly-phrased warning regarding copyright. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos and eugenics

User:ClaudioSantos was blocked one week for edit warring on Planned Parenthood stemming from his disagreement with the lack of pointing out his viewpoint that PPs founder was connected with eugenics (talk page discussion here and here). Now that the block has expired, and despite clear consensus being reached, similar behavior has been resumed on Eugenics in the United States. If this could be examined further, I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me a close call as to whether WP:RESTRICT#ClaudioSantos applies here. Damn, the link doesn't quite work. Go to WP:RESTRICT and look him up. PhGustaf (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a thread about the his editing restrictions and whether or not they apply to Planned Parenthood and eugenics, and I think it was generally agreed upon that they weren't sufficiently connected. here Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

After I was unblocked I have edited only 1 time at Planned Parenthood. Not even 1 sole revert. Is this a futil report abusing the ANI? Should it be noticed the fact that although Falcon was not blocked, he certainly did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood during the same 24 hours for I got the block precisely for breaking the same 1RR rule? Is the ANI a place to extend or to start an edit war? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about you, not Falcon. And it's not about edit warring on AN/I. But I do note that your behavior on eugenics topics is much like that that got you banned from euthanasia topics. PhGustaf (talk)

Anybody could face misperceptions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this is abuse of ANI. ClaudioSantos has shown a thorough disregard for the spirit of cooperation and consensus that wikipedia is based upon. Despite all the help that others have offered him in the form of advice, warnings, compromises, he continues the same tendentious editing behavior. I'm not sure what my opinion is worth here but I recommend extending the topic ban temporarily to cover Eugenics, I think it would save everyone some trouble. I have to assume good faith so I'll just say that I've found his edits since coming back from the block quite disruptive. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of ClaudioSantos's euthanasia topic ban, certainly Planned Parenthood is unrelated, but Eugenics in the United States actually has a short section on Euthanasia programs. Maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask ClaudioSantos to at least stop editing Eugenics in the United States based on his current euthanasia topic ban? I have found his edits there to be unhelpful. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not editing on that article nothing related to euthanasia, not even the specific section dealing with euthanasia. Of course here came all those involved editors in contents dispute with me, like metal.lunxhbox who also was not blocked but also did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood. Is it here a valid way to deal with content disputes, attempting to force a ban against editors?. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi and Palestinian edits

Chesdovi (talk · contribs) is back, calling rabbis by the name "Palestinian". He has started again with a massive addition of this controversial epithet to the articles of many rabbis. In the recent past his edits in this field have met with extremely heavy protests, on his talkpage, the Rfc on Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, and the following Cfd. For this reason all his categories with "Palestinian rabbis" were deleted. Note that this author is currently blocked per WP:ARBPIA fromediting all pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is already notorious for his controversial edits, which have in the past brought him to WP:ANI more than once. Note also that Palestinian rabbi is still at Afd. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

second thread merged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser has removed “Palestine” under an unusual pretence: [88]. Please fix as I do not want to get dragged in to this again. Chesdovi (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps merge this with the section above...? Debresser (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I being reported on WP:ANI for 1 edit??? In addition, is there something in my explaining editsummary Chesdovi disagrees with? History has no POV, and my edit reflects historical facts.Debresser (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I will not retort by calling your edits ridiculous, but your edit that supposedly “reflects historical facts” has left a populous and significant city in no region or county. Forget about facts, that is vandalism. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? There was no country added to Gaza in this article until you added it today, and nobody felt the worse for it for over 5 years! Please, be realistic when using terms like "vandalism". Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser thinks articles are in a perfect state and no is allowed to edit them, especially if edits do not agree with his sentiment. Debresser has no rationale to remove Palestine. This seems obvious. In the past, he himself said that if no other editor took it up, he would agree to it. Now look at what he is doing. Forget about reneging on his word, he is vandalising pages. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering topic-banning the both of you. This has gone on for far too long, and neither of you is playing a constructive role in this affair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support That they are shooting at each other over there (=the territory before WW2 known as Palestina) is bad enough, I don't want that war over here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind, we are not shooting at each other. Chesdovi is Jewish also, if I am correct. :) Debresser (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is would you would shoot a Palestinian rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Fut, what am I suppose to do? I bring it here precisly beacuse I do not want to be banned! Chesdovi (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would I be topic-banned? Chesdovi is the one creating 7-8 "Palestinian" categories (all deleted per Cfd), creating articles like "Palestinian rabbis" (now at Afd), and adding the term "Palestinian rabbis" to articles. Clearly he is trying to push his POV on a consensus status which does not agree with him. I am doing something very contructive, forcing him to abide by consensus. Now him I'd be happy to see banned for his disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You dont "force" on wiki, you discuss. You should heave learnt that by now. If Deberser does not like my edits he should discuss first, not revert then discuss. Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concered, I will not edit is this area until the Afd closes. If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages. Chesdovi (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

<reply to previous post, editconflict> And WP:BRD? I remember discussing with you. In the mean time you continued with your edits on other pages. Sorry, but the only way to deal with you is take you to WP:ANI right away, or have you banned. In view of your history, here and elsewhere, the latter seems the correct course of action to me. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRNC. This is different. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please, I do not revert for the sake of reverting. There is a consensus against your edits. Haven't you noticed that yet? Debresser (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On what do you base this consensus? Half, if not more people agreed at the Rfc and Cfd that the term is valid. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I quote from the closing comment

I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces

QED. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That is why I intend to go to DRV in due course. Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins, please notice Chesdovi's reply just now "If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages." He is clearly not willing to abide by WP:BRD, or consensus. No articles used the term "Palestinian rabbi" prior to Chesdovi's edits. Because nobody considers them such. Chesdovi just now stated that he will continue pushing his tendentious editing against consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the article stays, it shows that the term has the consensus needed. Please note that Debrseer's assertion that no articles had used the term before my addtion is false. Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not show that you can call other people that. Just because we have an article homosexuals does not mean you can call people that. :) Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What it does mean is that if we have an article on a Polish Pope we can like it to Polish Popes. I will repeat that the term was used in numerous articles before I added it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For the both of you: "where two are fighting, have two guilt." (waar twee vechten, hebben twee schuld). Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

NotBW: What is going to happen to Palestine at Israel ben Moses Najara? Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nightof the Big Wind. You can't sell generalities here. Nor could you sell them to Dutch marines of Rotterdam, trying to defend their country against Nazi invasion in 1940. I am clearly trying to defend Wikipedia against the massive onslaughts in several namespaces of an editor with such huge POV problems that he is already banned per WP:ARBPIA and his edits are heavily protested as soon as he shows up. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, there is the smokescreen again! Another attempt to defuse the situation by steering it into the wrong way... Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Wasn't it you posting some rather irrelevant and annoying generality here? Debresser (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact, my friend. You two are fighting over something, and neither of you is innocent. And I fail to see any relationship between this Palestina/Israel-struggle and the Battle of Rotterdam. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Forget about it. Not important here. If you like, remind me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Debresser had consistantly denied it has anything to do with the I/P conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think your edits here and there stem from the same POV. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I ask Debresser to please make sense. He has consistently used each and every opportunity to publicise my previous block and bans. Yet he doesn’t seem to know what they were for! (They were seen by others as being POV in favour of pro-Israeli interests.) He cannot have it both ways. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this

This is roughly the dozenth occasion in which you two have reported each other to ANI in the last three months, almost always resulting in a thread which consists of you two continuing your battles with each other without any administrative intervention whatsoever (or usually even any participation from other editors). Completely ignoring the actual content dispute at the heart of this, there seems to be a requirement a general ban on you reporting each other to ANI. It's pointless and aggravating and distracts other editors who might be using ANI for, like, something likely to result in immediate administrative intervention.

Moving on, I very much doubt that anything other than a series of RfCs will settle your content disputes. I would recommend that you raise them where required, and attempt to get wider community input on the disputed content. It seems pretty likely that your actual behaviour towards one another will not be resolved by anything other than a general interaction ban, but it's obviously in both your best interests to settle whatever specific points of content you disagree about first, lest the community loses patience and simply bans the two of you from any discussions on Judaism or Palestine.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support 6 month TOPIC BAN and infinite INTERACTION BAN. Oh wait, was that not a motion? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot keep blaming us. The original Rfc was not closed. Whose fault is that? Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, ChrisCunningham, for you sense of humor. I like the idea of a ban against reporting on each other at ANI. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the solution you propose. The problem is that Chesdovi continues to make these controversial edits. Even after the Cfd was closed with "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Nor was the Rfc closed in his favor. It just expired. And frankly, so many people disagreed with him, that at best it would have been closed as "no consensus".

I think Chesdovi is just refusing to admit that he can not garner consensus for his edits. I am not sure there is purpose in yet another attempt. But for sure not as long as he continues his controversial edits. So how to be about this in any practical way? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As to BWilkins "motion". As I said before, I do not think it is correct to punish me with a topic-ban for fighting to maintain the present state of affairs against an onslaught of manifold non-consensus edits that are being heavily protested at all venues (Rfc, Cfd). Perhaps give me the Defender's Barnstar, that I would understand. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

user:TreasuryTag

This user has now returned despite claiming to have retired. On that note, can someone please remove the inflammatory rant that is currently up on both his user and talk pages. It really serves no purpose anymore and is only going to cause issues with some of the editors mentioned in it. I can't remove it myself due to the abuse filter. I've submitted a report about it but noone's taken any notice, so if someone could look into why that's triggered that would be good also. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So, he's not vanished, meh - if he wants to return and edit according to policy, and not according to his interpretation of them, and if he wants to try to get along instead of provoking people left, right and centre, all power to him. Does his rant violate WP:NPA? Meh. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe it does violate WP:NPA. More to the point, why was the abuse filter triggered? 94.2.177.166 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, I do not see that it violates WP:NPA#WHATIS. I also think that whatever essay or guideline fits WP:DONOTPOKETHEEDITOR would apply. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for notifying me of this thread. Not. I have not made any personal attacks. I simply observed that Nyttend admitted to having blocked for 3RR without taking the 30 seconds necessary to review the diffs in question, and in my opinion, that is lazy. I am distinctly unimpressed that s/he has been deleting my criticism of their block. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 11:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Your rant serves no purpose whatsoever. It would be in everone's interest if you took it down so we can all get on with building an encyclopedia. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  While I am sure that, say, Egg Centric (talk · contribs) would want his unattractive lynch-mob behaviour to go unpublicised, I regret to inform you that that is simply not going to happen.
  I don't know who you're a puppet of, either, but it would probably make this discussion more meaningful if you revealed this information. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 11:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I edit wikipedia anonymously, that is my choice. I don't wish to create a user account as that would cause me to be identified and dragged into silly disputes even once I've moved on. Suffice to say I'm an experienced editor. Looking at the current history of your userpage it is fairly clear that as long as your rants remain, there will be those that take exception to various parts of it. The only way everyone can agree is if we remove such childish tirades and simply get on with article building instead of this silly tit for tat. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your current IP shows no contributions prior to this. If you are an experienced editor, be it through prior IP editing or registered editing, please point to some representative prior contributions of yours. It is not legitimate to use the anonymity of a freshly assigned dynamic IP to escape scrutiny while persuing a personal dispute with another, registered, editor, where your own prior involvement or interests in the issue remain nontransparent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a rant? I thought it was just a userbox, indicating the sort of editing that a user is particularly interested in. Would you be happier if it was converted to a userbox template, perhaps as {{UB narcissist wikilawyer}}? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not helpful. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Off topic & not relevant. Hatted as a conveniece
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If "creating" a user account would cause the IP to be identified, that means it is a WP:SOCK. Duh. And possibly a sock of a blocked or banned user. Doc talk 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You've obviously completely misunderstood what I've meant then. DUHHH. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Wrong. Doc talk 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You are indeed wrong ;) 94.2.177.166 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Ummm... you're the one that said that creating an account would "cause" you "to be identified". So you admit to having another account (you haven't indicated whether it's a blocked account or not). Why on Earth would others identifying you be concerning to you? Most IP socks just say "I have no registered account and never have". But not you, apparently... Doc talk 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC) That's not the only way the IP's comment could be interpreted. I'm no fan of IPs which don't have a demonstrable paper trail turning up on ANI, but that doesn't mean people should be screaming about socks the minute it happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I understand that he could have meant, "Hypothetically, if I were to create an account then I could be identified and liable for my edits at some point in the future." Like the vast majority of legitimate users are. "Screaming" may be a bit strong a term for voicing a valid concern about an IP with a brief editing history such as this: but I didn't bring it up in the first place, and more than one editor is a wee "suspicious". Doc talk 12:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC) So you have correctly understood what I meant! How many times do you come across users who insist on dragging up the past where it is not relevant to aid their cause in a current debate. No previous edits of mine from other IPs (mainly IPs associated with public terminals *hint hint*) are even remotely relevant here, so I don't see why I should disclose them. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I guess you're right. Funny though: this IP (who recently divulged their displeasure with TT) is also on Easynet in London. Probably completely unrelated, however... Doc talk 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Not me... 94.2.177.166 (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to TT as much as you. This ranting box on his userpage reflects even more poorly on him than it does on those attacked by it. I do see these as attacks, same as his past rant against Basket of Puppies, which drove BoP to retire (a retirement that seems to mean what he said, not merely a petulant flounce).

As for wikilawyering, TT appears to have extended the art past all previous achievements. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ever notice that if you combine petulant PLUS flounce you get flatulence? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone drop me a note on my talkpage when/if this thread ever gets back on-topic and stops being the "let's generally attack TT" chatroom? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it - you seem to have unilaterally banned most people from posting to your talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all detracting from the original point of this thread. Can we get some consensus on whether the rant (or whatever you wish to call it) should be removed? I think it should as if it stays, it will continue to cause issues as seen in the userpage history. 94.2.177.166 (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Userspace rants inevitably reflect worse on the ranter than on the rantees. Nevertheless, plainly editors who are continuing to operate here in good faith are not expected to host userspace rants on a long-term basis. If TT is retiring, he doesn't need a user page. If he isn't retiring, he needs one which falls within policy. He should be given a couple of days to mull over which way he wants to go, even if the result is the same as far as his userpage content is concerned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nyttend asked me to look at the issue independently; having done so I agree with Chris' comment above. I've advised TT that I'll take it to MfD in 48 hours: I don't see it as an attack, more along the lines of venting, but it's still not appropriate for a userpage. His response has been to wrangle about a peripheral comment and to declare that I'm banned from his talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that before. As one of the people characterised by TT as having "chosen one person and decided to make their editing experience a misery for no reason other than my own personal gratification", I have no problem with him leaving his statement in place. It's inaccurate but seems to be the way he sees things, and is basically harmless. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed that rant from both his userpage and his talk page twice, and he's twice restored it, though it violates WP:UP#Polemic. I won't touch the page again. _{Damn! Forgot to sign, sorry!} @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

...and after stating that you "won't touch the page again" you (a) touched the page again, and (b) left me a 3RR warning which was incorrect, mis-formatted and wrongly-placed. Distinctly unimpressive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over contents of DSM

Bittergrey (talk · contribs) is insisting on citing the DSM on several two (paraphilic infantilism and list of paraphilias) despite being irrelevant but for a single minor qualification (infantilism appears as a behaviour of masochists, not as a separate diagnosis). This consensus is clearly stated at the RSN (see [89] and [90] by FiachraByrne (talk · contribs), [91] by James Cantor (talk · contribs), [92] by FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs). Despite this, he has been edit warring across all these pages to re-insert it ([93], [94], . It's quite frustrating and appears to have no chance of stopping. Some admin assistance would be appreciated - though 3RR has not been hit, it's also not going to stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU has, to date, taken this dispute to not two but three articles. At location one, paraphilic infantilism, WLU gamed 3RR ([95][96][97][98] - 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion that I requested. He modified that request to assert that this conflict was a just a formatting issue. The third opinion request preceeded WLU's RSN request. At location two, list of paraphilias, I started a discussion[99]. At location three, diaper fetish, I decided to let WLU show what he would do if I didn't hold him in check. I think the deleted text "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilia" was reasonably well-supported by section "302.81 Fetishism" in the DSM (pgs 569-570 in 4TR).[100]. The RSN debate was only about 302.83, a separate section.

This is WLU's second attempt to remove details (specific page numbers) from the first article[101]. In the first, he didn't question the DSM's quality as a source. Notably, the only "edit war" WLU succeeded in picking there and then was with a bot.[102]

Admittedly, my comments then about his motivations were not in keeping with good faith. However, it should be noted that now both times, the urgency of WLU's edits directly followed debates with another specific editor and involving James Cantor. The timing of the current urgency support those comments as best could be imagined.

As for RSN, FiachraByrne had already became involved in an offshoot of the second such debate. FuFoFuEd might actually have been neutral, and unaware of how heavily votestacked the RSN conversation was. BitterGrey (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 Dealt with what I could from an Administrators point of view. Two pages protected, going to warn both users about edit warring, and they can take it to WP:DR. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the page doesn't deal with the central issue - consensus was clearly that the DSM does not verify the text it was attached to in any of the pages it was used.

I will happily take any suggestions on how to resolve this; the central issues that a source is being mis-used across multiple pages and edit-warred to keep it in place. What should I do? Protecting the page doesn't resolve this, and the last time the page was protected, it was protected with the DSM still being inappropriately cited for three days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU should consider constructively joining the discussions that followed from the third opinion request, at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism. He's now at 3RR at a second[103][104][105] of the of the three locations.

Of course, he and I differ about what the central issue is: He was at 3RR in the first location BEFORE questioning DSM as a source. Those edits were to all obscure page references[106][107][108]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Initially my edits were to collapse references to DSM pages from three different page ranges (568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single citation to the entire chapter (pages 535-582 [109]). The dispute became so pointless and acrimonious that I simply edited elsewhere for 4 months. My next edit along these lines again compacted the references to the DSM to a single one with the <ref name = > tags, covering a six page range (568-73) since Bittergrey thought citing the entire chapter was excessive [110]. I also did some citegnoming involving the {{sfn}} template and {{cite pmid}}. Later I actually read the pages of the DSM cited, and found they did not verify the text they accompanied (discussed here). Accordingly, I spent several edits removing the references [111]. My interpretation was subsequently supported with a clear consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard (see my initial ANI post, or the entire RSN section [112]). Since the DSM was used inappropriately in two further pages, I removed and adjusted on those pages as well - diaper fetishism and list of paraphilias.

The DSM clearly does not support the text it accompanied. It was clearly misused on three pages. My actions are clearly in line with WP:Verifiability. I hope someone will take the five minutes to look into the diffs and the DSM itself ([113]) to resolve this or direct us to a more appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Help need for a page

I deleted the page ViSalus on csd-a7 grounds, but was a little unsettled by comments on the talk page alleging the company was a front for a scam operation. I have two concerns about this, the first of which is whether the page in question should be locked to prevent the article from reappearing, and the second is whether or not further administrative action should be taken with regard to the article's creator. For my part, the latter of the two doesn't appear to be a threat in any capacity, however being that this is my first experience with this particular kind of allegation I would appreciate a second set of eyes to look into these allegations. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, forgat to post this here with the orginal compliant. This was on the talk page at the time of the deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

This Corporation is just a front for a scam

The article for the guy running this scam, Ryan Blair, was previously deleted.  See http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Blair_(deleted_03_Sep_2008_at_00:21)

The guy won't be notable until he gets busted again; and even then he won't be worth an article.  The company he's using to run the scam certainly isn't noteworthy, except perhaps for the fact that it's generated more than $150 million in revenues running a scam.

The CEO's name appears as a scam warning in a Scam.com blog.  Nothing indicates this article is anything more than an online source to legitimize the company and act as a financial update on the status of the company.  The only sources in the article are those of the company and the principals themselves.

Posting to delete - under {{db-inc}}; could just as easily be under {{db-spam}} or {{db-promo}}, IMO. -- Who R you? (talk) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Who R you? tagged the page this morning as A7, and commented in the talk page that it was his opinion that this was a scam, and referenced a non-RS source as proof ( www.scam.com ). Although I have no ties to this company, it appears to me they are a multi-level marketing company operating legally within the rules of Federal and State rules regarding MLMs. I'm concerned about this page being marked as scam and thus deleted uncontested. This page should have been marked {{Primary sources}} and not {{notability}}. After I created the page, I was hoping some other editors would jump in to continue to add RS content. A brief search on Google News turns up a handful of RS sources, and Direct Selling News (an RS trade journal magazine on direct selling industry) has run several articles before on this company. This article falls within WikiProject Companies  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Who R you? (talk · contribs) has been notified of the discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. May want to review that user's recent contributions - especially with his WP:PA to an admin for deleting a category he created here. This appears to be a new WP editor that may not understand how to use deletion tags properly.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring over that speedy tag -- {{db-t3}} has been explicitly tagged for 3.5 years as allowing the page creator to remove the notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Lloydbaltazar

How much time should we all waste reverting a user who never discusses, just reverts for ever? The talk page messages on User talk:Lloydbaltazar speak for themselves, but the user does not - just reverts. He just wastes time that could be used for productive work. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur that administrative intervention is needed here. Here are just two diffs in support of the request: [114]. The edit removed a tag via an IP identified as a sock-puppet of this user. Also, this edit. A visit to User talk:Lloydbaltazar will provide evidence of a long history of disruptive editing. At the very minimum, a stern warning from an administrator is needed. This might be backed up by a block. The last block was 48 hours. The next one might need to be a week. If this continues on much longer, we should move to ban this user. However, it would be preferable if we could get him to change his ways. Maybe mentorship is what's needed here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Brave, thick-skinned admin required to close edit request on contentious page

A request for a policy-based edit to a fully protected page has languished for over 24 hours now and become yet another venue for debate in a tedious dispute. The page in question is Luke Evans (actor) and the edit request is Talk:Luke Evans (actor)#Edit protected request.

Fair warning, this is a page that was edited by users with a strong smell of COI, prematurely fully protected, drew the attention of several media outlets for that protection, attracted an influx of new users, is part of a long-running discussion at the BLP noticeboard, was the subject of an edit war, was fully protected again, suffered the involvement of a well-known sockpuppeteer, and looks like it will be the subject of more media attention if this continues to go unresolved. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're making this sound very attractive. If I hadn't been sideways involved with it (before it was this big a deal, just half as big), I would jump right in. Tell you what, let one of the recently promoted admins take care of it, bwuhaha. I vote for Qwyrxian. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

  Ahem. Someone called for a suicidal/reckless/brave/utterly batshit fucking insane administrator? Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)